Back to the Shapespark home page

Meeting Room requests

Hello Shapespark gurus! (@jan, @wojtek, @tomek)
I would like to strongly request the following possibilities for meetings:

  1. a meeting leader (with superpowers :smiling_imp:)
  2. to be able to turn off everyone’s microphones
  3. to be able to open someone’s microphone
  4. individual raising of hands to ask to speak
  5. private conversation between two or more people within the meeting. (not to be overheard by others)
  6. chat or notes inside (I think is coming in next release)
  7. prevent the avatars from overlapping
  8. wake-up call (pressing a button to bring order to the meeting, e.g., everyone to see the leader again)

For now, I can think of these actions but I think the list can grow. I know you guys are working hard on this, I hope my requests are not far from your actions.

Regards,
Jorge

2 Likes

I want it too. Very very very much!!!

2 Likes

I think these are all good points. But think about what is the main focus of Shapespark. Actually, it is a real-time experience you can use on any browser. And it is not a video conferencing tool like Zoom or MS Teams. I also like to have more of these functions, and it is what clients also want and are asking for. Plus an unlimited amount of participants. And also, everything must work in VR, of course. And so much more.

I would love to see a better render engine, better materials, controlled camera movements, and better graphics overall. In my opinion, the graphics quality is something Shapespark should focus on because this is where other solutions, like rendered 360° panoramas, are far better than Shapespark. With Shapespark, you already have a solution with interactive functions that can do so much more than standard panorama tours. It just lacks, in my opinion, is what you can achieve in photorealism.

UE5 will come with even better graphics and make it even easier for users to create real-looking worlds with all the effects imaginable. And already today, it is possible to stream these applications via a server.

Shapespark’s strength is that you can load everything once and then use it. That’s cool for mobile devices, but the application is still best used on a PC. How much value is added by using it on mobile devices, how many people really benefit from it, that I can’t say. But Shapespark can certainly evaluate that and get an idea.

If it has now become another conference tool but can’t keep up graphically (I don’t think there has been any improvement in the render engine since the first release), it will eventually be overtaken by another application. For my part, I’ve definitely started looking into how UE could be used for interactive browser-based experiences.

3 Likes

How many meetings per scene do we have rights to?
image
Can meeting names be changed to make it easier to identify clients?

*** updated
We will have big problems if meeting time is spent during important business conversations. The client will first think that I transferred less time to him than he paid.
Can you install a meeting timer (count down)?

1 Like

I’m on the same page with Tim.
While all the Meeting functions sound cool and very useful for many people, I would love to see more development progress in the rendering quality.
For me personally, there are absolutely no benefits in all the new “Meetings” features of Shapespark.
I’m checking every new Shapespark release in hopes to find something that would improve the overall graphics quality, however, it’s been a very long time since I’ve seen any progress.
I’m just wondering if there are any plans to do some development in that direction?
It would be very sad to see Shapspark become just another meeting platform with some real-time visualization capabilities.
I’m hoping to at least see if there any plans for improving the render quality.
Are there any plans on implementing a V-Ray renderer? I understand it would cost more but I’m pretty sure that many people (including myself) would be happy to pay the additional licensing cost for V-ray.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m still very happy with Shapespark and would recommend it to anyone, however, I’m just not very excited about the direction where Shapespark is headed.

2 Likes

The Shapespark crew opened a pandora’s box, they now have two very demanding businesses on their hands and they have to make decisions about them, but that doesn’t mean they should choose only one of them! It requires more effort, more staff, another division, but YES it is possible!

I agree with what @tim and @korop raised but one thing does not take away from the other, what is needed is direction from the Shapespark team on their work path and information to all of us to know what to expect.

Not only UE is advancing with huge steps, also Enscape Web is advancing like lightning! (https://tinyurl.com/httpr5un -too heavy btw-) however I still bet on the possibilities of Shapespark, but, I insist, the north must be given by its developers, the possibilities of the program and its scope as well.

1 Like

Shapespark focuses on the web. We would like Shapespark to be the tool of choice for projects in which web based presentation is important or crucial.

Because of this we try to identify improvements that highlight the strengths of the web based presentation. We see that such improvements enable new use cases and increase demand for Shapespark based projects, which benefits Shapespark and companies that provide Shapespark based services. For example, an HTML Label that allows to open web pages or YouTube videos from withing a scene turned out to be very popular and allowed Shapespark to be used for projects like virtual showrooms, trade shows or galleries. We hope 3D meetings will be another such improvement, but our development effort is not solely focused on the meetings.

A lot of our core engine work is dedicated to optimization of resources’ size, but we also include and will continue to include quality improvements.

It would be great to see a comparison (quality, workflow, time of delivery, end user experience) of projects based on the same 3D model done with Shapespark and other tools like Enscape (desktop and web targets) or Unreal (also desktop and web targets).

1 Like

Hi @jan, this making comparisons can be annoying but at the same time it is necessary to see the big picture and where our work stands in relation to others.

I admire the work you guys do, in fact I find it amazing really! And I know you guys are constantly evolving, improving and solving problems for us users.

So go ahead with your work, but I’m left with the doubts I planted at the beginning of the post, could you be more specific with these queries please.

We work on the notes (6). 7 is already available. We also work on improving join experience (camera and microphone test before joining the meeting). We don’t have near term plans for the remaining items.

1 Like

Just to chime in. We develop experiences across Shapespark UE4 & Twinmotion. All have their use cases, all have their weaknesses, but hands down the most flexible and easy to use for creating a Web based experience is Shapespark.

In our use cases, where a client is using the experience to sell a space to others the meetings facility is a game changer and in most cases the visual fidelity / realism of the render whilst could be better is still compelling enough to clients. (We have always found that the immersion in an experience being a navigable model or a VR experience can mitigate for some lack of realism)

For me for VR we will continue to use UE4, as Twinmotion is weak in its implementation and hard to optimise for such use and without controller pointers Shapespark VR navigation is not intuitive for inexperienced users.

Each of the programmes plays well with the various DCC we use (SKP, C4D & Max).

Twinmotion is great for quick ok fidelity Renders & videos for exteriors but requires a lot of set up and faking of lighting for interior.

UE4 gives much more flexibility and with the blueprint system, physics etc almost anything is possible. However there is very little out of the box you can do to publish to web and whilst pixel streaming is an option it is in most cases cost prohibitive.

So for me I am grateful to have Shapespark as a tool and in real terms the Dev team is really really responsive. Thanks to you all and whilst I wish for many developments quickly I understand they take time & money!

5 Likes

For us in the event industry the meetings function has suddenly become the core of the whole system and I honestly see massive potential with it. If you take a look at Microsoft Mesh for instance - it seems like Shapespark is already a lightyear ahead when it comes to usability and content options.

That one thing that we’d need (and I know is being worked on) though is the little indicator on who is currently speaking. There’s an election coming up here in Finland in a couple of months and we are hosting political panel discussions prior. I’m kinda troubled if the crowd (media) and candidates will be able to distinguish who is speaking at the time.

Other than that, super-happy about the function.

P.S. maybe not super related but I have Lumion now and have been using it for promotional purposes to funnel users into Shapespark meetings events from social media. Here’s an invitational video that found some really nice reception and led to a wonderful event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVI_rjlq0lA The showroom btw turned out quite ok also: https://taikalyhty.shapespark.com/digimaskotti/

I am also planning on using Lumion to render 360 images (and hopefully 360 videos at some point) and then implementing them on 360 platforms (currently Theasys) that would serve as lobby spaces that gather Shapespark meetings. It would work a bit like this: https://www.theasys.io/viewer/PPZ8XYi6zmc12EcClZsIfDrXOYrI0q/ (work in progress). There are a lot of software on the market. Find the right ones and you can combine them into something fascinating.

4 Likes

Usually politicians like their enlarged view of the camera on the video beam. @jan Can the camera join the screen sharing list?

1 Like