Re: LANG: Re: Standardizing coordinate systems, units of measure

Robert Foster (
Mon, 22 Aug 94 11:24:26 EDT

:: this is a local viewer ( client ) issue, and thus has little bearing
:: on the questions of the VRML structure itself.
:: > Sound would also have to be directed in this way, since sight and sound
:: > are currently the major senses 'tricked' by virtual reality.
:: again is an issue of the localised viewer.
:: LUX ./. owen

:: To simplify things and cover 96% of what people want to do, I think the
:: concept of 'viewer size' is all that need be specified in the VRML
:: file. Based on the size of the viewer (am I a God? A person? An
:: ant?), a viewers can set reasonable defaults for eye-separation, focal
:: distance, and walk/fly/movement speed. Viewers can also support
:: changing the defaults to cover the other 4% of what people want to do
:: (e.g. I want to move as slowly as an ant, but have eyes 10 feet
:: apart). (yeah, right).
:: "Gavin Bell" <>

Thanks for the thoughts. I simply wanted to assure myself that the data
objects being considered would support such calculations on the part
of VRML viewers. The authors of the languages being considered as the
`springboard` specification would know more about whether the data objects
will support such processing by a *true* virtual reality viewer.

Take for instance, the question of virtual reality conferences. It seems
to me that the `file` being transferred by a VRML request would have to
be altered for each participant in such a conference. In other words, as
participants `arrive` a viewing position would have to be `claimed` by
that participant and the file altered to reflect the presence of the
participant. The new altered file would then be transferred by any
additional VRML transaction requests. Can you have a crowded room in
Cyberspace? It seems to me that most of the discussion revolves around
`solitaire` or single participant views on a data set.

If the data object definitions will support a virtually infinite number
of views on the data than all seems well to me and the future development
of viewers would not be hindered. Calculating a pair of views(eyes) for
each VRML transaction out of an infinite number would not be impossible.

Perhaps I have a mistaken idea of the data definitions that would be
transferred by a VRML transaction request?

Thanks, Bob.