I agree with the above statement with one further point:
The local lighting value should be able to be interrogated.
In lighting design (what my brother does for a living) there
are specifications about the number of lumens that a work surface
has to have. There are reams of these sorts of specs and they
are very useful. I used some of the simpliest equations and specs
when installing my track lighting system in my living room and
ended up with a much better system than had I just guessed.
Thus, a "lighting probe" could be used so that someone could
ask about how much light was hitting some-such table surface,
kitchen counter, desk, etc.
There are also reams of specs about how much light the various
bulbs put out. Thus, lighting models use calibrated sources
(from a library of bulbs or fixtures) and you get
calibrated results on all the surfaces. Then as a lighting
designer, you just walk around the space with your "lighting
probe" to make sure that everything is lit correctly. If not,
just tweek the bulb.
I see this as being a big-time real word use of VRML. Forget
data gloves, spandex black suits, trampolenes, data feet,
space registering IR systems. The simple calibrated bulbs would
make anyone selling a VRML viewer lots of $$$. Or give away the
viewer and just sell libraries of calibrated bulbs. Just like
circuit modeling packages sell libraries of components. The
base modeling code is farily generic, it's the fine tuned
libraries that differentiate the packages. Does the marketing
banta "razors and razor blades" come to mind???
Just a few thoughts.
Scott Nelson
--+----------------------------------------------------+ |Scott D. Nelson B131 Rm2074 3-1250 | |Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory | |7000 East Ave., L-153 Livermore CA 94550 | |email: [email protected] http://www-dsed.llnl.gov/ | +----------------------------------------------------+