pezely@cis.udel.edu (Daniel Pezely) (05/31/90)
Hmm... Some of my concerns for implementing a virtual world, or at least building a library of software tools and device drivers for others to build upon, was that we need to get these tools to as many of the hackers (developers) as possible so that we can have sort of a mass- development effort going on. Maybe this is wouldn't work out too well, but let me state my original reasons for it, though. As someone who is still in school as an undergraduate, a few years ago, Borland's Turbo Pascal(tm) for the IBM PC's was the most valuable tool I had. With its `toolboxes' and other third party packages and with other tools that I and other (legal) hackers have developed, we built lots of nifty things. Sure, most of our work was a kludge, but when I moved up to C four years ago, one of those projects evolved into a commercial package. So, my question was, if we give the next generation hackers and ourselves some VR tools, will it benefit the VR community in any way? At first, I thought yes, but after talking to a few people doing VR research and a few likely users, I think maybe not. The reason is that we might be spending too much time -- at this point -- working in the wrong area. The most obvious problem is that not many people have access to the machines powerful enough to do just the base-level VR stuff. Even just building a world which people view through a monitor (having no eye-phones or data-gloves) would require at least a 486, 040, high-end Sparc, etc. Joe Hacker (independent developer) may not have access to it yet. Even the people in universities who might have access, the questions becomes: what platform do we develop on and for? SVR4 is still pretty much vaporware at this point, and every C programmer knows, ``there is no such thing as portable code, just code that's been ported.'' (who said that originally?) ...and software and operating systems is only part of the issue. So, now, I think those of us who have not committed to anything just yet and are still in the design stage, should work towards efforts of protocols and development of *something* that works. This is no new revelation, but I thought if this newsgroup is to be a forum for VR ideas, I might as well let everyone know what stage I'm at.... A few questions come to mind at this point. (the usual ones) What *exactly* do we want to do? What is needed, and what do we need to do? Since funding is always a problem, how can our work be of use to the sponsors? (ie, Why?) What are the various stages of development which will yield something that works? What kind of time frame(s) should we consider? How can we do it, and be realistic? Who is committed, and who can help? What platforms? (ie Where?) for now, where ever we can! Since getting started is half the effort, let's just start with what comes natural and accomplish *something*. (No kidding!) As Mark Evenson says, we can talk the virtual talk, but can we walk the virtual walk? I was going to develop my own tools such as a db engine, but why bother? It's already been done, and with AutoCAD rumored to be released with C programming hooks, we'll have a world prototyping system and db engine all in one. And, it's moving beyond the PC and Mac domains (VAXen under Ultrix, SparcStations under SunOS). Stay tuned... the MEAT is yet to come. -Daniel -- Computer Science Lab, Smith Hall, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716 Pezely@cis.udel.edu; Lab: 302/451-6339,fax: 451-8000; Home: 302/368-5931
gt0228b%prism@gatech.edu (FALCO,VINNIE) (06/04/90)
A proposal : I believe that I have heard of a program called NetTalk, that takes in regular english text (a 27 letter alphabet, plus punctation maybe) and converts it into the correct phonetic form (approx. 55 sounds) by utilizing a neural net that has been trained over and over again by comparing the produced output with the desired output, and then adjusting the weights. I have also seen a crude device for the Apple II where electrodes are hooked up to the scalp, and heart muscles (and whatever, I am not a doctor :). There is some software that comes with it that puts up a graph of the relevant data. What are the possibilities of using a neural network, where the inputs are the biodata from a user (i.e. alpha wave activity, heart rate, whatever) and the output is some useful function, like dragging a file into the trash, opening a window, running an application, or selecting a menu item (definite Macintosh bias here...)? The network could be trained over and over again, while the user thinks about whatever (s)he wants to associate the desired operation with. Of course, depending on how hard the user concentrates on the proper ideas, the network would have a certain amount of 'slop', so this might be a problem, because if your mind wandered, you might erase some file or quit an application by accident! eh?
mwtilden@watmath.waterloo.edu (M.W.Tilden, Hardware) (06/06/90)
In article <9005311121.aa07914@lazlow.cis.udel.edu> pezely@cis.udel.edu (Daniel Pezely) writes: > >Hmm... Some of my concerns for implementing a virtual world, or at >least building a library of software tools and device drivers for others >to build upon, was that we need to get these tools to as many of the >hackers (developers) as possible so that we can have sort of a mass- >development effort going on. Perfectly correct. Don't forget that a large part of the incredible spectrum of software we have today is the result of hackers having fun with their machines. I site other examples (not un-related) as the after-hours work done at Pixar, Apollo, ILM, Disney which have resulted in some beautiful Computer Graphics animations (check out "The International Tournee of Animation" videos for details). Hacks all, making the most of idle machines after hours. With VR, the problem is not that the machines aren't available after hours, but aren't available at all! And, from what I can tell, the people who are working in the field are just sitting around banging their egos together while praying that what they spit out might gain a toehold on the market, thus spuring corperate sponsorship (You don't want to know what I think of corperate sponsorship of VR research. It's even nastier). I say this knowing that the sparks from my own ego are currently setting my desk-calender on fire. What is needed is a marketed absolute towards which everyone can work. Let me give you an example of what I mean: we just got a rather fast MIPS computer here which will ultimately replace an aging VAX780. I walked past one of the software boys giggling at his terminal like a madman. I asked him what's up. He said he was getting infinite satisfaction compiling the same accounting package over and over again. "So?" I said. "The MIPS finishes it before I take my finger off the return key. The VAX takes 3 hours to do the same thing." The point is that if someone, somewhere would market and sell a standard VR device that was backwards compatible, it would break ground that would trickle down to the general user population. Not just in software but also in imagination stimulus. The device would be crude initially, but if done correctly, you could sell one everywhere (everywhere with about $200,000 to spend, of course. Still far cheaper than a full flight simulator with almost 80% of the realism). And, despite the horrors of such a statement, chances are that it should run MSDOS. There are several problems however. One is that, despite all efforts to the contrary, it is actually *more* difficult to program a computer today than it has ever been before. For the sake of users who must work with icons, we have scared the potential programmer away. At this University, I have noticed a distinct drop in the number of 'bright-eyed' hacks in the past few years. The intrusive, question-asking programmer-larvae is now an endangered species. Without this replenishment of people who, let's face it, put in incredible hours for little or no reward, VR progress will be slow. The other obvious problem is bandwidth. Todays gridding of our planet with high-speed fiber-optics is inadequate for the incredible quantities of data-flow that a full VR news service should carry. Compression and distribution standards notwithstanding. And without this sort of free exchange, VR will flounder for a long while. We haven't even got a standard graphics-image exchange system that anybody can agree on. How could we set up exchange for full animation demos? >The most obvious problem is that not many people have access to the >machines powerful enough to do just the base-level VR stuff. Even just >building a world which people view through a monitor (having no >eye-phones or data-gloves) would require at least a 486, 040, high-end >Sparc, etc. Check the trends. There is a level of CPU power that is sufficient for adequate VR work. The fast machines of today will be the pocket calculators of tommorrow, and are becoming so at an ever *faster* rate! It will happen, but will we have the interface and software to use it? >A few questions come to mind at this point. (the usual ones) > >What *exactly* do we want to do? See above. >Since funding is always a problem, how can our work be of use to the >sponsors? (ie, Why?) Most places I've talked to are still wondering that. But of course they won't put development effort/money into something until they've seen something developed. Catch 22. >What kind of time frame(s) should we consider? When asked "how long did it take you to make a moon-rocket", one of NASAs chief engineers said "As long as it took." Point being that once the goal was set, the reality was fulfilled. Get Bush to mandate a Virtual Reality goal for this decade and you'll see a VR desk in every home by 2000. Of course, it might be an idea to wait for a President with a bit more charisma (anybody know Gorbachev's phone number?). >How can we do it, and be realistic? Build, edit, build, edit, program, market, market, market Return to previous sentence. >Who is committed, and who can help? >Since getting started is half the effort, let's just start with what >comes natural and accomplish *something*. >(No kidding!) As Mark Evenson says, we can talk the virtual talk, >but can we walk the virtual walk? Damn straight! Eye'm sik ov taaak-ing! Les' BUILD sometheeng! Is all. (What is this? A compulsion?) -- Mark Tilden: _-_-_-__--__--_ /(glitch!) M.F.C.F Hardware Design Lab. -_-___ | \ /\/ U of Waterloo. Ont. Can, N2L-3G1 |__-_-_-| \/ (519) - 885 - 1211 ext.2454, "MY OPINIONS, YOU HEAR!? MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! AH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!" Keywords: n
cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (06/07/90)
I agree with Mark that it would be nice to be able to build more virtual world technology, rather than just talk about it, but it's pretty hard to do that online or in the press. And that's where you get most of your information about virtual worlds, right? Visit some of the labs. You might be sur- prised at both the plans and the accomplishments, with and without corporate, governmental, or private sponsorship.
randy@xanadu.com (Randy Farmer -- A survivor of the Lost Patrol) (06/07/90)
In article <1990Jun6.153725.6857@watmath.waterloo.edu> mwtilden@watmath.waterloo.edu (M.W.Tilden, Hardware) writes: > (some stuff saying how hackers have done great stuff 'cause it is FUN.) > >With VR, the problem is not that the machines aren't available after >hours, but aren't available at all! And, from what I can tell, the >people who are working in the field are just sitting around banging >their egos together while praying that what they spit out might gain a >toehold on the market, thus spuring corperate sponsorship (You don't >want to know what I think of corperate sponsorship of VR research. >It's even nastier). Not ALL of us are just banging our egos together. When we are Lucasfilm Chip Morningstar ad I (along with several others) put together the Habitat system. A 2D, 3d person >>MULTI-PARTICIPANT<< virtual reality. It's making money even though the frontend software on a Commode-Odor 64. ;D Corporate sponsoship for this project was the ONLY way to do it, my best guess is that over 7 figures were dropped into this project (with very little waste IMHO). > >I say this knowing that the sparks from my own ego are currently >setting my desk-calender on fire. > >What is needed is a marketed absolute towards which everyone can work. Hear Hear! The hard part is deciding WHAT THAT IS! > (suff deleted) > >The point is that if someone, somewhere would market and sell a >standard VR device that was backwards compatible, it would break >ground that would trickle down to the general user population. Ooops! Not so fast. :D. How about a VR software standard first! Hardware is always going to change, and face it, Eyphones are JUST TWO SCREENS. A Dataglove is JUST AN INPUT DEVICE. They are COOL I/O devices, and I want some, but that is all they are. Our position is that the hardware is not the problem of VR, the comm and data standards are. How do you handle interacting VRs (from differenet vendors), etc.? Let's think about backward compatible software first! >Not just in software but also in imagination stimulus. The device would be >crude initially, but if done correctly, you could sell one everywhere >(everywhere with about $200,000 to spend, of course. Still far >cheaper than a full flight simulator with almost 80% of the realism). > The hardware for a Sens8 platform is around $10,000 (less if you already own a fast 386 or say, a sun) and $3,000 less if you don't need a head tracker. I'm not sure what the software is selling for tho. >And, despite the horrors of such a statement, chances are that it >should run MSDOS. > Yer right! This is the right kind of question. (It is actually the answer to the question: What platform should VR stuff run on today to encourage growth?) Habitat already runs on an MSDOS platform in Japan. > (comments about drop in new hacker blood schools deleted) >The other obvious problem is bandwidth. Todays gridding of our >planet with high-speed fiber-optics is inadequate for the >incredible quantities of data-flow that a full VR news service >should carry. Compression and distribution standards notwithstanding. >And without this sort of free exchange, VR will flounder for a long >while. We haven't even got a standard graphics-image exchange system >that anybody can agree on. How could we set up exchange for full >animation demos? Woa! Bandwidth is a real problem, but not as bad as you think. Habitat worked at 300BAUD! The key here is not to try to bite off more than is resonable. Again, object based comm and data standards can go a long way on this front. Stop thinking in polygons. Think in objects. I *KNOW* these sound like brief and arbitrary statements, but the come from real life experience. Please check out our paper in the Proceedings from the First Conference on Cybersapce., a MIT press book due out this fall for a more detailed reasoning. > (lots of other stuff deleted. I wanted to address only the points above) >Mark Tilden: _-_-_-__--__--_ /(glitch!) M.F.C.F Hardware Design Lab. >-_-___ | \ /\/ U of Waterloo. Ont. Can, N2L-3G1 > |__-_-_-| \/ (519) - 885 - 1211 ext.2454, >"MY OPINIONS, YOU HEAR!? MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! AH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!" F. Randall Farmer Mother of Habitat randy@xanadu.com
sobiloff@agnes.acc.stolaf.edu (Chrome Cboy) (06/08/90)
In article <1990Jun6.153725.6857@watmath.waterloo.edu> mwtilden@watmath.waterloo.edu (M.W.Tilden, Hardware) writes: > >In article <9005311121.aa07914@lazlow.cis.udel.edu> pezely@cis.udel.edu (Daniel Pezely) writes: >At this University, I have noticed a distinct drop in the >number of 'bright-eyed' hacks in the past few years. The intrusive, >question-asking programmer-larvae is now an endangered species. >Without this replenishment of people who, let's face it, put in >incredible hours for little or no reward, VR progress will be slow. Interesting; it seems that there is a slight *increase* in the number of hackers that are turning up at this college. It might have something to do with the dramatic increase in computing machinery available, though... :-) Seriously, our CS dept is overwhelmed with the student demand for computer classes, and we can't seem to buy enough computers to keep everyone happy. Kind of a nice environment to be in, huh? :-) >The other obvious problem is bandwidth. Todays gridding of our >planet with high-speed fiber-optics is inadequate for the >incredible quantities of data-flow that a full VR news service >should carry. Compression and distribution standards notwithstanding. >And without this sort of free exchange, VR will flounder for a long >while. We haven't even got a standard graphics-image exchange system >that anybody can agree on. How could we set up exchange for full >animation demos? First, check out some of the latest ISDN proposals from MIT--I think you'd be suprised at how much information can be pumped through fiber. The two places I've found good info about this are Stewart Brand's book "The Media Lab: Inventing the Future at MIT" and the latest issue of Byte magazine. Second, PostScript is rapidly becoming the standard of choice (but with the politicking between Microsoft and Apple, who knows...) for graphic- image exchange. Also, there seems to be great acceptance of the RenderMan format for animation, IMHO partly arising from the lack of a good standard for regular graphics and the headaches that has caused. -CCb "I drive fast. I drive safely. The two are *not* mutually exclusive, contrary to popular delusion." -CCb "I live in that solitude which is painful in youth, but delicious in the years of maturity." -Albert Einstein