|
|
2nd Life model is probably required to keep the one continuous world
environment for the most many to many interactions. The continuous
landscape that has only one map and in which one can fly up high
allows one to quickly and easily find something that peeks their
interest (and pocketbook).
The other online games require an avatar to stay on one server.
Croquet requires each avatar's owner to bring to the table a beefy PC
(a server technically) that can simulate and run the /entire/ "world"
that the avatar is in. That's a 1 to 1 avatar to server ratio. Which
is why Croquet wouldn't do well in one single massive world with
massive interactivity. Going through portals is a slower way to scan
what worlds and content are available.
2nd life uses fog to limit the view and the computations & 2D limits
and the programming rules for a certain parcel of land.
Croquet uses portals to limit the views and computations. Which is
better? Depends on the goal. Since, in Croquet, every PC with an
avatar in a world recomputes everything in that world, the duplicate
processing could be considered CPU waste from a server perspective.
I still prefer the Croquet solution though, for the loosely coupling
of adding and removing worlds and the responsibility one has for a few
worlds where they can completely control the rules including how light
behaves ... less likely to suffer from the "Tragedy of the Commons".
Darius
|
Locked
