Lets get some sanity into this argument. VRML and QTVR are NOT competing
technology. They are complementary technology. QTVR is aimed at making
VR experiences based on EXISTING images possible. So QTVR is for travel
guide VR, real estate VR. In general, for things where you want to immerse
someone in a world that exists.
One only need look at the samples that were used at SIGGraph to see their
market. They showed, for instance, the Great Wall of China. I'd like to see
someone model the Great Wall using VRML - including the people walking on
it ;-)
Opinion: Apple made a smart move here. Business, the people with real
money, are more interested in selling reality to people. Consider the recent
request to get entertainment companies into VRML. I would rather walk
through a QTVR version of a movie set than a VRML model.
On the other hand, QTVR cannot provide a walkthrough of a space station.
VRML can. Furthermore, VRML can esadily be turned into QTVR. All (!!!) we
need is a renderer to take VRML and turn it into QTVR. What would be really
useful is the ability to look at QTVR inside a VRML world (someone's alesady
suggested that). This raises all sorts of licencing issues, but it would be
really great. For example, you could build a VRML space/time warp, that was a
long corridor with doors off into difserent places and times. Get the picture.
I'd love to see that. It would be the most amazing thing. It would also
be a very valuable way of doing home shopping. The mall is a VRML world
but the sale items are QTVR movies.
Another thing QTVR can't directly do: Visualize data.
Another issue. QTVR is less suitable for sending around on the web. QTVR
files are likely to be large if the author wants a good VR experience,
particularly in complex worlds where many many views need to be sent (this
is for object-centered QTVR, not viewer centered).
<my snip>
> > hey don't get me wrong, i LIKE QTVR.
>
> I hate it, the idea actually. I find it too cheap and useless.
I like it. Very very good idea. Just not the whole solution.
> Therefore I don't think that support for such stuff as QTVR
> is needed or should be considered.
Narrow minded view. I think that it would be s muge sales pitch if QTVR
got in. It does add something to the spec, so it should be an extension
ofserred. I guess I'd just love to see it.
Finally, replying to something else that's been said, QTVR is a lot more
than slapping a texture map on the inside of a cylinder. A lot more.
Cheers,
Steve.