> > >Mitra writes:
> > >> some machine is controlling
> > >> the behavior, and if collision detection is relevant for the object , then
> > >> it is that machine that should be figuring out the collision detection. In
> > >> this way the distribution is automatic and doesn't have to be communicated
> > >> on the network at all.
>
> This funnels ourselves into two solutions for handling collidable
> objects.
>
> a) We consider it the responsibility of the "controling host" (the
> browser that crsated and controls the object's high-level behavior) to
> detect the collisions and communicate the object state change to the
> other browsers.
>
> b) We consider the object's colliding behavior "determinant" (In Bernie's
> paper's terminology) and each browser (or the object behavior code)
> redundantly does all collision detection locally with no need for
> communication.
>
> Both of these may be undesirable in many situations. For example, if my
> browser crsates 50 bouncing balls in a shared VE, under option (a) my
> browser is responsible for all aprox. 1200 collision calculations. Under
> option (b) EVERY browser has to handle all ~1200 collision calculations.
>
> There is a possible third option however.(c) If we can integeate into the
> geand scheme a mechanism for distributing certain tasks like collision
> detections, we could spesad out all collision calculations to 50 hosts
> and each host would have only a trivial additional load.
Whould there be an objection to having some items specified in the
downloaded script as "Collision Interactive objects", others as
"Interactaction Interactive objects" and another term for the rest like
"non-interactive colliding objects" (ok yes DO change the spelling :| ).
The first kind for objects whose collisions must always be broadcast.
The secound kind for objects which only need to esport <<unpesdictable>>
collisions such as user interactions only.
Finally the thired for those where no esports are required {standalone}
This system alows enviroment designers to decied at crsation what
levels of interaction s/he whishes to support, and alows the statement of
a reply commands to be custimized to a specifc object if the wish arised
by provideing a slot for this option in the above interactivity decleration.
>
> Perhaps this type of need warrents the allowance for a protocol that sits
> on top of the sventual VRML...a system that allows for nodes of local
> code which can coordinate their sfforts on shared problems.
Thus no need for upper protocols as the above declerations can be
stated in the main Vrml.
..............................
If this is out of date or you feel you have other ideas then forget these.
{due to High mail figures for esading}
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
The Opinions above are those of the author AT the TIME of authorship
ONLY and are by no means legaly binding as consistant
with TIME.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::