WebGL has the possibility to be used in making virtual worlds that are browser accessible. Kataspace, a few years ago, was a demonstration of that (video from 2010 below) and Google had a short lived project call O3D which had beautifully created virtual worlds done with WebGL
WebGL requires its own development and does not build upon existing things like OpenSim. however, maybe Virtual World Framework does
Virtual World Framework is an open-source platform intended to connect various “collaborative virtual spaces”. in this manner it is an interface allowing Unity content to connect with OpenSim content (like MOSES) via your web browser
. . . using the VWF, a developer can take video lesson plans, objects and avatars and successfully insert them into an existing virtual or created landscape (such as EDGE or Open Sim), interacting with the native objects and users via the VWF interface.
what does this mean for your OpenSim region or world?
could this eventually be the path for browser accessibility to OpenSim?
additional info is available on this wikipedia page
Just for completeness, we did have browser compatibility for a short while via the BuiltBuyMe browser.
I think the system described here ramifies in all sorts of directions.
Graham Mills
7 Feb 13 at 10:42 am
Nobody kick me, but I believe SpotOn has a browser access module too.
ELQ
7 Feb 13 at 3:20 pm
Hi ELQ,
SpotON3D’s solution is based on an installed viewer that just has the display window inside the browser (which is similar to what BuiltBuyMe did with a Unity3D-based viewer).
The Virtual World Framework is a no-installation required solution for rendering a virtual world environment inside any browser that supports HTML5 and WebGL. In other words, it can enable you to send people to a website to access your world without them needing to install anything to view it.
Ilan Tochner
7 Feb 13 at 7:28 pm
Hiya everyone :-D
Yes, I’m back and getting involved again. And this VWF looks pretty interesting. I’m going to download it and give it a run.
Sarge Misfit
7 Feb 13 at 9:11 pm
It’s hard for me to get excited over this. VRML 1, VRML 2/97, and X3D are all browser based virtual reality. Many web based MMOs are rooted in either VRML 97 or X3D. I’d been part of a VRML community for many years, before I got serious about SL. So until I actually experience first hand a browser based open sim, I’m just going to be polite and end my comment here.
Joey1058
7 Feb 13 at 10:48 pm
my exact thoughts Ilan (and some i’ve expressed before). SpotOnUnderwear’s “plugin” is as much a plug in as associating IE with JPG and then viewing pics through the browser
that’s right Graham, but it looks like their work has come to a halt (copyright date on their web pages is 2101) but the Tipodean viewer thing did look promising
here’s an old vid comparing Enclave Harbour in BuiltByMe to Imprudence
http://youtu.be/cnJUXbtw0IY
Sarge!!!!!!! *runs in circles, hands in the air*
i’ll put Excelsior Station back in the side links! w00t!! =)
excellent sentiment Joey and i agree with you. it is going to take a big effort by talented people to create anything that the majority of us could use (would also need to be free, etc)
although, Oren of Kitely is pretty frigging amazing with coding and Ilan is awesome with open business delivery concepts
Ener Hax
8 Feb 13 at 7:19 am
VWF is an excellent idea and as it is open source under the Apache 2 licence it can be adapted & customized.
I use MSIE 10 and have WebGL added in and it works an absolute peach. I believe the way forward is a browser based most due to cross platform usage. The trend toward tablet’s and other similar devices is growing exponentially as the processing & graphics capabilities of these come into their own.
I’ve recently tinkered with some of the latest Win-8RT devices and I was quite impressed with how far they have come in the past 12 months, given another year or so, they will likely be close to most laptops can do and maybe even more.
The concept of making a dedicated “viewer” and then recoding it to be cross platform (which is limited to Win, Linux, MacOS at present) does not address where the people are going with their technologies. To be truly open/cross platform it has to move to browser based user interface so as to be able to attract the broadest audience possible to continue growth & expansion.
If you look at the popularity of Lumiya Viewer for Android as a good example, that should give a very clear indication of a growth area to be tapped into.
In another 6 months more or less, most of the current LL viewer code will only be serviceable in LL and not includable with TPV’s. Chui, Materials Management, Server Side Baking, the Havoc libs, ad nauseam, just to name a few recent ones. Just look back at the past 18 months of LL policy shifts for licencing, deployment, restrictions etc and see the writing on the wall… It’s pretty bold and fluorescent if you just step back & look at it collectively.
The clock is ticking down and getting close to running out for dedicated viewers I know there will be some who doubt that statement and would even argue it but if you look at all the changes within the past 18 months objectively and with an open mind, you can see the direction things are going… There is more changes coming which are only for LL use and cannot be deployed by TPV’s for OpenSim / Aurora-Sim. CreatorVerse, Patterns and other latest & upcoming new LL bits are indicators of where LL is testing the grounds and leveraging the tech to open up to the bigger world. They are using that tech to refine the direction of SL itself and it’s evolution.
WhiteStar
8 Feb 13 at 10:43 am
Just a point of information for everyone. I downloaded VWF and immediately ran into a problem. I don’t have Ruby installed :-D
*sees a road sign ahead* Learning Curve!
Sarge Misfit
8 Feb 13 at 11:49 am
I mentioned once a family meet up where we had phones and tablets, but no-one had a PC, so showing OpenSim was restricted to Lumiya.
Last time, I took a laptop, and found OpenSim working OK on Kitely on wifi, and evidently appealing and potentially fun. But again there’s the question, “can you do this on a phone “, and a restriction, that not everyone can afford a decent mobile device, which they seem to need nowadays, as well as a decent desktop or laptop, which they don’t need.
So, I think comments that a browser access is needed are largely correct. For specific uses, we can expect to have usable computers now, as the standards have improved, but for people generally, the trend is lightweight and mobile. My family user sample is tiny and of no consequence statistically, but it seems to be in line with the sales stats and usage stats I’m seeing, and developments at ebay and so on, where they’re following the customers.
Hope this does turn out well, it looks to have some serious backing, so it might.
Keith Selmes
9 Feb 13 at 4:41 am
Oh, I’m assuming dedicated viewers are really needed with all the technical options for builders, makers and so forth. And although I’ve tried a few now, I’m still using Imprudence.
Keith Selmes
9 Feb 13 at 4:44 am
I’m sure that as time goes on more an more people will wish to access virtual worlds on mobile devices, but I personally consider that this won’t happen in any meaningful way until mobile devices are a lot more powerful. I’m not sure what the situation is today, but wasn’t it about two years ago that an LL survey revealed that two thirds of those accessing SL were doing so on hardware that could only manage mid quality graphics, and that very few could benefit from using ultra graphics and shadows at the same time. Sure, lightweight mobile devices will be able to access virtual worlds in some kind of way, rather as the Radegast viewer does on my rather ancient laptop, but for ‘serious’ use, and that’s what most users on most Open Simulator based grids are, a powerful desktop with state of the art graphics card is what is required.
SL appeals, by and large to a very different demographic,by and large those who are content just to consume. I’m sure that it won’t be too long before someone will develop a browser plugin for mobile devices that gives an enhanced experience to that experienced at the moment. With that, it will be good for showing people OpenSim based virtual worlds, but as most of us here know, anyone who comes to OpenSim, (with perhaps the exception of those who choose the wannabe SL clones) and stays usually wants to create, build and run a region or ten. I am still quite sceptical about mobile devices, (my mobile/cell phone is 1999 vintage) I consider them puny and oversold. Only now am I even beginning to look at tablets, (largely because up to now they have been Windoze only devices) as they start to be available with no pre-loaded operating system, and with faster, (though not yet quite fast enough) processors.
It’s certain that mobile devices will be used more and more, but it’s way too early to proclaim the desktop dead. It seems that the message still needs to get through that mobile devices and, to a certain extent,laptops/netbooks are great for surfing the web and social media, but they make poor production tools.
@Keith. I too have tried many other viewers to try and build things, but keep coming back to Imprudence. Whilst it sucks in so many ways, with all the bugs etc, it’s still the best viewer to build with. None of the others comes anywhere near close, most suffering from the stupid SL limitations. Hopefully the Kokua Viewer will be a complete, modern replacement, but progress on that seems to be very slow. I use Firestorm when I’m not doing any serious building, but despite it being the OpenSim version, it still frustratingly retains the SL limitations.
Susannah Avonside
18 Feb 13 at 7:54 am
hi,
i think it would be a good approach to port the radegast client. radegast managed the communication with opensim, it delivers a 3d render engine which is good enough to get an in-world experience. it’s not really bloated with every gimmick.
maybe the radegast people also look at this opportunity.
what do you think?
greetings,
tx Oh
tx 0h
2 Mar 13 at 10:28 pm