The No-Code Tool Problem Nobody Mentions

Let me start with something that's going to sound controversial: no-code 3D tools are making the performance problem worse, not better.

Tools like Spline and Rive have democratized 3D design, which sounds great in theory. Designers can now create beautiful 3D websites without writing a single line of code. They drag, drop, animate, export, and suddenly they have a 3D scene running in the browser.

Here's the issue - and I see this constantly - these tools generate code that designers never see or understand. They're building complex 3D scenes with no concept of what's happening under the hood. How many draw calls is that scene making? What's the polygon count on that model? How many textures are being loaded? Most designers using these tools have no idea, and the tools don't exactly make it obvious.

I'm not blaming designers here. They're using the tools they have access to, and those tools promise easy 3D website creation. But the output? It's often bloated, unoptimized, and packed with unnecessary complexity.

Spline exports can easily hit 10-20MB for what should be a simple scene. Rive animations, while impressive, sometimes include features and assets that never get used in the final implementation. And when you combine these exports with visual web builders like Webflow or Framer, you're layering unoptimized 3D code on top of already abstracted website builders.

The result is 3D websites that ship megabytes of unnecessary JavaScript, load dozens of textures that could be half the size, and run calculations that the scene doesn't actually need. It works on the designer's high-end MacBook Pro, so it ships. Then users on mid-range devices or older phones have a terrible experience.

‍

The Performance Budget Reality

Here's something I wish more people understood: browsers have a limited "performance budget" for 3D websites. You can't just throw unlimited 3D complexity at a web page and expect it to work.

Unlike native 3D applications that have direct access to system resources, 3D websites run in a browser sandbox. They're competing with everything else on the page - the DOM, CSS animations, JavaScript frameworks, tracking scripts, ads. The browser has to juggle all of this while also trying to render your 3D scene at 60 frames per second.

Most 3D websites I see completely ignore this constraint. They treat the browser like it's a game engine with unlimited resources. It's not.

When I optimize 3D websites, I'm constantly making trade-offs. Can we use fewer lights? Can this model have half the polygons? Do we really need real-time shadows? Can we bake some of these calculations? Every feature you add to a 3D scene has a cost, and browsers will punish you if you exceed their budget.

The performance budget for 3D websites is especially tight on mobile devices. You're rendering on a GPU that's a fraction of the power of a desktop card, while also managing battery consumption and thermal throttling. Yet I constantly see 3D websites that clearly were only tested on desktop, then wonder why mobile users complain.

‍

The Developer Experience Gap

Here's another uncomfortable truth: there just aren't that many developers who really understand 3D web development. And I mean truly understand it - not just "I followed a Three.js tutorial once."

Building performant 3D websites requires knowledge that spans multiple domains. You need to understand:

• 3D graphics fundamentals (matrices, shaders, rendering pipelines)
• JavaScript performance optimization
• WebGL or WebGPU
• Browser rendering behavior
• Asset optimization and compression
• Memory management

‍

That's a lot. Most web developers are great at building interfaces, handling state, making API calls. But ask them about shader optimization or texture atlasing, and you'll get blank stares.

This experience gap shows up in the 3D websites I review. Inexperienced developers make predictable mistakes: they load every texture at full resolution, they don't implement level-of-detail systems, they create new geometry every frame instead of reusing it, they forget to dispose of unused objects causing memory leaks.

These aren't malicious choices - they're just gaps in knowledge. The developer genuinely doesn't know that what they're doing is destroying performance. They see it working on their development machine and ship it.

‍

It's Actually Really Hard

I think we need to be honest about something: building fast 3D websites is genuinely difficult. This isn't like optimizing a regular website where you can throw in some lazy loading and call it done.

3D introduces complexity that most web developers never have to think about. You're managing geometry, textures, materials, lights, shadows, post-processing effects, physics calculations, and trying to do all of it at 60fps. One poorly optimized element can tank the entire experience.

The learning curve is steep. Understanding how to profile WebGL performance, how to read GPU metrics, how to identify bottlenecks - these are specialized skills. There aren't that many resources teaching this stuff well. Most Three.js tutorials focus on making things look cool, not making them run fast.

And here's the thing: even experienced 3D developers sometimes struggle with web-specific constraints. Someone coming from Unity or Unreal Engine is used to having powerful optimization tools and profilers built into their workflow. The web? You're working with browser dev tools that weren't really designed for complex 3D debugging.

‍

The Real Issue: Lack of Constraints

But you know what I think the fundamental problem is? 3D websites have become too easy to create without understanding the constraints.

Ten years ago, if you wanted to build a 3D website, you had to write WebGL by hand. It was painful, verbose, and difficult - but it forced you to understand what you were doing. Every vertex, every shader, every draw call was something you explicitly coded. You couldn't accidentally create a performance disaster because you had to consciously choose every optimization.

Now, tools abstract all that away. Which is great for accessibility, but terrible for performance. Designers can drag a 500,000 polygon model into Spline without realizing that's insane for a web page. Developers can import a Three.js example without understanding why it's structured that way. No-code platforms let you stack 3D effect upon 3D effect without showing you the performance cost.

The tools don't enforce constraints, so people don't learn them. And we end up with slow 3D websites everywhere.

‍

My Take on Building 3D Websites

After building many 3D websites, here's what I believe: 3D on the web is amazing when done right, but it requires more discipline than regular web development.

When I start a 3D website project, performance is my first concern, not an afterthought. I establish a performance budget before writing any code. I test on mid-range devices, not just my development machine. I question every asset - does this really need to be 4K? Can this animation be simpler? Is this 3D element even necessary?

I also don't use no-code 3D tools for production work. They're great for prototyping, but when performance matters, I need control over every optimization. That means writing code, understanding the rendering pipeline, and manually optimizing assets.

This approach takes more time and requires more expertise. But the result is 3D websites that actually work for users, not just look impressive in demo videos.

‍

The Bottom Line

So many 3D websites are slow because the people building them don't understand - or aren't forced to confront - the constraints of 3D in browsers. No-code tools make it too easy to create unoptimized experiences. The developer talent pool lacks deep 3D knowledge. And the performance budget for 3D websites is more limited than people realize.

None of this means 3D websites are doomed. I've built fast, beautiful 3D experiences that run smoothly even on modest hardware. But they required careful planning, constant optimization, and a lot of expertise that most projects don't have access to.

The 3D website performance problem is solvable, but it requires the industry to take performance seriously from the start. Until tools enforce constraints, developers gain deeper knowledge, and clients understand the trade-offs, we'll keep seeing slow, janky 3D websites that could have been great.

The potential is there. The tools are there. What's missing is the discipline and understanding to use them right.