axolotl@ultima.socs.uts.edu.au (Iain D. Sinclair) (09/03/90)
cygnus@udel.edu (marc cygnus) writes: >In article <31304@unix.cis.pitt.edu>, fmgst@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Filip >Gieszczykiewicz) writes: >|> Now, you say, "VR is great, I've seen all these >|> neat programs (well, heard of...) and what they >|> will (or might...) accomplish." >|> You have a system that you do your stuff on, give us the setup!... > >I think I understand your frustrations about this group, but out of all the >VR systems I've seen and with which I've worked, you'll not find one that's >suitable to post, in either its present condition, or hacked down to be >`simple' (assuming the researchers actually working on the project would >commit time to doing that). Frustrations about this group? Tell me about it. Too many people fantasising about William Gibson-esque utopias and not nearly enough sensible, technical talk about feasibly implementing a usable, practical subset of reality. Where do we go from here? The trappings of VR are with us now. There are crude Power Gloves on the mass market; powerful workstations capable of producing a pleasing, though limited, synthesis of reality; arcade games with real-time rendering and dithering, specialised "simulation" hardware, and hydraulics. The most useful discussions would be about current or *near-future* systems and the algorithms, techniques and hardware used to implement them. Talk of "legal aspects" and the like is, at best, a distraction. Postings on HITL's VEOS, media reports, bibliographies and technical specs are the sorts of things that should be in this group. Wanky discussions belong in alt.cyberpunk*. But they're obviously here to stay, so I'll be creating alt.graphics.interactive.tech (or something) for the people who *do* want serious discussion. >What is it that you want to see, and moreover, what is it that you intend to >*run* (or would like to see running) on that 386 of yours? Before you answer >that, you might do well to first quantify what `virtual reality' means to >*you*, so that people responding to you have a reference from which to answer >your questions. Let's see. If a `virtual reality' is like a `virtual machine' or a `virtual memory', then it's just a (software?) *representation* of reality. Nothing about it being especially complicated, realistic or otherwise hi-tech. If you want to think that `virtual reality' means all-out, gee-whiz, total-recall concept with a neckjack and your own personal cyberspace, that's fine; but it isn't what the words mean. It sounds as if "your" VR would be about 10 times harder to implement than SDI. And who's going to pay for that? Get real. -- |::*::| Iain Dick Sinclair \ What you have just read is a true | |*-*-*| University of Technology,Sydney \ story. Only the facts have been | |::*::| axolotl@ultima.socs.uts.edu.au \ changed. __________________________|