When is 3D not 3D?

[Tony Tickle]

When is 3D not 3D...

Its not 3D if you cannot 'explore' the environment....its not 3D if the navigation is predetermined... its not 3D if its a 'Movie' its not 3D if its not interactive... its not 3D if its a Panorama... How many meeting have I been to with prospective clients and they tell me that they already have 3D!

[Ken Rigby (MellaniuM, Tele3dworld)]

I agree; 3D got lumped into serious games. Causing confusion with the existing mind set who use "flashy", "Flashy" and other 2D techniques to simulate or create pseudo 3D.
I think we need a good definition for this 3DWeb to clarify this difference. So we can focus more on the future; i.e., web3 and web4.

[Steve Howell]

Surely it's not 3D if it doesn't have 3 dimensions. So that's anything at all on a monitor screen ruled out.

As we clearly aren't ruling out flat images on monitors you must be talking about a modified definition of the word "3D" to mean something closer to "interactive" or "immersive".

Your definition of "3D" certainly rules out many quite modern games, like Half Life, that present you with a 3D world but in which navigation is indeed invisibly pre-determined. You walk through a long winding tunnel with constant view of a world that you can never visit because that river is just too wide to swim or that wall is just too hard to climb.

But, to some extent, artificial 3D worlds must always be like this because we don't (yet?) have some kind of Matrix-esque super computer that can completely simulate our entire universe. So the creator always has to choose which parts of the virtual world we can and cannot visit.

So I think the question of whether any given virtual world conforms to your definition of "3D" is, I think, one of degree. The more freedom it gives the user and the larger the proportion of the world the user will probably never visit because he/she can exercise free choice, the better it matches off.

Even a movie gives you this choice to some extent. You can leave the world by turning it off.

[Tony Tickle]

Hi Steve, The difference I see between 'Real' 3D and ''Pseudo' 3D is that in the former the user can explore (roam where they wish, within the boundaries of the environment) and the latter users are guided.

[Steve Howell]

Hi Tony. Yes, I appreciate those definitions, but I guess I was just trying to make the point that as long as there are boundaries to the environment, then the user is always guided by those boundaries. And it's not possible to have an environment completely without boundaries because you'd need infinite disc space!

Anyway, I think it's an interesting discussion because I am currently developing a virtual science lab for secondary school education in which, as far as possible, there are no boundaries to behaviour. So the student is genuinely free to experiment in a way that is not possible in a real lab. So I'm interested in the whole concept of freedom of behaviour within virtual spaces.

[Tony Tickle]

Given that we could allow the user a "without boundaries" experience, I can only imagine that they will act/react as they do in the 'real' world. That being as long as there is activity/environment worth exploring they will explore.

Your virtual science lab is a great Idea... physics free experimenting and safe environment study.

Question: Will all the elements that the users are able to access within the virtual science lab be predetermined or will they be able to 'create' their own content and assign rules/behaviours.

[Steve Howell]

"That being as long as there is activity/environment worth exploring they will explore." - I guess that's part of the function of the boundaries - not only to limit the amount of world that needs to be modelled but to stop the user endlessly wandering around in boring places.

To answer your question: I definitely don't want to make all the elements that the user can access predeterminded. The main point of the exercise, for me, is to create an environment in which the user can genuinely play in a non-prescriptive way and, in so doing, can create situations that I didn't envisage.

For example, I'm currently developing a set of electical equipment - wires, plugs, bulbs, bulb-holders, batteries etc. - that the user can move around and plug in. They should obey all the laws of electrical circuits and there will perhaps be virtual worksheets lieing around on the virtual desktops that they could use as the basis of electricity experiments. But I'm also keen to make sure they can, if the wish, connect a bulb to a wire and swing it around to see what happens. Perhaps they'll learn something about pendulums, or perhaps they'll learn what happens when the bulb hits the floor.

If I can setup a multi-user environment then perhaps severely anti-social behaviour will be naturally policed by other users. Or perhaps they'll realise that more interesting things happen if you obey a certain minimal set of rules. It'll be interesting to see.

If you want to see the work so far, this is the website: www.mintyscience.com. There's a download page, but there's only one version on there so far and it's very minimal. I'm hoping to make another release soon.

[Ken Rigby (MellaniuM, Tele3dworld)]

Steve;

There is no problem in producing an endless 3D environment with links to other maps and servers just like the WWW does with pages. Size and detail are now a minor issue with the advent of new programmable graphics and physics processors. Large GB/TB disks can store immense detailed worlds that can hold high detailed attribiutes for 3D worlds. Script writing for these worlds is and will be in great demand for applications. Work like yours provides good ideas for these new skills.

see http://www.koinup.com/Tele3dworld/works/ for examples using video and pictures. or skype joe133952 for live demonstration.

[Dylan Nagel]

I personally think '3D' is not the defining factor. In fact, I think it's pretty misleading, and causes a lot of confusion amongst both providers and consumers.

3D usually applies to the virtual medium, as in '3D space' to construct the 2D image on a computer screen. A lot of consumers claim that's 'cheating', or only half the story, something which we have to keep in mind.

Personally, I find it more interesting to offer 'interactive' virtual environments - those that engage the player, that make them participate in the experience.

Setting up a virtual environment in 3D space has the benefit of being able to navigate through it in any way you see fit, which is much more limited in 2D. The choice for 3D should be functional or technical, and only in the last instance, esthetical, if you ask me. A lot of 3D worlds look horrible. :)

[Steve Howell]

I think your definition of an 'interactive' virtual environment is what Tony was talking about when he used the word '3D'. The trouble with words is that their meaning gets changed by the context in which they're used, and the prolific use of '3D' (in the literal sense) graphics, projected onto a 2D screen and used as a tool to represent explorable worlds is that the 3D-ness becomes a synonym for the explorability. A bit like using the word 'printing press' or 'wordprocessor' as the word for 'literature'.

Interesting that as the WWW allows greater communication between larger numbers of people, language, and the definitions of word, gets democratised and therefore the meanings of word become less rigourously defined. Mmm. Discuss?

[Dylan Nagel]

I agree with you completely, Steve! I personally believe it is not only our right, but also our responsibility to keep existing words clean, and create new words to describe new concepts and ideas.

The hard part about new words is that they often stay jargon - before they become mainstream, they are simply 1337 5p34k. =)

[Tony Tickle]

"A lot of 3D worlds look horrible." damn right and for the average user difficult to actually get involved and 'enjoy' the experience.