From: vanevery@blarg.net (Brandon J. Van Every) Subject: Re: PHIL: measuring "immersion" in 3d and text Date: 20 Apr 1996 21:51:17 GMT Message-ID: <4lbm8l$5bh@guysmiley.blarg.net> Organization: Blarg! Online Services 206/441-9109 From: vanevery@blarg.net (Brandon J. Van Every) Tim Poston (tim@iss.nus.sg) wrote: : From: tim@iss.nus.sg (Tim Poston) : Brandon J. Van Every (vanevery@blarg.net) wrote: : : In addition, "Virtual Reality" : : 4) must allow the user to traverse the space in real time : I find "traverse" a terribly limited interaction to qualify as VR. : As it says on Karl Marx's tombstone, "The philosophers have attempted : to describe the world: the point, however, is to change it." : If I can't change the reality you provide me, it's your reality, : not my reality. That is, it's not real to me. I agree with you as far as intents. But as far as definitions, the Occam's Razor is whether a mere walkthrough is a VR application or not. If it is, then we have to accept the minimality of our definitions. If it isn't, then I think a lot of walkthrough researchers are going to be sorely vexed... nevertheless, that would pose interesting consequences for what VR "really is." So: you've offered an elaboration on the criteria of what constitutes VR. You say the ability to modify the environment interactively is essential. Interestingly, that still doesn't advance the discussion past the issue of text-based MUDs. Text-based MUDs typically allow you to modify the environment interactively as well. But what you may be getting at, is that VR requires a very specific kind of interaction in order to be "VR." I don't think it's enough to stop at "you must use VR hardware." There's something about the way such hardware is used, that needs further refinement. Cheers, -- Brandon J. Van Every | Check out Free3d, my 100% efficient, 100% portable | 3d lib, at . 3d Computer Graphics | C++ UNIX X11 Motif | E-mail: vanevery@blarg.net