<html><head></head><body><div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;"><div>Hi Eric
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">Thank you for this very detailed explanation. And of course, the "Simple Multiuser Scenes" do not aim to replace professional simulation environments :-)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">Just aiming for simple(!) scenes, standardized communication protocols to be used by telecom and small (possibly closed) groups of users familiar with each other, each one telling his friends: "Look, here my new scene, let's try it out".</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">I picked a few of your statements and added some comments/questions from my point of view.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"> </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"> </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">>>Each object in the simulation is managing it's synchronisation with other instances of itself. Only user interaction need to be shared on the global layer (local -> global).<br/>
[Christoph:] it's similar in Simple Multiuser Scenes, however, each object defines one instance that is "responsible" for the shared state (but the shared state is stored in each instance and on the collaboration server persistently). If the instance "responsible" for the state gets lost, another instance takes over the responsibility.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"> </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">>>All sessions share all the data, all the scenegraph, this is the price to pay to get rid of server or 'controllers'.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">[Christoph:] In principle it's the same for Simple Multiuser Scenes, however I define "dynamic" modules and "dynamic" models, which can be "loaded" or "unloaded" in different instances of the scene, respectively.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"> </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">>>Any user is considered as an object too, able to send and receive messages.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">[Christoph:] This sounds interesting. Does this mean, one instance of the scene can serve multiple users? (I miss this feature in X3D)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"> </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">>>and we don't want servers (I don't like single points of failure)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">[Christoph:] Latest, when we start to control private drones with VR worlds, then we will need a kind of "lawful interception" for trajectories. Having single points of access has proven advantageous for interception.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"> </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">Happy new year</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">Christoph</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"> </p>
<div>
<div name="quote" style="margin: 10px 5px 5px 10px; padding: 10px 0px 10px 10px; border-left-color: rgb(195, 217, 229); border-left-width: 2px; border-left-style: solid; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Dienstag, 07. Januar 2014 um 12:47 Uhr<br/>
<b>Von:</b> "Eric Maranne" <eric@geovrml.com><br/>
<b>An:</b> x3d-public@web3d.org<br/>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [X3D-Public] interest in network sensor / client based server software</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi,<br/>
<br/>
My 0.2 cents on an architecture I've been using for years now.<br/>
<br/>
I implemented MU on a peer to peer basis, each application being plugged into a 'message bus'.<br/>
'Message Bus' is layered, a global synchronisation layer (low speed), and localised high rate layers (typically LAN based synched displays, aka low cost Caves or virtual windows).<br/>
Each object in the simulation is managing it's synchronisation with other instances of itself. Only user interaction need to be shared on the global layer (local -> global).<br/>
All sessions share all the data, all the scenegraph, this is the price to pay to get rid of server or 'controllers'. All the scenegraph doesn't have to be rendered though, but every object has to be 'alive', in order to keep synched.<br/>
All objects aren't necessarily 3D, some applications plugged into the message bus don't have 3D at all, and act more as physics engine or interface to real objects (GPS, database, web server, external application API, you name it ..): AMAF, in the message bus framework, each application connected is considered and synched as any other object, 3D or not.<br/>
Any user is considered as an object too, able to send and receive messages.<br/>
All messages are object level designed, so each message is defined at a object semantic level: this makes messaging protocol grammar, lexicology and ontology completely open and mostly undefined globally. This is the price to pay for complete flexibility and compatibility with historical content and incremental complexification. Clearly 'open' message will not have the same meaning if sent to a door object or to a OpenOffice API. Similarly, 'Save' won't have the same parameters if sent to the 3D renderer (considered as an object too) or if sent to a fire-fighter avatar facing a victim in a fire.<br/>
Some objects need singular atoms, and may hardly be synched, like some physics engines that use heuristics or handling timebound chaotic behaviors that can't cope with lag. In these few cases, we're using single 'controllers', implemented either as stand alone single objects (COM or application) or singularities designed by a token mecanism distributed amongst instances.<br/>
Each object may issue messages to other instances of himself, to a specific instance of any object, to all other objects, locally, globally or in a given objects container (ie. typically a connected application is an objects container), to a singularity (the master instance) of a given object, or to it's container.<br/>
A container is an object responsible for catering other objects. For example a connected application is an object typically in charge of catering objects, another application may be in charge to cater for one physics engine object or whatever.<br/>
<br/>
Each simulation environment is defined by:<br/>
- static scenery generated by GIS and infrastructure modelling<br/>
- a set of objects :<br/>
* dynamic 3D rendered objects (train :), cars, fires, avatars, pipes, valves, doors, buildings, cats, dogs, RPG launchers and panties ... more than 2000 different objects waiting to be instancied in the repositery)<br/>
* dynamic non rendered objects (triggers, sensors, logic links, IA, FSM, physics engines ... )<br/>
* applications<br/>
* initial conditions (day of year, weather, leak in GPL storage, ...)<br/>
* eventually users ... or more exactly, roles.<br/>
* eventually timed events (amaf messages) sets, that may be triggered by any object, from a 3D trigger to an IA application or a trainer in the staff.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Network sensor means scene level design, and server side application means application level design.<br/>
Object level design means we can, anytime, drag and drop any objects in the simulation, and have a new 'application' or 'simulation'. I don't have to plan beforehand what functionalities are to be implemented server side, or even client side, at application level or at scene level, if a trainer decides to drop a cat in front of a dog in a radiologic spray incident: flexibility is very important for this kind of unexpected uses. And semantic level interaction is more fun to cope with :) .<br/>
<br/>
>From architecture to protocol, everything depends on what is designed.<br/>
For us, DIS is application level, too restricted, and not flexible or versatile ... but we leave in our own 'world'. We had hard time bridging with HLA systems (SOGITEC/Dassault systems)<br/>
NetworkSensor is too much 'scene level', field level semantics doesn't allow for lag handling, elaborating 'unexpectedly dropping the cat' is very complex, and we don't want servers (I don't like single points of failure).<br/>
Both DIS approach and NetworkSensor approaches could be used for our purposes, but would introduce too much constraints.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Oh, BTW, happy new year everybody.<br/>
<br/>
Eric.<br/>
<a href="http://www.vr-crisis.com" target="_blank">www.vr-crisis.com</a><br/>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/vrcrisis?feature=watch" target="_blank">YouTube</a><br/>
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/Crisis-Simulation-Engineering/335234416564855" target="_blank">FB</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Le 06/01/2014 20:32, Christoph Valentin a écrit :</div>
<blockquote>
<pre>Hi Doug
There are a lot of possible solutions about "client based server software".
Let me explain the *experimental* approach of the SMUOS Framework <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://smuos.sourceforge.net" target="_blank">http://smuos.sourceforge.net</a>
</pre>
<blockquote>
<pre>Q. Session 1:1 avatar 1:M Controllers 1:1 ControllableObjects?
Q. should each object being created get the sessionID of the creating user, perhaps as metadata or mangled into the DEF name? Is the user that creates an object always 'the owner'/'the controller'? And so when that user session ends all the objects associated need to be cleaned out?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>1) avatar 1:1 user 1:1 session N:1 multiuser session 1:1 chat room
(this is according to MU example from BM homepage)
2) scene 1:K module 1:L static object
static objects are children of modules
3) scene 1:M universal object class 1:P dynamic model (not yet implemented)
dynamic objects are children of "universal object classes"
and may change the module (not yet implemented)
Now to the controllers:
4) scene 1:1 central controller for overall aspects of the scene
5) static object 1:1 object controller (static) - if the object is active in any scene instance
6) dynamic model 1:1 object controller (dynamic) - if the model is active in any scene instance
Now where the controllers are located:
7) Avatars are controlled by the scene instance of their user
(this is according to MU example from BM homepage)
8) Central controller is rearranged during startup and teardown of session
9) Central controller assigns module controller role to modules
10 Object controller roles follow the module controller of their parent module
11) Objects and models are controlled by the scene instance
that holds the module controller of the parent module
This does not depend on any user (objects and models have "their own life")
12) Controllers of objects and models might be rearranged from time to time
E.g. if a session leaves the game or if a module gets inactive
13) The SMUOS Framework cares about assigning controller roles, no problem for the author
Comments any time welcome :-)
Kind regards
Christoph
_______________________________________________
X3D-Public mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="X3D-Public@web3d.org" target="_parent">X3D-Public@web3d.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org" target="_blank">http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br/>
_______________________________________________ X3D-Public mailing list X3D-Public@web3d.org <a href="http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org" target="_blank">http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></body></html>