HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dlwood@mailbox.syr.edu (David L Wood)
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
Subject: Re: TECH: My standard is better than your standard. (LONG)
Date: 18 Aug 92 20:44:43 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Originator: hlab@milton.u.washington.edu



In article <Bt13Eu.Do8@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>
dstamp@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Dave Stampe-Psy+Eng) writes:

>No: it supplies you with a link to the region, and sends objects in
>that region's scale (??).  Then your machine selects its own arbitrary
>scale and uses all the data to scale the objects to suit.  Lots of
>flexibility internally, efficient externally.

In the case of a portal that you can see through to the other side,
all the objects on the other side will have to be scaled down (by
someone) to fit within the portal's representation.  This truly makes
for "looking glass worlds" if your portal is small. :)

>What I was asking is: Can you move the object BEFORE your machine
>receives the "OK" message, or do you rewind?  There could be a second
>or two delay in message transmission, making the effects of the
>decision very noticeable.

The whole thing (could) work(s) like this: I am grabbing an object
which another user is also reaching to grab.  As soon as I make my
hand into a fist, my local station will send a message to the router
saying: I am moving this object.  Now, my message is sent before the
other guy's is.  I can move it freely, no wait at all for the response
of, "sure thing." or whatever.

Now, the other guy, he grabs is a nanosecond after I do, he sends off
his: "I am moving this object."  Whether or not his local station
decides to allow him to move the object is entirely arbitrary.  He
receives a message at the same time that he is sending his "I move
this" message.  This message he receives says, in brief: David Wood
now has temp ownership of object # XXX.  His local station then marks
this down in its memory, and either snaps the object back to where it
was if it allowed the user there to move it, or it goes back on its
way.  Every object has a defined owner for it, so there will be no
wait for a confirming message (assuming you're moving a public
object).

If you were the person who was trying to pick up the object that I
already had ownership of, you would have received a message saying,
David Wood has it.  The only time this might create a conflict is when
the other guy grabs the object before he gets the change of ownership
message from the router.

I think this allows for much faster manipulation of objects, and if
someone's local station screws up, then as soon as they try to move
the object, the router simply blasts back a request denied message.
Sounds sort of like a streaming protocol, eh?

What do we all think? Could this cut it? The trade-off favors those
with the higher speed data link to the router, I know, but that's
life.

+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| dlwood@mailbox.syr.edu      | Gigs and gigs of NiCad memory, bummer.. |
| Cybernaut, with a thought.  | Why buy the leading brand; 90% hate it. |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
From: bluefire@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Jacobson)
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
Subject: Re: PUBS: MONDO 2000
Date: 20 Aug 92 19:44:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Aug20.194935.15763
Organization: WORLDESIGN, Inc.
Originator: hlab@milton.u.washington.edu



Bruce Barcott, "The Browser" column, in the SEATTLE WEEKLY, August 19,
1992, has a few things to say about MONDO 2000.

(Barcott provides a review of recordings and reading items for the
WEEKLY, Seattle's main cultural magazine.)



    Whenever a computer nut starts yammering about how the latest
innovation in virtual reality will completely change the world, I feel
like dunking his head in onion dip.  It's my way of uplinking him to
reality, the creamy hors d'oeuvre providing an abject lesson in
real-life sight, touch, taste, and smell.  Computers can be fantastic
tools, but contrary to the outrageous claims I've heard, they won't
change what it means to be human.

    One of the progenitors of this brave-new-worldish view is MONDO
2000, the magazine for hackers and those who fancy themselves new age
philosophers.  MONDO assures computer freaks that they're on the
cutting edge of social change, that they and their electronic
compatriots will lead us into a computer-driven future.

    Timothy Leary is one of the gurus of this set and MONDO encourages
the doctor's habit by lending him two clean pages in the current
issue, which Leary uses like a logorrheic spittoon, hawking up such
nonsense phrases as "it's the new Hi-Fi, Psi-Phy, polychromatic,
multichannel, cyberdelic, fiberoptic trancemedia planetary network and
we're all linked up love."

    MONDO fails to see that a day spent in a worldwide electronic
hookup isn't a day talking to the world; it's a day typing electronic
blips on a screen.  As antidote to the slick MONDO world, the Browser
turns to ADBUSTERS, a mag firmly rooted in the real world.  The
Summer/Fall issue features a great short essay on teaching by John
Taylor Gatto, a kit for direct action against Chris Whittle's Channel
One in local schools, and some how-to advice on creating your own
poster campaign.  While the MONDO crowd is scarfing smart drugs and
flipping on VR, ADBUSTERS is changing the real world.  Turn off the
tube.


Bob Jacobson
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
From: pjm@bbn.com (Paul J. Metzger)
Subject: TECH: Maximum lag time?
Originator: hlab@milton.u.washington.edu
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 22:37:21 GMT



Many helmet display systems we've seen have a fairly large lag time
associated with them with an end result being images that appear to
slosh around.

Our question for the net is: What is the maximum acceptable lag time
from when a position/orientation sensor detects new data to when a
computer generated image is displayed, such that the "perceived" lag
is negligible?
From: "Michael B. Johnson" <mailrus!gatech!mit-eddie!media!wave.mit.
Subject: Re: INDUSTRY REPORT: Bolt Beranek and Newman (BBN) Inc.
Originator: hlab@milton.u.washington.edu
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:07:45 GMT



In article <1992Aug14.095422.14326@u.washington.edu>
cdshaw@cs.ualberta.ca (Chris Shaw) writes:

>>I think the most amusing anecdote about BBN's gold-plated SIMNET node
>>technology is that Mike Zyda's lab at the Naval Postgraduate School
>>built a SIMNET node with graphics using an SGI Indigo Elan.
>>
>>Cost of Indigo with Elan  -  $45,000 retail quantity one.
>>
>>Cost of BBN's SIMNET box - $300,000 (hopefully the Army gets a price
>>break)
>>
>>The Indigo outperforms the BBN Box on every count.
>>
>>I believe Zyda's lab had a staff of 8 or so for this project. I have
>>also been led to believe that the BBN box in question doesn't have
>>graphics.  Up until recently, SIMNET was text only.

Gimme a break.  Hey, Mike Zyda & Co. are a great group of guys, and
righteous hackers, but they are doing this several years after BBN,
and doing it with a commercially available box (read: economy of
scale).  BBN deserves quite a bit of respect for getting SIMNET up
during thee same period that SGI's best box was a 3030 (or maybe even
a 2400) and cost 6 figures.  The BBN CGI boxes were low res but did
real time texture mapping, something that only recently (i.e. the
SkyWriter) did SGI boxes do.  Sure they cost $300K, but that was
several years ago and it was custom hardware.

Mike and his students are doing great work, but don't praise their
work at the expense of BBN.  I have no affiliation with them, other
than having a few friends that worked on SIMNET, and I've played on
it.  If nothing else, the fact that they *implemented* it, and the
scale of it (both player numbers and distance numbers) are impressive.

As for the text only crack, I don't think so...

Jeez.

-->  Michael B. Johnson
-->  MIT Media Lab      --  Computer Graphics & Animation Group
-->  (617) 253-0663     --  wave@media-lab.media.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
From: asklingl@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Andreas Klingler
Subject: Re: TECH: SEGA light guns
Originator: hlab@milton.u.washington.edu
Organization: CSD., University of Erlangen, Germany
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 08:46:32 GMT



rcaslis@hydra.acs.uci.edu (Russell Caslis) writes:

>Could you post some pin-outs?

Ok. Here we go:

An Amiga Joystickport looks like this (for a lightpen):

                        Pin 3   left button
                            4   right button
                            5   pen pressed to screen (not used here)
                            6   capture beam position
                            7   +5V (125 mA)
                            8   GND

One might use Pin 5 for the trigger of the gun, however it's easier to
read Pin 3 or 4 in software, so I used Pin 3.

Beware that only one Port has the input for the beam. As far as I know
this is Port 1 (the right one) on all new Amigas. Only on the A1000 it
is Port 0 (the front one).

This is how the Nintendo connector looks:

              ------
             /   1 |
             | 5 2 |
             | 6 3 |
             | 7 4 |
             -------

        Gun             Amiga (joystick port)
        ---------       --------------------
        pin 1 GND       pin 8
        pin 5 +5V       pin 7
        pin 6 Beam      pin 6
        pin 7 Trigger   pin 3

(5 and 7 might by exchanged . You'd better check this. I can't
anymore, since I cut of the connector.)

To enable reading of the beam to have to set some flag in the
hardware.

I have put up a software which lets you control the mouse pointer with
the gun on karazm.math.uh.edu (129.7.128.1) in Incoming/VR as
AmigaGun.lha.  (Makes fun shooting at those Workbench drawers.

I just sould add some sound effects. :) )

The program should also appear at ftp.informatik.uni-erlangen.de
(131.188.1.43) in amiga/misc soon.


Andreas Klingler
asklingl@informatik.uni-erlangen.de
       I'd love to help you out... Which way did you come in?
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
From: dstamp@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Dave Stampe-Psy+Eng)
Subject: Re: SCI: The joys of hashing
Originator: hlab@milton.u.washington.edu
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 13:48:09 GMT



bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendelton) writes:

>One of the best ways to reduce n*n*n... type problems to tractable
>forms is to keep around information that lets you make reasonable
>decisions.
>
>A useful thing for an object to keep around is a list of all the other
>objects near it. Such a list could be used for many things.
>
>Assuming such a list exists and it includes in it's entries the visual
>description of an object then you can use the list to render what
>you're currently looking at. And, you could use it to detect which
>objects you are likely to hit while moving. 

A good fit for this problem is the concept of regions and subregions.
The subregions help in visibility calculations as well as collision
detection.  They are implemented by building a static BSP tree of the
splitting planes, then extracting smaller "region identity" trees to
test if a point is still in a region.  The list is the contents of a
region-- in some cases, an object will be in 2 regions (overlapping a
boundary).

>But searching such a list is an O(n) operation by itself. So, we need
>to represent the list in a form that can be searched faster.
>
>One thing we could do is use the x, y, and z of an object coordinates
>as subscripts into a 3 dimensional array and store a list of all the
>things that reside at a given location at the corresponding location in
>the array. Of course the array gets a bit large if you do that...

Alternatively, just have a very fast test for each region's (short)
list.  Using bounding spheres, do a quick bounding box test (1 uS on a
486/50 per object) then a sphere test (6 us) followed by more complex
collision tests.  Thus you eliminate 90% of contenders quickly.

Hashing could be used within a region, but to be most accurate the
hash table size and algorithm would vary with region (or subregion)
dimensions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| My life is Hardware,                    |                              | 
| my destiny is Software,                 |         Dave Stampe          |
| my CPU is Wetware...                    |                              | 
| Anybody got a SDB I can borrow?         | dstamp@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca |
__________________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
From: "Richard M. Coffey" <c-crm@math.utah.edu>
Subject: TECH: Let's do this (create new distributed OS0
Originator: hlab@milton.u.washington.edu
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 04:40:59 GMT



Concerning standards:

I agree with the paper idea.

I now have changed my views on the size of the data being sent.  I
just read an article about a new network called NREN being funded by
the federal gov.  (to the tune of 5billion dollars, yes, that's 5 with
nine zeros after it) This came about due to the efforts of my friend
and yours, Sen. Gore.  The network uses fiber optic connections
instead of the much slower copper ones. According to the article, info
will be sent across the country at the rate of gigabytes of info in
seconds.

If you're interested it came out of BEYOND COMPUTING May/June 1992,
pgs.  40 - 44

one final note...

Has anyone considered the impact of VR on average-Joe-six-pack in the years
to come?  (besides William Gibson, I haven't seen much interest in the
psychological impacts) I would be interested in any research going on in 
this direction.

-the richmeister-
Richard Coffey
email: c-crm@math.utah.edu


P.S.  A couple of things just popped into my one neuron...
        Maybe Disney will come out with a new TRON!
        Maybe we'll start seeing massively parallel processing machines on
        our desktops!
        Maybe the world will end tomorrow!

"Can't win em all!"
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
From: brutzman@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Don Brutzman)
Subject: Re: PUBS: Articles available on AUV simulation/visualization/etc.
Originator: hlab@milton.u.washington.edu
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 15:41:45 GMT



My original posting on NPS AUV papers contained an erroneous node address.

To obtain a copy of compressed postscript papers:
 
        ftp taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil     # node address 131.120.1.13
 
My apologies for any inconvenience.

Don Brutzman
From: thinman@netcom.com (Technically Sweet)
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
Subject: Re: TECH: 3d audio
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:06:13 GMT
Organization: International Foundation for Internal Freedom
Originator: hlab@milton.u.washington.edu



griff@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (yo'man) writes:

>Does anyone know of any sources for 3d audio information?  We're in
>the market for a convolvotron like system, and need some technical
>information on it - we have DSP boards around here ourselves and are
>considering using them.  Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Contact wightman@waisman.wisc.edu.  He has stated in the past a
willingness to share with researchers.

And get an e-mail address that works.


Lance Norskog

Data is not information is not knowledge is not wisdom.
From: bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendelton)
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
Subject: Re: SCI: Voxels vs. Polygons
Date: 18 Aug 92 14:38:40 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.
Originator: hlab@milton.u.washington.edu



From article <1992Aug17.060925.22656@u.washington.edu>, by
dlwood@mailbox.syr.edu (David L Wood):

> Can two objects composed of voxels pass through one another?

Two objects composed of voxels can have the same coordinants. When
they are merged into an image they can be made to appear to pass
through each other.

You have to keep the idea of representation of the base object
separate from the finished image.

> How do you define rotation with voxel-objects, it seems that any
> inaccuracy (inevitable?) in final coordinates would randomize the
> voxel-object after significant rotations?

I haven't done this, so this could be pure ****, but I suspect that
the shearing based rotation techniques that work for pixmaps can be
generalized from 2 to 3 dimensions. Cumulative rotations might have
nasty end results. But, if you keep track of the total rotation and
always generate the rotated object based on the base object and the
total rotation, instead of doing incremental rotations, you should get
good results. And, I doubt that it is cheaper to use incremental
rotations.

> For >low-end< machines of the 1990's, voxels are too processor
> intensive.

You can say that again...

                                Bob P.
-- 
Bob Pendleton             | As an engineer I hate to hear:
bobp@hal.com              |   1) You've earned an "I told you so."
Speaking only for myself. |   2) Our customers don't do that.
                   <<< Odin, after the well of Mimir. >>>
From: bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendelton)
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
Subject: Re: TECH: OIFF an object interchange file format
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:56:48 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.
Originator: hlab@milton.u.washington.edu



From article <1992Aug17.063857.24154@u.washington.edu>, by
vorl@sdf.lonestar.org (Omar Loggiodice):

> +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> |                     PROGRESS REPORT#2 FOR WE PROJECT                    |
> |                             START-UP VERSION                            |
> +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

>    PLG format
>    ----------
> 
>      The version of PLG that we use is the following, numbers can be
>      represented in binary or ASCII format depending on the type of the OIFF
>      file.
> 
>      header:
>        <32b.#vertices>
>        <32b.#polygons>
> 
>      vertices:
> 
>        <32b.x#1>
>        <32b.y#1>     As many triplets as specified in the header
>        <32b.z#1>
>        ..
>        ..
>        <32b.x#n>
>        <32b.y#n>
>        <32b.z#n>
> 
> 
>      polygons:
> 
>        <32b.color>
>        <32b.#vertices>
>        <32b.vertex#1>
>        <32b.vertex#2>
>        ..
>        ..
>        <32b.vertex#n>


Perhaps you've left out a lot of details in this posting. But, as
presented, this format leave out a lot of information that should be
present, or at least be allowed for by the format.

First off, polygons have two faces. Each face needs a separate color.
Color blending requires a color per vertex per face. 

While we're on the subject of color, how do you specify it? The only
examples in the post show simple integers in the range 0 to 255.  Are
you assuming a standard predefined color map? You allow 32 bits for
color, how is it interpreted? 30 bit RGB?

You need to know which polygon face is which. Is there an implicit
ordering of the vertices that can be used to determine which way the
polygons are facing? Or is there a normal specifier that is not
described in your posting? Normals per vertex are needed for some
shading schemes.

                                Bob P.
-- 
Bob Pendleton             | As an engineer I hate to hear:
bobp@hal.com              |   1) You've earned an "I told you so."
Speaking only for myself. |   2) Our customers don't do that.
                   <<< Odin, after the well of Mimir. >>>
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
From: cel+@andrew.cmu.edu <Carl Loeffler>
Subject: EVENT: Munich Showing of Virtual Art Museum, Sept 10-11, 1992
Originator: hlab@milton.u.washington.edu
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:10:53 GMT


 
STUDIO FOR CREATIVE INQUIRY
FAX: (412) 268-2829
 
Announcing the What: Networked Virtual Art Museum Technical
Demonstration, to be conducted at ~Expedition 92: Launching New Worlds
of Learning,~ Munich, Germany,. September 10-11, 1992
 
The ~Networked Virtual Art Museum~ is a project directed by Carl
Loeffler, Research Fellow, at the Studio for Creative Inquiry, College
of Fine Arts, CMU. The pioneering project investigates
telecommunications and virtual reality, and provides a basis for
multiple users located in distant geographical locations to be
conjoined in the same virtual, immersion environment.  The project
employs telecommunication hardware, as well as the hardware associated
with virtual reality: data eyephones and directional hand held
navigation devices.
 
The immersion environment is an art museum, which contains galleries
offering exhibitions.  The exhibition presented for the Munich
demonstration is conceived by Director Carl Loeffler and is titled
~Fun House.~ While based on the traditional concept of the fun
house,~the exhibition features advanced programming concepts such as
agents with Artificial Intelligence, mirrors offering reflections, and
game rooms which explore gravity and other aspects of physics
illustrated by basketball games.
 
Considered as a whole, the project is on the advancing edge of
telecommunications thru the exploration of immersion environments,
networked over long distance, while supporting multiple users. The use
of agents, and the articulation of physics and other details like
reflective mirrors , places the project at the forefront of the design
of virtual worlds. The Networked Virtual Art Museum utilizes the
WorldToolKit, a virtual world development software, available from
Sense8 Corporation.
  
The first public demonstration of the project will take place
September 10-11, in conjunction with ~Expedition 92: Launching New
Worlds of Learning,~ held in Munich, Germany., under the auspices of
UNESCO and the Commission of the European Community.  ~Expedition 92~
conducts two days of keynote addresses, workshops, and technical
demonstrations.  Select participants include: Michael Eisner, Manager,
Disney World; Myron Krueger, Producer, Artifical Reality; Kevin McGee,
MIT Media Lab; Siegmund Prillwitz, Director, Institute for Sign
Language; Kristina Hooper Woolsey, Director, MultiMedia Lab, Apple
Computer; among many others.
 
For information contact:

Carl Eugene Loeffler
Project Director
Telecommunications and Virtual Reality
Studio for Creative Inquiry
College of Fine Arts
Carnegie Mellon University
Tel: (412) 268-3452
FAX: (412) 268-2829
Email: cel@andrew.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
From: bcsaic!davidk@cs.washington.edu (Dave Kerlick)
Subject: Re: SCI: Voxels vs. Polygons
Originator: hlab@milton.u.washington.edu
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 17:01:03 GMT




>>[many valid observations about the virtues of voxels deleted]

Voxels are hardly a panacea for scientific work, and are probably most
appropriate where the metaphor is imagery.  Voxel arrays are basically
uniform in scale, dimension, and optical thickness.  They are not very
good for situations (like visualizing viscous flows) where some cells
are .0001 as thick as others.  Unless the "jelly" inside the thin
voxels is made much more opaque, then the are simply not seen.  Also,
it is difficult to get spatial relationships from looking at voxels.
This is not so bad when you are looking at a CAT scan and know e.g.
where the ears are, but not so good if you are looking at a casting
and want to localize the defects.

For quantitative work (e.g. estimating the volume of a tumor) one has
to go to some implied geometrical representation anyway.

Probably 3-D texture maps are a more flexible idea for general visual
simulation including VR.  One could keep several scales around
(mipmaps) and transparency.

-- 
G. David Kerlick,     Research & Technology Boeing Computer Services  
P.O. Box 24346, MS 7L-24, Seattle, WA 98124-0346
Work phone: 206-865-5051 Fax: 206-865-3327  Email: davidk@espresso.boeing.com
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds