In article <Zvzkh.21177$a14.19014@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Lawson English <LawsonE@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
> > They'll start using it for the same kind of things you "artiste types"
> > using Flash for: gratuitous over-designed stuff of little practical
> > value that exists on the margins.
>
>
> WE artist types... Er, thanks, I guess.
Err, that was supposed to be "you see", but either way....
[snip]
> >> And I agree that implementing the typical EQ/WoW MMORPG would be
> >> virtually impossible using MPEG-4, but that doesn't mean that someone
> >> couldn't figure out a way to do interesting multi-personal
> >> interactive stuff with it.
> >
> > Like what? Seriously. Interactive multi-personal stuff tends to
require
> > complicated interfaces, that aren't going to work well on set-tops or
in
> > browsers.
>
> Or like consoles?
I think you probably need a real keyboard, which these days appears to
be the major distinction between consoles and computers.
> Plus, if you see value in 3D, why embed in in 2D media? Why
> > browse the web for 3D content when you can wander around a 3D world to
> > discover 3D content, as in Second Life? And why have many separate 3D
> > worlds? I don't want to have a dozen different avatars in different
> > isolated 3D environments.
> >
>
> Dunno. Why not have one amorphous giant web-site?
Though hyperlinks, and because of the way browser interfaces work, you
basically *do* browse web pages all within the same large world.
Sure, things aren't all on one centralized system, but that's an
implementation detail. You could decentralize Second Life in the same
way without breaking the "single 3D world" concept.
(You'd need a centralized system to keep track of geography, I suppose,
but, then, mapping between coordinates in virtual space and specific
servers is not conceptually very different from what DNS does.)
> > Also, it's not clear to me MPEG-4 has the features to sup****t
multi-user
> > content.
> >
>
> It isn't clear to me either, but I don't count anything out. MPEG-4 is a
> large specification.
>
> >> And I still don't see an amazing use case for integrating
> >>> it with other media at anything but the most superficial level (e.g.
> >>> allow it to be launched as a helper app from browsers via hyperlink
and
> >>> vice versa).
> >> 3D tools are still extremely ***bersome. As the ease-of-use of the
tools
> >> improves, you will see more interesting stuff appear. Right now, you
> >> have Gollum and King Kong level stuff because companies can afford to
> >> pay the bucks for the techno-geek artists that can use the packages
like
> >> Maya, and you have the 3D equivalent of ASCII Snoopy Calenders and
> >> nothing in between.
> >
> > You also have apps like SketchUp, which is being used in Google Earth.
> > Incidentally application which demonstrates that while Internet-based
3D
> > can be successful, *web-based* 3D is a dud.
>
> My guess is that GoogleEarth will eventually be implemented as a plug-in
> as well as a standalone.
Maybe, but it'll still be special-purpose software; not really the same
thing as a generalized delivery mechanism for 3D content on the web, for
which I still, after all these years, haven't seen a plausible use case.
[snip]
> > What do you mean by 3D movies? You mean stereoscopic stuff? That's
> > another gimmick that has never caught on, and if it ever did, you'd
> > probably be better off with pre-rendered buttons anyway.
>
> I was referring to the 3D space that MPEG-4 movies can (does?) render
> into. Current MPEG-4 video uses MPEG-4 capabilities in much the same way
> Quartz uses OpenGL textures to draw windows.
OK, but why are you going to use this?
[snip]
--
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
-- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005
|
