Re: Distributed Collision Detection

Mitea ([email protected])
Thu, 12 Oct 1995 07:33:34 -0700

At 3:26 PM 10/10/95, Braddock wrote:
>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.

If your processer kicks off 50 bouncing balls, then it should be
responsible for the
collision handling, if it can't then it needs to think a lot more about its
application
design.

>There is a possible third option however.(c) If we can integrate into the
>grand 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.
>
>Perhaps this type of need warrents the allowance for a protocol that sits
>on top of the eventual VRML...a system that allows for nodes of local
>code which can coordinate their efforts on shared problems.

There are always going to be the need for special case protocols to support
very steange
behaviors (like being responsible for more objects then you can handle).
IMHO this doesn't belong in
VRML but in whatever application is handling this kind of thing.
- Mitea

=================================================================
Mitea
[email protected]
Internet Consulting
(415)826-2499
<http://earth.path.net/mitea>
fax (415)826-4423

  • Next message: Reb Matrix: "LANG: Java toolkit, where can it be had?"
  • Previous message: Jan Hardenbergh: "RE: 2nd Questionaire"
  • Maybe in reply to: Braddock Gaskill: "Distributed Collision Detection"
  • Next in thesad: Braddock: "Re: Distributed Collision Detection"