Re: MOO and VRML 2.0 ?

• Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 10:29:12 PST
• From:
  Dmitri Kondratiev <dima@paragraph.com>
• Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 12:50 PM 2/17/96 PST, Tom Meyer wrote:
>Well, I've been running a MOO that has been outputing VRML for about a
>year now (Waxweb, actually that MOO was the first web server of any
>kind to be serving up VRML), and have been deeply involved in the VRML
>Architecture Group, which is just now helping to decide what will
>happen with VRML 2.0.  So I'm fairly immersed in both areas, but have
>not been that pleased by how suitable MOO is for VRML.
>
>I now generate VRML files on the fly from an http-speaking MOO server.

How you do that ? Looks like you need AI system to generate from text
descriptions meaningful 3D scenes.

>Before I added in VRML support, the server worked quite well.  Since
>the VRML files are roughly ten times larger than the HTML files that
>describe the room, that caused enormous slow-downs in the MOO.  MOOs
>were never designed for large, sustained amounts of text throughput,
>so don't handle this extremely well.

Other people store just URLs poiting to VRML files (maybe on different server)
in MOO core. In this case, when MOO client recieves URLs attached to rooms,
volume of data is aproximately the same as in traditional MOO.
Why don't go that way, and use MOO server/base as a grid partitioning VR space ?

Dima.

• Re: MOO and VRML 2.0 ?
• From: Tom Meyer <twm@cs.brown.edu>

• Prev: Re: MOO and VRML 2.0 ?
• Next: Re: MOO and VRML 2.0 ?
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows