Re: [vos-d] status and scheming
S Mattison wrote: On 11/30/06, Peter Amstutz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: interesting, though, is that the relationship between the time on the animation track, and world time, is kind of like the distinction between world space and object space -- that the time parameter that gets plugged into the animation loop has a linear transform relationship with the "world" time. Just don't stop the world for the animation of a single object. All the users in a world should have the model, and should also know what animation the model is doing, but they don't necessarily need to know what frame of animation it is on. Updating each user, frame by frame, would slow the server to a crawl, imo. All the server has to do is update the clients now and again on what frame the animation is on, and how fast it's animating, that should be sufficient to keep the clients in sync. -sconzey begin:vcard fn:Jonathan Jones n:Jones;Jonathan email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] version:2.1 end:vcard ___ vos-d mailing list vos-d@interreality.org http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d
Re: [vos-d] Animation comment
Ken Taylor wrote: Jonathan Jones wrote: James Wilkins wrote: [streaming animations is good for syncronization] [do as much as possible client-side] A good compromise may be to have certain movements be activated by higher-level scripting (such as walking animations), and others be fully actuated (such as which direction the head is looking). Of course, as motion-sensing VR type hardware becomes more common, more people will want higher actuation in their avatars for immersion purposes. The amount of real-time actuation to use should probably be configurable by the clients and the servers. For instance, the client controlling the avatar can set up how much actuation to send out on the network, the server running the space can have a quota or limit of the amount of actuation bandwidth allowed per client and the types of actuation allowed, and another viewing client can tell the server what kinds of actuation and how much bandwidth it wants to receive. This way, users with the bandwidth can have a rich experience, while those with slower connections don't get totally left behind. Ken Can I propose a change in nomenclature? As has been pointed out before, we're talking about clients and servers, but VOS is technically P2P, so I propose we talk about fast-side and slow-side, or local and remote. Hopefully this conveys what we mean by client and server, but fits in better with the P2P architecture. I don't really see why most peers need to know *exactly* where someone is looking, if you have a couple of defined look-positions, and then a look-at (object), most of the hard stuff can be done fast-side. -sconzey begin:vcard fn:Jonathan Jones n:Jones;Jonathan email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] version:2.1 end:vcard ___ vos-d mailing list vos-d@interreality.org http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d
Re: [vos-d] [planning] When are we content-ready?
Okay, I'd love to work on that... I'm just not sure where to start. Is there a native VOS format? Or are we having VOS resource files in XML that specify other file formats for the various aspects of a VOS object? I know that WorldBuilder have an open-source spinoff project that have a pretty decent skeleton-based model system. It seems foolish to reinvent the wheel. -sconzey Peter Amstutz wrote: To start you off: - Support for skeleton-based animation Agreed. Actually, we need to do a whole design for animation in VOS in general, both skeletal and keyframe. ___ vos-d mailing list vos-d@interreality.org http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d
[vos-d] [planning] When are we content-ready?
I think it would be a great idea to, on the Wiki, create a list of the things that need to be done before we're completely content-ready. To start you off: - Support for skeleton-based animation - Complete import/export support to and from blender, for both worlds and avatars. - Physics. What ya'll think? -sconzey ___ vos-d mailing list vos-d@interreality.org http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d
Re: [vos-d] New VOS classes
Probably the best thing to do is to write a class physics object first to give us a point where we can start the physics engine. Then have your vehicle as a descendant. Jason Moyers wrote: Hello all, I have spent the last week modeling a motorcycle in blender ( http://interreality.org/~masonjoyers/crotchrocket/index.html http://interreality.org/%7Emasonjoyers/crotchrocket/index.html ) and now that I have this spiffy model, I want to drive it around. To accomplish this I think I will add a vehicle class in A3DL. The question is what form of physics is currently working with VOS? I know Peter was playing around with ODE a few months ago, but I don't think that turned out so well. I believe currently physics is emulated via the client. I would like to have basic physics for the vehicle class, the drive torque is applied to the proper wheels, center of gravity is applied, etc.. So should I attempt to play with ODE? or should I just emulate my own physics code in the vehicle class? -Jason ___ vos-d mailing list vos-d@interreality.org http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d ___ vos-d mailing list vos-d@interreality.org http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d
Re: [vos-d] Re: vip/userinterface
Lalo Martins wrote: And so says Reed Hedges on 17/12/05 00:28... How about: * TerAngreal could include in its own site a home 3d world! This would be your private, local world. When you start TerAngreal, it could initially connect to this world. The contents of this world would be saved in a XOD file; if that file doesn't exist, it would create a minimal default that contains some text/image objects that welcome you, tell you what the default controlls are, etc. In the future, TerAngreal will have editing controls and you could modify the world. This private world could even contain 3d representations of all of the things TerAngreal uses Vobjects to store info in (e.g. your preferences are Vobjects, they could be editable in 3d)! Heh, that's a really cool idea... -sconzey ___ vos-d mailing list vos-d@interreality.org http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d
Re: [vos-d] Re: [aims]
Yeah, I myself dream of a 3D gui to an operating system, where a desktop really is just that. Lalo Martins wrote: And so says Jonathan Jones on 11/12/05 02:37... Just out of interest, forget sourceforge, forget the website, in your minds, what do you aim to acheive with this project? Me, I want the 3dui - the everyday UI you use to do stuff. This is at the same time more and less interesting, because there are already a few functional 3duis. ___ vos-d mailing list vos-d@interreality.org http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d
Re: [vos-d] [browser] UI ideas
That's an important distinction. Is the chat code going to be integral to the VOS protocol, or is it going to be relegated to the role of a standard plugin? Lalo Martins wrote: I was talking to Peter on IRC about UI flexibility - how to allow the browser to adapt itself for games and whatnot - and defending the idea that client-side code (as in code downloaded from the site) is a can of worms that doesn't need to be opened yet. ___ vos-d mailing list vos-d@interreality.org http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d
