From: hluce@minerva.che.uc.edu (Hudson Luce)
Subject: Re: New Systems: Avoiding "Cold Fusion" (Was Re: FVT will be on display
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 91 02:20:03 EST
Organization: University of Cincinnati, Cin'ti., OH



 Since this *is* a moderated newsgroup, perhaps the moderator could ask a
 few hard questions via email of the people who wisj to use the net for
 publicizing their work. Some of these could include:

 1. How much of the imagery is hard-wired (i.e. images stored per se in
    memory, to be retrieved on demand) vs. how much is created at the will
    of the user?  This relates to the ability of the user to uniquely con-
    figure his/her VR. Same case for audio and tactile effects. VR objects
    which are "hard-wired" should consist of "raw materials" and tools to
    transform them, sort of like paints and palettes/brushes. VR objects
    should *not* consist of a set of previoulsy created complex objects,
     i.e. should not be a set of completed paintings. A "VR" with all or
    most of its imagery and so forth "hard-wired" is more akin to a fancy
    video game, in which the basic form of the script has been set forth,
    with minor variations allowed; a true "VR" allows for creation of a
    script/environment with a set of primitives and tools.
 
2. To what degree is navigation allowed? can a user see from all viewpoints,
    or only a given set? Is it possible to represent motion and relative
    distances, momentum, and so forth, or are the possible scenarios limited
     to a previously specified set?

3. The information given by the developers should be sufficient to exclude
   the possilbility of fraud (or its close relative, hype...). When I first
   saw dferich's postings, I *immediately* had doubts; this stuff reminded
   me of some of the things I was seeing in Modxxx Mondo 2000. Ideally, new
   product announcements of this sort should be required to adhere to a stan-
   dard similar to technical magazines (i.e. ACM or IEEE journals). Perhaps
   it might be desirable to limit new product announcements to reviews by a
   (hopefully impartial) third party, in which the reviewer *personally* ex-
   periences* the VR applications.
 
This is by no means an inclusive list, just some of the things that come to
 mind. Spelling errors are due to the fact that this email is being written
 on ex, the **old** unix line editor, and I can't get it to backspace or
 delete.


[MODERATOR'S NOTE: As I wrote to the poster of this message, it is perfectly
appropriate to post notices of new technological advances to the USENET,
even if they are commercial, so long as they are, in fact, technological
advances. No one wants to read advertising. But we would also regret not
learning about progress as it happens.

As moderator, I do not feel it is incumbent on me to make value judgments
about the claims in postings, so long as the postings relate to the topics
of this newsgroup. The participants here are capable of rooting out the
truth and disgarding the yuck without my intrusion; in fact, many are more
capable by way of technical training and experience. I do appreciate the
criteria specified in this posting. They give a certain direction to those
who would constitute themselves as "VR critics" of tomorrow, much as the
canons of moviemaking guide film critics today.

I should note that if something sufficiently riles me, I'll post here like
any other participant. I do get special consideration from the moderator. B.J.]