In article <Whmlh.18834$9e.1446@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Lawson English <LawsonE@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
> > In article <OrWkh.162$_44.119@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > Lawson English <LawsonE@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> >> ZnU wrote:
> >>> In article <u9Ukh.30282$Rj.15756@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> >>> Lawson English <LawsonE@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> ZnU wrote:
> >>>>> In article <VsCkh.30059$Rj.10342@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> >>>>> Lawson English <LawsonE@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>> [...]
> >>>>>> 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.
> >>>> iChat conferencing apparently already uses H.264 compression. It
should
> >>>> be possible to limit which voices are sent to which person in a
> >>>> conferencing chat based on how far away someone is within the VR
world
> >>>> so bandwidth issues and whatever else might look like a potential
issue
> >>>> here isn't really.
> >>> Probably for WoW-type games where most of the content is stored
locally
> >>> this is true. For Second Life type environments, where geometry and
> >>> textures get streamed, bandwidth is going to still be an issue for a
> >>> while.
> >>>
> >> So no content is stored on the client side?
> >
> > There's a local cache, but it never contains more than a tiny fraction
> > of the world at any given time.
>
> That actually seems inefficient. Unless a "default" world is built into
> the graphics engine...
The world is huge, and allows users to construct arbitrary objects and
upload arbitrary textures. So, it's not like WoW, where you only have to
download new data when Blizzard changes something, which doesn't happen
that often.
[snip]
> >>> Sure. Just don't expect people to use this kind of thing as a
substitute
> >>> for web browsing.
> >> For some kinds of browsing, it might be more efficient.
> >
> > For browsing based on *actual* geography, e.g. finding content related
> > to specific real-world locations, it's useful.
> >
> > That's about it.
>
> That YOU can think of. There are countless ways of organizing data and
> meta-data that neither of us have thought of. Some efficient ones might
> lend themselves to a Google-Earth-like system. Or perhaps not. I just
> remember Andy Grove's alleged corollary to Moore's Law: "...and every
> two years people come up with stuff to do with it you never imagined was
> possible."
OK, but people have been going on about this stuff for a decade now, and
nobody appears to have come up with anything particularly useful.
[snip]
--
"That's George Wa****ngton, the first president, of course. The interesting
thing
about him is that I read three‹three or four books about him last year.
Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to re****ter Kai Diekmann, May 5,
2006
|
