From: johnson@natasha.ics.hawaii.edu (Philip M Johnson) Subject: 3-D rendering software pointers request Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 09:14:13 HST I am interested in developing a three dimensional interface to a software system I am currently implementing, and would like to ask the readers of this newsgroup for pointers to useful software or articles. My system is a "computer supported cooperative *learning* environment", (as opposed to CSCW :-), tailored to supporting literature review/analysis and project proposal development in graduate level computer science seminars. What is relevent to my query is that the students will cooperatively, and frequently simultaneously, be building a structure that looks like a hypertext network distributed across a set of planes (or dimensions). (Recall the 3-D chess game that Spock and Kirk occasionally play, and you'll have a rough idea of the structure I have in mind.) So, what I would like is a 3-D graphical toolkit that runs on Sparc Stations/Unix/X11R4 that: (1) supports Unix sockets for communication with the process running my software system. (2) can be programmatically instructed via the socket mechanism to render in 3-D this multi-dimensional hypertext structure. This rendering must be in real time and require only the horsepower of a Sparc II or thereabouts. It could be in color, but a black and white 3-D representation would be an acceptable alternative. My software could take responsibility for determing the size and relationship between the different planes, and the positioning of each node or link on them. It would be great if the user could reposition the nodes or links on the planes, and have these new positions sent back to my process. (3) builds in navigational mechanisms to allow the user to "fly" over, under, and around the 3-D rendering of my multi-dimensional hypertext structure. (4) allows the user to select a particular node or link and sends that selection back to my process. If you know of any system that sounds potentially useful to me in this process, please reply to me by e-mail. Thanks very much. Philip ------------------------------------------------------------ Philip Johnson johnson@uhics.ics.hawaii.edu Assistant Professor Department of Information and Computer Sciences University of Hawaii at Manoa 2565 The Mall (808) 956-3489 Honolulu, HI 96822 Fax: (808) 956-3548 >From Jeff.Bone@EBay.Sun.COM Wed Aug 14 15:49:20 1991 Received: from Sun.COM by milton.u.washington.edu (5.65/UW-NDC Revision: 2.1 ) id AA20736; Wed, 14 Aug 91 15:49:17 -0700 Received: from EBay.Sun.COM (female.EBay.Sun.COM) by Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA20579; Wed, 14 Aug 91 15:49:14 PDT Received: from lilith.EBay.Sun.COM by EBay.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA26963; Wed, 14 Aug 91 15:49:12 PDT Received: by lilith.EBay.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA11114; Wed, 14 Aug 91 15:51:55 PDT Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 15:51:55 PDT From: Jeff.Bone@EBay.Sun.COM (Jeff Bone) Message-Id: <9108142251.AA11114@lilith.EBay.Sun.COM> To: cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu Subject: Re: More on MUDs (Was Re: VR Worlds better than Reality) Status: RO Opening shot: there's no particular definition of user interface implicit in the term "virtual reality"; our prejudice toward calling only graphics-based virtual worlds "VR" is entirely due to the media hype and marketeering currently surrounding the term. jwtlai@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Jim W Lai) writes: > > Creating a detailed world with complex interaction rules takes more > effort, though some people are no doubt trying to remedy this lack. > This is a naive statement. The prevalent model in MUD technology today is the metaMUD or the extensible MUD, both of which provide powerful mechanisms for "creating a detailed world with complex interaction rules". In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the world-building paradigm in most MUDs is more mature, flexible, and sophisticated than most VR implementations. Most VR impl. seem to hard-code assumptions about the nature of the reality they model; it's a performance-driven necessity. MUDs on the other hand, freed from the computational constraints of interactive graphics, potentially allow for much greater levels of abstraction and description of the worlds they model. In systems like MOO and UberMUD, the "universe rules" can be interactively determined and modified to any extent by the participants. In short, what I'm saying is this: sophistication is in the mind of the beholder. In VR tech, the emphasis is entirely visual and spacial; in MUD, the emphasis is on richness of the model. Both simply use the available interface means to convey the depth of the world in question. UIs are the ONLY fundamental difference. Granted, I've never seen dynamic bouncing rubber blocks colliding off the scenery modeled in a MUD; on the other hand, I've never seen a bunch of people from around the globe simultaneously hanging out in a virtual nightclub, interacting with automated bartenders and characters, etc. in narrow-definition "VR". Yet, anyway. Grins, -- ---- jbone@Sun.COM -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ Jeff Bone ---- -- PS - parting thought: dynamic rubber bouncing blocks are neat and fun, etc., but unless "VR" is used as an empowering technology to enhance the communication experience between people, it's nothing more than CAD on steroids. C ya. --