Subject: [mmox] Comments relating to TP's and Mashups

From: William George <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 11:07:04 -0400

Let me apologize for the combined response below, i get the digest, and
Gmail doesnt make it easy to separate.

Gareth wrote:

> The focus should be on 3D worlds for this work - since it does not make
sense to TP between 2D and 3D worlds.

Actually, it does. It's just not 100% complete. The current Video technology
we are using is 2D anyway.

I'm really liking the summary that Morgaine put together below; I believe it
was mentioned at the meeting as well:

  *to create a mashup in which the user's avatar is now in a new
world setting and visible to new people*.

I would like to change this slighty by adding quotes around the "world" and
removing the word "people" changing it to avatars or entities. I feel pretty
strongly that we are overly anthropomorphisizing our user agents (avatars)
and tending to grant them rights (and positions) that they do not have or
need.

Waka

"Don't anthropomorphize computers: they hate that"

---

From: Gareth Nelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:32:18 +0000

> we are using is 2D anyway.
Not really, if I have a topdown 2D VW it doesn't make sense to TP to
another world using my 2D sprite avatar - it would need to be a new 3D
avatar, and therefore it'd be questionable to call this TP as such.

> and tending to grant them rights (and positions) that they do not have or
Avatars represent users generally, but that's besides the point - my
basic point was that currently most virtual worlds of interest are 3D

---

From: Morgaine <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:08:50 +0000

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Gareth Nelson <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
> if I have a topdown 2D VW it doesn't make sense to TP to another world
> using my 2D sprite avatar - it would need to be a new 3D avatar, and
> therefore it'd be questionable to call this TP as such.
>
>
Although it's a corner case, it still makes sense.  You must have seen the
2D avatars in Second Life, both cell-shaded for a 2D effect in 3D, and also
those that have "zero depth".  While I don't expect this to catch on in any
big way, it is nevertheless viable and already done.

Weblin avatars could certainly TP to SL or Opensim worlds this way.
Conversely, 3D avatars could quite easily "TP" into Weblin and appear
through 3D->2D projection, performed either dynamically or pre-captured.

Also, don't forget that some Limited Capability Clients will "teleport"
depite having "zero-D", in the sense that they may have no visual presence
yet still partake of other decoupled world services such as communications.
TP of 3D avatars is a common case, but other cases are also valid and quite
easy to achieve between worlds.

Morgaine.

---

From: Gareth Nelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:05:27 +0000

Yeah, we can get avatar-less presence too, but further to this we
should still treat 2D and 3D as separate standards, and since most VWs
of interest are 3D it makes sense to tackle 3D first, especially
considering the makeup of people we have here.

---

From: Morgaine <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:37:43 +0000

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Gareth Nelson <[email-masked]> wrote:

Yeah, we can get avatar-less presence too, but further to this we should
> still treat 2D and 3D as separate standards, and since most VWs of interest
> are 3D it makes sense to tackle 3D first, especially considering the makeup
> of people we have here.
>

Why?  It's not justified.  That approach would reduce the interop that could
result from a common protocol operating over decoupled services.

I propose the exact opposite:  that the protocol should not seek to make
special cases nor to restrict its applicability, and that local
implementation details (like how many dimensions are possessed by avatars)
be handled locally.  Implementers would then merely perform a local mapping
in their own object handlers, for example a 3D->2D projection handler.

Morgaine.