Toni Alatalo kirjoitti:
Certainly having a local viewer in a browser is better in so many ways,
and things like a viewer written using Unity or O3D, or packaging Naali
as a plugin (which kripken already tested with syntensity), and the
upcoming WebGL viewer from Sirikata, are interesting and something we
want to use as lite-clients with reX worlds. This shot serving is for a
Apparently the folks doing the NeoAxis engine, a proprietary game engine
which uses Ogre (like ReX does too) for rendering, has packaged their
app as a browser plugin now too - there's a demo at
http://www.neoaxisgroup.com/neoaxis/webplayerdemo . NeoAxis is similar
to Unity, but like said uses Ogre (Unity has an own renderer) - both use
.net/mono for providing the API for making games/apps.
Might be possible to package a (lite) version of Naali the same way -
the installer for NeoAxisWebPlayer is 2.6MB it seems.
Or alternatively use the NeoAxis engine itself to make a ReX viewer,
possibly reusing the networking code from Naali if it is possible to use
c++ components there .. they advertise their .Net API, which does allow
using unmanaged native components too. Would be more straightforward
than writing a ReX client using Unity, 'cause it would be the same Ogre
underneath so all assets etc. would work directly. Plain moving and
viewing would be quite little code, most work in Naali being in the
networking, which could hopefully be reused, and in the editing and
comms tools etc. which would not be needed in the lite web version. Of
course the 3di.jp Rei already is an open sourced (somewhat?) ReX
compatible viewer packaged as a browser plugin (based on the Idealist
standalone viewer app code), I don't know yet how well that works.
Is commercial, but free for non-commercial use. At least shows this is
possible and works, ran quite ok on my old celeron+intelgfx laptop. I
guess we are their competitor 'cause target similar things but the core
being open source, unlike theirs .. but competition is of course good
and fun in the free markets :) (and I believe the open source way is
better 'cause the dev can expand to being done in many companies and
individuals, not just one place, and also better to depend on when
making own products 'cause can modify anything freely .. but I guess
both models will be living happily).
~Toni
same.
2010/2/26 Ryan McDougall <[email protected]>
I'm not too familiar with making web plugins -- kripken would
know
more. What I can say is that if you can make a regular C++
Ogre3D
application a web plugin, then I'd say you can make Naali a
web
plugin.
There is also Rei, which is already a browser plugin.
That said, WebGL is coming around, and people are making
Javascript
rendering engines which might one day soon be as good as Ogre
(but as
fast??). Sirikata guys are making a totally browser hosted
client for
their system this way. If I was starting out, I'd probably go
that
direction, instead of plugins.
Cheers,
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Tedd Hansen
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I'll post this message again from my subscribed e-mail, then
maybe it will
> be delivered... (Sorry if you get duplicate post)
>
>
> Hi
>
>
>
> I’ve been looking for a web browser plug-in for OpenSim/SL
for some time.
> And I’m wondering how difficult this would be to do with
Naali.
>
> I know that running a stand-alone seems right for many
cases, but there are
> clear advantages of having web browser plug-ins…
>
> Examples:
> (I can’t think of all usage scenarios of course)
>
> 1. A web shop where you present objects/clothes that
user can buy in
> 3D world. Buying updates the good old 2D web shop on the
same page. User can
> check out in 2D.
>
> 2. You want to show movies (like YouTube) on your web
page. In doing
> so you like people watching to be placed in a movie theatre.
>
> 3. Presenting single objects in 3D (engine parts,
shoes, 3D server
> park surveillance, etc).
>
> 4. Facebook/LinkedIn integration (Think of FarmVille…
Would it have 80
> million active users monthly if it was a stand-alone app?).
>
> 5. Ease of use, ease of mind for users. Users just
need to accept
> installation (like Flash) and they enter the 3D world
automatically.
>
>
>
> Anyhow, the potential usage is beside the point.
>
>
>
> My question is how difficult it would be to implement.
>
> One suggestion: If we make a more or less self installing
signed .Net
> application that provides a surface, would it be possible
for Naali use this
> surface for rendering for example? (.Net app starts up,
executed Naali.exe
> and tells Naali where to render)
>
> This would apply mainly to IE, but the concept would be the
same for other
> browsers.
>
>
>
> I’m not sure what it takes to make a plug-in for other
platforms. If anyone
> knows feel free to share. J
>
>
>
> BR,
>
> Tedd
>
> --
> http://groups.google.com/group/realxtend
> http://www.realxtend.org
--
http://groups.google.com/group/realxtend
http://www.realxtend.org
--
http://groups.google.com/group/realxtend
http://www.realxtend.org
--
http://groups.google.com/group/realxtend
http://www.realxtend.org
