Ken Taylor wrote: > Jonathan Jones wrote: > >> James Wilkins wrote: >> >>> [streaming animations is good for syncronization] >>> >> [do as much as possible client-side] >> > > A good compromise may be to have certain movements be activated by > higher-level scripting (such as walking animations), and others be fully > actuated (such as which direction the head is looking). Of course, as > motion-sensing VR type hardware becomes more common, more people will want > higher actuation in their avatars for immersion purposes. The amount of > real-time actuation to use should probably be configurable by the clients > and the servers. For instance, the client controlling the avatar can set up > how much actuation to send out on the network, the server running the space > can have a quota or limit of the amount of actuation bandwidth allowed per > client and the types of actuation allowed, and another viewing client can > tell the server what kinds of actuation and how much bandwidth it wants to > receive. This way, users with the bandwidth can have a rich experience, > while those with slower connections don't get totally left behind. > > Ken > Can I propose a change in nomenclature?
As has been pointed out before, we're talking about clients and servers, but VOS is technically P2P, so I propose we talk about fast-side and slow-side, or local and remote. Hopefully this conveys what we mean by client and server, but fits in better with the P2P architecture. I don't really see why most peers need to know *exactly* where someone is looking, if you have a couple of defined look-positions, and then a look-at (object), most of the hard stuff can be done fast-side. -sconzey
begin:vcard fn:Jonathan Jones n:Jones;Jonathan email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] version:2.1 end:vcard
_______________________________________________ vos-d mailing list vos-d@interreality.org http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d
