Re: [mmox] RealExtend Teleporting Between Worlds

Marshall Eubanks <tme@multicasttech.com> Thu, 26 February 2009 21:00 UTC

Return-Path: <tme@multicasttech.com>
X-Original-To: mmox@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmox@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEECA3A69A8 for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:00:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.559
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.559 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.040, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wK1FqejtCv4u for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:00:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from multicasttech.com (lennon.multicasttech.com [63.105.122.7]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAEAB3A69A2 for <mmox@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:00:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [63.105.122.7] (account marshall_eubanks HELO [IPv6:::1]) by multicasttech.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 14792991; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:00:25 -0500
Message-Id: <63B7B0AE-3C37-42A2-A23A-753CF6413535@multicasttech.com>
From: Marshall Eubanks <tme@multicasttech.com>
To: Jon Watte <jwatte@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <49A6F405.7000207@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:00:29 -0500
References: <20090225.182222.10290.1@webmail10.vgs.untd.com> <62BFE5680C037E4DA0B0A08946C0933D502DF61E@rrsmsx506.amr.corp.intel.com> <49A65D92.3060606@comlounge.net> <49A666ED.6040508@cox.net> <49A6E3C1.3000702@gmail.com> <49A6E7C9.8040703@cox.net> <49A6F405.7000207@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3)
Cc: lenglish5@cox.net, "mmox@ietf.org" <mmox@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mmox] RealExtend Teleporting Between Worlds
X-BeenThere: mmox@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Massively Multi-participant Online Games and Applications <mmox.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox>, <mailto:mmox-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmox>
List-Post: <mailto:mmox@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmox-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox>, <mailto:mmox-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:00:11 -0000

This may be a simplistic (i.e., dumb) question, but I work in  
Telepresence, and can certainly
see mixed Virtual World / Real World telepresence sessions (and, even,  
Telepresence between
incompatible virtual worlds as a means of connecting the unconnectable).

Are there any special issues with this, or is this just a subset of  
the multiple virtual worlds connection problem.

Regards
Marshall


On Feb 26, 2009, at 2:56 PM, Jon Watte wrote:

> Lawson English wrote:
>> How many languages will we be using? There's only a handful of  
>> graphics engines to worry about, regardless of language. Seems to  
>> me that SL uses OpenGL while others use DirecctX. I'm not  
>> advocating OpenGL and DirectX compatibility, so we're left with  
>> describing things in terms of one graphics engine. Are you  
>> suggesting that Linden Lab standard trees are too complex to bother  
>> with implementing algorithms for in your favorite language + OpenGL?
>
> I am suggesting that the problem is a lot wider than just trees.
> There.com describes terrain as a guided fractal system. Are you  
> saying everyone should implement that system to be able to display  
> There.com terrain?
> OLIVE describes objects in the form of composition of baser types  
> using XML schema. Are you saying everyone should implement that  
> system to be able to display OLIVE objects?
>
> Or are trees somehow special, when all other kinds of geometry or  
> objects (buildings, water, ships, humans, weapons, telephones,  
> cars, ...) are somehow less special? Who decides what kinds of  
> geometry are special, and what the "canonical form" of those kinds  
> of geometry are?
> I believe that trying to go that line of reasoning will end up in  
> very much effort, and very much bickering, for very little actual  
> benefit. It's much easier to say "entity at point 3,4,5 uses mesh http://www.second-life.com/models/tree-oak2.dae 
> ."
>
> Sincerely,
>
> jw
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmox mailing list
> mmox@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox