Why do developers create their own file formats?
The short answer is that existing standard file formats do not match the requirements of their applications. 3D file formats like COLLADA or glTF, for instance, are good for renderers, but not necessarily good for content creation software for artists. That’s probably why 3D modelling software like Blender and Autodesk Maya have developed their own file formats. Blender has .blend files, and Autodesk has developed FBX, a proprietary file format.
In this article I will be showing examples of both FBX and COLLADA (DAE files), but with a stronger focus on COLLADA for two reasons: 1) it has been around for a long time, so it’s widely supported by lots of modelling software and game engines (check the list in Wikipedia); 2) its specification hasn’t changed since 2008 (version 1.5), so one can assume pretty stable support across different software. FBX is also widely adopted, but applications like Blender don’t always support the latest version. Since FBX is a proprietary format, the best way to access it is through the FBX SDK, which gets updated every year. But that means constantly having to update your software. This variability may also be the reason why IEEE advocates for the use of X3D standard for “serious” applications (from a talk in 3DBody.Tech), although I don’t agree that stability equates with seriousness. Wavefront OBJ file format, for instance, is also very stable and widely used, but it doesn’t support skeletons, so that’s not an option in our application.
Although I’m going to be talking mostly about skeletons, similar challenges exist in other areas, such as the representation of geometry and materials.
About COLLADA and hints for problems
COLLADA was originally created by Sony Computer Entertainment and it is now the property of the Khronos Group, the people behind OpenGL and Vulkan. COLLADA defines an XML schema, so DAE files are in a human-readable format. Recent formats like glTF have moved away from XML in favour of JSON, which is a bit less verbose and still human-readable.
From my experience, the common compatibility problems with COLLADA files are around scale, orientation, and rotation order. Scale and orientation come from the metadata section (the
asset node) at the beginning of the file:
<unit meter="0.01" name="cm"/> <up_axis>Y_UP</up_axis>
Version 2 of the Open Asset Importer library (assimp), used by many other applications, did not have support for metadata so this information may be lost if your software is using an outdated library. Later versions do have support for it but still, after importing a COLLADA asset, the library converts the up axis to be
Y_UP. In Blender, the default vertical axis is Z, so you can imagine that could be a source of confusion through imports and exports. Similarly with scale, much software does not apply that global scale to the scene, so your objects may look gigantic if the units are in centimetres and your engine default unit is metres.
The other big source of confusion seems to be around rotation orders. COLLADA can represent rotations using matrices, or using an axis-angle. For instance, a 90-degree rotation along the Y axis can be written as:
<rotate>0 1 0 90</rotate>
If you concatenate rotations, they need to be applied in the inverse order in which they appear in the XML document. Depending on the XML parser you are using, it may be difficult to extract this order, since it’s not an attribute of any of the nodes. For instance, to rotate 90 degrees along Z and then 90 degrees along X we can write:
<rotate sid="rotateX">1 0 0 90</rotate> <rotate sid="rotateY">0 1 0 0</rotate> <rotate sid="rotateZ">0 0 1 90</rotate>
(90, 0, 90)Euler rotation with
XYZrotation order. If we flip the rotation order to be
ZYXwe would obtain a very different result, as illustrated in the example below.
If your application only cares about rendering the final object on screen, it could be correctly reading rotation nodes and then converting them to matrices, since that is all that is needed to display things. But you may not be able to obtain an Euler-angle representation if it doesn’t store the rotation order somewhere.
Skeletons: bones and joints
In a previous blog post, Introduction to skinning and 3D animation, I briefly introduced the difference between a bone and a joint. Let’s read this quote from the COLLADA specification 1.5.0 (page 37):
Skinning is a technique for deforming geometry by linearly weighting vertices to a set of transformations, represented by <node> elements. Nodes that affect a particular geometry are usually organized into a single hierarchy called a “skeleton,” although the influencing nodes may come from unrelated parts of the hierarchy. The nodes of such a hierarchy represents the “joints” of the skeleton, which should not be confused with the “bones,” which are the imaginary line segments connecting two joints.
Joints define a space transform, which can be represented by a single matrix. As I mentioned in the previous section, this is all we need for rendering, but an artist may find other attributes useful for easier manipulation. For instance, a bone as defined in Blender has a roll that can not be inferred just from the joint matrices without some assumptions. The 3D authoring software could have some physical rotation limits to avoid rotating a joint more than is physically possible, like in the DazStudio screenshot below. Those constraints do not get exported to COLLADA, so if you use DazStudio to export an avatar to COLLADA and import it back, those constraints will be lost.
As I hinted with the DazStudio example, some software is not capable of correctly importing the file that is exported, and this is not always a limitation of the format you export to. I will show you some examples in the next section.
Real skeleton import/export failures
I am going to show you some funny bugs in this section. I’m going to focus on poses gone wrong because of bad rotations, although in some of the examples the scale went wrong as well and I had to manually adjust the scale so that everything uses the same units.
In all these examples I’m going to use a model from DazStudio as an input. The model has several keyframes with different poses, and I’ll be showing the first pose where the avatar has his head facing to his left, and his left leg bent towards his right, behind his right leg. See below:
Once exported to COLLADA, I’ve verified that the scale and axis in metadata looks correct:
<unit meter="0.0099999997" name="cm"/> <up_axis>Y_UP</up_axis>
The exported rig has the peculiarity that it contains no rotations, i.e. it’s all expressed in a global axis. This is a bit strange, because expressing twists won’t be straightforward if the axis of rotation doesn’t follow the direction of the bone, but having no rotations makes things simpler in our tools. The rig only contains the position of the joints, and the rotation order expressed as a list of axis-angle rotations with 0-angle rotations. For example, the hip joint node looks like this:
<node id="hip" name="hip" sid="hip" type="JOINT"> <translate sid="translation">0 103.6847992 -0.1028240994</translate> <rotate sid="rotateX">1 0 0 0</rotate> <rotate sid="rotateZ">0 0 1 0</rotate> <rotate sid="rotateY">0 1 0 0</rotate> <scale>1 1 1</scale> <node id="pelvis" ...>...</node> <node id="abdomen" ...>...</node> </node>
- Blender 2.83.3, for visualisation (import) and exports;
- Autodesk Maya 2020.2, for visualisation;
- FBX SDK 2019 (used in our internal tools), for exports;
- assimp 4.0.1 library (used in our internal tools), for imports;
- My WebGL Model Viewer, for visualisation of COLLADA files only. This viewer only cares about rendering, an easier job than trying to reconstruct bones from joints, as explained earlier.
Using DazStudio exporters, I’ve exported the Daz3D model to DAE and to FBX. This is what the FBX file looks like in Blender and Maya:
The bones look the right size in Blender, but the rotations and translations went all crazy. The rotations are correct in Maya, but the bones are just lines connecting joints. Let’s see what happens if we use DazStudio to export the same file to DAE:
The bones are now the right size in Maya, but the rotations are still wrong in Blender. The bones in Blender are now tiny, and still pointing up. I suspect they point up because the rig contains no rotations, as I mentioned in the previous section.
FBX-SDK import & export
The FBX file in Maya looks OK, and the FBX file looks slightly better now in Blender than it did when directly exported from DazStudio, although the rotations are still wrong. Let’s try reading the FBX file that DazStudio created, and exporting it to DAE with the FBX-SDK:
The file still looks fine in Maya, but Blender fails to read the file. In the Model Viewer, the pose looks correct, but the normals have gone funny at the boundaries of the submeshes — that’s why there are black lines in those areas (not too important, since we can recompute the normals). A bit more worrying is that the names of all joints have changed, which is not ideal. For instance, the
Assimp for import & FBX-SDK for export
Here we are using our own tools. We use the assimp library for importing the DAE file created with DazStudio, convert it to our internal model format, and then use the FBX-SDK to create a new FBX file. That FBX file looks like this:
Finally the pose looks right in Blender. The bones are all pointing upwards, but at least they now look the right size. You can try to fix the bones in Blender by manually connecting the tail of each bone to the head of the next bone. However, the roll of the bones is wrong. There’s an option in Blender to compute the rolls automatically for you, but for some reason the roll becomes 57 degrees. I don’t understand why a roll of zero does not face any of the major axes.
Maya looks fine. Let’s use the FBX-SDK to save our model as DAE:
The pose still looks fine in Blender, although the bones look tiny this time. Maya still looks fine. We could stop here because this seems to be the best we can get, but let’s do a final test.
Blender export to DAE
Let’s see how the COLLADA exporter in Blender behaves. If we load the FBX model exported from our tools, which looked OK in Blender, and save it to DAE, we get this new file:
Inspecting the metadata, the scale is now 1 metre units and the up axis has changed to Z_UP. The original file had Y_UP and centimetres (0.01) for the scale. In the Model Viewer and in Maya, the armature/rig got disconnected from the mesh. It seems that the names of joints in the animations have been prepended with the name of the root node, whereas the names of joints in the rig have stayed the same. So the keyframes get ignored and you can only see the binding pose, i.e. the T-pose. Blender must know something of what it’s doing, because the keyframes are still there, but totally broken.
Now let’s read the DAE file and save it again as DAE from Blender. It’s not the identity operation as one might expect:
We have the same problems as before with the scale and disconnected armature, but the keyframes are also lost to Blender this time. The vertex normals went a bit funny, that’s why the surface doesn’t look smooth anymore.
Our parsers and formats
From the failures above you can see that what works best for us is exporting the DazStudio file to DAE, and then using the assimp library to convert it to our internal format. The assimp library can’t be greater than version 4, though, because in version 5 the XML library that they use to read DAE files throws an exception. The newest version fails to read empty XML entities such as
<author/>. I recommend writing unit tests for any external libraries that you use. These unit tests just need to exercise the parts of their API that you use, but this way it will save you headaches when you attempt to update to a newer version.
For the Model Viewer I wrote my own parser so I could keep adding support for every strange case I encountered. That’s why in most of the cases I presented earlier the poses look fine in the Model Viewer. I could probably even add support for the last disaster that Blender creates, because inspecting the file in plain text I can see where things went wrong. However, if not even Blender can read the mess it has created, it feels pointless to add support for such messy DAE files.
So why don’t we just keep all our model files in COLLADA format? Poses in DAE or FBX files are stored as keyframes in an animation, with no possibility to name the poses. For our purposes, we describe poses as a series of joint rotations, with a label associated to each pose. We decouple translations and scale from joints and store them separately to describe a body shape. We also store other things such as the angle rotation constraints that you can see in DazStudio. This is what I referred to in the introduction when I said that existing file formats may not match the requirements of your application.
There is no magic formula to solve the compatibility problems with rigged 3D models. Developers will continue to create custom formats for their applications because requirements change from application to application. If you can do everything with Blender, then stick to their format. However, never use Blender to export COLLADA files because their exporter is a total mess. The COLLADA specification has been around for a long time and it does look quite straightforward, so one might expect better compatibility. But that’s rarely the case. I wouldn’t get too excited by new formats like glTF because reading the glTF 2.0 specification on Skins and Animations, they look basically the same as COLLADA but in JSON format. This is not a surprise, because that’s what you need for rendering, but modelling software needs more than that.
Autodesk Maya is more robust than Blender when importing skeletal models from different sources. Maya is not free, though. if you just need to read or write FBX files, you can get their FBX-SDK for free. For reading COLLADA files I would use assimp, though, because the FBX-SDK changes the name of the joints and introduces some other artefacts, like messing up the normals.
Finally, just a reminder that we are already in 2020, in case you thought I was writing this in the late 90s. 🤷♂️