In article <VsCkh.30059$Rj.10342@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Lawson English <LawsonE@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
> > In article <Zvzkh.21177$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.
>
> For some stuff, keyboards are essential. But for other stuff,
> console-level controllers (which are getting more sophisticated all the
> time--look at the wii wand controllers), will be quite adequate.
For anything involving interacting with other humans at a level beyond
shooting at them, keyboards are necessary. At least until voice chat is
pervasive in interactive environments.
> >> 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.)
> >
>
> I see no reason why such content couldn't be displayed via MPEG-4. Did
> you ever play the original Marathon game from Bungie? The game playback
> was a QuickTIme file that basically recorded the player's moves, even
> over a network. The codec itself was the actual game engine of Marathon.
> You could switch camera-views and even switch player-views while the
> game was playing back and change the playback speed as well.
>
> It seems plausible that a Second Life-like codec could leverage MPEG-4
> features from inside MPEG-4 itself and allow for the creation and
> interaction of all sorts of distributed worlds.
My reading of the do***ent you linked does not suggest the format is
anywhere near flexible enough for this. Anyway, it's basically a
container format -- how much sense does it make for live interactive
environments (rather than static content) to be contained?
> >>> 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.
> >
>
> I can see an obvious interaction between Google Earth and Second Life or
> a meta-Second Life: The ability to travel quickly to foreign "lands" or
> worlds or universes or dimensions or whatevers. GE allows you to see
> progressively more details of the local terrain as you zoom in and this
> would be quite useful for traveling from one virtual world/land to the
> next. Web-surfing via geometric interface. Apple's old Project X tried
> this, but the available graphics and bandwidth only allowed for clouds
> of URLs. An extended version of Google Earth could allow you to navigate
> a terrain of the VR equivalent of URLs in a more entertaining, or even
> more comprehensible way.
It would be a gimmick, and people would play around with it for a few
minutes and then never bother again. Seriously. We've seen all this
before.
> > [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]
> >
>
> Who knows? Usable distributed 3D media is still a chicken and egg issue
> because of the steep learning curve for the tools. And even when the
> chickens are hatched, they're more like puffer fish: extremely tasty (at
> least for some) when cooked precisely the right way, but only a handful
> of cooks have the talent and training to use them.
I remember playing around with VRML 11 or 12 years ago. I can think of
several significant web standards (Flash, CSS, RSS, etc.) that didn't
even exist back then and are pervasive now, yet VRML has been almost
completely stagnant.
The tools are primitive because there's no good use case for the format,
not the other way around.
--
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
-- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005
|
