Documentation for what's currently available for download would be an amazing help. I imagine people will be using 0.4/0.5 well into the next year.
Cheers, On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Mark Malewski <[email protected]> wrote: > Earning a role in this project won't be very hard for those who > put in the leg-work. > > Thank-you. My next question is, should we continue with the WIKI's? Does > it seem logical to keep moving forward with documentation and tutorals for > 0.5/Modrex, even though we know that a "nextGen" is coming next year? > > Also, if I began working on 0.4/0.5 documentation and WIKI support, would > this documentation be useful at all to the "nextGen" or are they completely > different from all angles and all aspects? > Would we have to start completely over with documentation once "nextgen" is > released? > > I don't mind one way or the other, but it would just help to understand more > about "nextgen" and the future of the realXtend project. > > I'll focus my attention on the 0.5/Modrex, and at this point I'm probably > just going to start working on documentation and tutorials, since it will be > around for at least another year. > > I'm too confused at this point to even think about building a browser for > Nextgen, simply because we don't even know what that will entail at this > point. So, I'll start with documentation on 0.5/Modrex for now. > > It seems like the next logical step to move forward. This will give the > developers time to continue working, and hopefully as I work on > documentation and continue to ask more and more questions (as i work on > documentation) then hopefully I'll begin to understand more. My next > question is, am I duplicating my efforts by working on documentation, > because are the OpenSim/Modrex people working on similar documentation as > well? > > I want to help, but I'm so confused as to what to even do at this point. > Should I work on documentation? Should I work on browser support? > > Just tell me which direction you want me to focus my energy on, and I'll > head off in that direction. That's all I'm asking. You're the boss, I'm > just asking for orders. Which direction to you want me to head, and which > would be most beneficial to the project at this point? > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 1:10 AM, Ryan McDougall <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> You have asked some important questions, which I have tried to answer; >> however I must ask you to keep on topic, and the size and number of >> your posts to a reasonable level so as not to damage our >> signal-to-noise ratio. >> >> Write-access to any open source code-base is founded on personal trust >> and proven performance in terms of code commits and communication >> skill. Earning a role in this project won't be very hard for those who >> put in the leg-work. >> >> Cheers, >> >> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 2:05 AM, Mark Malewski <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > (provided you haven't seen any LL copyrighted code). >> > >> > <Closing my eyes> >> > >> > I see nothing, I know nothing. ;-) >> > >> > >> > We are hopeful that this means OpenSim will allow you to work on reX and >> > OpenSim at the same time >> > >> > This would be good. >> > >> > We understand that some of you have been using reX in production >> > environments, and we will continue to recommend reX 0.5 for real-world >> > use. >> > >> > Ok, now how different is the reX 0.5 from reX 0.4 (current version I'm >> > using). Is 0.5 an actual official build or are you referring to the >> > current >> > updated CVS as 0.5? >> > >> > Has an official 0.5 been released? (as a stable build?) Please bear >> > with >> > me, because I'm still getting my feet wet, and stumbling through all >> > this. >> > I'm still trying to learn more about exactly where we are at (and where >> > we >> > are headed, and the timeline, and projected future build dates). So I >> > do >> > apologize for all the questions. ;-) >> > >> > However it is our intention that reX-NG would become usable by >> > the end of 2009. >> > Ok, now I'm really confused. Ok, so what is "reX-NG"? is this based on >> > the >> > 0.5 code, or is this a complete re-write? >> > >> > Also how "compatible" is this future "reX-NG" with the current OpenSim >> > main >> > CVS? >> > >> > Will the reX-NG be identical to the OpenSim main CVS (base code) so that >> > all >> > the features in OpenSim be available inside the new "reX-NG"? >> > >> > I just want to make sure that the two are somewhat compatible (with >> > additional features being built on top of the OpenSim source, and making >> > realXtend a "more advanced" version of the OpenSim, with more >> > advanced/additional features). >> > >> > At least this is how I currently understand how/why these two forked >> > projects currently exist, correct? >> > >> > Please correct me/clarify if I'm wrong, because I'm still trying to >> > understand the direction that realXtend is headed, and I just want to >> > make >> > sure that realXtend is built upon same basic foundation as the OpenSim >> > project (with just additional functionality added). >> > >> > I do agree that severing our ties with LL is the best way to move >> > forward. >> > The legacy viewer will have another release, 0.5, to tidy up loose >> > ends we feel we have left. After that we will concentrate all of 2009 >> > on a more permanent solution: reX-Next Generation. >> > Ok, this is good to know. At least we have an idea of "where we are >> > headed" >> > right now. >> > >> > The next question I have, is: What exactly is "reX-Next Generation" >> > (rex-NG)? >> > >> > Does this even exist yet? Is this based off of the 0.5 build? Is it >> > still >> > backwards compatible with the OpenSim project? Is this a complete 100% >> > re-write? What on earth is it? Is it just what we are calling the >> > "completion" of the OpenSim & realXtend integration? (the integration >> > between OpenSim, and realXtend projects back into one main fork again, >> > instead of 2 separate forks?) >> > >> > How "compatible" is the "rex-NG" with the OpenSim project? What are the >> > main differences between "rex-NG" and OpenSim, and how "compatible" is >> > the >> > "rex-NG" with the current OpenSim? >> > >> > I'm still trying to get a better understanding of exactly where we are >> > headed/heading. What is our current "Road Map" looking like for 2009, >> > and >> > have we setup projected dates, and timelines? >> > >> > Is there any way that maybe Jani could conjur up some more pretty slides >> > for >> > us (maybe edit those old slides she had done previously, and maybe just >> > give >> > us a bit of a "clearer picture" of where we are headed for 2009. >> > >> > I'm just trying to see a basic outline of what we are doing, where we >> > are >> > headed, and the current (and future) Road Map for the project. >> > >> > Since arriving at realXtend I have been working hard to help define a >> > strategy and plan for 2009. >> > Yes, I feel your pain. ;-) >> > >> > But we definitely need to have a strategy, and a plan for 2009, so we >> > (as >> > developers) at least have an idea of where we are headed with this >> > project, >> > and what our goals/projected time tables are for the future 2009 builds. >> > >> >> We felt we had no choice but to undertake writing our own viewer from >> >> scratch. >> > I completely agree, and this is by far the simplest and best choice. We >> > need to just "break free" from the LL. >> > >> > The direction I would like to head with the viewers/browsers is >> > incompatible >> > and inconsistent with LL, and I would like to see a LOT of additional >> > features added to the browser(s)/viewer(s) that would require additional >> > features on the backend server builds (that are completely incompatible >> > with >> > LL). >> > >> > So there is no reason to "weigh ourselves down" by LL. We'll just move >> > forward, work hand-in-hand with OpenSim, and continue to move forward. >> > Leave LL in the dust. >> > >> > I see at least 3 different browser/viewer builds that I would like to >> > get >> > done for the Windows and OS X/Linux side. >> > >> > Then also 1 separate "thin portable" browser version (thin client) for >> > embedded system devices, and mobile devices (iPhone 3G, Blackberry >> > Storm, >> > and G-1 Android). >> > >> > The 3 browser versions for the PC side will be much more powerful >> > (support >> > higher end 3D graphics engines/processors/high end graphics cards, etc.) >> > and >> > will have higher end features (to take advantage of the larger screens, >> > and >> > higher performance/better graphics) of the large PC's, but the embedded >> > systems (and mobile devices) should at least have basic functionality >> > (and >> > instant messaging, and some simple thin-client functionality). >> > >> > I believe our three main "high end" platforms should be Windows, OS X, >> > and >> > Linux. We can do OpenGL 2.1 on OS X and Linux right now today. >> > Windows, I >> > can get OpenGL support probably done within 3 months. >> > >> > This will at least take us to the "next level" as far as graphics >> > capabilities are concerned. I don't want to get "flamed" or bombarded >> > by >> > people saying "it's not possible" to push those kinds of graphics over >> > the >> > internet. >> > >> > That's not true. We've done it on the government side for the past >> > 30-40 >> > years. So please don't bombard me with the silly nonsense. I'll >> > explain >> > more later, but we'll probably have to move more towards a more advanced >> > engine in the later browser versions. >> > >> > I'm working on trying to get a U.S. Government project released (for >> > civilian use) and hopefully I should have it released "Open Source" by >> > mid >> > to late next year. I believe this should be the basis of our next >> > generation graphics engine. >> > >> > I can't say too much more than that, because it's still a classified >> > government project, but it's an old legacy version (id Tech System 5) >> > which >> > we have abandoned almost 15+ years ago, but it's still a million times >> > better than ANYTHING that even exists in the civilian sector, and >> > probably >> > better than anything that will even exist in the civilian sector over >> > the >> > next 20-30 years. >> > >> > So if I can get it declassified and released (as open source) for >> > civilian >> > use, then I think it would be a good basis for our "Next Generation" >> > browser. This probably wouldn't happen till late 2009 or early 2010. >> > The >> > government is very slow moving, and even though I have a LOT of "pull", >> > I'm >> > still bogged down by politics (security issues, etc.). We're still >> > trying >> > to clean up the code a bit, and "sanitize" it a bit, so that it can be >> > released for civilian use. >> > >> > Again, I don't have the current funding or resources dedicated to the >> > project (as this is something I'm trying to do on the side, for the >> > civilian >> > community), but I do believe it's the "wave of the future". >> > >> > If you could only see what I see (on a daily basis) then trust me... you >> > would understand that the way civilians are currently doing this, is all >> > completely backwards (and extremely primitive). >> > >> > So I already have the "vision" on where we need to be, it's only a >> > matter of >> > getting some of this technology filtered down to "civilian use" so that >> > we >> > could use some of it to head in the "right direction". >> > >> > Civilians are currently in the "early VR stages" that the U.S. >> > Government >> > was in back in the early 1950's. We're at least 58 years ahead of >> > civilians >> > right now, and about $8 Trillion dollars ahead, as far as research and >> > development budgets are concerned. >> > >> > So I can't say too much about what the U.S. is doing, but I do know that >> > most civilians are really wasting their time with "dead end" >> > technologies. >> > >> > I do see some good "key points" here in realXtend (for practical >> > civilian >> > use), and that's the only reason I'm interested in trying to see this >> > project move forward, closer in line to something similar as to where >> > the >> > U.S. Government is. >> > >> > Again, the real-world civilian budgets are nothing compared to what the >> > U.S. >> > Government spends on Military/Government research and development, plus >> > civilian hardware is such garbage compared to what the U.S. Government >> > currently uses, and also we are "crippled" by the old legacy garbage >> > Internet network that is currently in place (for civilian use), and I've >> > taken all this "crippling" factors into consideration, but I still think >> > we >> > could build a somewhat "enjoyable" and extremely "realistic" experience >> > for >> > civilian use. >> > >> > I firmly believe I could launch this project about 30+ years "ahead of >> > schedule" over the next 2-3 years, if I can get various U.S. Government >> > (old >> > legacy dinosaur/mothballed projects) declassified and tossed into the >> > Open >> > Source public domain community. >> > >> > It would at least give civilians a decent "leap forward" in technology. >> > Again this is all going to be an "uphill battle" but having seen (and >> > having >> > worked with) both sides (civilian and military), I do understand how >> > "crippled" the civilians really are (as far as VR). >> > >> > The research and development being done on the civilian side, is almost >> > non-existent, and is so incredibly primitive, that it's almost as if >> > civilians are still rubbing two rocks together, and trying to discover >> > "fire". >> > >> > Sometimes I try not to laugh when I read various threads, and various >> > technologies (especially when I see the stupidity that Microsoft is >> > doing). >> > I nearly pee in pants everytime I see Microsoft open their mouth about >> > VR. >> > >> > I know most of those guys over on the ESP project, and their Microsoft >> > "earth" project, and it seems almost comical with the cartoonish garbage >> > they are working on. >> > >> > I believe I know the direction we need to head. It's hard for me to >> > "throw >> > out hints" as far as technology is concerned (because I have to watch >> > what I >> > say, or "Big Brother" will put me in the tank). So I have to stay >> > pretty >> > "tight lipped" but I can assure you that the "Battlefield Visualization" >> > that I started and developed (between 1991-2001) is way too advanced for >> > most civilians to even understand or even comprehend. >> > >> > I will just leave it at that. There are "foreign nationals" on this >> > thread, >> > and this is not a discussion that we can have on a mailing list thread. >> > All >> > I can say is, I agree with the "core beliefs" of what realXtend is >> > trying to >> > do. >> > >> > I do see the "good" in getting this technology pushed out to civilians >> > for >> > "civilian use". I see lots of benefits of it. I believe it would be >> > good >> > for the "common good" of society, to move forward with this. >> > >> > I do think it would "revolutionize" the way civilians view the >> > "internet" >> > and "social browsing" experience. >> > >> > So far, with what you have, and the resources you have (and are working >> > with), you're doing extremely well. (Extremely primitive, but as far as >> > civilians are concerned, it's a good "first step"). >> > >> > Unfortunately, you have a VERY VERY VERY long road ahead of you. It's >> > like >> > being a 45 year old adult, and watching a toddler take it's first steps >> > and >> > attempt to stand up on it's own two feet. >> > >> > It seems comical, and almost funny to watch. >> > >> > To be honest, if we really wanted to move forward with such a >> > "real-life" >> > large scale project (for civilian use), there's way too much we would >> > need >> > to do and accomplish. >> > >> > First off, I would need to redesign the current "Internet" as you know >> > it >> > (as civilians know it). The whole TCP/IP stack, and various other "dead >> > end" technologes that you are currently using (as civilians) have been >> > abandoned almost 58+ years ago (as "dead end" technologies). >> > >> > There's reasons for this, and in the next 20-30 years, you (as >> > civilians) >> > will slowly "wake up" and realize that some/many of your efforts have >> > been >> > completely wasted, and then you'll be forced to take several hundred >> > steps >> > backwards, and start completely over. >> > >> > Trust me on this one. I've studied the work (classified work) from the >> > 1920's to present, and I can see all the "mistakes" we have made (along >> > the >> > way). >> > >> > Civilians are still rubbing rocks together, and trying to "make fire". >> > At >> > this point, I see nothing but a whole lot of "smoke". No fire, just >> > smoke. >> > >> > To be honest, even if I took 8 or 10 of the Top Universities in the >> > world >> > (and compiled ALL their talent and resources), I just don't think we >> > could >> > even "put a dent" in where we need to be (technology wise) in the >> > civilian >> > sector. >> > >> > That is the first problem. It comes down to money and resources. I'm >> > not >> > saying we don't have smart people in the civilian sector (because we do, >> > and >> > I see plenty of them), but unfortunately it comes down to financial >> > budgets. >> > >> > Civilians don't have $480 Billion budgets, or $1 Trillion dollar budgets >> > (over 5 years). >> > >> > These numbers, and concepts are "foreign" to civilians. Civilians still >> > can't understand how America was putting a man on the moon, or building >> > the >> > Atomic bomb, or building spy satellites (again, I can't confirm nor deny >> > whether they exist...) or putting landing Rovers on Mars. >> > >> > This is all "old dead-end technology". If I could tell you what I know >> > (without spending the rest of my life in prison, or being put to death >> > for >> > Treason), it would make you crap your pants. >> > >> > So when I say, that we are currently "rubbing rocks together", I'm just >> > being blunt and honest. The only way I see us moving forward (with a >> > somewhat large leap forward), is to start modeling the civilian side, >> > after >> > what the U.S. Government has been doing over the past 20-30 years. >> > >> > From 1991-2001, those technologies (even though they are well over 8-17+ >> > years old, and considered "dead end" technologies by the government), I >> > still think they would give civilians A HUGE HUGE HUGE "leap forward" >> > with >> > where they need to be, as civilians. >> > >> > Civilians just don't have the "financial resources" (for research & >> > development) to "catch up" to the U.S. Government. So civilian research >> > is >> > lagging about 50+ years behind. >> > >> > I watch civilians scratch their heads like monkeys, and sometimes I >> > listen >> > to reseachers say foolish things like "That is NOT possible!" >> > >> > (That's only because in "their eyes" the world is STILL FLAT. They >> > haven't >> > even discovered that the world is ROUND yet, so civilians really are >> > clueless, when it comes to virtual reality & advanced/secure >> > communications >> > systems). >> > >> > First off, without saying too much... just think for one brief moment, >> > that >> > a U.S. Satellite (in theory) floats around in orbit, and images about >> > 3,800 >> > images a second. (In theory of course, but I don't even want to >> > speculate >> > on true capabilities), but just theory of course. >> > >> > Do you have any idea how large just ONE of those images is? Again, I >> > can't >> > even discuss capabilities, or speculate on current technologies, but >> > just >> > think for a moment (and use your brains) and just try to understand HOW >> > LARGE just one single image is (understand the resolution of those >> > "birds" >> > and the imagery). Again, I can't speculate one way or another, but >> > let's >> > just say that a "chip" is about 500GB. >> > >> > A "chip" is just a very small portion of an actual high resolution >> > image. A >> > standard image could be anywhere from 2TB (for a small image) to 80TB >> > (for a >> > decent size image, like an airfield or naval base). >> > >> > Now just think that those "birds" are flying around rattling off about >> > 3,800 >> > images a second (in theory of course). Do you understand the type of >> > bandwidth involved? >> > >> > Again, 99.999% of the civilians wouldn't believe it (or understand it) >> > even >> > if you showed it, or explained it to them (simply because they way they >> > view >> > & understand "the internet" is wrong). >> > >> > The "internet" (as you understand it) is broken. That's why it was >> > 'tossed >> > in the garbage" by DARPA in the mid to late 1950's, and turned over for >> > "civilian & scientific use". >> > >> > Don't think for a second, that the U.S. Government would just turn over >> > a >> > technology without having a much more advanced replacement. ;-) >> > >> > Again, this is all "theory" of course. I can't confirm nor deny one way >> > or >> > another, but having seen, and worked on the "replacement" (basically >> > "version 2" and "version 3" of what you civilians would consider "the >> > internet"), I can at least see the "short comings" and problems you >> > would >> > face (in the future) with your old legacy and dead end technology. >> > >> > Sure it's fine for static web pages (whoopti doo, civilians learned how >> > to >> > browse static web pages), but the point is, when we start to get into >> > advanced photogrammetry techniques there will be "bottlenecks" (limited >> > by >> > the bandwidth between the secure communications between the satellites >> > and >> > ground stations). >> > >> > There will also be protocol problems. That's about all I can say. >> > Civilians need to learn how to drastically "improve efficiency" in the >> > way >> > they handle large amounts of data and limited bandwidth. (Trust me on >> > this >> > one). >> > >> > I can't say too much more than that, but that is one of the "key >> > fundamental >> > problems" that civilians will have. >> > >> > The next step, is the problems with the way you are viewing/rendering >> > graphics and rastering your images. Again, you are going about it ALL >> > WRONG. >> > >> > I can't say too much (on an open thread), but I can throw a few "hints" >> > out >> > there, just for something to "chew on". >> > >> > The type of technology that you want to be using (on the civilian >> > "browser" >> > side) would need to have an advanced rendering engine, that is capable >> > of >> > not rastering data (as you understand it now), and NOT do it by >> > DOWNLOADING >> > textures, but instead do it by "streaming" textures (as needed). >> > >> > Again, I could sit down and work on a "proof of concept" (for civilian >> > use) >> > just to demonstrate what I am talking about, but this would give you a >> > 80,000% increase in "efficiency" of bandwidth. >> > >> > Just as "streaming a movie" is much more efficient than trying to >> > download a >> > whole movie all at once (from one single server). >> > >> > The next step, is bandwidth resources. Your civilian "ideology" of >> > using >> > servers is all wrong. It's completely backwards. >> > >> > It's futile and "dead-end" technology. Those servers act as >> > "bottlenecks". >> > Imagine if 35,000 people tried calling the same phone number all at >> > once. >> > What do you think would happen? >> > >> > Yes, same concept. So just throwing a little "hint" out there (to chew >> > on), >> > the real goal is to move more towards a "meshing" technology. No >> > central >> > server, no real "command center". No real "one focal point" or "top >> > down" >> > topology. That structure doesn't work. Stop trying to think like that >> > (as >> > civilians). It doesn't work. >> > >> > Think more like the concept of how the internet works (lots of different >> > relays, that just bounce information between each other, from one to the >> > next, to the next, to the next, until the information reaches it's >> > intended >> > target. >> > >> > Same concept. To move large images, it's much more effective to use >> > something that would break an image up into small microscopic pieces, >> > and >> > then stream those pieces (instead of a "download" type technology). >> > Think >> > "bit torrent", because that's about the closest concept you have in >> > civilian >> > use right now. >> > >> > Same concept. Then the next hurdle is the actual storage and rendering. >> > Data storage will be a major problem for civilians. It's just too >> > costly >> > and primitive at this point. You would need "deep pockets" like the >> > U.S. >> > Government, to afford the storage capacity. Even Google can't afford >> > (or >> > even fathom) the storage capacities of the U.S. Government. >> > >> > So this is something we would need to consider, and think about. We >> > would >> > have to somehow generate some revenue inside the "world/grid" to help >> > offset >> > the costs of a large-scale Grid storage center. These would be located >> > (and >> > mirrored/duplicated) in several locations throughout the world (as basic >> > "caching servers"). >> > >> > With the main location probably being stateside (in America), and with >> > maybe >> > 8-10 mirrors located throughout the world (as local "caching servers") >> > to >> > reduce the bottlenecks caused between Transatlantic fiber connections. >> > >> > There would probably need to be 3 main sites in America. The first, I >> > would >> > probably place in Chicago (main Global hub, for the Internet backbone). >> > >> > 95% of the main Internet traffic gets routed through Chicago (between >> > East >> > Coast/NY, and between West Coast/CA). >> > >> > So the first datacenter, would probably go in Chicago. Two additional >> > data >> > centers would later pop up (one in NYC, and one in Los Angeles, CA). >> > The >> > two additional data centers would serve as "caching servers". >> > >> > Those "Tier 1" caching servers, would be used as "relays" over >> > TransAtlantic >> > and TransPacific fiber connections between Europe (on the Atlantic side) >> > and >> > Asia (on the pacific side). >> > >> > The "Tier 2" caching servers would be housed in various countries >> > (England, >> > Germany, Finland, China, Russia, etc.) >> > >> > Then "Tier 3" caching servers would be housed in major cities throughout >> > each country. >> > >> > Then "Tier 4" caching servers would be housed in smaller townships, >> > villages, etc. and tied directly to the closest major city/Tier 3 >> > server. >> > >> > I know this goes back to a "top down" topology, but understand that this >> > is >> > NOT how data is passed between users, this is simply more of a "DNS" >> > type of >> > topology. (Similar to how our current DNS structure works). You have >> > ROOT >> > servers, and then different Tier servers. >> > >> > The DNS servers don't control anything, they simply cache DNS >> > information >> > for local users (and keep the root servers from getting overloaded). >> > >> > Same concept. Then each local "Tier 4" caching server would implement a >> > "Mesh" type technology. (Almost similar to a "bit torrent" like >> > technology) >> > with the local client servers, and each client workstation would "mesh" >> > between local adhoc users (at the ground level) and relay packets >> > (adhoc) >> > between local mesh users, and eventually the information would get >> > routed >> > back to the main local caching server, and then make it's way back >> > towards >> > the upper tier servers (but the majority of the data would be passed ad >> > hoc >> > among the mesh, and not via the direct connections between root >> > servers). >> > >> > Just like data on the internet is not passed between the DNS servers, >> > instead it is passed and routed between various other servers (in the >> > network path). Same concept. >> > >> > No client workstation would get overloaded, because it would just be >> > small >> > little bits being relayed (small pieces), kinda like a torrent >> > technology. >> > >> > The only difference is, it's not really a "download" per se (like >> > torrent), >> > but instead its' a "live stream". >> > >> > It's hard to explain, because it doesn't exist in civilian use right >> > now, >> > but torrent is about the only thing civilians would understand or >> > comprehend >> > at this point. But it's the same/similar concept. >> > >> > Only difference is, it's almost like having a "streaming bit torrent" >> > server. How/why does this work? Because now you are NOT downloading >> > all >> > your information directly from ONE media server (all your textures), but >> > instead are pulling texture pieces (very very high resolution and large >> > texture pieces) from various other users (peer to peer). >> > >> > This takes the load off of the texture servers and world servers. Since >> > everything is done P2P on the client side. >> > >> > The next advantage is, it's streamed (not downloaded). So a user >> > doesn't >> > have to wait till a full portion of the world is completely downloaded >> > to >> > begin walking around. The first few pieces are downloaded immediately, >> > and >> > then the additional pieces continue to come in (similar to "video >> > caching" >> > that you see on a YouTube client/server, the viewer caches maybe 30 >> > seconds >> > or 45 seconds of footage, so that it doesn't appear choppy to the user. >> > >> > Same concept. The textures are all streamed (and cached), and the >> > advanced >> > graphics engine, actually uses STREAMING textures (not static file >> > textures). >> > >> > Again, this all needs to be done on the browser side. These are the >> > first >> > few "baby steps" tha we need to make, when it comes to bringing decent >> > VR >> > technology to civilian use. >> > >> > These are things that I was doing back in 1986-1991, and it's stuff that >> > we >> > need to start bringing to the civilian sector in 2009-2011. >> > >> > I believe civilian computers are "mature enough", and a Mac Pro could >> > easily >> > handle OpenGL 2.1 graphics (and possibly even OpenGL 3.x graphics), so I >> > think the civilians are at least ready for the technology. >> > >> > Now our next step is to begin bringing it to them. I know this is a LOT >> > to >> > "chew on", and there may be some skepticism that this technology even >> > exists, or that it's even possible, but I can assure you... that yes, it >> > does exist (on the government/military side). But it's time to start >> > bringing this technology to the masses (the civilians). >> > >> > And although it will be extremely "primitive" compared to the actual >> > government side, it's still about 30-40 years ahead of what current >> > civilians are doing and working on. >> > >> > So this ideally, would be where I would like to see "realXtend" head. I >> > can't do all this myself, and it would take teams and teams of engineers >> > willing to work as one cohesive unit, to make this all happen. >> > >> > I believe it's best to keep it Open Source, a keep the whole community >> > working together (as one unit). I can work on getting some of the older >> > "dead end" technologies released as "Open Source" (once I can get things >> > "cleaned up" and "sanitized" and get approvals from the government to >> > declassify and "officially abandon" some of the older "mothballed' >> > technology). >> > >> > id Tech 5, would be good for civilian use. We're currently using id >> > Tech 7 >> > and id Tech 8, but I know 5 is way long gone and way mothballed. >> > >> > So I'm pretty sure I can get that released as Open Source, or at least >> > released for civilian use over the next 12 months. >> > >> > I already have a good portion of it, sanitized, and I have "leaked" bits >> > and >> > pieces (unclassified portions) for public use. I can't say too much, >> > but >> > just give us a little bit of time, and I think I could bring a "new >> > advanced >> > engine" to the table by November or December of 2009. >> > >> > Hopefully we canget this incorporated into the new browser builds for >> > 2010 >> > (as an advanced "high end" gaming engine). >> > >> > It's cross platform, extremely light, and it would kick the pants off of >> > anythign that XBOX 360, Playstation 3, or anyone else could even come up >> > with. >> > >> > At that point, we would probably "port" the browser as a "game". Then >> > we >> > would have to swallow the licensing fees, and licensing costs (shoved up >> > our >> > backside by Microsoft and Sony) and then release the browsers as "Games" >> > that people can purchase. >> > >> > We could probably sell them for $29, and still cover our licensing >> > costs, >> > fees, manufacturing/production costs, and turn a small profit (about 99 >> > cents profit per DVD/game). >> > >> > It's not much, but at least it could be used to help fund further >> > research >> > and development. The next logical step, would be to show Developers how >> > extremely easy it is to develop for the new "cross platform" advanced >> > engine. >> > >> > Gaming developers could now design and build for ONE SINGLE SYSTEM, and >> > it >> > would be cross platfrom (work on PS3, XBOX 360, WII, etc.) >> > >> > No more having to develop for 3 or 4 different gaming platforms, and no >> > more >> > having to pay 3 or 4 different licensing fees. >> > >> > We could offer the platform to gaming developers FOR FREE. >> > >> > Just as you can use the Ogre engine, same concept. Developers can >> > develop >> > games, no licensing fees, nothing. Sure it would destroy Microsoft's >> > (and >> > Sony's) business model, because the hardware platforms would just be >> > used as >> > hardware platforms (nothing more). >> > >> > The XBOX 360 and PS3 do have some decent graphics processors, and they >> > are >> > very nice pieces of hardware that we could use as platforms for our >> > eventual >> > future gaming engine (and gaming technology). >> > >> > Everything would be so realistic and life-like, that I seriously doubt >> > that >> > ANYONE would use anything other than our gaming engine. That's how >> > confident that I am, that we could build a TRUE industry standard VR >> > platform. >> > >> > Microsoft and Sony and Nintendo would just become hardware >> > manufacturers, >> > and if they got upset about the whole situation, and attempted to refuse >> > to >> > license us in the future (on a next generation XBOX or Playstation) >> > simply >> > because we are hurting their licensing fee structure and licensing sales >> > (since developers are all developing games under our platform, instead >> > of >> > the Microsoft platform) and are selling their games in our "Virtual >> > Marketplace" versus the Microsoft XBOX 360 Marketplace. >> > >> > That would "cripple" Microsoft's sales a bit. So I'm sure that >> > Microsoft >> > will get their panties in a bunch, and possibly not license us in the >> > future. This is not a problem, because I can work with Dell. I know >> > Jeff >> > Clark (CEO of DelL?), and Carla and a few of the VP's over at Dell, and >> > I'm >> > fairly confident that I could get Dell (and even HP) to build hardware >> > specific gaming systems (identical to a XBOX 360/Playstation 3) type >> > system, >> > except with integrated Blu Ray players/recorders, and an integrated 1TB >> > hard >> > drive. >> > >> > Why? Because I would like to market the devices as "MeshBox" devices >> > (that >> > are a gaming device, a Tivo/DVR device, and a social networking VR >> > platform) >> > all in one. >> > >> > Plus the device would be used as a replacement for the standard home >> > computer. It would have HDMI outputs (and would connect directly to a >> > HD >> > flat panel television, with 1080p), and would have integrated 7.1 >> > digital >> > surround sound. >> > >> > So that users could use it to experience Blu Ray movies, and online >> > gaming, >> > and also High Definition recording (of television, movies, etc.) similar >> > to >> > a Tivo device. I would also put TWO tuners inside of it, so you can >> > watch >> > one channel, and record a second channel, or even record two channels at >> > the >> > same time. >> > >> > At first, I would like to release a "System 1" version (with a 1TB hard >> > drive and 2 tuners), but later we can release an upgraded "System 2" and >> > "System 3" versions (with 8 cores, or 12 cores, or 16 core processors). >> > >> > The "System 1" would probably be similar in technology to a current >> > 8-core >> > Mac Pro. Very similar hardware/mainboard. Just slightly modified, so >> > that >> > it could fit in a smaller enclosure, and the graphics chipsets would >> > probably have to be embedded on the mainboard (similar to the iMac). >> > >> > It would have built in USB 3.0, built in Firewire 800, and built in >> > Bluetooth, and built in 1 gigabit ethernet (possibly even a 10GB >> > ethernet, >> > if we can get the Intel 82598EB chipset (10GB Ethernet Controller) >> > licensed >> > fairly cheaply. I would need to hammer out the details with Intel, and >> > see >> > if they would be willing to work on us (with some decent pricing). >> > Because >> > I would like to implement the newer Intel 10GbE controller, which is >> > optimized for multi-core XEON processor based hardware. >> > >> > The Gaming platform would be perfect (and optimized) for technologies >> > such >> > as VoIP, and real-time video on demand. >> > >> > It would be a very power efficient solution, and it could even be used >> > as a >> > "home based server" for storage of music, movies, family pictures, and >> > even >> > host a family website. >> > >> > I supposed it would even be powerful enough to be used as a small >> > business >> > server, and even be used to replace a modern "XEON-based" small business >> > server (running Server 2008/Exchange 2007/SQl 2008, etc.). >> > >> > We could come out with a "Small Business Version" that runs Windows >> > Server >> > 2008 core (no internal GUI), and then system administators could login >> > (via >> > remote desktop) to the Core Meshbox, and use a standard client side gui, >> > to >> > control and administer the server. >> > >> > It's "Meshbox" device would connect P2P (if you opened up ports on your >> > firewall, and allowed it). The "meshing technology" would be used >> > highspeed >> > downloads (similar to a bit torrent technology). >> > >> > So people could download HD movies, HD games, music, pictures, or >> > whatever >> > they want. >> > >> > Sorry for "hijacking" the thread, but those are just my personal views, >> > and >> > personal opinions. I know it's a LOT to swallow, and digest, but I >> > think >> > eventualy that's where we need to head. >> > >> > All I need is a small handful of bright people, and we could easily make >> > this a reality. Just by looking at some of the people in this message >> > list, I already know that there is some very "bright talent" here. >> > >> > I know all this probably wasn't on the "Original realXtend Road Map", >> > and >> > POOR Jani is probably shaking her head in disbelief right now, but >> > that's >> > really where I wold like to see this project eventually head. >> > >> > I have patents on a lot of technologies, and I've released a lot of >> > technologies as "Open Source" projects (for civilian use), and most of >> > my >> > technologies are still being used by the U.S. Government today, and some >> > of >> > my technologies have filtered their way down to civilian use. I did a >> > project for some individual in Bali, back in 2001-2002. We rolled out >> > some >> > "meshing technology" (that I had engineered back in 1986) and used it >> > for a >> > wireless mesh system in Bali, and about 37 other remote islands >> > (thoughout >> > rural parts of Indonesia, West Papua, etc.) >> > >> > It was used for missionary work, and educational purposes. At the time, >> > it >> > was "bleeding edge" technology (as far as civilians were concerned), but >> > it's dead end stuff, just garbage I was throwing out there for the >> > civilians >> > to "chew on". Just to prove that it could be done. >> > >> > The "big picture" that I have, is very different. I want to use the >> > same >> > types of technology that I have designed and developed for the U.S. >> > Government, and eventually "replace" the current "internet" >> > infrastructure. >> > >> > I know it sounds like an "impossible task", but really it's not. I can >> > probably get a $100 Billion grant from the U.S. Government, and start by >> > laying a new infrastructure in the United States (for civilan use). >> > Then >> > once that is complete (it may take 5-6 years), then I can work with 2 >> > researchers I know (and trust) on certain technologies that they are >> > working >> > on (for Transatlantic transmission rates). I believe I could push about >> > 2.8Gbps over standard copper (phone lines). >> > >> > This would only be temporary, until I could raise the funds and equity >> > necessary to lay the Advanced under water fiber necessary to link the >> > continents together. It's a different type of cabling, and the current >> > civilian stuff simply won't work (or give me the bandwidth that I need) >> > for >> > a decent backbone infrastructure. I want 1TB speeds (minimum) on the >> > fiber >> > channel backbone, but this could later be upgraded to 10TB or 100TB if >> > needed, but 1TB should be plenty for now. >> > >> > The cabling would be sufficient to handle 100TB (in the future) if >> > needed. >> > Ah, i'm getting way off topic here, but yes... I've seen and worked on a >> > lot >> > of stuff on the government side, and I'm just frustrated that these >> > technologies are not currently in use on the civilian side. >> > >> > It could be another 50 or 100 years before civilians get off their lazy >> > rumps, and start doing this stuff, so as I finish up my work on the >> > government side (at least for now), I believe this would be a great way >> > to >> > stimulate the global economy, and also bring hundreds of thousands of >> > engineers together (from all over the world), that can now use a much >> > more >> > advanced high speed network. >> > >> > Once I bring the network trans-Atlantic (no, I don't want to use >> > satellite, >> > there's just too much latency, I need fiber, don't ask...) >> > >> > but once I bring the Advanced High Speed network Trans-Atlantic, then >> > we'll >> > use it to connect all the main universities (globally) to the network >> > backbone. (Similar to how the "civilian internet" spread). >> > >> > Then local internet service providers will tie into the local university >> > fiber backbone, and then server their local communities. At this point, >> > it >> > would probably be moved from Fiber, over to a secure Advanced Wireless >> > Technology. Something much more advanced than Wi-Max, and something >> > that we >> > can push out 100GB speeds (on the backbone side), and still push out >> > 500Mbp/s on the client/customer side. >> > >> > I have a couple of advanced protocols, that we could use, and I'll save >> > all >> > that for a much much deeper discussion, but for now... that's just a >> > "general outline" of what/where I would like to head. >> > >> > Who would "own" the advanced network? Well, I've mulled over it, and >> > that's >> > a very good and very tough question. >> > >> > I don't think it should be a commercial entity (like AT&T, MCI, etc.), I >> > believe more in an independent non-profit organization, something that I >> > would like to "found" that would be similar to an independent "Civilian >> > DARPA" research facility. >> > >> > Where researchers from all over the world, could come together (similar >> > to >> > the U.S. based DARPA), except it would be civilian based (for civilian >> > projects) and eventually would be used to fund projects such as bringing >> > clean water, and FREE & clean/renewable energy to all of the world's >> > poppulation. >> > >> > Trust me, it can be done. This is NOT rocket science. If I can get a >> > satellite off the ground, and into space, certainly we can solve the >> > "simple >> > problems" of bringing this technology to civilians, and helping to >> > better >> > the global economy, and global socialism. (and hopefully use this as a >> > "bridge" for World Peace). It will help "level the playing field" >> > between >> > poor third-world nations (similar to Africa or China) and at least make >> > these individuals productive workers in the global economy. >> > >> > if I could have half or one third of africa modeling virtual worlds (for >> > pennies on the dollar), we could easily get the whole solar system >> > "modeled" >> > in maybe two or three lifetimes. >> > >> > I probably would never be alive to see it, nor would anyone in this >> > forum/message list, but at least I could lay the ground work. At least >> > I >> > could get the ball rolling, and just hope that the future "civilian >> > DARPA" >> > continues to carry the torch, well after I am dead and long gone. >> > >> > There are always pioneers. Many of my ancestors (Orville & Wilbur >> > Wright, >> > and Frank Lloyd Wright) were well known early engineers (and pioneers), >> > and >> > much of their early engineering (and thinking) set the "standard" for >> > concepts such as "flight" and even "advanced building architectures". >> > >> > I have that same bloodline, I lay in bed at night thinking up crazy >> > things, >> > and unfortunately I just need a team of good engineers that are willing >> > to >> > "step forward" and "fight the good fight". >> > >> > The "MeshBox" platform, is just a simple strategy, to show the world >> > what >> > it's like to "Think OUTSIDE the box". >> > >> > What will the "MeshBox" platform be used for? Curing cancer. That may >> > sound stupid, or comical, but it's true. >> > >> > 99% of servers are "underutilized" in this world. How much idle >> > processing >> > time does your current computer have? Go ahead, click on task Manager, >> > and >> > see what your current CPU utilization is. >> > >> > Those unused clock cycles are just wasted energy. By utilizing a "thin >> > client" plugin, embedded in each and every MeshBox device, that unused >> > processing power could be used for extremely high-performance Grid super >> > computing (for civilian scientific purposes). Such as DNA mapping, gene >> > mapping, or even looking for a cure for cancer. >> > >> > With millions of console gaming devices globally, all those devices (and >> > unused clock cycles) could be "pooled" and then researchers could apply >> > for >> > "processing power" grants. We can give out grants (based on the >> > project) >> > and donate the processing power to support their independent projects >> > (on an >> > "as needed" basis). >> > >> > users could even get a monthly e-mail, almost as a "Kind thank-you" >> > letting >> > them know that their unused clock cycles are being used for Global >> > warming >> > research, or Geothermal Research, or Cancer research, or whatever. >> > >> > I believe in the far future, we could even setup a web-based control, in >> > the >> > browsing client, that users could actually go online, and see a list of >> > maybe 50 or 100 different scientific projects, and select (in order from >> > 1-10) where they would like to see their unused clock cycles and >> > processing >> > power to go. >> > >> > So clients can actually decide where to "donate" their unused processing >> > power to. Ultimately, it would help researchers (and cut down on their >> > costs of having to have huge server farms, and super high speed >> > networks). >> > It would really bring down the "overhead' costs of Advanced Civilian >> > Scientific Research projects. >> > >> > We thank you very much for your patience, and hope that you can stick >> > with us as we make this transition to a more sound long-term >> > direction. >> > >> > No worries, I'm here to stay. I believe we're heading in the right >> > direction. Now just give us a detailed Road Map with slides, and >> > timelines. Then start dividing the tasks up, and begin handing out >> > "Team >> > Lead" positions, and let's get cracking on the development. ;-) >> > >> > Hopefully we can evolve this into a great Open Source project, and >> > develop >> > a very Advanced Technology that we could eventually use as a platform >> > for >> > advanced gaming, social networking, and educational/professional use. >> > >> > Mark >> > >> > P.S. Ryan, I would like to Lead the realXtend Browser/Viewer >> > cross-platform >> > development if at all possible. Thank-you! >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 7:13 AM, Ryan McDougall <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Hello, >> >> >> >> Since arriving at realXtend I have been working hard to help define a >> >> strategy and plan for 2009. >> >> >> >> One of the main problems we discovered was that working with the >> >> forked LL viewer code was making our changes more and more difficult, >> >> and more and more unstable as time went on. We felt we had no choice >> >> but to undertake writing our own viewer from scratch. >> >> >> >> Right now we are in the very initial design phase, and very little has >> >> been decided except it will be Apache 2.0 licensed, and contain no >> >> code what so ever from LL. We are hopeful that this means OpenSim will >> >> allow you to work on reX and OpenSim at the same time (provided you >> >> haven't seen any LL copyrighted code). >> >> >> >> The legacy viewer will have another release, 0.5, to tidy up loose >> >> ends we feel we have left. After that we will concentrate all of 2009 >> >> on a more permanent solution: reX-Next Generation. >> >> >> >> Practically this means that some of the bugs you have filed with us >> >> will be marked "won't fix". Realistically however, the reason we are >> >> making reX-NG is that it was practically impossible to fix them in the >> >> current code-base any ways. >> >> >> >> We understand that some of you have been using reX in production >> >> environments, and we will continue to recommend reX 0.5 for real-world >> >> use. However it is our intention that reX-NG would become usable by >> >> the end of 2009. >> >> >> >> We thank you very much for your patience, and hope that you can stick >> >> with us as we make this transition to a more sound long-term >> >> direction. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> >> > >> >> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ this list: http://groups.google.com/group/realxtend realXtend home page: http://www.realxtend.org/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
