In part I'll repeat myself here.
U3d: That was never a widely adapted format. If you need it for a pdf, you have Acrobat Pro and probably access to Photoshop as well (not necessarily, though). With that you can create the u3d or the pdf-3d-format. But I have never even seen a pdf with 3d content in it nor was I ever asked to produce one.
obj-sequences: That you seem to need the possibility to use obj-sequences doesn't make it worthwile for a developer to include it. You already run out of memory, you write, but you only do a mini-animation. Please don't get me wrong here. While I understand perfectly well why you want it, this is an extreme exception. All in all it stays for me utterly nonsensical in almost all other cases.
Nor are "heaps of people" a good argument, because most oft them frankly don't know better. And I don't compare you with some crazies or so. You know, I sometimes like to exaggerate to make my point (which usually quite works well). So just look at "heaps of people" do demonstrate against in these days (wearing masks in the midst of pandemic for example) or what they believe (just think of Q-Anon, flat-earthers or fortune tellers).
love for 3d: If you want really to learn 3d you need a lot of discipline. The first thing is to understand that when you're new to a field, you don't really know anything about it (actually, everything you believe to know could be faulty and is in your way of learning). In all probability you know better than me how hard it can be to learn something auto-didactically, and how fast one goes down just the wrong road. So it's best to learn from people who (seem to) know what they are doing. And in today's world that's easy to accomplish because there are many tutorials around (and sometimes some even better paid ones), for Cheetah in that specialised forum-section, for everything else even more on youtube, vimeo and on dedicated sites and of course their own forums. There are so many people willing to spend their time just to teach us something (of course there are some bad tutorials around, but as you go along, you'll learn to detect and therefore not to take 'em seriously).
You don't need "aptitude", just the ability to learn. There are things you can't do as well as others (I'll probably never be a master sculptor but I find my ways around that and sculpt only some details while I do the rest in more traditional ways). Or some parts you hate (for most people that's uv-ing), but there are always different ways to get the desired results and with enough exercise, patience and accumulated knowledge almost anyone is able to produce professional output.
PDF: There was a time when a pdf was an absolutely secure format. It started before, as much as I remember, but including java-script ended that for sure.
2d vs 3d: Now about that I could rant for a hundred pages without a problem. Yes, our real world is 3d, but one of the things that made us the dominant species of this planet, is the possibility to use symbols (and our thumbs, of course). You say 2d is only a means of communication, which isn't wrong, but what's 3d? Nothing else, because we are human beings who can't do anything without communicating. So it's the same, in some ways more evolved, in others more problematic. At the moment VR is not very convincing but somewhere between years and a few decades we could be able to produce something that will feel absolutely real, maybe even more so than the maybe not so funny everyday-life. That's not an entirely good thing in my book (that alone could be discussed on pages and pages), because there are dangers in it (just one example: Open some newspaper and see for yourself how many people already have lost the touch to reality).
But at the moment 2d gives us a better grasp of reality. For example we all have seen pictures of landscape will never see ourselves, we know people we'll never meet and so on, and so on. 2d is still able to transport more information than vr can.
And someone who'd say "A painting like Mona Lisa is only a means to communicate" wouldn't be entirely wrong (in a way that was how it was meant in times before photography), but there is so much more to (2d-)art than that. It doesn't only transport some feeling or how something looked 600 years ago, what people believed in 1650 or how a schizophrenic sees the world. Art creates a reaction in the viewer (even if we don't like it). It can show us pure beauty or is repulsive, it's captivating in it's simplicity or in the rich details ... and so on. It can fascinate us, teach us, and usually we can't even say why we love a certain picture or not. What's so interesting about some people sitting at night in a diner? I don't know, but I like the picture. Some red splashes on a canvas that somehow look like a wall in some movie about a serial killer? I don't really know, but somehow I like Jackson. Some sun flowers in a field? I have seen so many fields of sunflowers that it shouldn't be interesting anymore. Some other art I don't like, for example some clumsy dran polynesian people. But that doesn't mean that's lesser art; it's just not my cup of tea and maybe I lack some understanding. Of course, there is some bad art around (very much of it, actually), but we should be careful to make that decision. Sometimes we just don't understand it (and now I did digress a little).
Now you somebody could argue. But those paintings are very much 3-dimensional, the layers of paint, the structure of the canvas. Yes, true, but we usually don't see the paintings for real, just phtographs or posters of it, and still they have their power. The other argument would be "oh, that was long ago. Today ..." And today art is going just as strong as ever, probably more, it's just that those artists are not that well known.
Photography? It tells us of the past (even if that past was yesterday) and of course has produced a lot of art on the way. And wow, can photography be powerful, sometimes iconic and it can change the world (for example the picture of the burning nude girl in vietnam helped more to convince people to stop that madness then all those demonstrations before).
Today it's difficult to find really good new pictures, especially as we are flooded, but there are still enough around. 2d will stay important in a long way, and a drawing, a painting, a photography or a movie can be as powerful as anything you encounter in a more 3-dimensional way (which except for vr is in the end still a 2d abstraction).
(And just to be nitty-picky as I'm expected to be at this point: A shadow is strictly 2-dimensional on a 3-dimensional surface
, like you can do a painting on a wall with incorporated tubes or whatever sticking out ...).
And, at last, all this 2d information we see on signs, on pages, on screens or whatever are not only sometimes very important (in other ways of course totally non-sensical) are a very big part of our world. Manmade? Yes, but that's the same for any sculpture, virtual reality and lots of our daily world (like everything you see probably around you at the moment).
U3d: That was never a widely adapted format. If you need it for a pdf, you have Acrobat Pro and probably access to Photoshop as well (not necessarily, though). With that you can create the u3d or the pdf-3d-format. But I have never even seen a pdf with 3d content in it nor was I ever asked to produce one.
obj-sequences: That you seem to need the possibility to use obj-sequences doesn't make it worthwile for a developer to include it. You already run out of memory, you write, but you only do a mini-animation. Please don't get me wrong here. While I understand perfectly well why you want it, this is an extreme exception. All in all it stays for me utterly nonsensical in almost all other cases.
Nor are "heaps of people" a good argument, because most oft them frankly don't know better. And I don't compare you with some crazies or so. You know, I sometimes like to exaggerate to make my point (which usually quite works well). So just look at "heaps of people" do demonstrate against in these days (wearing masks in the midst of pandemic for example) or what they believe (just think of Q-Anon, flat-earthers or fortune tellers).
love for 3d: If you want really to learn 3d you need a lot of discipline. The first thing is to understand that when you're new to a field, you don't really know anything about it (actually, everything you believe to know could be faulty and is in your way of learning). In all probability you know better than me how hard it can be to learn something auto-didactically, and how fast one goes down just the wrong road. So it's best to learn from people who (seem to) know what they are doing. And in today's world that's easy to accomplish because there are many tutorials around (and sometimes some even better paid ones), for Cheetah in that specialised forum-section, for everything else even more on youtube, vimeo and on dedicated sites and of course their own forums. There are so many people willing to spend their time just to teach us something (of course there are some bad tutorials around, but as you go along, you'll learn to detect and therefore not to take 'em seriously).
You don't need "aptitude", just the ability to learn. There are things you can't do as well as others (I'll probably never be a master sculptor but I find my ways around that and sculpt only some details while I do the rest in more traditional ways). Or some parts you hate (for most people that's uv-ing), but there are always different ways to get the desired results and with enough exercise, patience and accumulated knowledge almost anyone is able to produce professional output.
PDF: There was a time when a pdf was an absolutely secure format. It started before, as much as I remember, but including java-script ended that for sure.
2d vs 3d: Now about that I could rant for a hundred pages without a problem. Yes, our real world is 3d, but one of the things that made us the dominant species of this planet, is the possibility to use symbols (and our thumbs, of course). You say 2d is only a means of communication, which isn't wrong, but what's 3d? Nothing else, because we are human beings who can't do anything without communicating. So it's the same, in some ways more evolved, in others more problematic. At the moment VR is not very convincing but somewhere between years and a few decades we could be able to produce something that will feel absolutely real, maybe even more so than the maybe not so funny everyday-life. That's not an entirely good thing in my book (that alone could be discussed on pages and pages), because there are dangers in it (just one example: Open some newspaper and see for yourself how many people already have lost the touch to reality).
But at the moment 2d gives us a better grasp of reality. For example we all have seen pictures of landscape will never see ourselves, we know people we'll never meet and so on, and so on. 2d is still able to transport more information than vr can.
And someone who'd say "A painting like Mona Lisa is only a means to communicate" wouldn't be entirely wrong (in a way that was how it was meant in times before photography), but there is so much more to (2d-)art than that. It doesn't only transport some feeling or how something looked 600 years ago, what people believed in 1650 or how a schizophrenic sees the world. Art creates a reaction in the viewer (even if we don't like it). It can show us pure beauty or is repulsive, it's captivating in it's simplicity or in the rich details ... and so on. It can fascinate us, teach us, and usually we can't even say why we love a certain picture or not. What's so interesting about some people sitting at night in a diner? I don't know, but I like the picture. Some red splashes on a canvas that somehow look like a wall in some movie about a serial killer? I don't really know, but somehow I like Jackson. Some sun flowers in a field? I have seen so many fields of sunflowers that it shouldn't be interesting anymore. Some other art I don't like, for example some clumsy dran polynesian people. But that doesn't mean that's lesser art; it's just not my cup of tea and maybe I lack some understanding. Of course, there is some bad art around (very much of it, actually), but we should be careful to make that decision. Sometimes we just don't understand it (and now I did digress a little).
Now you somebody could argue. But those paintings are very much 3-dimensional, the layers of paint, the structure of the canvas. Yes, true, but we usually don't see the paintings for real, just phtographs or posters of it, and still they have their power. The other argument would be "oh, that was long ago. Today ..." And today art is going just as strong as ever, probably more, it's just that those artists are not that well known.
Photography? It tells us of the past (even if that past was yesterday) and of course has produced a lot of art on the way. And wow, can photography be powerful, sometimes iconic and it can change the world (for example the picture of the burning nude girl in vietnam helped more to convince people to stop that madness then all those demonstrations before).
Today it's difficult to find really good new pictures, especially as we are flooded, but there are still enough around. 2d will stay important in a long way, and a drawing, a painting, a photography or a movie can be as powerful as anything you encounter in a more 3-dimensional way (which except for vr is in the end still a 2d abstraction).
(And just to be nitty-picky as I'm expected to be at this point: A shadow is strictly 2-dimensional on a 3-dimensional surface
, like you can do a painting on a wall with incorporated tubes or whatever sticking out ...).And, at last, all this 2d information we see on signs, on pages, on screens or whatever are not only sometimes very important (in other ways of course totally non-sensical) are a very big part of our world. Manmade? Yes, but that's the same for any sculpture, virtual reality and lots of our daily world (like everything you see probably around you at the moment).
