fmgst@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Filip Gieszczykiewicz) (08/24/90)
Greetings. I understand that many people are "thrilled" to post and read this group - but. (Let's see if I can get this right....) There is a saying in Polish, "lac wode" which translates to "pour water" - ie. BS and get nothing from it. Now, you say, "VR is great, I've seen all these neat programs (well, heard of...) and what they will (or might...) accomplish." I'm no PhD. I don't think too many reading this group are. You have a program, _post it_. Just a small portion will be fine. Show us what a VR program LOOKS like. I learn by examples, give me one. You have a system that you do your stuff on, give us the setup! Gosh, I write stuff on a 386 with a VGA using C, what do you use??? How about getting together and writing something REALLY SIMPLE that will run on a 386 with VGA so that everyone can have a glimpse of all the stuff that's discussed here? How about a "base" VR that gives people a chance to see what it will be in the future. It can be in C or even Pascal. Everyone, these days, has access to a PC (or a MAC) If things are simple enough, they can be ported to other machines (Suns, etc.) It does not have to be RealTime or even have fancy graphics. It can be just a set of subroutines - or even just pseudo-code - but it must be REAL... not THEORY... Once you give people an idea of how to get started and a general direction, you will start getting people interested. I've been reading this group for a few months and ACTUALLY thought of "u"nsubscribing!?!? Take care. P.S. If you don't like the above, you are probably a PhD. Some of us just can't stand THEORY... (No offense intended...) -- _______________________________________________________________________________ "The Force will be with you, always." It _is_ with me and has been for 10 years Filip Gieszczykiewicz "A man without a dream is like a fish without water." FMGST@PITTVMS or fmgst@unix.cis.pitt.edu "My ideas. ALL MINE!!"
broehl@watserv1.waterloo.edu (Bernie Roehl) (08/29/90)
Part of the problem is that VR is a very abstract kind of idea right now,
and different people have different views of what it should be. Asking for
usable source code at this stage may be premature.
Having said that...
On a 386 with a VGA card and a decent color monitor you can do stereoscopic
3-D imaging using the old 3-D glasses approach (one lens red, one green or
blue). You simply draw each object twice (as a wireframe), once in from
the left-hand perspective in red and once from the right-hand perspective
in blue. As the objects move, you redraw the scene.
With this setup and the serial-port-based DataGlove mentioned a few articles
back, you can create a simple virtual reality in which you can see and
manipulate objects in three dimensions.
The same approach should be usable on any system with a color display and
a serial port (newer Macs, Suns, etc).
If you have a second serial port, you and a friend with a similar setup
can share a virtual reality via modem. You basically send each other
the dataglove coordinates, so that there's a "hand" for each of you at
each end of the connection. This could be also done over the Internet.
Once ISDN becomes widespread, you can even communicate via voice at the
same time that you're manipulating a shared virtual reality.
Over time, better imaging hardware becomes available (e.g. LCD based
glasses to allow the images to be in color). Eventually something like
the "Private Eye" mentioned earlier in this newsgroup, augmented with
head-position sensors, would allow you to "look around" and see solid
3-D objects in full color. The computation load for something like this
would be *very* substantial, however, and would almost certainly need a
dedicated board with processing, memory etc.
One issue that I'd like to hear discussed is that of protocols. Even for
the simple system described above, it would be nice to have a standard
way of passing information back and forth.
On a larger scale, I could see a multi-user VR being hosted on central
machines. How about something like this for an overall configuration:
A particular type of VR would consist of a number of "buildings"
(corresponding to network hosts) each containing a number of
"rooms" (processes running on a host). Each room would contain
a number of "occupants" which might correspond to users or to
processes that manage that occupant. The "occupants" might
be animate (people, pets, etc) or inanimate (tables, chairs,
walls etc).
A user sitting at home might only be occupying a room in his
own building. Via a point-to-point connection (via modem or
ISDN, for example) he could invite a single guest over, or go
visit someone in a room in another building.
An organization might have a host capable of supporting a large
number of connections, and which could therefore be occupied by
a large number of people simultaneously. A company might have
a virtual "office building", a school might have a virtual building
with a number of "classrooms", etc.
Each "building" should probably have a "lobby" with a list of
available rooms, and a security guard to limit access.
In software terms, each "room" would be responsible for taking
the information from each occupant and relaying it to all the
other occupants (or in some cases, to a specific occupant).
Each user would maintain a visual representation of the contents
of the room that would change as information is received from the
room.
The "information" referred to above could be anything, and should
be extensible; examples would be audio information, information
about the location/orientation of objects, changes in an object's
appearance, etc.
So, anyone for designing a protocol? The key is, of course, extensibility.
--
Bernie Roehl, University of Waterloo Electrical Engineering Dept
Mail: broehl@watserv1.waterloo.edu OR broehl@watserv1.UWaterloo.ca
BangPath: {allegra,decvax,utzoo,clyde}!watmath!watserv1!broehl
Voice: (519) 885-1211 x 2607 [work]andyrose@uunet.UU.NET (Andy Rose) (08/30/90)
In response to the sycophantism for VR code I should say go by Wavefront, model yourself a world, build some input devices, and have a ball. Or I could say, write it yourself chief. later -- Andrew Newkirk Rose '91 Department of Visualization Cornell National Supercomputing Facility / Theory Center 632 Engineering and Theory Building
aragorn@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Steve J White) (08/30/90)
I have to agree with Filip on this one. It does seem that there's a whole lot of talking about the VR world. I have been enjoying this newsgroup since it's inception, but I do have to admit to a bit of scepticism in regards to some of the theories brought to light here. I also would be interested in seeing some sort of 'representation' of what everyone here is talking about. Even if it's only a small 'snapshot' of what VR would be like if I was jacked in to one of these machines. Yes, this is a request for information. - steve -- [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] Steve J. White | Read the book "The Handmaid's Tale" by [] [] aragorn@csd4.csd.uwm.edu | Margaret Atwood and look at the world. [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []
cygnus@udel.edu (marc cygnus) (08/30/90)
In article <31304@unix.cis.pitt.edu>, fmgst@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Filip Gieszczykiewicz) writes: |> <etc. deleted...> |> |> Now, you say, "VR is great, I've seen all these |> neat programs (well, heard of...) and what they |> will (or might...) accomplish." |> |> I'm no PhD. I don't think too many reading this |> group are. You have a program, _post it_. |> Just a small portion will be fine. Show us what |> a VR program LOOKS like. I learn by examples, give me one. |> |> 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). Personally, I don't understand what you want. For instance, I don't know what you mean when you say "Show us what a VR program LOOKS like." If you want to see an operational system, I'm afraid you'll have to attend a trade conference, or go visit a site yourself (like VPL). Also, what do you mean by "really simple" (fourth paragraph quoted above)? I have a suspicion that you really have no idea of the size and complexity of a VR system, especially one meant to combine realtime or near-realtime 3D visualisation of an environment with physical data input (dataglove, perhaps). One of the problems in that realm stems from the magnitude of the rendering tasks required to produce a visually satisfactory display. The work I've seen relies on hardware to off-load the graphics tasks, say for example by using an IRIS 4DVGX. Actually, most of the VR work with which I'm familiar is little more than high speed, 3D computer graphics with high-tech twists such as head-mounted stereoscopic displays, `dataglove' type data input, etc. 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. I suggest also that, to help you loosen up a bit, you subscribe to a magazine by the name of `Mondo 2000'... check your local progressive (or well-stocked) newsstand. -marcus- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Opinions expressed above are not necessarily those of anyone in particular." `...but do YOU own a | INET: cygnus@udel.edu homemade 6ft Tesla?' | UUCP: {yourpick}!cfg!udel!cygnus -------
mike@x.co.uk (Mike Moore) (08/31/90)
Filip Gieszczykiewicz writes: > > > Greetings. > > I understand that many people are "thrilled" to > post and read this group - but. > > [stuff deleted] > > I'm no PhD. I don't think too many reading this > group are. You have a program, _post it_. > Just a small portion will be fine. Show us what > a VR program LOOKS like. I learn by examples, > give me one. > > You have a system that you do your stuff on, give > us the setup! Gosh, I write stuff on a 386 > with a VGA using C, what do you use??? > > [more stuff deleted] > > It does not have to be RealTime or even have fancy > graphics. It can be just a set of subroutines - or > even just pseudo-code - but it must be REAL... not > THEORY... > > [and more] > > P.S. If you don't like the above, you are probably a > PhD. Some of us just can't stand THEORY... Please note: this is NOT a flame Let's swap pseudo-code! Actually there are a lot of people out there; real, working, money-making companies; who have implementations of VR on all sorts of different machines, and they demo them etc... BUT, I know what you mean, the guys on this BB can go above my head, but then *I* think with my fingers! But, I have something in common with them. We are all dreamers. And we can see this dream becoming reality. Space flight became a reality, and most of the world got bored (not me), and then they wouldn't let me GO OUT THERE! So we work on another one, and see what happens this time. Enough of this rambling, what I propose is this: Imagine a machine, with a programming language that hasn't been designed yet, and an operating system that hasn't been built. Imagine a wondrous piece of hardware that ran in the billions of MIPS with multi-multi- multi-parallel chip logic (around, say, 512K cpus), imagine a superb human interface system and that we are the software engineers/artists. Now, call it a single-user system, connect it up to an optic fibre cable that goes to EVERY home in the world and, finally, sell it for the same comparative price that a colour TV set is now (comparative to today's average earnings say). They say never try to predict, but I sincerely believe this will be a reality in less than 20 years (nice safe margin actually!). Now, let's program! Top-down approach, until, not only have we designed a new language, we have the op sys level that is so vital to the work. Of course by the time you and I get there, at least half a dozen others will be there (some a lot bigger fish than just two poor hackers) and standardization will start to arrive. And you and me? Well, we'll be left clutching our baby, thinking, 'we could always build ourselves a virtual reality!' At least I can GO, this time. They can't stop me, except by pricing it right out of my reach (like the space program). Let's take the current discussion about modelling humans. I don't want AI (that will never happen within 20 years), I want a Virtual Reality which human beings populate, and software artists create. Cities, buildings, anything. We need a co-ordinate system, (x,y,z) seems good enough. We need to define what goes where (like, the position of the individual within the cyberspace is looked after and manipulated by the individual's machine. Whereas the description of a building, the object's within it, the physics present in the environment and the allowable actions of the individual and reactions of objects are defined by the host machine, the designer-artists machine. There is some standard software floating around the entire net, that makes each of the designers' machines into a cohesive whole and allows individuals to travel between them in some understandable way. [maybe (x,y,x) isn't good enough, how does my brain deal with buildings which float in the sky? Especially above my head?! With no ground? Do I need a two-dimensional projection of three-dimensions, like the Earth's surface say? But NOW *I'M* beginning to sound like a theorist!] Anyway I said let's code. So here is level 1 of a top-down approach of the design of a building within Cyberspace (I'm poor enough to own a baby designer's machine say, with only enough disk - or is it holocube? - memory for one reasonably large building, and I've bought a plot of cyberspace real-estate on the outskirts of a cybercity and I have planning permission). Name: Suscatrel Temple Location: 123,2867,987 *in whatever units the net-siting software uses Shape: Ah... Hmmm.... Well, OK, I'm stuck. I need a way to specify what my building looks like. And I need a formalised way of doing it. So we talk theory a while, and then we get back to coding (if we don't get discouraged), and we hope that we'll have something really decent for when that imaginary computer arrives (it will). As it happens, we have some decent software that allows me to design my building. So off I go and plug it into my baby designer machine. Now, I need to model a three-d, inside view of my building. Well, we're getting there. Now I need a three-d modelling system for the objects. OK. Then some decent interface equipment. Ah. We're stuck. There isn't any (not yet). But then that's hardware. What I'm trying to illustrate is that a lot of the software we need already exists. What doesn't, is on it's way, and all that is really needed is some way to glue it all together, then wait twenty years for the hardware to catch up! Meanwhile we can refine, and discuss, and dream. Now if you'll forgive the length of this article, I'm going to unjack and feed the meat. -- --- Mike Moore mike@x.co.uk or mike@ixi-limited.co.uk Usual and obvious disclaimers... etc