> If you assume a, um, monographic perspective, then it might be
> possible. What it would mean is that instead of generating a 3D world
> up front and just navigating it in real time, you would have to have
> some kind of transform that generates the world on the fly as you
> navigate it. This isn't how we normally think about a virtual world,
> but there's no real reason you couldn't build one this way (technical
> limitations not withstanding).
I'm not denying that this is possible. Of course it is. It just isn't 3D.
How many times have you walked through a room full of inanimate objects,
and one of them was constantly reorienting itself so as to always present
the same face to you? My cat does this, but he doesn't count. Am I going
to have to build Escher effects by defining a cat, upon whose face is an
impossible Escher object, and have him stare at you as you walk around him?
You missed the entire point of my statement, "so what if the effect
runs out after 180 degrees." The efffect probably does not have to be
re-oriented continuously, but only after some large angular interval.
In other words, there's a viewing cone in which the effect is valid.
If the cone is of a sufficiently useful size, then you can just put
walls at the end of the cone in order to hide the discontinuity.
The point is that yes, it is 3d under most circumstances. It's just
not continuously 3d.
Oh man. Now I've drifted into the Surrealism discussion, haven't I?
Only if your cat walking is cut in two by a window pane.
Cheers,
Brandon