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