5 ms·

Having been in on two previous attempts, let me state my wry amusement at this go-around :-)

by jwatte 12y ago

ThomPete 12y ago
Timing...
- georgemcbay 12y ago
  How do you expect them to benefit from timing (assuming that's what is meant by the cryptic comment)? The major problems faced in doing what they propose are fundamental issues with computer networking and real-world limitations in the latency of sending lots of state across the wires. And the internet infrastructurally (in the US anyway) isn't significantly better today than it was in years past. Arguably it has gotten worse in a lot of ways when it comes to latency, particularly on the last hop to the user/player over consumer ISPs.
  - ThomPete 12y ago
    They might not benefit from it but if we agree things will be moving that way (I personally believe it will) then it's a matter of timing.
contingencies 12y ago
Indeed. It would perhaps be easier to rephrase - What problem is this actually solving?
- xnxn 12y ago
  The problem, as I see it: VR and the web are too far apart. This seems to be an attempt to build a... protocol? engine? both? for moving programmable entities between volumes of space that may be controlled by different hosts. The "operating system" / Metaverse verbiage is a little grandiose, but I really like the idea. Or maybe I just miss Adobe Atmosphere :)
  - contingencies 12y ago
    VR and the web are too far apart. ... for what purpose? Web pages are hard to simplify. Even harder to transform, in a generally applicable way, in to 3D objects that hold the full meaning and functionality of their present-era 2D brethren.
    - xnxn 12y ago
      That's true, and I don't think the goal is to simplify or transform the existing web of hypertext, but to take the well-proven principles behind it - hyperlinks, interoperability, decentralization, etc. - and apply them to the nascent medium of VR. It certainly won't supplant web pages. "But why?" is a totally fair question, and I don't think I can produce a satisfactory answer. I've spent a good deal of time thinking about concrete use cases for VR, and, well... it's a medium, like paper, or like video - but it's interactive, so it has more in common with the telephone, or video games, or your web browser. It can be more illustrative to try and imagine things you can't do (and now I really sound like I've drunk the VR Kool-Aid, huh?). Can I ask if your skepticism is specific to this project, or to the idea of a distributed, programmable VR platform?
      - contingencies 12y ago
        Can I ask if your skepticism is specific to this project, or to the idea of a distributed, programmable VR platform? Well, I've been down the same path before, as with others here .. judging by the earlier comments. I don't discount 3D, far from it, however my conclusion, personally, was that different people consider different types of visualizations preferable or inherantly clearer. For instance, a statistician, mathematician, programmer, poet, sculptor or gamer may wish to visualize or interact with the same information in a very different way. If you accept this temporarily for the sake of argument, then take those same different input/interaction paradigms and start to translate them across multiple cultures and languages, I believe you get an even higher number of preferences. Trying to create the one true standard for interaction with mock-physical representations of aphysical notions may just be trying to put a square peg in a round hole.
  - 12y ago

Having been in on two previous attempts, let me state my wry amusement at this go-around :-)

by jwatte 12y ago

Having been in on two previous attempts, let me state my wry amusement at this go-around :-)

ThomPete 12y ago

Timing...

georgemcbay 12y ago
How do you expect them to benefit from timing (assuming that's what is meant by the cryptic comment)? The major problems faced in doing what they propose are fundamental issues with computer networking and real-world limitations in the latency of sending lots of state across the wires. And the internet infrastructurally (in the US anyway) isn't significantly better today than it was in years past. Arguably it has gotten worse in a lot of ways when it comes to latency, particularly on the last hop to the user/player over consumer ISPs.
- ThomPete 12y ago
  They might not benefit from it but if we agree things will be moving that way (I personally believe it will) then it's a matter of timing.

contingencies 12y ago

Indeed. It would perhaps be easier to rephrase - What problem is this actually solving?

xnxn 12y ago
The problem, as I see it: VR and the web are too far apart. This seems to be an attempt to build a... protocol? engine? both? for moving programmable entities between volumes of space that may be controlled by different hosts. The "operating system" / Metaverse verbiage is a little grandiose, but I really like the idea. Or maybe I just miss Adobe Atmosphere :)
- contingencies 12y ago
  VR and the web are too far apart. ... for what purpose? Web pages are hard to simplify. Even harder to transform, in a generally applicable way, in to 3D objects that hold the full meaning and functionality of their present-era 2D brethren.
  - xnxn 12y ago
    That's true, and I don't think the goal is to simplify or transform the existing web of hypertext, but to take the well-proven principles behind it - hyperlinks, interoperability, decentralization, etc. - and apply them to the nascent medium of VR. It certainly won't supplant web pages. "But why?" is a totally fair question, and I don't think I can produce a satisfactory answer. I've spent a good deal of time thinking about concrete use cases for VR, and, well... it's a medium, like paper, or like video - but it's interactive, so it has more in common with the telephone, or video games, or your web browser. It can be more illustrative to try and imagine things you can't do (and now I really sound like I've drunk the VR Kool-Aid, huh?). Can I ask if your skepticism is specific to this project, or to the idea of a distributed, programmable VR platform?
    - contingencies 12y ago
      Can I ask if your skepticism is specific to this project, or to the idea of a distributed, programmable VR platform? Well, I've been down the same path before, as with others here .. judging by the earlier comments. I don't discount 3D, far from it, however my conclusion, personally, was that different people consider different types of visualizations preferable or inherantly clearer. For instance, a statistician, mathematician, programmer, poet, sculptor or gamer may wish to visualize or interact with the same information in a very different way. If you accept this temporarily for the sake of argument, then take those same different input/interaction paradigms and start to translate them across multiple cultures and languages, I believe you get an even higher number of preferences. Trying to create the one true standard for interaction with mock-physical representations of aphysical notions may just be trying to put a square peg in a round hole.
- 12y ago