Lainaus "Adams, Robert" <robert.ad...@intel.com>:
Maybe a way of attacking the problem is to separate the parts and
not think about building one behemoth application that does
everything.
Just for info that much of what you describe is what we have done and
are doing withing realXtend. Yes, the rumors of the death of reX are
very much exaggerated :)
We are more alive than ever before I think actually, quite many
substantial projects coming next year etc (at least >1Me in public
projects even), it just doesn't show to the Opensim community nor
worlds.
Also an Android build of Tundra has been made now and is in testing,
and there's good progress with websocket+webgl client side now again
as well.
Some projects (like Radegast or Lumiya) have made interesting
progress on a viewer. Maybe content creation can be handled with
Blender plugins? Maybe the chat/voice client could be one of the
gaming services? Maybe the social connection/interaction framework
could be Facebook (OK. No one would ever choose Facebook but any
service is possible).
realXtend is largely about plugging in and using together a set of
existing open source products: On the creation side most of the focus
is on Blender authoring and export -- even live sync has been
experimented. For voice there is Mumble. Chat with XMPP (now a XMPP
module is included in the new Tundra 2.4 series).
Adminotech's Meshmoon hosting integrates with Facebook and Google, and
whatever needed, authentication.
Focus has largely been on making a modular framework where integrating
different optional things is nice. Different services can then
configure the world setups to their needs.
For example I tested ages ago using Simiangrid for authentication with
Tundra servers and it was easy and straightforward.
Then, of course, there is the problem of the client/server protocol.
LLLP (my term for "Linden Lab Legacy Protocol") grew organically and
had different problems to solve (remember the days when SL worked
over dialup modems?). An organized, partition-able protocol would go
a long way toward making new clients (mobile or continuously
connected or ...) and servers (distributed or dynamically
reconfigurable or ...) possible. It's just a new OpenSimulator
region module to talk a new language.
This also touches what we've made in the Tundra effort, dropped LLLP
(I usually call it LLUDP :) and use an extensible minimal protocol for
the scene-entity sync reusing a generic network lib (kNet, similar to
enet).
If I'd need to do Opensim server connectivity support for Tundra
client's today, would seriously consider writing exactly what you
suggest: a server side Opensim module for the new protocol, in this
case Tundra over kNet.
To summarize, I'd say that in realXtend we've somewhat successfully
created a new platform from scratch, addressing the problems
encountered with SLViewer, LLUDP and Opensim (hardcoded scene
structure/data). So is perhaps interesting to look for folks who think
of such efforts around Opensimulator.
But for people who are happily using the SL content & functionality
models as is, rely on efficient prim rendering and using Opensim for
chat and groups and everything, certainly just using and maintaining /
devving a SLViewer & LLUDP etc. based thing is what works.
Anyway, just throwing that out there.
.. and here just reacting with our basic view, willing to discuss more
if there is interest.
-- ra
~Toni
From: opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de
[mailto:opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Mircea
Kitsune
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 5:00 PM
To: opensim-dev mailing list
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] OpenSim's direction after Linden cutting
support, and the possibility of an official OpenSim viewer
Ironically, Firestorm is one of the viewers I like least. It's
actually starting to worry me how it's monopolizing all third-party
viewers and being the only v3 fork getting any attention at this
day. Earlier I read that the admin of the Teapot viewer isn't
updating Teapot any more because he's now working for Firestorm
too... ugh >_< I do appreciate their team's effort of course, but I
don't like that it's becoming the only alternative, and I'm not sure
what else to find and use that I'm comfortable with.
But like I explained in the first email, I believe the SL code base
is the only path we've got rather than a dead end. SL's system
(which OpenSim primarily went with during those years) is a very
complex thing. Implementing all of its features from scratch in a
good and consistent way would be an effort so big there will likely
never be anyone doing it when SL is already there. There was an
original viewer once which could render avatars, terrain and
objects, but that was about it.
The list of features and details is too big. The building tools with
grid snapping, arrows to drag / rotate objects, texture position
editing, etc. The avatar customization menu, where you customize
worn shapes / skins / alpha masks / clothing. Avatar physics, such
as clothing fluttering in the wind. The terrain editor with the
raise / lower / flatten / smooth tools. The IM / chat / groups
systems with all their sub-features. Voice chat support. Sculpt
primitives and mesh rendering. Ability to play media on a prim and
use HTML pages on object surfaces. The windlight sky and environment
(which can also be set as a parcel property). Particles, sounds,
spinning objects (llTargetOmega) and the many things you do with LSL
scripts. Post-processing with bloom, depth of field, bump-mapping,
etc.
All this and more would take beyond a decade to re-create from
scratch, and I couldn't imagine a new viewer ever doing them all as
well as Second Life. If anyone would ever get that done from zero as
part of a FOSS viewer, I will consider them a scientist that
deserves a job at NASA :) I'm actually surprised even LL did so much
in just 8 years, but what was achieved is really impressive. Overall
I just don't think it's a possible goal, and at the same time I
don't believe OpenSim can expect other dev teams to maintain them a
SL viewer (just what I think). With Firestorm taking up everything,
I'm already having a hard time finding a viewer good for me to use,
and I'd like to know what can be expected in the recent future.
________________________________
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:20:15 -0800
From: javajo...@gmail.com<mailto:javajo...@gmail.com>
To: ri...@rigutech.nl<mailto:ri...@rigutech.nl>;
opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de<mailto:opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de>
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] OpenSim's direction after Linden cutting
support, and the possibility of an official OpenSim viewer
Hmm, it's been Over Two Years since I wrote this on my old blog:
http://www.daniel.org/blog/2010/09/19/in-unity-a-way-forward/
I wonder what the state of the art is for any viewers based on
Unity, WebGL, or something else?
The LL code base is an evolutionary dead end. Firestorm does a
great job of making the best of it, and it deserves to be the #1
viewer. Ongoing Kudos to the FS team! Having said that, no TPV (or
LL) viewer is going to catch up to what is possible on a better
foundation.
It would be great to see two things happen:
1) TPV effort consolidate *even more* around Firestorm.. make it be
the one thing that can tide everyone over until there is a non
LL-codebase viewer.
2) see a good pioneering effort based on Unity, WebGL, or something else
As far as I know, we're not close to the capabilities I was writing
about two years ago. It's a pretty good bet that the gulf between
the LL codebase and what could be done in Unity is even wider now.
Daniel
http://daniel,org/cafebucky
_______________________________________________ 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
