[MUD-Dev] Virtual machine design

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad <olag@ifi.uio.no>]

Nathan F Yospe wrote:
> Fortran remains unparalleled in performance on MPP complexes for physical
> simulation. Many of us use C++ instead anyway. Watch out for stereotypes.

It was a tongue in cheek statement about the language and it's users, not
the optimization of compilers or MP support.  Fortran doesn't exist
because it is an excellent language :). It exists because the brilliant
geniuses got stuck on it in the 50's or so. I wouldn't use Cobol even if it
is possible to get faster DB's than with relational databases either.

> :A MUD is in nature much more like Computer Graphics. You don't care about
> :whether it is real or not, you only care about how it is perceived. Some go
> :for "photorealism" (which computationally can be quite unreal), others for
> :"believable", yet others go for "interesting".  Basically, you cheat as much
> :as you can get away with, you sacrifice efficiency for flexibility only in
> :areas where you need to be flexible.
> 
> No... I strongly disagree. You go the other way as much as possible. There
> is a *much* higher need for flexibility in a mud than there is in physical
> simulation, and a *much*, *much* lower need for efficiency. Mainly for the
> reasons you stated above. We need to *look* right, not be spot on...

Well, MUDs are realtime, not batch. So I don't quite agree about
efficiency.  You need bounds on the execution time. (which is more difficult
to optimize for than batch, in which you can use multiple stages). You want
flexibility, the key is to find something which makes it easier to express
what you need to express and which gives you flexibility in the areas in
which flexibility is needed.  The possibility of achieving great flexibility
is severly hampered by the client-server bottleneck btw.
 
> :If it looks right, then it is right!
> 
> Only if it still looks right when the player tries to look behind the bush
> over there. If it has a 2x4 proping it up from behind, everything comes to
> pieces.

So don't use bushes. Or put bushes next to large stones or whatever. Anyway,
this is not such a big issue as you may think. I don't believe the VR-hype
about supension of disbelief, because they just assume that one want a world
that mimics the physical world AS WE KNOW IT. In my experience, players will
accept even bugs as laws of nature. As long as it is somehow predictable
(and certainly if they gain an advantage from it :-))

Besides, waterflow doesn't have to look like fluid, it is quite ok if it
just looks "fluidish". The idea is to trigger associations in the user, not
to recreate the whole experience. That's why books work, right?

You also have the liberty to make a full separation between representation
and presentation.

( I  somehow suspect that you want VR... :P )

I believe there is a great potential for achieving more, with less
computational power. Monte Carlo inspired sampling (or generation)
strategies for instance.
--
Ola Fosheim Groestad,Norway      http://www.stud.ifi.uio.no/~olag/



_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev maillist  -  MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev