Re: MUD Design Digest V1 #47

["Chris Lawrence" <clawrenc#xsvr1,cup.hp.com>]

> From: Nathan Yospe <yospe#hawaii,edu>
> Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 10:23:42 -1000
> Subject: Re: What I've been up to... at last. ;)

Old stuff.

> On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, Chris Lawrence wrote:

> > Yup.  MUDs seem to naturally lend themselves to an OO approach.
>
> Of course. Very much so. And on this note, ROM and LP die. *grin*

Well, LP presents a semi-inheritance/semi-associative scheme in the LP
language...

> Negative.  As I described, combine the two. The advantages of texture wrap
> are considerable. The speed penalties can be easilly overcome with texture
> gradient maps, preassembled, which can be effortlessly mapped to the
> visual portion of the skeleton on each machine. This could run quite
> comfortable on a 166 MHz machine, even if it is a wintel machine.

Could you elucidate a bit?  I'm not sure what you are referring to as "texture
gradient maps" and how that maps to the process of filling a skeleton (surface
mesh?) with a texture.

> > Just an idea, probably awaiting someone to do a really decent 3D
> > imaging JAVA library.
>
> Did ours in c++, so far.

I'm very insistant that the clients NOT be system-specific.  (Well, I wouldn't
mind if they didn't run under Windows).

-- 
J C Lawrence                           Internet: coder#ibm,net
---------------(*)               Internet: clawrenc#cup,hp.com
...Honorary Member Clan McFUD -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...