Hello
My hope for the viewers would be to have the ability to :
- use hmd
- have any functionnality made as plugins to enable or install from a
repository (you don't like the chat plugin ? You can install the one made
by someone else).
Thank you Melanie and all devs for giving us a new tool :)

On Sat, Dec 15, 2018, 01:08 Diva Canto <d...@metaverseink.com wrote:

> It's #3.
>
> Here's my point of view(er). We need a viewer that:
>
> 1) Uses secure networking and is able to go through firewalls, so a
> completely different network stack.
>
> 2) Accepts programmable UIs from the server and therefore is capable of
> conveying completely different applications.
>
> 3) Uses modern graphics, so a completely different rendering engine.
> Would be nice that it would be capable of being compiled for different
> platforms such as mobile and game stations.
>
> 4) Last but not least, is capable of rendering OpenSim/SL content. We
> all like the build tools of SL, they are the easiest 3D authoring tools
> out there, and therefore we want to continue to support prims and the
> horribly un-optimized content that people create. The current viewers
> can support building very well, we should continue to use them for that.
>
> Rendering on the Web browser is not a priority. These days it's pretty
> easy and common to install and run native applications by clicking
> links. Ppl are starting to get used to it with apps like Zoom,
> BlueJeans, etc.
>
> We've been having internal discussions about how to go at it, what
> rendering engine(s) to use, etc. Personally, I hate the thought of
> committing to one single technology, so a lot of the hesitation [on my
> part] has been to figure out how to develop a viewer that doesn't commit
> strongly to Unreal, Unity, ... but that could perhaps be made to work
> with several rendering engines. Like what we did for Physics on the
> server side. It's not easy, and may not even be possible. So starting
> with one but keeping it at arms-length distance may be the way to go.
>
> On 12/14/2018 3:07 PM, Tommy Anderberg wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 13:48:29 -0800, Diva wrote:
> >> Some of us core devs have been talking for a while about developing a
> >> viewer more or less from scratch. This code _may_ be a good start. If
> >> there's anyone out here with the technical chops, the time, and the will
> >> to contribute, let us know!
> >
> > Is there a list of goals for a new viewer?
> >
> > I ask because I've seen the need for one suggested many times, usually
> > with two arguments:
> >
> > 1) Current viewers make OpenSim look bad; "my kids laugh at me because
> > the graphics look like they're from a 15-year old game". (I think this
> > was said at OSCC, too.)
> >
> > 2) OpenSim needs a web-based viewer; people these days just don't want
> > to download and install software the old-fashioned way, they just want
> > to open a browser window and go.
> >
> > There is also a less commonly seen argument:
> >
> > 3) OpenSim needs a viewer which can be tailored to provide experiences
> > beyond an SL clone. Viewer developers focusing on SL are unlikely to
> > spend time on such features, so it's up to OpenSim developers to do it.
> > Hence https://github.com/diva/OnLook
> >
> >
> > Argument #1
> >
> > ...looks iffy to me. A new viewer will not automatically make OpenSim
> > look better. If it is to be compatible with existing worlds (and if not,
> > who will use it?), it will be displaying the same old assets, and shader
> > lipstick can only do so much for porcine content. (I believe somebody at
> > OSCC mentioned dynamic shadows. I scratched my head. We've had those in
> > OS/SL viewers for almost a decade?)
> >
> > Existing viewers actually do some things really well; I have yet to see
> > any client for the growing crop of new VR worlds do what Windlight can
> > do (Hypatia's comes closest). That would all have to be recreated before
> > a new viewer can be called an improvement.
> >
> > Is the idea to introduce new asset types tailored to UE's capabilities?
> > Then we're moving from argument #1 to argument #3. Existing worlds won't
> > benefit much in the short term, but they will still have to be supported
> > if there is to be any uptake at all of the new viewer. Meanwhile, users
> > of existing viewers will complain that some assets look broken or even
> > make them crash.
> >
> >
> > Argument #2
> >
> > ...usually gets shot down with something like "browsers can't do the
> > job" (that too was heard at OSCC). If we are talking about HTML5 and
> > Three.js, it might well be true. But have a look at Epic's Zen Garden
> > demo from March 2017. Is it really obvious that WebAssembly and WebGL 2
> > can't do the job either?
> >
> > So, if you really believe that lack of a web-based viewer is keeping
> > OpenSim back, UE's support for WebAssembly might be a good reason to
> > consider going down this route. But then one should weigh the effort of
> > building a whole new viewer against the effort required to get the core
> > parts of an existing one to compile with Emscripten.
> >
> > As an aside, I am less convinced now than a few years ago that a web
> > viewer would really make that much of a difference. It's not like
> > Fortnite has suffered greatly from the need to download and run a 10 GB
> > installer before you can start having fun (for some people's definition
> > of "fun").
> >
> >
> > Argument #3
> >
> > ... is the one I find most credible. But whether UE provides the best
> > route to an OpenSim-specific viewer depends on what exactly one is
> > trying to achieve.
> >
> > Is better graphics an important criterion, to the point that it warrants
> > the introduction of UE-specific asset types unsupported by existing
> > viewers?
> >
> > Is VR support important? UE and Unity both make this very easy to add.
> >
> > Is easy customization of the UI what really matters? An easily
> > customizable HTML5 UI around a WebAssembly-driven WebGL canvas could be
> > a worthy heir to OnLook, but this might be easier to achieve starting
> > from an existing viewer.
> >
> >
> > Maybe these questions have all been thrashed out already. If so, a link
> > to a document summarizing the answers would be welcome.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Opensim-dev mailing list
> > Opensim-dev@opensimulator.org
> > http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> Opensim-dev@opensimulator.org
> http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@opensimulator.org
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

Reply via email to