From: gstecker@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Chris Stecker)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk.tech
Subject: Re: Home brew VR?
Summary: NeXTStep, good; Graphical infatuation bad.
Keywords: VR, VUI, cyberspace, next
Date: 10 Nov 92 20:21:11 GMT
Followup-To: sci.virtual-worlds
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1dcgraINNod5@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> rhino@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu 
	(Rhino Project) writes:
>Basically I got the following answers....
>
>Amiga: Good machine if you get one with the beefed up vision boards etc.
>Mostly recommend by die-hard amiga people.
>
>386/486:The 33 megahertz 386 seemed like enough for the moment so a 486 is 
>probably a good idea. The most popular area for most of the homebrew people.
>
>SGI:If you can afford it get it! it seems to be the platform of choice for 
>those who can afford a $10,000 starter package with no virtual reality stuff. 
>
>NeXT:Not to popular b/c basically there are so few machines out there compared
>to the others but from what I understand it would do just fine...
>
>-- 
>Carlin E. Wiegner              | rhino@eeap.cwru.edu
>Triumvirate Industries, Inc.   | cew6@po.cwru.edu 

While I agree that the SGI is the machine to get for its graphics capability
and speed, as well as VR options supported directly (Sense8, etc.), I am
concerned that you are implying that there are not enough NeXTs around to
be cosidered a viable platform.  There are far fewer Indigo's than NeXT's,
I'm afraid.  Remember, also, that the strength of the NeXt doesn't come from
the hardware, but from the OS.  With NeXTStep 3.0's inclusion of Interactive
Renderman, via the 3dKit of programming objects, and Distibuted Object tech-
nology, it looks like NeXT is heading in the right direction for VR.  
	If you are satisfied to play with VR demo applications, or are up to 
making a substantial time investment for VR programming, then any of these 
platforms will work.  However, NeXTStep will allow you to quickly and easily, 
with very little traditional programming experience, add VR capability to your
applications.  The speed may leave something to be desired when you are
dealing with highly textured 3D objects, but that's why NeXT has Interactive
Renderman.  Currently, wireframe objects are supported.  When NeXTStep
begins running on faster processors, fully shaded objects will work, too.
Also, realize that NeXTStep 486 is due out very soon.  A good choice may
be a fast 486 (or, soon, Pentium) machine running NeXTStep.  The OS will
definitely ease the 3D modeling, and the hardware should be fast and cheap
enough for "home brew".  After 486, NeXT should port to other platforms,
probably SPARC, but hopefully the R4000 architecture won't be too far behind,
and we can all run NeXTStep on Indigo's.  I feel this would be the very
best machine for desktop VR. 
	However, it's very easy to become too concerned with the "Lawnmower
Man" model of VR.  The immersive graphics technology is very appealing, but
it is basically worthless without an underlying model for communication
between objects in cyberspace.  The development of this backbone technology,
upon which various VR "terminals" can be run, needs to be a high priority
for VR hobbyists, as well as researchers.  That model will stick with us
for many years, while graphical technologies come and go with the ever-
increasing rate of technological growth.  We can not let a few companies
determine the way distributed VR will be handled in the future.  Like the 
Internet, it should be a "grassroots" thing, and its form should be 
determined by consensus.  Then, with an agreed-upon, platform and interface 
independent model for the cyberspace network in place, Virtual User Interfaces 
(VUI's? ;-) can be developed. 
	Hmmmm...it seems my original intent of fact-clarification has been
superseded by an uncrontollable need to spout out on the philosophy of VR:-)
Please send any replies to: