>> 2) You don't seem to get any interactivity other than traversing the
>> scene.
>Well, the scene evolves around you. And others could be there, adding
>their 2 G's. Isn't that what interactivity is?
>
>The updated VRML could include text written by someone. I definitely
>see this as using some htmls forms in all their glory, to submit some
>words. Or click on VRML sign language nodes to mimic forms!
What I mean is avatar actions--not only do I want my avatar to be able to
translate in space, but I want to be able to fence, do jumping jacks, and
sit down. Something is better than nothing, but this is a limitation.
>> 3) Do we really want a partial solution, or do we wait for the big
>> enchilada?
>The great thing about this is that it doesn't seem like
>we'd be creating any problems in the 1.0 Spec, which seemed to be
>the main concern about rushing into this stuff. It's certainly a Do-It
>Yourself Hack, but it'll really make VRML def killer! I mean,
>hey, think about the Net without Interactivity, that's like
>the old days of Prodigy when they didn't set it up for people to
>communicate with each other -- just envisioned people downloading
>news and buying stuff == this'll really make things ROCK!
>
>We can build the sweet stuff into 2.0 -- in the meantime the locus
>of interactivity can be in the browser updates and CGI.
The only thing to fear is that everyone gets used to kludges, and that
screws up the path to 2.0.
>> you might nail a
>> toolbar to the camera to get more user "actions." They could process
>> their own CGI stuff.
>How would this work? I don't quite understand . These cameras always get
>me mixed up.
If I understand some other recent posts correctly, it's possible to attach
objects as children of the camera. If that's correct, you float toolbar
icons, and they stay put on the screen. I think.
If you can't do this, then you float little action objects in the view
somewhere, and move them back into view whenever the room updates.
This way you could get actions, not just movement.
>> 3) The server for the main file could even inline other people's avatars,
>> and move them around accordingly. Again, there may not be any clear way to
>> sync them properly.
>
>EXACTLY! That was certainly my intention. The Sync will suck, but hey,
>maybe not. I see lots of sneaky ways through CGI to get the sync
>to get it totally Boss (most excellent).
How? Do you pipeline the updates to a central server and feed it all down
at once? Or do you have something else in mind?
>> I don't know how this could get you chat without some extensions or another
>> window, and I'm not even sure it's a good idea to implement this kind of
>> partial solution, but if we want this kind of thing at all, I think this
>> approach would work a bit better.
>I think this would be certainly most righteous. Think about our time
>frame... How many people want to wait, what, another 6 months? The
>main concern before was about the sacred spec, but this avoids
>that problem and gets us part of the way there!
>
>It might be like walking in slowmotion , or having low frames/second, but
>it could get going quite nicely. Certainly with all the tricks I've got
>up my sleeve for implementing this kind of thing -- I think it can be
>wonderful.
I agree. I would love to be able to implement this stuff, and it would
spread a lot faster than static 3D. I'm just worried that defining a
kludgy interaction protocol "for temporary use" may come under a lot of
fire.
--Andy
[email protected]