Re: Common Objects

D. Owen Rowley ([email protected])
Mon, 29 May 1995 13:08:40 -0700

At 11:44 AM 5/29/95 -0400, Richard Tilmann wrote:
>Perhaps I have missed a part of this thread, but I have a concern.
>
>I understand the concern for seeking efficiencies in use of bandwidth,
>but .... the use of 'common objects' seems to move away from the ability
>to design and create unique and individualized VR spaces. I've seen an
>increasing number of convolutions and complexities added to the original
>idea in order to address issues of orientation, scale, color, surface
>maping, etc. that we are almost right back to the place we started from.

I think there is a middle ground however.

there are some really common objects that may make sense to define, and
no doubt groups of individuals will want to share some common objects as
defined by particular applications.

CAD design, has shown the value of templates, and I think it will be a value
to the VRML community to have *3D templates.
To that end I prefer a set of standard bounding box sizes which will allow
a volumetric parsing to occur at the lowest level of detail - perhaps a
level that is never rendered unless asked for.

This would need to be something akin to the various canonical paper sizes,
and the grid systems of page design.

LUX ./. owen
D. Owen Rowley - [email protected] - http://tcc.net.org/~owen
Organ Grinder: The Community Company LTD. http://tcc.net.org/~tcc
What this industry needs are good "people-oriented" cyberspace applications
- Because the world isn't just 3D -