> >>From Al <globus@nas.nasa.gov>...
> > 3D interactive graphics is great stuff, whether its called
> >VR or not. I feel, although not all agree, that the term VR
> >should be reserved for immersive environments.
>
> I wholeheartedly agree. I define VR as the *subset* of interactive 3D
> graphics that deals with immersive environments. Using the two as
> synonyms will hasten the descent of the phrase "virtual reality" into
> the content-free buzzword zone. IMHO interactive 3D graphics is the
> greatest thing since sliced bread, there's no need to make it sound
> "catchier" by dubbing it VR.
VR and Cyberspace have gone down that *tubeway* to the buzzword zone -
a long time ago.
Your telephone calls are cyberspace encounters, and your average computer
game
is Virtual Reality ( You have as much choice of what happens to you in the
game
as you do here in real life)
Lets face it - the term *Illusion* is virtually that same term as
*Virtual Reality*.
If you want to get sentimental about the illusions in life, be my guest, but
for the rest of us there are no illusions about the hype levels over VR.
> >>From Al <globus@nas.nasa.gov>...
> >> A note, vrml is really a 3D specification language with URLs thrown
in.
>
> Precisely. I've always thought the format should be called 3DML
> instead of VRML. I didn't have the energy to _start_ a flamewar on the
> subject, but now that Al has struck the match I'll throw my sticks
> into the fire.
I'm sure you didn't mean to be, but this is rather ingratiating.
> By now, however, there's too much inertia to change the name. If
> we're lucky, VRML will catch on as the standard 3D scene description
> interchange format, which will be a great boon to toolmakers,
> worldbuilders, and general users alike. Some unknown percentage of the
> tools will actually immerse the user in 3D worlds.
Some of us are already immersed in a 3D world called consensus reality,
and some of us are working to bring VR technology out of the moneylined
halls of gummint work and onto the desktops and applications we all use.
VR is not immersion, immersion is a type of VR.
I have a lot of respect for the work you've done .
I think that there are aspects of this you aren't seeing however, and I would
ask you to trust others that do see a pathway from this beginning towards
something that we will all be proud of.
> >>From Justin/Mark <justin@dsd.camb.inmet.com>...
> >People seem to be all caught up in the limitations of VRML 1.0. Folks,
> >review the history a little. This is a first cut -- nothing more, and
> >it has never been billed as more. It's intended as a rudimentary first
>
> Although I rarely post, I'm quite aware of the history. "VR-ness", as
> measured by immersivity, is determined by which browser/viewer is used
> on the client side, not by the version of VRML. The issue of
> behaviors, which was wisely deferred until a later version, does not
> change this.
It is changed when you stop thinking of immersion as the end-all be-all
of Virtual reality.
when the newness of the tech-gear wears off, I think we will see a flood
of people realising how they can use these technologys to bring ease of use
and better navigation of networked space to their applications.
LUX ./. owen