From: "USENET News System" <news@unix.cis.pitt.edu>
Subject: Re: Defining VR : must it be so visual?
Date: 27 Oct 91 15:18:21 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh



In article <1991Oct26.035234.14070@milton.u.washington.edu> lro@YP.melb.bull.com (Liam Routt) writes:
>        Maybe I am in the minority here, but I can't help asking "why does
>virtual reality have to be defined with the idea of a visual/tactile, etc.
>representation?"

	The kernel of the answer to your question is, "because human
beings are predominantly visual creatures. While there are people who
have to do without the visual input, our information input from the world
is 90% focused on the visual."
	
	The other part of the answer is, virtual reality does NOT have
to be defined with such an idea. But the MUDs, etc., are also visual/tactile
in the internal viewings of the user. Most MUD players I know would go to
great lengths to get a visual MUD; any VR that you construct will be
graded strongly on how much of a "real" world it simulates.
	However, your question does point out that VRs, like books and 
movies (which are just other forms of VRs), do really depend on what SUBSTANCE
is contained in them. Sure, a photographic real-time visual interface with
virtual scent, hearing, and touch simulators would be great... but if the
world projected by this titan of an interface is basically just another
F-16 combat video game then we haven't really accomplished all that much
in the sense of increasing the capacities and utilizing the possibilities
of a VR. 
	I think the question you may be asking, and correct me if I'm 
wrong, is whether we shouldn't also be looking at content as well as form;
how can we make sure that our VRs are the equivalent of a Casablanca or
a Lord of the Rings rather than a Rambo VIII or Gord the Rogue.

				Sea Wasp