Comments on: Blue Mars Virtual World Gets Flashy

By: Virtuality Hacks

Virtuality Hacks — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 05:03:06 +0000

[...] Dusan Writer recently mentioned that they’re now supporting flash, I thought, I really should revisit that bit. So I launched the client once more, and was again [...]

By: Dusan

Dusan — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:45:21 +0000

Neil – I’m not sure what happened – comments weren’t pulled, I don’t moderate, the only thing that might have happened was they went to spam but if so, they’re lost in a folder of 15,000 spam.

(Time to change to Captcha I think).

By: Neil Canham

Neil Canham — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:12:34 +0000

As you were, 5 refreshes of the browser didn’t do it. But there are the comments. Sorry Dusan – and now I’ll shut up

By: Neil Canham

Neil Canham — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:11:29 +0000

Did I upset someone? My comments seem to have been pulled, I thought I’d made some comments of relevance to the thread

By: Neil Canham

Neil Canham — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:40:16 +0000

This is where SL is ham-strung by it’s own glorious user-generated content model. In the controlled world of Blue Mars content providers can ensure that only one or two flash-viewers will be in view at any one time. In SL the issue is the potential for lots, assuming that the parcel limit on media URLs is removed. Anyway, in the spirit of playfulness against the backdrop of this thread I’ve built a little collaborative browsing between SL and realXtend. Pointless fun http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is3K-IZswTI

By: HatHead Rickenbacker

HatHead Rickenbacker — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 23:46:57 +0000

Awesome news. Will allow companies to ease into virutal worlds while still benefiting from technology they are quite used to.

By: Metacam Oh

Metacam Oh — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:26:00 +0000

Ari, regardless if you view it as a detriment or not they should have the option… Quicktime is so 90s

By: Graham Mills

Graham Mills — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:25:04 +0000

Dusan: Neil and Aimee have indeed corresponded in the Forums and, from my recollection, it was an illuminating exchange in terms of how web implementations work in different virtual worlds (and SL’s solution, being client- rather than server-based, had some issues as I vaguely recall). I hope I’m wrong but I personally don’t expect too much too soon though that doesn’t stop me whinging. But hey, it’s almost Christmas and that alone is cause for optimism, right?

By: Ari Blackthorne

Ari Blackthorne — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:22:28 +0000

Personally I see this as a detriment.

Flash has become the overloaded, fat beast of the Internet. I have yet to see anything worth seeing that is compelling in the Flash format. All I (mostly) ever see in Flash format are:

…advertisement that are incredibly (as a rule) annoying.
…cute, often offensive and uncouth “arcade” games.
…video – which is really sad as Flash is probably the worst CODEC one could choose to present motion pictures with on a 29.97 frame-per-second paradigm.

Flash is boated, buggy, sucks system resources and the scourge of the Internet if you ask anyone in the professional photography/videography/motion picture arts industry.

And many will point to Google YouTube. Uh, guess what: if you have Flash turned-off, you automatically get the far-higher-quality, lower bandwidth MP4 (H.264) version of the same video.

Thank goodness the new HTML 5 specs are pushing for a real video CODEC with the intention of abolishing Flash as a “video player” tool (as far as HTML standards go).

By: Metacam Oh

Metacam Oh — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:21:10 +0000

Neil, I’d be careful the day you release your multibrowser solution the Lab will roll out their own and put all your hard work to waste, just like they did to Ajaxlife, Motor Mouth, Real Estate etc..