[mrdoob2]

I did the original WebGL Globe (texture, atmosphere shader, interaction, ...). Just sounded like you were taking credit for the overall aesthetics. As far as I can see, aesthetic-wise the difference is that you didn't pass the height for the cubes.

I don't really mind though, the whole point was to get people to use the platform. Just found it funny :)

[rauar]

I see. Well quite some work went into upgrading the globe.js to Three.js rev 56 (API changes and debugging related errors) and the integration stuff (creating the geo data) under the hood. Plus using particles instead of the cubes (which was rather easy). So although it still has definitely a lot from your version (globe and three.js) it's definitely not just a cheap and quick copy for ripping off credits ;) That's why I appreciated the comment. Consider a big part of the credit as yours :)

Just a side-node: the API docs were the biggest obstacle in the whole process. W.r.t to platform usage I think this would be one of the top prio things to get even more people using Three.js.

[mrdoob2]

Yup. Working on that... also need to update WebGL Globe so you don't have to :)

[flexie]

Credits to you too :-) For what it's worth I actually did find your site through the links on https://leansync.com/status.

Would be wonderful if IE supported WebGL so these features could find their way into more apps.