Is it reasonable to use WebGL?

Question

JavaScript

There is a need to show the 3D model in the browser with the ability to rotate (the models are already ready, i.e. just render on the client)
The most obvious option is webGL , judging by CanIUse, support is around 80% (Global, but the project's audience is American). I also encountered such a moment that the computer at work with the latest FF and Fedora did not display examples from sites with libs (three, etc.). I thought that the equipment was not suitable, but it started up in chrome, which was completely confusing. Nevertheless, I found out that the list of unsupported cards / drivers ( blacklist ) is still there, and it is significant.
Actually a question . Are there any more general statistics (one that takes into account not only browsers)?
Are there alternative ways to implement?
For example, I found one when a person rotates - a bunch of pictures are loaded, which only works for scrolling and only along one axis, otherwise the sampling rate would have to be drastically reduced. This is not critical - but still would not want to.

Answer 1

In my opinion, you need to decide how critical it is for you.
I had "very, very" but I also wanted prettiness.
Therefore, it was decided to make a combo, for those who support a 3D view using three.js,
for those who do not support, then pre-rendered using the same three.js (to avoid unnecessary work, a script was written) pictures for "flat" rotation along one axis.