Quality comparison of Virtual Worlds

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jack Ryker on April 2, 2008 at 1:52am

Hello!
I think all the current VR platforms look very good, and the ones
with windlight type of effects are stupendous. At this point, I am
starting to be picky about the the theme of the vr platforms....
I used to visit every single web3d site I could find.. but now I focus
on the themes I enjoy. For me that would be sci fi, art and historical
sites. Look forward to Moondus!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ken Rigby (MellaniuM, Tele3DWorld) on July 10, 2008 at 8:04pm

But does anything compare to CaveUT?

Stereospacial is something else WOW. SOD the Web

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Theresa Kinney-Johnson aka Tessa Harrington in SL on June 27, 2008 at 5:05pm

As a content provider for corporations and organizations, and with 13 years experience in building assets for the 3D Web, I have a pretty firm list of what needs to be present for us to entice our clients in. Below are some of what is one my list of things that absolutely need to be present for any platform to succeed, IMHO and some of the reasons why.

* In world currency, preferably real world, not hybrid or pretend, so as to further support the introduction of real world products side by side simulated virtual products, but with a clear visual icon system to delineated one from the other at a glance.

* In world creation/modeling/scripting tools to continue to support the growth of quality home grown enterprises with a reasonable investment of real funding, talent and time.

* An asset management/permissions system that works across all platforms using a key system that identifies usage rights and makes it possible to easily inspect and reporting each item if theft is suspected, such as means to email the original artist and alert them to the possible offender. Maybe instituting an amber glow on your avatar if your items are suspected to not be legitimately purchased. This would create a very visual thumb print and create social pressure to not wear or use products that are suspected to be gotten through illegal means and discourage the support of those who would prey on the work of others. This is very similar to a serial number and digital markings we see on real life products now.

* The ability to bring in content from sophisticated programs like 3DStudio, Maya and the like, BUT with a poly limit, so as to keep objects that might break they system, due to size and possible lag, out of play.

* Terrain tools and abilities, to allow of unique virtual land creation.

* Avatars that meet the level of sophistication of Linden Lab's. Seeing they are literally our eyes into the souls and worlds of each other, then they need to be able to conform to whatever vision we have of ourselves.

* A high level of graphic representation ability with customization options, such as we have with the Windlight version of Secondlife.

* Greater level of scripting/programming options, to enable us to make highly functional software solutions for our clients without the inevitable limitations we see in SL.

* NO FREE Virtual land, unless you are going to host the virtual land yourself. No one values what they get absolutely for free and having unlimited land for no cost will only promote a build-&-abandon mentality that we see in Active Worlds, the great granddaddy to Second Life.

... and many more, but these are the top points that need to be addressed. Without at least these components a virtual platform is not likely to succeed, either as a player or business or hybrid domain ... IMHO. I should preface that by 'succeed', I mean a platform that generates enough traffic to attract users and business a like to contribute and invest in its growth, yet still interact and be interlinked with other up and coming 3D Web platforms.

Tessa

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Frank Corsi on June 29, 2008 at 8:11pm

Check Out, www.CentralGrid.com using the open source software, Opensim and the second life client.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Alto Xeno on July 6, 2008 at 2:36am

I think we are seeing two, or perhaps three, variations evolve. Each attracts a difference audience. The terms I use to describe each are my own...

1. "User Built" virtual worlds like Second Life, OpenSim/OpenLife, HiPiHi, and Activeworlds facilitate user creation of the inworld environment. This approach is attractive to the education community in particular because it offers an "immersive" environment in which students easily get involved, and it allows the creation of simulations and other teaching aids.

2. "Collaborative" virtual worlds such as Qwaq, Croquet, and ones in development at Sun and IBM are primarily designed for meetings and collaborative teamwork, offer a lot of tools for those purposes, and are especially attractive to corporations.

3. "Social" virtual worlds which mostly lack the user creation and team tools would include the massively popular cyWorld, Habbo, and Neopets sites ... these sites are primarily attractive to a younger audience (Habbo's average user is around 11 years old; Neopets' user is about 9).

I think if you want to consider the quality of the different platforms, you need to do it in the context of the audience for that platform.

One more comment: Novoking is an interesting hybrid of Social and User Built. At the moment it seems more social, but that is likely because you can only use external tools (Blender, Maya, etc) to create objects to render inworld. If inworld building tools do eventually materialise, Novoking could be very interesting.
--
Alto Xeno in most of the 1st and 2nd worlds above. Too old for the 3rd group.

▶ Reply to This