Friam

needed: 3D ABM framework with embodied human agents

Classic

List

Threaded

12 messages Options

jpgirard

needed: 3D ABM framework with embodied human agents

The informal effort towards building a 3D ABM framework is interesting.

Especially as I am currently in the market for a 3D agent based framework
which will allow embodied human agents.

Please let me know if you have any suggestions in this area.

Cheers,
Jim Girard

Roger Critchlow-2

needed: 3D ABM framework with embodied human agents

jpgirard wrote:

>The informal effort towards building a 3D ABM framework is interesting.
>
>Especially as I am currently in the market for a 3D agent based framework
>which will allow embodied human agents.
>
>Please let me know if you have any suggestions in this area.
>
>Cheers,
>Jim Girard
>
>
>

Frank Wimberly

needed: 3D ABM framework with embodied human agents

When I worked at the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center, the Visualization
Group there used a package that they had developed called Plot3D. It used a
Lisp-like representation of scenes. They used it to create a visualization
of a roller coaster ride from the point of view of the passenger which was
quite impressive. Of course they didn't lack for CPU power.

Frank
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger E Critchlow Jr" <[hidden email]>
To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 8:16 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] needed: 3D ABM framework with embodied human agents

> jpgirard wrote:
>
> >The informal effort towards building a 3D ABM framework is interesting.
> >
> >Especially as I am currently in the market for a 3D agent based framework
> >which will allow embodied human agents.
> >
> >Please let me know if you have any suggestions in this area.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Jim Girard
> >
> >
> >
> Wonder if there's ever going to be a useful 3D format this morning, find
> this article pointed by Slashdot this evening.
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/21/intel_u3d/
>
> Of course, they're still trying to define it, but the sense is that the
> CPU power to do the rendering is here, but the babel of formats is an
> obstacle to using the CPU power.
>
> -- rec --
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9AM @ Jane's Cafe
> Lecture schedule, archives, unsubscribe, etc.:
> http://www.friam.org

Carl Tollander-2

needed: 3D ABM framework with embodied human agents

Has anyone thought about the mapping between ABMs (certainly not
a monolithic set of concepts in any case) and 3D scene graphs (which are
perhaps necessarily hierarchical)? If not 1:1, then what? Are there
more than one kind of such mappings? Are other kinds of abstraction
above a low level OpenGL language binding useful for ABM?

Carl

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]On
Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 6:02 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] needed: 3D ABM framework with embodied human agents

When I worked at the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center, the Visualization
Group there used a package that they had developed called Plot3D. It used a
Lisp-like representation of scenes. They used it to create a visualization
of a roller coaster ride from the point of view of the passenger which was
quite impressive. Of course they didn't lack for CPU power.

Frank
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger E Critchlow Jr" <[hidden email]>
To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 8:16 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] needed: 3D ABM framework with embodied human agents

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9AM @ Jane's Cafe
Lecture schedule, archives, unsubscribe, etc.:
http://www.friam.org

Carl Tollander-2

needed: 3D ABM framework with embodied human agents

In reply to this post by Roger Critchlow-2

The problem IMHO, has never been the formats, it's been figuring out
what people need it for. As we found out in the VR days, a significant
number of folks (some say approaching 50%) just don't seem to think in 3D
and
have considerable difficulty navigating 3D imagery. What does it
represent, what does it tell the user, how does it contribute to
the answers the user wants. Eye candy is nifty, but it isn't
enough in itself to make 3D a commodity, as SGI and the VRML folks
(I was one) found out to their dismay. 3D in itself is not a
solution. Besides the above mentioned responsiveness to user needs, there
are technical problems such as adequate behavior hooks,
latency, scheduling and other real time (not just fast) computing
issues. Until the companies involved in this get serious about addressing
these issues in some formal sense, another graphics format is, well,
another graphics format. I don't see any of those guys settling on
standards, protocols, or even best practices for these associated
issues anytime soon.

But that won't stop 'em from trying....

Carl

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]On
Behalf Of Roger E Critchlow Jr
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 5:17 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] needed: 3D ABM framework with embodied human agents

jpgirard wrote:

Wonder if there's ever going to be a useful 3D format this morning, find
this article pointed by Slashdot this evening.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/21/intel_u3d/

Of course, they're still trying to define it, but the sense is that the
CPU power to do the rendering is here, but the babel of formats is an
obstacle to using the CPU power.

-- rec --

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9AM @ Jane's Cafe
Lecture schedule, archives, unsubscribe, etc.:
http://www.friam.org

Owen Densmore

needed: 3D ABM framework with embodied human agents

Administrator

I agree with Carl that 3D can be quite difficult, both for the
programmer and the user. And we need to be clear about *why* we need
it.

I think our need for 3D is primarily as a core for use by CAD and GIS,
and possibly other structured usages where the 3D brings out the
structure in agent models more vividly.

One suggestion: How about having Steve present a session on Lingo,
Director and the Macromind tools. Because of travel, I'll miss next
Wed so if convenient, I'd prefer the week after that. But clearly
Macromind has hit on a sweet-spot worth understanding.

-- Owen

Owen Densmore 908 Camino Santander Santa Fe, NM 87505
Cell: 505-570-0168 Home: 505-988-3787 http://backspaces.net

On Apr 22, 2004, at 1:00 AM, Carl wrote:

> The problem IMHO, has never been the formats, it's been figuring out
> what people need it for. As we found out in the VR days, a significant
> number of folks (some say approaching 50%) just don't seem to think in
> 3D
> and
> have considerable difficulty navigating 3D imagery. What does it
> represent, what does it tell the user, how does it contribute to
> the answers the user wants. Eye candy is nifty, but it isn't
> enough in itself to make 3D a commodity, as SGI and the VRML folks
> (I was one) found out to their dismay. 3D in itself is not a
> solution. Besides the above mentioned responsiveness to user needs,
> there
> are technical problems such as adequate behavior hooks,
> latency, scheduling and other real time (not just fast) computing
> issues. Until the companies involved in this get serious about
> addressing
> these issues in some formal sense, another graphics format is, well,
> another graphics format. I don't see any of those guys settling on
> standards, protocols, or even best practices for these associated
> issues anytime soon.
>
> But that won't stop 'em from trying....
>
> Carl
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]On
> Behalf Of Roger E Critchlow Jr
> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 5:17 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] needed: 3D ABM framework with embodied human
> agents
>
>
> jpgirard wrote:
>
>> The informal effort towards building a 3D ABM framework is
>> interesting.
>>
>> Especially as I am currently in the market for a 3D agent based
>> framework
>> which will allow embodied human agents.
>>
>> Please let me know if you have any suggestions in this area.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jim Girard
>>
>>
>>
> Wonder if there's ever going to be a useful 3D format this morning,
> find
> this article pointed by Slashdot this evening.
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/21/intel_u3d/
>
> Of course, they're still trying to define it, but the sense is that the
> CPU power to do the rendering is here, but the babel of formats is an
> obstacle to using the CPU power.
>
> -- rec --
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9AM @ Jane's Cafe
> Lecture schedule, archives, unsubscribe, etc.:
> http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9AM @ Jane's Cafe
> Lecture schedule, archives, unsubscribe, etc.:
> http://www.friam.org

Roger Critchlow-2

needed: 3D ABM framework with embodied human agents

In reply to this post by Carl Tollander-2

Carl wrote:

>The problem IMHO, has never been the formats, it's been figuring out
>what people need it for. As we found out in the VR days, a significant
>number of folks (some say approaching 50%) just don't seem to think in 3D
>and
>have considerable difficulty navigating 3D imagery. What does it
>
>
Whoa, stop right there. So, you're saying that someone who is using
a 3D visualization to sell a product has essentially thrown away half
the potential customers the moment he starts his presentation?

You're probably also explaining why I get this queasy feeling if I
drive too close to many of my fellow citizens on the road.

-- rec --

John Hellier

needed: 3D ABM framework with embodied human agents

In reply to this post by Owen Densmore

I also agree with Carl on the abuses of 3-D. I worked
for
Incyte Pharma a while back using SGI Mineset and VRML
to display micro-array expression data. There was
significant g-whiz but it wasn't particularly useful.
As Carl
said, people don't think in 3-D. Kind strange when we
live in a 3-D world. But I think it has more to do
with the
interface rather than whether people think in 3-D.

3-D on a 2-D screen seems to be useful for niche
areas,
but the learning curve is pretty steep both for the
developer and the user. Effective 3-D is very tricky
to develop. If effective then it is relatively
intuitive to use, with training. If not then like most
3-D it is hard to use. In
addition, there are few standards for 3-D worlds. So
what
you create in Mineset or in a GIS system doesn't
necessarily translate well to another system.

Can you create a 2-D env that is nearly as effective
as
a 3-D with lot less burden for developer and user?

John

--- Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I agree with Carl that 3D can be quite difficult,
> both for the
> programmer and the user. And we need to be clear
> about *why* we need
> it.
>
> I think our need for 3D is primarily as a core for
> use by CAD and GIS,
> and possibly other structured usages where the 3D
> brings out the
> structure in agent models more vividly.
>
> One suggestion: How about having Steve present a
> session on Lingo,
> Director and the Macromind tools. Because of
> travel, I'll miss next
> Wed so if convenient, I'd prefer the week after
> that. But clearly
> Macromind has hit on a sweet-spot worth
> understanding.
>
> -- Owen
>
> Owen Densmore 908 Camino Santander Santa
> Fe, NM 87505
> Cell: 505-570-0168 Home: 505-988-3787
> http://backspaces.net
>
> On Apr 22, 2004, at 1:00 AM, Carl wrote:
>
> > The problem IMHO, has never been the formats, it's
> been figuring out
> > what people need it for. As we found out in the
> VR days, a significant
> > number of folks (some say approaching 50%) just
> don't seem to think in
> > 3D
> > and
> > have considerable difficulty navigating 3D
> imagery. What does it
> > represent, what does it tell the user, how does it
> contribute to
> > the answers the user wants. Eye candy is nifty,
> but it isn't
> > enough in itself to make 3D a commodity, as SGI
> and the VRML folks
> > (I was one) found out to their dismay. 3D in
> itself is not a
> > solution. Besides the above mentioned
> responsiveness to user needs,
> > there
> > are technical problems such as adequate behavior
> hooks,
> > latency, scheduling and other real time (not just
> fast) computing
> > issues. Until the companies involved in this get
> serious about
> > addressing
> > these issues in some formal sense, another
> graphics format is, well,
> > another graphics format. I don't see any of those
> guys settling on
> > standards, protocols, or even best practices for
> these associated
> > issues anytime soon.
> >
> > But that won't stop 'em from trying....
> >
> > Carl
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]]On
> > Behalf Of Roger E Critchlow Jr
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 5:17 PM
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
> Group
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] needed: 3D ABM framework with
> embodied human
> > agents
> >
> >
> > jpgirard wrote:
> >
> >> The informal effort towards building a 3D ABM
> framework is
> >> interesting.
> >>
> >> Especially as I am currently in the market for a
> 3D agent based
> >> framework
> >> which will allow embodied human agents.
> >>
> >> Please let me know if you have any suggestions in
> this area.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Jim Girard
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > Wonder if there's ever going to be a useful 3D
> format this morning,
> > find
> > this article pointed by Slashdot this evening.
> >
> >
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/21/intel_u3d/
> >
> > Of course, they're still trying to define it, but
> the sense is that the
> > CPU power to do the rendering is here, but the
> babel of formats is an
> > obstacle to using the CPU power.
> >
> > -- rec --
> >
> >
>

============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9AM @ Jane's Cafe
> > Lecture schedule, archives, unsubscribe, etc.:
> > http://www.friam.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9AM @ Jane's Cafe
> > Lecture schedule, archives, unsubscribe, etc.:
> > http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9AM @ Jane's Cafe
> Lecture schedule, archives, unsubscribe, etc.:
> http://www.friam.org

jpgirard

needed: 3D ABM framework with embodied human agents

In reply to this post by Carl Tollander-2

It's important to separate the usefullness of 3D in simulation environment
from the usefullness of 3D graphics, especially as regards ABMs.

Even though the 3D graphics may be nothing buy eye candy,
putting our agents into realistic 3D environments will most
likely result in different emergent behaviors, which is by definition
very useful.

jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]On
> Behalf Of Carl
> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 1:00 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: RE: [FRIAM] needed: 3D ABM framework with embodied human agents
>
>
> The problem IMHO, has never been the formats, it's been figuring out
> what people need it for. As we found out in the VR days, a significant
> number of folks (some say approaching 50%) just don't seem to think in 3D
> and
> have considerable difficulty navigating 3D imagery. What does it
> represent, what does it tell the user, how does it contribute to
> the answers the user wants. Eye candy is nifty, but it isn't
> enough in itself to make 3D a commodity, as SGI and the VRML folks
> (I was one) found out to their dismay. 3D in itself is not a
> solution. Besides the above mentioned responsiveness to user needs, there
> are technical problems such as adequate behavior hooks,
> latency, scheduling and other real time (not just fast) computing
> issues. Until the companies involved in this get serious about addressing
> these issues in some formal sense, another graphics format is, well,
> another graphics format. I don't see any of those guys settling on
> standards, protocols, or even best practices for these associated
> issues anytime soon.
>
> But that won't stop 'em from trying....
>
> Carl
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]On
> Behalf Of Roger E Critchlow Jr
> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 5:17 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] needed: 3D ABM framework with embodied human agents
>
>
> jpgirard wrote:
>
> >The informal effort towards building a 3D ABM framework is interesting.
> >
> >Especially as I am currently in the market for a 3D agent based framework
> >which will allow embodied human agents.
> >
> >Please let me know if you have any suggestions in this area.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Jim Girard
> >
> >
> >
> Wonder if there's ever going to be a useful 3D format this morning, find
> this article pointed by Slashdot this evening.
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/21/intel_u3d/
>
> Of course, they're still trying to define it, but the sense is that the
> CPU power to do the rendering is here, but the babel of formats is an
> obstacle to using the CPU power.
>
> -- rec --
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9AM @ Jane's Cafe
> Lecture schedule, archives, unsubscribe, etc.:
> http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9AM @ Jane's Cafe
> Lecture schedule, archives, unsubscribe, etc.:
> http://www.friam.org
>
>

Carl Tollander-2

needed: 3D ABM framework with embodied human agents

In reply to this post by John Hellier

>>Can you create a 2-D env that is nearly as effective
>>as a 3-D with lot less burden for developer and user?

Kinda depends on the information density that the user needs
and can (or wants to) absorb. People who are really into the domain
anyway might appreciate more density. Casual management
oversight folks might need less density.

Theres a lot of subtle shadow, movement, and color cues that are
in, uh, reality, that are really difficult to replicate. I've read
that an ordinary photo has about 15 degrees of off-view-axis angle info just
in the
shadow interplay. There's even more in our built-up expectations about
how "natural" things move. This is difficult to replicate in a 3D
abstraction
of a model and may be behind why some folks find them more difficult to
internalize.

3D GUI design is not easy. It would be good if we could find some way
to acknowledge but disregard it in some principled way for purposes of
this discussion. However, we still need to keep in mind just why we
need 3D so we can make informed technical decisions about packages.

Carl

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]On
Behalf Of John Hellier
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 9:37 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] needed: 3D ABM framework with embodied human agents

I also agree with Carl on the abuses of 3-D. I worked
for
Incyte Pharma a while back using SGI Mineset and VRML
to display micro-array expression data. There was
significant g-whiz but it wasn't particularly useful.
As Carl
said, people don't think in 3-D. Kind strange when we
live in a 3-D world. But I think it has more to do
with the
interface rather than whether people think in 3-D.

3-D on a 2-D screen seems to be useful for niche
areas,
but the learning curve is pretty steep both for the
developer and the user. Effective 3-D is very tricky
to develop. If effective then it is relatively
intuitive to use, with training. If not then like most
3-D it is hard to use. In
addition, there are few standards for 3-D worlds. So
what
you create in Mineset or in a GIS system doesn't
necessarily translate well to another system.

Can you create a 2-D env that is nearly as effective
as
a 3-D with lot less burden for developer and user?

John

--- Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

Carl Tollander-2

needed: 3D ABM framework with embodied human agents

In reply to this post by jpgirard

Good point. One question is whether we are looking for the emergence
DURING our real-time interaction with the model, or are looking
at more statistical results after simulation runs. The former is real
interesting to me, but alas still somewhat problematic (despite nifty
progress by members of this group) at the current state of the art.

I don't mean to imply that any 3D is eye candy, only that we have
to be more on guard about that than in 2D or other kinds of display.
The way to do that is to be sure what we're about.

Carl

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]On
Behalf Of jpgirard
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 10:51 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: RE: [FRIAM] needed: 3D ABM framework with embodied human agents

It's important to separate the usefullness of 3D in simulation environment
from the usefullness of 3D graphics, especially as regards ABMs.

Even though the 3D graphics may be nothing buy eye candy,
putting our agents into realistic 3D environments will most
likely result in different emergent behaviors, which is by definition
very useful.

jim

Carl Tollander-2

needed: 3D ABM framework with embodied human agents

In reply to this post by Roger Critchlow-2

>>So, you're saying that someone who is using
>>a 3D visualization to sell a product has essentially thrown away half
>>the potential customers the moment he starts his presentation?

Sort of. They'll all smile and nod of course, and it IS a matter of
degree. The point is, not to assume that since we live in 3D (do we
really?)
that everybody thereby necessarily finds computer-generated 3D imagery more
navigable
than if we didn't.

Carl

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]On
Behalf Of Roger E Critchlow Jr
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 9:31 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] needed: 3D ABM framework with embodied human agents

Carl wrote:

>The problem IMHO, has never been the formats, it's been figuring out
>what people need it for. As we found out in the VR days, a significant
>number of folks (some say approaching 50%) just don't seem to think in 3D
>and
>have considerable difficulty navigating 3D imagery. What does it
>
>
Whoa, stop right there. So, you're saying that someone who is using
a 3D visualization to sell a product has essentially thrown away half
the potential customers the moment he starts his presentation?

You're probably also explaining why I get this queasy feeling if I
drive too close to many of my fellow citizens on the road.

-- rec --

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9AM @ Jane's Cafe
Lecture schedule, archives, unsubscribe, etc.:
http://www.friam.org