> > How about this. Let's completely divorce the VR idea from any connection
> > to the Internet, except for distribution of spaces (worlds) in stand-alone
> > (single disconnected file) format.
...
> Well, of course people will put spaces on CD-ROMs (both static and
> eventually modifiable); but these will have links out into the rest
> of the world. It just happens if you try to go through such a link
> and you're not connected, you'll bang your nose on the door.
What if you walk through your bedroom door, expecting to be magically
transported across the net into the center of Picadilly Circus, and
instead find that you have only entered your bedroom? I think we can
contain a house, or more to the point, a department store in a CD-ROM.
Who says it has to be connected to the net in order to be a space?
> The
> question is whether the distribution of spaces on such a disk will
> really be any different in nature or structure from those on the
> main web.
No different, just that if you want the non-local links to work, you have
to be connected. A space with only local links will work just as well as
any other. Faster, even.
> After all, when someone is designing a room, they aren't
> going to want to know exactly where the corridors leading off it are;
> they'll just want to have books of doors available. [Presumably if
> a link is working, the book will open at that page, and if it isn't,
> you can't open to it.] But I don't see that the issues involved in
> designing VRML differ significantly in either context.
My point, exactly. The difference in media, however, is that CD-ROM is
a much more affordable method of distribution than the Internet. I'm not
suggesting we don't do both. I am suggesting that we leave it open ended
so when it's moved to CD-ROM (which it will be), it doesn't stop working.
> > Let's not depend on the Internet. It hasn't helped us at all so far. The
> > more we sit around and wait for the eggheads over in WWW-VRML to figure
> > something out, the longer we will have to wait.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you going to design a VRML all
> on your own?
No, I'm suggesting that maybe we should stop waiting and start
developing. Maybe we borrow from VRML and expand on it. Maybe we start
from scratch. We can't allow a valuable idea like VR to sit and stew
among a bunch of SGI centric, scientific research-types who don't have any
interest in the broad market. The idea will die on the vine.
> Are you going to design spaces and then translate them
> (or not) into VRML when it's suitable? Are you going to just dream
> up a wish-list of properties, hoping that someone will implement them?
Well, that seems to be the direction of what I'm suggesting, isn't it? I
suppose I'll have to say "Yes". Expecting me to build it all myself does
not invalidate my point, however.
> Do you want to design something just for PCs? If so, will it be
> VRML-compatible? Or are you talking about transport protocols?
Why do we keep getting back to the net? It's a separate issue, in my
view. Hypertext existed just fine as HyperTalk (Apple Macintosh) before
Mosaic blasted the idea onto the Internet and called it "The Web". Why
can't VRML, or more generally, VR, exist outside of the Internet in the
same way?
I'm not suggesting we ignore the Internet, or wall ourselves off from it.
It's a great medium for discussion. Take a look at X-Windows. It has
existed for years. It didn't get popular until comapnies like Apple and
Microsoft put it on non-networked home computers. What followed is the
market that funded most of the small computer industry in existance
today. Now those same computers are joining the Internet, and helping to
build that.
I see VR as an idea that will be even more valuable than windows.
Currently, the demand that VR places on the broad market's ability to
communicate makes it cost ineffective. VR is, however, now coming within
the capabilities of many of the home machines. I say we find ways to put
it there, and build a market for it. Once the paying market has funded
most of the initial development, and enough time has passed so that the
broad market has a higher average communications bandwidth, then we can
add more expectations about the Internet.
Keep in mind: The home-based communications market will not have broadband
or fiber optic cable distributed to the mass market until the 2002-2004
timeframe, approximately. At the same time, CD-ROM is available on many
machines now, and is (in my opinion) the top selling optional computer
peripheral, currently. We should not be wasting time between now and 2002.
Let's use what we have, and be ready for what's coming.
--- Andrew C. Esh mailto:andrew_esh@cnt.com Computer Network Technology andrewes@mtn.org (finger for PGP key) 6500 Wedgwood Road 612.550.8000 (main) Maple Grove MN 55311 612.550.8229 (direct) <A HREF="http://www.mtn.org/~andrewes">ACE Home Page</A>