This is actually exactly what I mean when I'm talking about turtles. I want to be able to express a cartoon fairytale castle that uses forced perspective to look bigger than it is in as little code as possible. Terrain seems best arrived upon by way of parameters to fractals, but I haven't figured out a way to this with man made structures quite yet (I'm sure there's a way to do it, and I don't count the Seattle Art Museum, which just looks like an amorphous blob.)
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 1:44 PM, David Barbour <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Steve Wart <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 3D design is extraordinarily expensive to develop properly >> > > That is not an essential property of 3D design. We could have an ontology / > 'markup language' just for building and animating avatars, similar to > dressing up a doll, if we want to make one. And a modular ontology for > buildings (including concepts such as crenelations and gargoyles). And > another for environments. Etc. Given a suitably modular meta-language, we > can even have dedicated languages for describing zombies. > > I see the impoverished languages of today as an opportunity. For > accessibility reasons - e.g. desktop vs. iPhone access to a world - it is > preferable that we develop in these high-level ontologies anyway. > > My own vague interest has steered me towards modular, reusable, > multi-player interactive fiction - with a lot of inspiration from the Inform > 7 language [1]. I have a bunch of half-formed designs from my earlier work > on the subject, and my efforts in language design. > > > >> >> And also note the lack of porn (although WoW has a high level of >> titillation it also has been very successful in attracting women). >> > > Lol. Pornography is a human trait with an ancient and ignoble history, even > if male dominated. I once watched a rather funny (but somewhat perverted) > video called 'Ballad of the Sex Junkie' developed in WoW. It's NSFW, but is > tame enough for Youtube. > > Anyhow, I'm speaking at the federated world level. It would be silly to > deny that those red-lights districts will exist. This rule is the same for > all computer security: you cannot protect against a threat by ignoring it! I > prefer soft security, wherever possible, and this means recognizing and > accommodating threats in order to gain some control of them. By recognizing > red lights districts, and the inevitable fallout (such as naked avatars > waltzing through worlds), we can isolate them (e.g. by ensuring that the > avatar has suitable clothing upon entering a 'no shirt no shoes no service' > world). > > >> >> The original concept of VRML as a standard in the hypertext model still >> makes sense to me, but the gaming platforms seem to prefer the silo model. >> > > VRML is an awfully low-level ontology for building 3D models! I would > suggest that this is part of *why* we favor the silo model. > > Think about what it would take to build designs that let us achieve > something similar to CSS for 3D and avatar animation. Separation of artistic > rendition (presentation) from content is important. Anything short of that > is ultimately unsuitable for world mashups! Working with cones and boxes is > not the right level for this. > > I think we really do need an ontology for architecture, avatars, > environments, etc. as a common foundation in the world. > > >> >> The Teatime model seems promising >> > > Teatime protocol is unscalable and insecure. It is suitable for LANs where > you trust the participants, but would die a slow, choking death if faced > with 'flash crowds', 'script kiddies', and their like. No variation on > Teatime will ever work at scale. Transactions scale poorly and have plenty > of flaws [2] > > But there are some lessons you can take away from Teatime. Use of temporal > semantics is a suitable basis for consistency even without transactions - we > can tame this with a more commutative/idempotent model and *eventual > consistency*. Explicit delay is an effective approach to achieve near > wall-clock determinism in the face of distribution latencies (e.g. a signal > propagates to multiple clients, but triggers at some specific time in the > future). > > I have developed a very simple and effective programming model - Reactive > Demand Programming - for solving these and related concerns [3]. One might > think of RDP as a fusion of eventless FRP and OOP - i.e. OOP where messages > and responses are replaced by continuous control signals, and state is > primarily replaced by continuous integrals. RDP is, by no small margin, the > most promising model for developing modular, federated, distributed command > and control systems, augmented reality systems, and 3D worlds. > > >> Croquet always felt awkward to me, partly it was performance, but it was >> also because some of the primitives were too primitive. >> > > I agree that this is a problem. VRML is a problem for the same reason - > i.e. it is not clear what the physics should be, nor how we should > recharacterize for a different artistic style, and so on. > > Regards, > > Dave > > [1] http://inform7.com/ > [2] http://awelonblue.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/transaction-tribulation/ > [3] http://awelonblue.wordpress.com/2011/05/21/comparing-frp-to-rdp/ > > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > > -- Casey Ransberger
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
