Most of what was stated in the reply is true for
traditional, stand-alone VR. But, I think VRML
(Virtual Reality Modeling Language) is a better
option. With VRML, you can encorporate VR into
a museum's existing Web-presence, in an inexpensive
distributable way.
>that if you promise VR you must give people headsets
If you need to be immersed, stereo-scopic lenses
give regular computer monitors a 3D display, and
are much, much less expensive than headsets.
Shutter-bugs are also no more of a burden to the
wearer than a pair of glasses.
> A decent VR unit will cost $25,000 and
> can only be used by one person at a time.
You can get an O2 from SGI for about $6,000 (if
you have an academic excuse) and only about $8,000
without one.
Also, VRML can be used to create multi-user
environments, though you are still limited by
terminal numbers.
> you risk side effects (nausea disorientation, temporary loss of 3D vision,
This happens much less often with passive-immersion
(like VRML).
>The public also needed assistance in getting into the helmet and orienting
Also, stereo-scopic lenses are simply placed on the
head like a pair of glasses. Most people are able
to navigate sufficiently well by joystick, and can
become accustomed to the interface in a few moments.
- It is very poor at conveying information, and far better at impressions,
This may be the case. Few people are able to design
3D environments that convey much meaning. You might
need to hire an architect.
>the most modern VR still has pretty low resolution in most situations
Again, SGI's are quite good at rendering realistic scenes
(if that's what you want). In fact, most military simulators
use expesive SGI's. Of course, those machines are old,
and the costs have come down. Look at a Nintendo64: it's
basically a super-computer for graphics and only costs $200.
> perhaps some customised derivative of it in the future
I'd commision a Nintendo64 game of your museum...
> embarassing forever after that
yes, very true..........................Pioneer Joel
|
