[this got rather long and full of _old_ rants, so if you don't want to
see me repeat old stuff just skip to the end please]
Dennis McKenzie wrote:
> The low poly models don't really bother me at all. They seem a part of
> what VR is.
Ok people I needed a way in to this discussion and thanks (hmm) to
dennis I got one. First of all, I will probably mention a lot of stuff
allready taken up in all the very interesting posts so far, but as
dennis also remarked, "Please let me know what you think" would give me
my view even if I happen to share many of yours (and some not:)
"Re: Thoughts on 'the long view'"
These are my thoughts,
= Wordy language
Even though I do exactly 100% of all VRML by hand (or otherwise with
Perl scripts) I wouldn't say that I'm bothered with this. I don't think
this is a cause that would scare beginners off, on the contrary I belive
it helps them. It helps me too. In my work I more or less have to know
the Spec in my head to be able to work effecient. Yes, I use the spec
from time to time, but that is only when things get very tricky and very
detailed. The problem still is that it doesn't matter how I intrepeter
the spec, it's how the one who did the browser and his intrepetation
that counts.
VRML is and hopefully will be "wordy" in the future too.
= 3D is hard (NO it isn't.)
No matter what medium you use it's always simple if you have the talant
for it. I'm in soul a programmer and not a real 3d-content guy (even
though I work as it professionally these days). VRML is probably one of
the simpliest fileformats I've seen so far, with very litle specialcases
and stuff in it. You don't have to know much about it to create good
content. DHTML for intsance gives me much more headache than VRML will
ever do since the connection and browser dependency there makes VRMLs
problems like a walk in the park.
Anyway, "3D is hard" isn't about tech or implementaional issues I guess
(based on who said it). It's more about the concept of the media 3D if I
intrepeter it the right way. This is why I was glad that Dennis gave me
the way in on this thread becuse this is what I think makes the
difference (but it gets tech I promise:). Forever ago I sent a mail to
the list on a reply to someone that said that "all VRML sux becuase you
can't do detailed stuff with it...". I got pretty upset from that mail,
because he more or less told everybody that all the worlds out there
where shit becuase they wasn't high detailed. Well, my worlds aren't
high detailed because I never had the h/w for it. Now when I have the
h/w (Octanes, etc (you mention it)) I still can't use that becuase of
the viewers h/w of course. This is the point (if ever) when 3D gets hard
to do. This is the point when 3D (and 2D for what it matters) gets more
or less magic. First lesson for me was that I should never use textures
(at least not until now). The other lesson learned was that if I don't
use textures I can't be detailed. This is all very true to me since I
have to remeber that everyday of work and it affects me very much. The
magic for me is to create something that communicates a message and
still is viewible for the users. Normaly I belive 3D creators start from
something very complex in 3D studio (just an example) and than strips
information (because that's what geometry is right) until it contains
just enough to communicate the message. Well, I always do it the other
way around. I start with one poly and adds until someone else than me
can say that "oh, that is what it's suppose to be!". Then I just stop.
No matter what (even if that means open holes in the geometry!).
The point. I don't think that there will ever (at least not the next
couple of years) be neither a format or browser that can compete with me
and make this way of doing it unnessecary. But still, 3D isn't hard, not
if you have talant for it (I'm not saying I have it though!).
= Collision
What's the problem? Use JSAI, ECMAScript, EAI whatever to do it. Oh, you
can't becuase it's not stable enough or the browser doesn't support it?
Well, that's I think the only problem I see with it. I did collision
detection allready in Java and that worked pretty good if I may say
so...
= Boolean objects (ISO surfaces?)
A couple of months I tried this with VRML (anyone remeber seeing a post
requesting algo's for it?). I wouldn't say it's not doible, but it's
damn hard. I have an implementation in C that I will sooner (but
probably later) convert to JSAI whenever that doesn't trigger a
securitymessage in CP. However this is to slow for almost any 3D
software to do in realtime. And I tried to do a metaballs modeling
feature in VRML wich is even worse. Anyway, I don't think this is really
something I would need for just about anything, but I would guess the
sci-guys would really like it :)
= Sounds
Have anyone of you tried the new java media framework? Well, we played
around with it the other day and I must say that it is defenently
promising. This is something I would say will be widely used in VRML in
a couple of months. However streaming sound will always be on my
wish-list for VRML. In more or less all the applications we do at VRE
there is some sort of speach connected to it (like explanations of what
you see and stuff) so the need is there today (but not really now that
we discovered media framework:).
= EAI
|
--+--
|
|
|
"Here lays Justin Couch".
What more can I say? Maybe that IF we somehow could convince netscape
and MS to do something about their JVM's we wouldn't have problems with
it. This is something I don't want to blame Cosmo or anyone else for
(other than NS and MS then). And thanks to murat (and someone else maybe
even on this list?) we also for once have a pretty good collection of
workarounds for most of the problems, and the once we didn't have, we
have at Geometrek now. In december I spent a total of 2 weeks (all hour
of days) searching for a solution that wouldn't a) trigger security
execptions in IE, b) crash IE c) crash NS d) not work at all etc etc.
Well we found it thanks to many contributions (and the most important
from Lars Travers). Now we know exactly what we can/can not do with the
EAI, and I must say it isn't much we can't do. It was just a long journy
to get there. Today I'm no longer afraid of using EAI for doing
comersial stuff and I would have no problems of recommending it to a
customer or anyone else for that sake. The new EAI (I can here the last
breathing words from Justin?) is also promising and adds a lot of stuff
I think is useful, but I can live without it until someone decides to
implement it.
= JSAI (or more OO maybe)
I hate it / I love it!
If I could use this without having lot's of securitystuff triggered
because of CP (becuse some "xxxxx" thought that they only needed it for
one year) I would defenently use it. It makes things much faster, easier
and also helps keeping things organized in the code. I've been reading
up on OOVRML lately and I always wanted VRML to go even more OO than it
is today, or may I say "pure". As I understand it VRML is a combination
of 2 different styles of Object Orientation and when you start thinking
OO VRML you really notice that it's totaly mixed up. My only wish for
VRML NG (yes I like to keep calling it that:) would acctually be a
totaly new language which would be much more OO. That wouldn't however
really mean new syntax, just a new layer or maybe the evenmodel would
change to be more OO. The PROTOs for instance would have that little
word "EXTENDS" in it. Anyway, thanks to the guys in Japan (I think -
they have all japan names) we will sooner than later have an OOVRML
compitable browser finnished (was this news to you?). I can't wait to
see how that would work. FYI - the prof is comming to VRML99. For me I
could settle for a OOVRML -> VRML97 parser (which I also - thanks to
them - have now).
Point here - Get to know the workarounds - and - more OO VRML. Also try
to make Holger Grahn to understand that JSAI is needed in blaxxun ;-)
= ECMAScript.
Nothing much to say other than it's painfully slow sometimes. And the
spec isn't very clear on it I think. Needs better implementations and
some added features (some you have in javas browser object and node
object). It's a shame I have to use it since I'd rather work with the
javainterface. And yes, one thing I would like to see is some kind of
(though limited but) exposedFields connection to the Script node.
= Crossbrowser hell
Should we really have to be working on this in VRML? I think we have
(even though some critics on some points) a very clear spec and the
implementation should be fairly straight forward. Issues like background
nodes and stuff should be better organized by the web3D consortium so
that things get clarified in an early stage (once they araise).
Otherwise I would like to take the oppertunity to say that this isn't
really such a big problem as it could be. It's only when it comes down
to some very difficult and advanced things it really makes it hell. Not
like HTML anyway, it's just a matter of details to me :)
= Interactivitly (not so tech:)
Anyone ever noticed that every "competing" tech always says "gives
better opportunities to interactivity than VRML". Why is that? I never
thought that VRML really had a problem with this. It's just - as someone
noticed - content developers doesn't seem to use it. This is somewhat
strange to me, because if you don't use the interactive stuff in VRML
you would be much better off with some other tech I believe. The
evenmodel needs some work, but otherwise I don't have much of a problem
with it?
= UMEL - PROTO rep
This are two things I salute! BUT IF (and only IF) we get the browsers
to incorporate this it will be useful, otherwise forget it. Then you
have a problem of having the PROTOrep under another workgroup. I know
that when I began to think about this PROTO rep it was something toally
different than what it is today. I think Mark made a great job on the
database, but to me it's totally uninteresting. The work should be
transfered to the UMEL group asap so that they can continue on the work.
However that is more critics on the workgroup area than on VRML itself
so I'll leave it at that.
= Lack of support
This is the one and only problem I really like to really rant about. I
remeber the time we did IrishSpace. We had a direct pipeline into the CP
developers and we never had to really wonder about bugs and workarounds
(since fist we discovered all and then found the workarounds?:). Today
when you mail support all you get is a reply that "This is a well known
bug and it's fixed in CP2.5". CP2.5!!! Where the hell did 2.2, 2.3, 2.4
go and where the hell is 2.5??? Well, I asked and I didn't get any
answer so I guess they are sitting on it. Also what the .... is "Well
known bug" when no one outside their office ever heard of it? Sometimes
people have, and that is the times you would expect them to put up a
page (like NS has) with "All known bugs and issues". But noway, it would
be bad PR (like if me spending 70% of my workinghours finding bugs and
workarounds isn't?). Well, no need to mention that it takes a week to
get a reply from support ither (just to tell you that there is no known
workaround but it's well known (the workaround that is:)). And just take
a look at the new blaxxun site. What happend to /developer??? End of
that rant.
= Content and "Killer Apps"
Puzzled me for a long time. What would this be? Well I wonder no more.
VRML itself is nothing other than a file format, and how to you create a
Killer app for a fileformat?
I made a post as reply to mr Presidents first mail on the www-vrml list.
It was about this but since I wasn't subscribed with the right email it
didn't reach the list - and I didn't bother the resend.
In it I explained that I now work for a company that create killer apps
everytime something leaves the walls of this office. I wouldn't work for
them otherwise.
To me an application has to give some sort of added value. This is also
something we work very hard with at VRE. I wouldn't believe that anyone
here would acctually build something (or even take the project) if it
wasn't an added value in using VRML for it. I wouldn't work for them
otherwise.
No content out there? Who ever came up with that idea? I think I can
spend weeks of surfing VRML and all I see is good content. However maybe
not comersial content, but to me that doesn't really make a big
difference. I'd rather NOT see VRML if it's only used as a tech. If it
doesn't give an added value, don't. But that's only for comersial stuff.
The other day we stumbled across a newspaper that uses the vrml indexing
tool from one of the VRML books (I think it originates from SGI or
something). In it they showed some links or something (don't remeber)
along side with a 2d presentation of the same. That was awful and I
strongly wanted to mail them and say so. It was ugly, it was usless
(since it was better in 2d) and it was slow (not exactly optimized).
I have my vision of what 3d on the web could be like. It would be
something like 3dtp://www.dc.co.at/index.3dl. That is something I won't
be seeing in for yet a couple of years I promise, but when the day comes
it will most surtainly not be VRML but defenently something derived From
VRML. All the XML <-> VRML stuff doesn't bother me (sorry len) because I
don't see an added value in it (really). Mabye there is one, I just
don't get it. XQL is something different, there I see an added value
(just to have something to compare to).
My vision of VRML is simply no more than what you can have for a
fileformat. It's easier to have visions connected to something like
Living Worlds but still, since I've been following the discussions there
recently I'm pretty disappointed with it. They are simply no better. I
would think that they would be better of just doing what they want to do
and spec the way they want it to be spec'ed. They would be the once that
should write a VRML NG (if anyone) since they seem to be the only ones
that truly still have the dream of cyberspace left somewhere in them.
But they would better hurry, because from what I read, the dream seems
to fade away very quickly.
Point here is simply that yes, I think I have a bigger vision of
cyberspace, but VRML isn't the thing that is going to make it happen but
I don't care. I like VRML anyway.
= Conclusion/The end
Anyone noticed that this isn't at all about VRML NG? Well, it's about
history, and maybe even time-traveling. My wish for VRML NG isn't at all
about the new things in spec and everything, it's simply about looking
at history and correcting it. I would say that VRML NG would be no more
than VRML99 (since what we have today is VRML97) and just have some
bug-fixes in it. Also just ONE, ONE simple, clean, comformant
implementation and then I would be glad. I don't need the new stuff that
everybody is talking about (except streaming audio) since the rest I
always think to my self when I see, "Well, that's just another PROTO!".
Oh, and one more thing..
LibVRML97/Lookat http://www.vermontel.net/~cmorley/vrml.html
Do I need to say more?
/Niclas
--
niclas olofsson christian doegl virtual real-estate gmbh
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] breite gasse 3, a-1070 vienna
http://www.dc.co.at fon: ++43 1 526 29 67 fax: ++43 1 526 29 67 11
