ZnU wrote:
> In article <pXTlh.80561$V34.76314@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Lawson English <LawsonE@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> ZnU wrote:
>>> In article <pQBlh.4329$hr3.4315@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>> Lawson English <LawsonE@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ZnU wrote:
>> [...].
>>>>>> Eh. Even within EQ and WoW, there's a huge amount of content
>>>>>> that is continually being updated: the locations of all the MOBs
>>>>>> and players.
>>>>> Sure, but this stuff is comparatively tiny, compared with all the
>>>>> geometry and textures..
>>>> Sure, but its not constantly changing as is the case with 100+
>>>> mobile objects and/or avatars.
>>> It is constantly changing if you're moving around.
>> All the arbitrary objects are moving around constantly? The buildings
>> never stand still?
>
> Position data is really pretty trivial to send.
>
>>>> As the tools become cheaper and easier to use, you will see more
>>>> stuff made using them.
>>> Which might be really interesting if I'd been saying there was no
>>> large market for 3D animation software or computer-generated
>>> animation. But of course I haven't been saying that. I've been
>>> saying there's no large market for distributing 3D content *as* 3D
>>> content[1]. This has nothing to do with the market for things like,
>>> say, Pixar movies, which happen to be creating using 3D animation
>>> tools.
>>>
>>> [1] Except the video game market, of course.
>> My point is that there was no large market for distributed 3D
>> animation until the price of the tools came down.
>
> Uh. But there was.
>
Made by home users? I must have missed that.
>> Right now, I can't even PLAY MPEG-4 content letalone create it,
>> because none of the experimental tools are available on the Mac save
>> as relatively complex open source distributions that I have to get
>> working. If the tools were widely available, and reasonably easy to
>> use, AND there were widely available and easy-to-use MPEG-4 players
>> (beyond the Extended Simple profile that QuickTime implements), you
>> would obviously see more MPEG-4 content. How much more, who can say?
>> But right now, you don't see ANY, unless you go to the trouble of
>> downloading GPAC or purchase some pretty darned expensive commercial
>> solution.
>
> We're going in circles here. As I've pointed out several times, during
> the time VRML and similar have been stagnating, other technologies have
> got from non-existent to industry-standard. These things do actually
> happen. But only if there's demand.
>
3D technology is actually changing far faster than 2D. What seemed
potentially useful 10 years ago has been completely superseded since
then. 3D tools 10 years ago were even more primitive than they are now.
Etc.
You may be correct that there is not and will possibly never be a demand
for x3d/MPEG-4 VR-streaming, but you can't base that assumption on
recent history. Things have changed far too much, far too fast in the
field. Moore's Law for CPUs works out to a doubling of speed every 18
months. Moore's Law for GPU's works out to a doubling of speed every 6
months. Video cards 10 years ago were barely beyond simple
frame-buffers. Video cards now are, in many ways, more powerful than the
CPUs that sup****t them.
|
