DevLog250329
> Log Date: 250329
Date: 2025-03-29 Focus: Research
and comparison of different 3D frameworks and environments for building
the front-end of my decentralized metaverse project.
Objective
The goal today was to gain clarity on the best 3D environment
to use for the Metaverse Sandbox project. I
want a framework that is:
- Open-source and free to use
- Compatible with Web3 integrations (wallets, NFT rendering)
- Lightweight enough for browser performance
- Flexible enough for future expansion (VR support, avatars,
multiplayer)
3D Environment Candidates
1. Three.js
- Type: WebGL framework
- Pros:
- Extremely popular and well-documented
- Full control over rendering and interaction
- Works well with NFT metadata and IPFS-hosted textures
- Can integrate with wallet libraries (ethers.js, wagmi)
- Cons:
- Steeper learning curve
- Requires building your own world logic and UI from scratch
2. A-Frame
- Type: Declarative 3D framework built on top of
Three.js
- Pros:
- HTML-like syntax (easier to prototype)
- Supports WebXR and VR out of the box
- Large community for learning
- Can be used to create spatial galleries quickly
- Cons:
- Limited low-level control compared to pure Three.js
- Can become complex when adding custom shaders or logic
3. Babylon.js
- Type: WebGL engine with built-in physics,
materials, animation
- Pros:
- High-performance rendering engine
- Good tooling (sandbox editor, Node Material Editor)
- Built-in avatar system and multiplayer capabilities
- Cons:
- Heavier than Three.js
- May require more optimization for slower devices
4. Unity + WebGL
Export
- Type: Game engine with Web3 plugins
- Pros:
- Rich toolset, built-in physics, lighting, animations
- Many tutorials and Web3 plugins available
- Cons:
- Exported WebGL builds are large and slow to load
- Not truly open-source
- Requires more tooling and setup
- Not ideal for low-bandwidth or mobile access
Additional Considerations
| Feature |
Three.js |
A-Frame |
Babylon.js |
Unity |
| Open Source |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
| IPFS/NFT Integration |
Manual setup |
Yes |
Yes |
Partial (with plugins) |
| VR/AR Support |
With WebXR |
Built-in |
Yes |
Yes |
| Performance |
Lightweight |
Medium |
Heavier |
Heavy |
| Customization |
High |
Medium |
High |
Very High |
| Web3 Wallet Integration |
Manual |
Manual |
Manual |
Plugin-dependent |
| Browser Compatibility |
Excellent |
Excellent |
Excellent |
Limited (heavy load) |
Takeaway
Right now, Three.js still looks like the best
balance of:
- Customizability
- Performance
- Web3 friendliness
If I can scaffold out the scene using Three.js and start simple (NFT
image frames on walls, land ownership overlays), it can grow into a
deeper space later with avatars and multiplayer support.
I may still prototype a quick layout in A-Frame just
to explore ease of use, but the long-term architecture will likely live
in a React + Three.js environment for maximum
control.
Next Steps
- Set up a minimal Three.js scene with imported IPFS images from my
NFT collection
- Integrate Web3 wallet connection (MetaMask)
- Display owned land vs. unowned tiles in a basic 3D grid
- Log findings in the sandbox GitHub repo with screenshots and
benchmarks
Summary:
Today’s research helped clarify the technical direction for the
3D layer of the Metaverse Sandbox. Next session will begin
actual implementation inside the frontend/ folder.