Hi,
Niclas wrote:
> Someone wrote:
> > anyone got ideas on what *non*-user-object stuff should
> persist?
>
> Well, I would say that instead of re-inventing the weel just
> take a day reading the LW spec intro. Then you would know what different
> aspects you need to know befor you start.
>
> I still thing we need a mini LW of some sort. Maybe if we join
> forces between DM, VNet and bang we could do an BOMU specification for
> this now?
I can't recall the meaning of BOMU! Sound real good anyway ;-)
My company is getting its seed funding next week so I�ll have some time to work
on those issues. Persistent MU is def. the next step for the bang client. The
investors *love* the open-source nature of bang so I might actually get more paid
hackers on the job next month ;D
I've been following the LW spec for years and always been kind of scared of it.
There is much to learn from there but the thought of implementing it all is
overwhelming.
Persistent, shared MU is unknown territory, many possible routes and I think we should
maybe set ourselves small goals with short implementation cycles and kind of write this
BOMU spec on the fly as our experiments become success.
You have shared objects other than Avatars in DeepMatrix, how do you see
VNet complimentary to the DeepMatrix spec?
I�m kind of glad we are not doing this under the "hat" of the Web3D Consortium. The WG
progress in the Web3D community is not in a good shape and I have to say that the
vnet-interest list has kept the moral up in this camp after the disturbances on the
www-vrml
list, lately.
With warm regards,
R�bert Vi�ar Bjarnason
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://the.bang.is/
