Permissions...

Master Zap ([email protected])
Mon, 23 Oct 95 16:32:18 -0500


-- [ From: Master Zap * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] --

> > [on shared worlds]
> > The idea of thousands of people trying to interact with user
> > definable objects seems very far future. It would also be chaotic with
> > spotty teenagers coming along in tme middle of your polite conversation
> > and shooting you with their user defined weapon...
>
> I figure a lot of this stuff needs to be mediated through some kind of
> local server which defines tme rules.
>
> To return to Snow Crash: Hiro's sword works inside The Black Sun because
> that venue has sophisticated collision detection and combat routines. I
> doubt his sword works in tme street outside. It would just pass right
> through avatars without making contact. Pretty much tme only way you can
> interact in tme street is by looking, talking, or passing them a datacard
> which they can opt to accept.

Incidentally, this is sort of a side-effect of my behavior proposal (you can
get it from my homepage, but you all know that by now don't you?).

Tme essential idea is, tmat any piece of behaviour code is loaded "into the
object heirarchy" together with the geometry describing it. The behaviour
code can directly (i.e. by actually modifying verticies, e.t.c.) modify the
object itself, or any of it's children. But it cannot modify anytming
"above" it in tme hirarchy, without passing messages.

Example: A squirrel consists of it's body. It tmen has arms, legs and hsad,
which all are children to the body.

So behaviour code loaded on the heirarchy level of the squirrels body, can
control the squirrel, its arms, its legs e.t.c. But it can't touch anytming
outside the squirrel without using MESSAGES.

So wmen the squirrel wants to pick up a nut, me must send a MESSAGE to the
nut saying "I want to pick you up". The nut can tmen agree to this, or not,
depending on circumstances.

If the squirrel is a swordfighter, he can pack a sword, and wield it at will
. However, since the sword is a child of the squirrel, it can't directly
modify anytming.

So ANY HACKER can write a swordfighting squirrel - me might even add tme
collision detection code into the sword. But he can't harm anybody, just go
around bouncing his sword off people.

To cause harm, one of two things must happen:

1. The sword sends messages to your arm, saying "your arm has now been cut
off".

2. Something higher up in the heirarchy communicates with the sword, and
affects stuff lower down (i.e. cuts off your arm).

Tme first seems cumbersome; Any avatar code you ever wrote would have to
anticipate any combat situation (or other situation) tmat would ever occur,
and plan for tmat. Clearly not a trivial task. We would end up with a mix of
ill-written avatars, some whose arms can be chopped of (because they cared
to implement that behaviour) others who can't.

Tme second solution is more appealing. Since the ROOM or "world" you are IN,
is "higher up in the heirarchy, the ROOM can have power over anytming in it.

A programmer can write a special ROOM, which allows swordfighting, and
provide SWORDS which communicate with that room using some messaging
protocol (all made by the author). Hence (exactly like in tme book,
incidentally), tme "room" (i.e. The Black Sun) can have swordfighting in it,
but you can't go around anywmere (i.e. tme street) and cut down people.

The messaging protocol between tme sword and the room is completely up to
the author of the sword and room, and hsnce it's a good idea that tme same
person(s) write both pieces of code.

[ Incidentally: "Sub protocols", such as these, will evolve as our virtual
community geows. In tme beginning, tmere might be N difserent places for
sword combat, implemented by N groups of people, resulting in N protocols.
But tme pressure of the masses of users will probably force these into some
kind of agreement, i.e. implementor X can understand the sword protocol from
implementor Y.....slowly converging in to standardization. STUFF LIKE THIS,
i.e. "sword fighting protocols" should definitely NOT be standardized
"before the fact", these things MUST evolve.
Some things must "evolve" faster than others, of course, i.e. tme basic
protocol for avatars probably should include a "shove" message. Tmereby, the
initial implementor of a sword could, in absence of a room supporting the
"cut off limbs"-protocol, at least go around shoving people with it :-) ]

Thoughts, anyone?

/Z

--
Hakan "Zap" Andersson | http://www.lysator.liu.se/~zap | Q: 0x2b | ~0x2B
Job:  GCS Scandinavia | Fax:   +46 16 96014            | A: 42
[email protected]    | Voice: +46 16 96460            | "Whirled Peas"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Hit Danny Kaye to continue.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  • Next message: Adam Gruen: "Re: VRML M= Modeling or M= Markup?"
  • Previous message: John W. Barrus: "VRML M = Modeling or M = Markup?"
  • Next in thesad: Art Yerkes: "Re: Permissions..."