===
Time-awareness in VOS
===
:author: Lalo Martins
:date: 2006-12-01
:status: braindump
:abstract: Thoughts and designs on time-aware VOS vObjects
.. For those not familiar with the concept, “braindump” is an early
stage of discussion, a writeup that
Peter Amstutz wrote:
I'm pretty far from deciding at all how this would work, but it is
certain that we need a time parameter for animation, so it is worth
exploring fully the potential benefit of introducing a deep concept of
(relative!) time into VOS.
Interesting though there is a
It seems to me that streaming animations would be relatively easy in the VOS
system. You could simply set up a listener to changes in the position and
orientation of the vertices/nodes of the model that's animating, and update
the values locally as they come in. Similar to how avatar movement is
On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 02:21:48 -0800, Ken Taylor wrote:
Double-caveat: I still haven't dug in and figured out how the current
implementation of VOS-as-a-3d-virtual-world-server really works yet. Maybe
I should go and do that before blabbing and speculating too much on this
list
To those
It's a great idea in theory. Downright intriguing. I never thought of it
before.
But the question comes; How often do you choose to update it? What will each
user be missing, if one user gets a vector that tells them 'in this
timeframe, move this vertex through this vector', and the next user in
The trick here is divide and conquer. VOS represents these objects with
a lot of granularity, so the updates that actually go trough the network
end up being quite small.
Also, the protocol has built-in support for updates, scheduling, and
invalidation. If three updates to the same object are
Hi everyone!
Being mainly a lurker myself, I regrettably haven't followed the
recent design discussions too closely. However, when considering the
topics of scripting and animation, I believe it is very important to
keep the aspect of world semantics in mind. There are lots of 3D
engines
Peter Amstutz wrote:
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 07:36:54PM -0700, S Mattison wrote:
What I have, basically, is a design document,
I'd be interested to see your ideas in more detail also (did I miss an
email message somewhere?), to see what kinds of key features and
abilities it's going after.
S Mattison wrote:
Personally, I think unless Terangreal is written so that content is
dynamically polled from XML documents, it'd be difficult for the average
layperson to write modifications... (Unless it's already like that and I
didn't read the manual close enough. I'll go back and read it
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
Let me contribute one more animal to the vobject graph language
zoo... In my own framework I currently map VOS to RDF (Resource
Description Format). The mapping is somewhat ad-hoc, but works nicely
for me. I'd appreciate comments and suggestions!
Mapping VOS graphs to RDF is
Oops, sorry for the weird formatting. Apple Mail somehow messed up my
copy/paste action there.
Reviewing this, I remember a few things that struck my attention
while I was working with barebones VOS (e.g. without the official
codebase). Maybe it is not too late to consider this for the s5
Jonathan Jones wrote:
James Wilkins wrote:
Anyway, have you considered supporting streaming animations in addition
to pre-recorded ones? One thing I've noticed about existing 3d
environments is that making avatars move realistically is rather hard:
you have to have all desired motions
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),
Now-ish is a great interpretation of it. The server can't send everyone a
packet every nanosecond.
And I don't think it should 'degrade' to server-client, I think that all
machines should be servers of their own spaces. At least, that's how it
worked out in my head, for my VOS. (And when I
As long as we can get the VOS guys to realize that We're all on the local
side.
TerAngreal is Local. OmniVos server and everything it transfers is
Remote.
Sounds like a good convention otherwise. =)
On 12/1/06, Jonathan Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can I propose a change in nomenclature?
Peter Amstutz wrote:
We probably need some kind of locking and/or transactions eventually
anyhow. That's another can of worms.
I think this is definitely needed and may even be worth getting a sketch of
it into s5 if possible. Even something simple, like being able to
temporarily lock an object
17 matches
Mail list logo
