If we want to watch the birth of a so-called Web 3D, welcome Diva and
welcome Hypergrid.
If we want to have a clone of SL, but with the option of different
grids, welcome all development aid, including Hypergrid, as this is also
a dream of LL.
But if we only want to have a bad clone of the SL in standalone, we can
stop the development now, nothing more is needed to have a game for some
hours.
For me I support and I want to watch the birth of the Web 3D, I already
attended the birth of the web, even before that, I work with some BBSs,
then I went to the web 2, and I do not want to lose the opportunity and
maybe I am not the onlyone, from the inside wanting to attend the birth
of the future Web
Ideia Boa
Dahlia Trimble wrote:
Personally I prefer OpenSim in standalone mode, and my preference is
for it to be a personal simulation server allowing multiple dissimilar
clients to attach and share a simulation; one which may deviate quite
a but from the normal SL experience. I realize I'm in a minority with
this position compared to other core developers, and as such I do a
majority of my development and testing in grid mode and with hypergrid
using various viewers, primarily those based on the LL viewer, but
also using other viewers not derived from the LL viewer.
Many of the users of OpenSim have their own ideas about how the
platform should evolve, and hypergrid appears to (at least
anecdotally) be a popular feature. It also requires substantial
changes to the core architecture for proper implementation, and
bringing hypergrid and diva into core has allowed her to make a
substantial improvement to many parts of the code which deal with
standalone and grid operation in addition to hypergrid. I see no lack
of benefit to any of our users from bringing diva and hypergrid into core.
Anyway, last I checked, time still only moves forward so please
continue to offer suggestions for improvement and they will be
considered :)
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Mike Dickson <mike.dick...@hp.com
<mailto:mike.dick...@hp.com>> wrote:
Justin, thanks for clarifying the process. And I certainly understand
the interest in Hypergrid and the energy behind it. Charles your
message
was also helpful in highlighting to me what is at the center of my
concern. I agree the development process is somewhat chaotic and
things
get hacked in based on interest. That's probably completely to be
expected though it may not make for the best platform going forward.
Using Hypergrid as an example,my preference would be to do it
outside of
core. So let me explain that. Something like Hypergrid is going to
require a different usage model from the original core (different
protocols for "teleporting", now the exploration around inventory,
etc).
Rather than have the changes to handle that get introduced into
core I'd
have preferred to see something like an RFC that documents what is
being
proposed, and what "interfaces" need to be changed in order to
accommodate the new use cases. That RFC gets iterated and the
interfaces evolved to make "hypergrid" possible as a pluggable module.
Over time most likely the set of commonly used modules grows and you
ultimately end up with a core framework and a "core" set of
modules that
define what the out of the box functionality of an installation is
(standalone, hypergrid, what have you).
The obvious problem with this approach is that it requires
evolving the
core framework which is not nearly as "sexy" as hacking in new
features.
I've done both approaches. Certainly a cool demo can go a long way to
sell a concept and often the change the framework process takes enough
time that prototypes don't happen. It's more work to maintain a
branched
copy of core while you evolve your prototype into a set of changed
interfaces that support it. Personally I believe that more
disciplined
approach is the key to seeing OpenSim get to 1.0. And ultimately be a
better platform for experimentation.
So I like the concept of hypergrid. I think prototypes like that need
to exist if only to prove that the community is healthy. But I also
believe that how the "framework" is defined and evolves is equally if
not more important (to me at least).
Just my 2 cents.
Mike
On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 15:35 +0000, Justin Clark-Casey wrote:
> But I do have to also point out that OpenSim development is
largely driven by the interest of the developers (since
> there's no single company behind it). If there's a lot of
development interest behind Hypergrid then this is the
> direction that's inevitably going to progress most. If people
coming along contributing code that enhances different
> architectures, then development will also be driven in that
direction.
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de <mailto:Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de>
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
begin:vcard
fn:Ideia Boa
n:Boa;Ideia
note;quoted-printable:Best regards,=0D=0A=
Ideia Boa=0D=0A=
WorldSimTerra=0D=0A=
=0D=0A=
Join the new 3D world revolution : http://www.worldsimterra.com/
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:http://www.worldsimterra.com
version:2.1
end:vcard
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
