Re: [mmox] User Accounts / "Object" Transfer.

[Charles Krinke <[e-mail]>]

Both good points, JHurliman and Morgaine.

I think the punch line is we are not talking about a theoretical implementation that might be, but rather a practical implementation that is already deployed and in use by thousands of folks and this deployment is growing every day.

We are concerned with whether the avatar landing manifests as a cloud of fog, an amorphous gray character, an ANPC, a Ruth or even a tourist with a camera about its neck. We are also concerned with ensuring that the first person and various third person scenes are consistent with each other.

Getting the teleport presence consistent between virtual worlds is a moving target as various groups work seperately and then interface occaisionally. And getting this teleport prescence consistent is the pre-requisite to then having attachments, scripts, huds, AO, inventory and other features work functional in cross-world teleporting, or as some folks say 'Interop'.

Charles





________________________________
From: Morgaine <[e-mail]>
To: Jon Watte <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 10:09:41 AM
Subject: Re: [mmox] User Accounts / "Object" Transfer.

Jon, after reading your other posts, I think that you may have been referring to your "shared-spaces" idea when you questioned the value of "teleport between grids", as I can't see any other architecture being discussed.

However, if that's the case then I don't understand the point being made, because shared-spaces seems to be a "teleport only" architecture.  The only means by which a user can go from one shared space to another is by teleport, since shared spaces do not have topological relationships to each other, from your description.

If you ignore the local simulation for a moment, then what happens when one of your users changes from one local shared space to one belonging to a different provider is very similar in implementation to the usual separate worlds case:  the agent appears in the space at the remote end.   Adding a local simulation on top of that doesn't really change the matter.  That's teleport between grids, plus a local accelerator.

And perceptually from the users' perspective, the model suggests that they too see a teleport occurring every time that they change their shared space to one operated by a different world provider.  This looks like perfectly ordinary "teleport between grids" to them too.

Morgaine.





On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 7:39 AM, Morgaine <[e-mail]> wrote:




On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Jon Watte <[e-mail]> wrote:

What end-user value does "teleport between grids" solve?

In my opinion, that feature is very un-interesting, as it requires lots of engineering, and gives very little value, compared to lower-hanging fruit like physical spaces shared across interoperating servers.

After perception of the world around you, travel is the next most important form of interaction with the world.  Teleport is simply instantaneous travel, and teleport between grids is simply instantaneous travel between worlds in different organizational domains.  How can it possibly be uninteresting and give little value to travel to distant places in virtual space?  ;-)

I expect that you meant something completely different to the above.  :-)   Are we hitting an ambiguity in terminology of some kind here?

Morgaine.