>As a person who writes 3d graphics algorithms, I really can't agree
>with your statement that "far more info may be coded" in 3d. I think
>you overestimate how much resolution a computer screen really has.
>Seeing things from far away and projecting things at angles loses a
>lot of information. You gain more info about a given object's 3d
>shape, but you lose info about what's on its 2d surfaces, and you
>still can't see objects that are occluded by other objects.
'As a person who work with 3d form' I'm getting the feeling you're pulling
my leg :)
No, I'm not pulling your leg. I note from your .sig that you're an
architect, so you're probably used to working with buildings. What
about working with clothing, or purses? These objects require much
more fidelity of surface texture than what you need to render a good
building.
Of course 2d is best suited for representation on 2d faces. What I saying
is that you can have more information in a 3d space than on a 2d surface.
3d has a timepenalty as it forces you to wander around to get the whole
picture. But as it's one space it's probably easier to maintain a grip on
the structure than if it was spread out on tens of sheets of paper.
But people don't care about the structure. They care about the
merchandise.
I'm not saying that 3d is better than 2d, period. But in certain cases, it is.
I am arguing "not in this case." :-)
>Have you ever seen a 3d visualization of an OS's file system? You
>really can't see everything all at once - all the text on the
>"background" objects is illegible. You may learn something about the
>overall structure of the system, but you don't get any "more" info on
>any of the objects in particular. And for a lot of objects in a given
>scene, your 3d viewpoint doesn't make them any easier to find.
It might be that the overall structure is the most important matter at a
given time.
No, the important thing is to find a file. Only techies care about
how the system is structured.
Also, do you have a 2d OS which let you see everything at once?
No, but the point is that 3d hasn't bought you anything over 2d. And
all the fancy rendering consumes more computer resources, so the 3d
may very well be slower. So why bother?
>VR makes up for these informational deficiencies by allowing you to
>move around in the environment. That takes _time_. Time is what
>consumers don't have a lot of. Since VR can't provide the fidelity of
>real-life objects, what's the justification for spending a lot of time
>wandering around in a VR world to shop? You might as well look at a
>2d photograph, or several 2d photographs taken from different views.
>The fidelity is way better than what VR has to offer, and is more
>likely to affect your buying decision.
Today, several photograps would give far more resolution, but it's just a
question of time before afforable computers can do the same in 3d.
Don't hold your breath. I'd say 10 years at least before we see VR
with realtime physically modelled surface textures and global
illumination.
The main
justification for VR is that it's not necessarily organised after _one_
subject all the time, like the alphabetic ordering of your average
bookshop.
No, that would be the main justification for using a conventional
database with multiple indicies - date, size, color, item type,
whatever. You can always have a "big spread" of photographs so that
you can look at a bunch of items at once.
>Thus the sale of goods in Cyberspace is going to have nothing to do
>with the technology of VR, and everything to do with the artistry of
>VR.
And we are [would-be] VR-artists.
>It is important to recognize what tasks an interface is good at, and
>what it is not.
My point exactly.
As is mine; we just disagree on whether VR is good for this task or
not. :-) My point is that from a _technical_ standpoint, VR is
inferior to 2d web pages. Access by wandering in 3d space is a lot
slower and fidelity to actual objects is terrible. You can agree or
disagree with me about the technical issues, that doesn't matter.
Let's try to get away from them, as this list isn't supposed to be
about technical limitations anyways.
Now, having primed the canvas for a discussion of the _artistic_
solutions, would anyone care to conjecture on how to make "good"
commercial VR art?
Cheers,
Brandon