Caught a post over on Wonderland about Valve’s interest/effort in creating “cooperative building games”. Hello. PLM, anyone? Like I said earlier, “This is about the convergence of work and games”.
{Note: Ongoing hosting problems caused me to lose a day of entries – this post included. Fortunately, the entire text was preserved on Wonderland’s trackback.}
And in this corner comes news from C|Net on a new start-up called Multiverse Network. It’s an interesting idea. From the article:
Multiverse’s founders think consumers should be able to switch easily between different virtual worlds. And they say their new game developers’ platform, called Multiverse, can make that happen, while giving small online game developers the ability to work on top of an existing network of games and software code.
Multiverse is a lot like the enterprise software developers’ kits used to build back-end systems at big corporations, but with an open-source twist that lets programmers share what they create.
Instead of defining business processes for things like accounting, the game platform provides developers with a physics engine; the basics of a virtual economy; art assets and much more that they can use in their own games. Once a developer has incorporated those elements and others into a new online game, Multiverse links the new title to its network of virtual worlds, all of which share a common entry point for users.
I only have one question though: can I get something I create out to an SLA machine?
I had an excellent (and long) conversation this morning with a former lead programmer for PTC who has been reading my blog and shares many of my interests. Without getting into details, our discussion turned into a brainstorm about a tool for content creation; only the more I think about it, the more I realize it’s really more than just a tool. It initially felt like a mash-up of a number of different apps, but in reality, after turning things inside out, at the core is what may be an entirely new way to think about digital content and the applications used to develop it.
I have a feeling something like this would gain some traction. And it would almost certainly have to be an open source project, so if it does by some miracle move forward, I’ll be posting about it.
Roland seems to pop up more and more. The most recent news being their new easy-to-use 3D scanner (press release). The specs aren’t bad (10″ x 16″; rotary and planar), the output files are good (STL/GSF/3DM), and the price of roughly US $12,000 isn’t completely out of reach. Nice.
Now if I were 3D challenged and lacking creativity (and ethics), I’d get one of these and kick out a 3DM. I’d load Rhino, import that and export as an IGES into a solid modeler like Pro/E. I’d convert the surface there to a solid and – assuming it doesn’t choke – shell it to a thin wall stock. From there it’s back out to any format that can fab a part in metal. Custom metalsmiths and jewellers, all your base are belong to us.
This will be part update and part food for thought. Wired has an article today called “Printing Organs on Demand” (link). I’ve posted about this topic previously (link 1 and link 2), but what struck me was the idea of “branded organs”.
Imagine you’re a run-of-the-mill person and you’re in the hospital to get a new liver. Does your insurance cover the certified so-so Brand X organ printer output, or does it cover, for example, the creation from a Philips SuperOrgantronic 6000? And let’s say that there are still occasions when people just get transplants. Would you accept a used printed organ if it was only Brand X?
Echoes of William Gibson’s future actors and their highend artificial eyes.