RE: cool content 'The Long View'
One application category conspicuously absent in the X3D comments and documents I've seen is storytelling. I don't think this is cause for alarm. I do think it is a good reason to think about viewing X3D not as a storytelling medium but as one component of a storytelling medium. Here's another way to look at it. Which model is better: 1. A browser loaded with big plugins and players, each of which handles a complex combination of audio and graphics (shockwave, realplayer, VRML, MPEG) 2. A browser loaded with composable and synchronizable components, each of which handles a specific medium (audio, 2D graphics, 3D graphics, controls) #1 is what we have now. It seems to me that #2 is a much better option. Rather than have a dozen mostly mediocre audio (for instance) implementations you'd have one really good one. Ditto for all the other capabilities. #2 would be especially appropriate for storytelling, which can potentially make use of any combination of media. The hard part of course is the "composable and synchronizable" part. But it seems to me that this is a question that must be settled between all the media, not in a single medium such as 3D graphics. Michael
RE: cool content 'The Long View'
That is because as an application category, it is not very well defined or understood. We only have a handful of VRML samples to look at, each based on different metaphorical models and emphasizing different parts of the current browser/plugin framework. Still, the fact that it is not mentioned is why I started this thread on this list. That way, at least, we can ask. You are witnessing the fragmentation of the community along application lines over a core component. That isn't a bad thing. Still, it will be up to each application community to work toward getting the other components. This will have an effect on the vendors as they try to make the core service-oriented and each app community vies to optimize those services for its needs. This isn't a bad thing either. Yet I think you are right that removing the redundancy of components will make this application easier to do. I am tired of seeing the midi window from the browser popup or struggling with bizarre controls inside the VRML window. I want the scripts for the 3D to look like the scripts in the HTML without too much EAI in the way. Len -Original Message- From: Michael St. Hippolyte [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] One application category conspicuously absent in the X3D comments and documents I've seen is storytelling. Here's another way to look at it. Which model is better: 2. A browser loaded with composable and synchronizable components, each of which handles a specific medium (audio, 2D graphics, 3D graphics, controls) The hard part of course is the "composable and synchronizable" part. But it seems to me that this is a question that must be settled between all the media, not in a single medium such as 3D graphics.
Re: Who
Esteemed VRML literates, Having been gently pushed out of my comfortable corner, I will take Jed's suggestion and let you all know I exist. I've been lurking for too long, waiting for inspiration to strike, allowing me to combine my introduction with some truly juicy topic. In the meantime, I have greatly enjoyed the discussion here. My past is in MUDs, which played a large role in my life from about 1990 to 1993 and then again in 1998. Text MUDs don't have that much to do with VRML and I suspect this is one of the reasons it took me a while to post here. They do of course deal constantly with storytelling. In the simple ones, the story is simple too, and lacks central control.. In quest-based ones, creators battle daily with the problems of writing a controlled story-line that every player can take part in once (but no more), and of explaning how the volcano that erupted in the last moments of their quest is there again the next morning Finally, the good ones also have a non-trivial element of simulation, which changes every aspect of the story-telling. That's content; on the technical side of things I have no experience with VRML, but I've done work in relevant areas of Computer Graphics. The thesis for my M.Sc in Mathematics was on the topic of generating realistic-looking motion for rigid-body creatures based on high-level description of the goal of the motion. This is much like the stuff done by The Motion Factory, thou their code A) works and B) largely ignores the laws of mechanics. The idea is essentially to write a library of code that can function as an abstraction layer between actual torques, forces, and muscle spams on the one hand, and some manner of high-level control on the other (draw a sword, touch my nose, smile, leap). This is of course essential to being able to tell a VR story with anything living in it... Oh, I did tack on an output-generating module to my thesis code to generate VRML, but I didn't quite have time to finish it... perhaps later (it does RenderMan at the moment). To take a step back: I'm in this field for reasons that I suspect I share with a lot of you; every day brings more fascinating results and products, one step closer to the aforementioned Glorious Cyberspace Future. I'd like to be in the middle of things when that happens, and I want to have helped to make it so. For the moment, world content seems to have won out; as of a few days I've been given a chance to maybe go for the whole commercial Mud bit. We'll see how that goes. Meanwhile, I look forward to more debate. Par PS. Swedes may add two dots over the 'a' in my name.
Re: Unidentified subject!
Unidentified subject... [chuckle] Is that like unidentified object? :-) - Miriam (exits stage right, a-laffin' all the way) --- I doubt, therefore I might be.
