Re: [mmox] Comments relating to TP's and Mashups

[Gareth Nelson <[e-mail]>]

Yeah, we can get avatar-less presence too, but further to this we
should still treat 2D and 3D as separate standards, and since most VWs
of interest are 3D it makes sense to tackle 3D first, especially
considering the makeup of people we have here.

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Morgaine
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Gareth Nelson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> if I have a topdown 2D VW it doesn't make sense to TP to another world
>> using my 2D sprite avatar - it would need to be a new 3D avatar, and
>> therefore it'd be questionable to call this TP as such.
>>
>
> Although it's a corner case, it still makes sense.  You must have seen the
> 2D avatars in Second Life, both cell-shaded for a 2D effect in 3D, and also
> those that have "zero depth".  While I don't expect this to catch on in any
> big way, it is nevertheless viable and already done.
>
> Weblin avatars could certainly TP to SL or Opensim worlds this way.
> Conversely, 3D avatars could quite easily "TP" into Weblin and appear
> through 3D->2D projection, performed either dynamically or pre-captured.
>
> Also, don't forget that some Limited Capability Clients will "teleport"
> depite having "zero-D", in the sense that they may have no visual presence
> yet still partake of other decoupled world services such as communications.
> TP of 3D avatars is a common case, but other cases are also valid and quite
> easy to achieve between worlds.
>
>
> Morgaine.
>
>