From: mpflaging Subject: Re: MISC: VR thoughts Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 10:50:04 -0500 Message-ID: <34C8BC2C.D9F66AAB@ddlomni.com> Organization: DDL OMNI Engineering LLC I like that.... "what used to be called virtual reality" (Bob Jacobson's comment). Jerry seems to be talking mostly about graphics, in a sense ignoring user interface issues, though most of us feel that a good frame rate is the prime directive when attempting to build a usable or commercial system. While Linda seems to referring to display and tracking technology, mostly, and who knows (but Bob Jacobson :) how long it will be before the price point on these items will read the same level as 3D acceleration technology. Display and tracking technology are the next "holy grail" in terms of untapped market potential for "VR" technology. Its not too much of a mental leap to realize that these things transcend "Silicon", and that we need different manufacturing technology and different materials. Perhaps the "dinosaur" concept of totally encasing a user in a headset, rubber suit, wired gloves, etc etc is indeed something for the research labs. Consider that an optical motion capture system could outperform the "dinosaur" tracking system without encumbering the user. Consider that besides the lenses, its all basic electronics, easy to design & manufacture. Consider it may be difficult to make compelling content without decent motion capture. (Notice practically every first person entertainment title coming out uses motion capture.) We are (almost) all the "3D animators" of our own bodies. Don't even get me started about displays. Mainly I want to point out that people are talking of motion capture in terms that don't involve "the V word" even though clearly motion capture technology is a driving force in the Virtual Reality industry. (one might even argue the biggest advances have come from within the "VR industry" but hey, the invention of the motion picture camera was a big advance in motion capture tech....) What's my message? That's its just really a good picture all around with the industry (even with some of the consolidation going on), and there's probably no use arguing over what technologies are "alive" or "dead". 3D accelerators are enabling content developers, and future commercial tracking and display technology will further enable them. "Immersion", "VR", and "VE" enable researchers and scientists to discover answers to some great mysteries of the universe, but only occasionally at a reasonable price-point. Higher-end applications are also being shown to be of use in specialized training applications, saving millions if not billions of dollars. So while it may be "hard to justify the cost of an SGI" for developing and deploying commercial apps, its also hard to slight them for not focusing on those customers (except that they "used to"...) I'm embarking on a project that has some similarity with Eben's project, though it sounds like Eben is closer to commercialization. We hope to develop a new system using 3D graphics and the Internet to help train medical technicians. There may be some kind of haptic feedback as part of the system as well. Its very interesting: we may not be able to do it all by ourselves. That's all I can say right now without being a salesman. Bob is 100% correct about "VR" being known as things other than "VR" now, and that it does indicate the technology is maturing. Lets not forget that the people (and most in the industry) who have posted are more or less from "the same planet". The industry is more mature than it was, but it is far from "mature". So who can complain? -Mark Pflaging mpflaging@ddlomni.com DDL OMNI Engineering LLC McLean VA p.s. I don't seem to have Jerry's full original post, and hope I didn't take anything out of context.