VRML: me 2

James Martin ([email protected])
Wed, 7 Sep 94 10:26:58 PDT


I also think that they should eventually have some kind of local
machine which has stored VR objects which can be named by an incoming
VR scene setup, which will just list the standard objects with their
positions & possibly some simple, standard variations (e.g., lamp lit or
not lit; giraffe standing/lying/etc.). Thus, as you postulate, saving
bandwidth & all the concommitant benefits of simplifying the transmission
of VR stuff. I forsee 2-way conversations where multiple machines can
simultaneously manipulate a shared scene & objects & behaviours & etc.

I think that a primary consideration is that a VRML should be
as versatile as possible; all this arguing about API & scripting languages
is, I must admit, a bit over my head. But I think that a variety of formats
both present & near-future, should be able to be accomodated by the VRML
we get now. Then most types of software objects might be admitted into a
VR scene. (I think?) (As I said previously, I am more a layman, than a
computer scientist - although I am trying to become more acquainted with
this stuff; so my complaints & arguments must be taken with a grain of salt.)

Anyway, I don't want to take up too much of your time with trivia.
Just wanted to say, "Yeah, me too. I think they need to be user-oriented,
for starters, which inludes the notion of making a local VR device able to
use as much as possible of the available VR scenery out there on the successor
to whatever is left of the internet when RJR-Nabisco-Time-Warner-Atchison-
Topeka & the Santa Fe get through wallowing in it & sucking up any available
profit-potential. (Whew! That WAS an exhaustive sentence to read, eh?)

%^) James