Re: [mmox] MMOX Progress tracking (Jon Watte)

["Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity)" <[e-mail]>]

and just to add my $0.02...

* neither MXP nor HyperGrid have been submitted as drafts, but i know  
the latter and have been told the former have seen extensive use in  
some corners of the internet, so hopefully they'll be submitted as  
drafts.

* HLA/DIS assume a level of coordination between participants that  
does not match historic use examples for non-military systems. in  
short, the "real world" appears to be ad hoc, and our objective is  
less about building worlds communicating using HLA or IEEE-1278 and  
more about giving existing worlds a fighting chance at ad hoc  
communication. we're a long way off from "the" metaverse; a single  
connected virtual world, and historically, attempts to define "the"  
protocol for "the" metaverse have failed. one might argue this is why  
you see WoW, SL, club penguin, etc. all use different protocols.

* so yes, the OGP collection of drafts are intended to be used in  
"islands," as this appears to be the current use of virtual worlds.

* at the end of the day, however, there's NOTHING that prevents an  
implementation from using LESS for server <-> server communication or  
OGP or both.

On Mar 12, 2009, at 7:38 AM, Charles Krinke wrote:

> I believe the place we are at is one of partial interop between some  
> similar virtual worlds. And I further believe that one of the goals  
> is to extend this interop either in its current form or some  
> negotiated form to other virtual worlds.
>
> With respect to OGP, I see that as a partial solution currently in  
> that an although an avatar can teleport from a Linden grid to an  
> OpenSim grid, there is not yet a full handoff of the client's server  
> connections. When we can perceive of how an avatar from a Linden  
> grid can perform a "full handoff" from a Linden simulator to an  
> OpenSim simulator *and* conversely, the same or different avatar can  
> perform a "full handoff" from an OpenSim simulator to a Linden  
> simlator, then we get to the next stage.
>
> With respect to MXP, it is currently possible, to log onto an  
> OpenSim simulator with either a SecondLife compatible client or an  
> MXP compatible client as OpenSim has implemented the MXP logic from  
> the MXP folks. This needs further testing.
>
> With respect to HyperGrid, an avatar can perform a full handoff  
> between grids using OpenSim and work is ongoing as folks creare more  
> logic.
>
> So, my vision of interop is that of an avatar from one virtual world  
> starting on his own, home, world or region and then teleporting/ 
> transporting/moving/<whateverWeWishToCallI> to another virtual world  
> where the avatar can perform chat, examine objects, interact with  
> other avatars and clients in a different virtual world.
>
> And we are part way there.
>
> The trick is to define the nuances of the logins and  
> interconnections currently existing for additional virtual worlds so  
> that we can all add support in server and client software to allow  
> as much interoperability as possible.
>
> To date, the work has concentrated on virtual worlds with very  
> similar architecture. SecondLife and OpenSim are similar virtual  
> worlds, but let us not make the mistake of trying to say they are  
> the *same* virtual world. They are not.
>
> How we can perform a login from an OpenSim world to a Croquet or  
> Wonderland or other virtual world is one of the things I believe it  
> is to our advantage to understand as we try to move forward in  
> increasing interoperability.
>
> Charles Krinke
> OpenSim Core Developer
> OSGrid Director
>
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 1:14 AM, zedmaster <[e-mail]>  
> wrote:
> Jon makes an excellent point here; true interop implies that there  
> is no single world owner/vendor, but suggests that any world is made  
> up from contributions from multiple sources.  Everything in the mail  
> trail so far seems to be heading towards isolated worlds (islands)  
> served by a common server-client protocol, between which a user  
> might be able to teleport, but this isnt really going to help build  
> the sort of detailed worlds that i think people are wanting.  All  
> you will be able to do is hop beteween experiences - a bit like the  
> "old" web model of hoppping between sites. Mashups have changed all  
> that - people are now building sites which deliver an aggregated  
> experience i.e. using webservices etc. they can pull together  
> diverse sets of data and present something new, something the  
> original sites couldnt do alone.
>
> Imaging that I have access to some VR technology that can put  
> immersive users (full motion tracking) into complex mechanical  
> assemblies and let the user operate and interact with the items e.g.  
> operate a back hoe on a JCB, or study the detailed assmembly  
> instructions for an entire airliner.   I would like to deploy that  
> technology to a shared world where others could come view my models;  
> I wouldnt expect everyone to have access to the full body tracking,  
> but i would like them to be able to walk around and touch and press  
> buttons etc..
>
> True interop to me implies that I could run the simulator which  
> "owns" my mechanical entity, and I could do this wouthout needing to  
> know or care how others get to view this; it doesnt matter to my  
> simulation, as long as I get 'standardised' inputs (telling me when  
> someone touches something) and I get to send 'standard' outputs  
> saying how the results of my simulation have changed.  I dont want  
> to have to code my simulation in N different scripting languages for  
> N different worlds - i just want to be able to register that my  
> aeroplane is 'somewhere' in 3D space and let the worlds work out who  
> sees it.
>
> This model isnt new.  A number of the early networked VR systems  
> (dvs, dive, simnet/dis)supported this federated model.  Some  
> existing/upcoming systems (Sirikata is a good example) are proposing  
> that this sort of federated architecture is going to be key in  
> building really complex worlds.  It would be fantastic to see them  
> contribute to this discussion.
>
> Dare I ask the simple question here which is why not build on top of  
> existing examples e.g. DIS/HLA?
> If not directly extending them, learn from them and build something  
> better.
> -dirk
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:46:17 -0700
> From: Jon Watte <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [mmox] MMOX Progress tracking
>
> .> I am claiming that a client/server protocol does not achieve  
> virtual
> world interop, because there is only one world involved in the  
> connection. Thus, there is no interop between virtual worlds  
> (plural). Thus, it's not applicable to the "vendor neutral virtual  
> world interoperability" that is in the charter for this group,  
> because, by necessity, only one vendor and one world is involved at  
> a time. Let's call it scope control.
>
> Separately, as I keep having to repeat every week, because new  
> people come to the list: I think that a standard client/server  
> protocol solves a very small, uninteresting problem. It solves the  
> problem of having to install two, three or four clients, which is a  
> small problem. In fact, I doubt you could even get very many people  
> to pay a single dollar for the convenience of not having to install  
> two clients to be able to visit two different worlds (assuming  
> versioning could be solved at all). It doesn't solve anything else  
> -- specifically, if I want to be with person A, who is in virtual  
> world A, and person B, who is in virtual world B, at the same time,  
> a standardized server/client protocol makes no difference; I still  
> have to choose one or the other. That is a problem we have now, have  
> no good vendor neutral solution for, and need a standard for.
>
> If you want a standard for client/server connections that lets you  
> stay within the same client while switching connection between  
> different, independent worlds, just put a plugin in a browser, and  
> write it in Flash or Java. The language and the browser is the  
> standard; it can be done today (and has been done). I can, from my  
> browser, easily surf on over to another site that uses a different  
> flash/java plug-in, and connect to that other world, without losing  
> my browser context. For all intents and purposes, this looks to the  
> user as if "the same client" connects to those different worlds. The  
> fact that very few implementors do that means that that kind of  
> interop simply isn't that interesting.
>
> If you think it's valuable to have a client/server protocol  
> standardized through the IETF, then you should do so within a group  
> that is appropriately chartered. In my opinion, the MMOX charter is  
> not appropriate for that at the current time (and, in my opinion,  
> that's a good thing).
>
> Sincerely,
>
> jw
> .
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmox mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox
>
>
>
> -- 
> Charles Krinke
> OpenSim Core Developer
> OSGrid Director
> _______________________________________________
> mmox mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox