Re[2]: [Uni-verse] D2.2 section: End user perspective on functional specification Architects Study

Mon, 31 May 2004 12:11:10 +0200

Hi all,

I asked Ludde to have a look at the qouted paragraph to clarify
this issue.

My position is I would prefer an updated version of minusplus
specification on this issue, for example based on the discussion
from March (Included just below for your reference, where on each
point Akos comments to Lauri, and agrees.)

With the present wording of the paragraph the impression is
that there is a conflict. Rather the resolution should be
reflected and the text updated according to discussion.

regards
Peter Becker

This is a forwarded message
From: Schreck Akos <schreck@axelero.hu>
To: uni-verse@blender.org
Date: Tuesday, March 16, 2004, 7:05:29 PM
Subject: [Uni-verse] minusplus system specs

===8<==============Original message text===============
Dear Lauri,

Dear All,

we tried to answer the questions,
if there is anything to precise please feel free to tell

1) Both the physically based and perceptually based modelling are
incorporated in WP7. Both can be applied in presentation, but for
real acoustic design the physical approach is the only suitable one.

      We are completely satisfied with physical modeling- that is the usual
method of working in architectural practice

      However in the newest architectural trends perceptually based modeling
comes up more and more often

      I think for the acoustic design the physical approach is perfect.

2) Unfortunately, we don't aim at making sound libraries. In acoustic
rendering you can apply any audio material available but we are not
going to produce any.

      I think it would be interesting to have sound libraries,
      but from ques_3 you made clear that the main goal is concert halls
      we understand this task doesn't quite require sound libs.

3) In physical modeling our main goal is modeling of concert halls and
similar spaces. The techniques required for modeling outdoor
environments or making noise estimations in apartments are out of
scope since they need very different modeling techniques. The audio
culling helps in this, but I don't know yet how far can we go.

      In our opinion a simplified outdoor modeling would be very useful.

4) It seems that there is some confusion about the terms. I think your
term "audio culling" is quite similar to our "geometry
reduction". Audio culling removes less important sound sources and
geometry reduction modifies the geometry. How do you see this ?

      You're right, I think we don't quite understand audio culling.
      What we wanted to avoid was geometry simplification.

5) Creation of different types of sound sources is a challenging task
that needs further research. We'll start with omni-directional point
sources and in the next phase the model is extended with radiation
patterns for sound sources but whether we can include area sounds is
still unsure.

      OK

Regards,
Akos

Schreck Akos
+ 36.70.515.07.15
minusplus_architects
H-1063 Budapest
Szinyei Merse Pal utca 27.
tel/fax:+ 36.1.302.64.68
www.minusplus.hu

===8<===========End of original message text===========

On Monday, May 31, 2004, 10:55:24 AM, Lauri wrote:

LS> Hi All,

LS> I agree completely with Ludde! I remember writing a complaint about
LS> the same issue in mid-March. After that I concluded that we want to
LS> have the original version for some historical reason although the text
LS> is not valid anymore. The work described in WP7 aims to the goals
LS> as presented by Ludde!

LS> Regards,
LS>         Lauri

LS> On Mon, 31 May 2004, Peter Lunden wrote:

>> Hi,
>> 
>> Sorry I sent the wrong version of the mail, trash the previous mail.
>> 
>> Im very sorry that I have been quite absent from the discussion lately. 
>> The main reason for this is that I have been overloaded with work in 
>> other project, it is problem of phasing in this project. Now the 
>> situation starts to become better and I can use more time for the 
>> Uni-verse project.
>> 
>> I have found what I believe is a misunderstanding of the capabilities of 
>> the acoustic simulation. In D2.2 section, End user scenarios, End user 
>> perspective on functional specification Architects Study, WP7 Acoustic 
>> rendering and simulation, it says: "As acoustic rendering only uses 
>> perceptual attributes, it refers to games, not architecture. The use of 
>> sound in design lost it?s meaning, for this reason, it can only be used 
>> for presentation. As the research is targeted to *A Distributive 
>> Interactive Audio-Visual Virtual reality System*, it loses its goal."
>> 
>> This is not true, a large part of the work in WP7 is about implementing 
>> an acoustic simulation and rendering that is based on the geometric 
>> description of the simulated world and physical properties assigned to 
>> this geometry. The system will be capable of performing a physical based 
>> simulating the acoustics of the modeled space with good accuracy as well 
>> as perceptual based simulation. In fact, one of the basic idea of have 
>> both an architectural application and a game application is to 
>> demonstrate that the system is capable of handling the two different 
>> approaches of the acoustic simulation.
>> 
>> I think this is a serious problem and it has to be changed as it gives 
>> the wrong impression about the system.
>> 
>> What happend with the first ideas of haveing a demonstrator about a 
>> theather project? That idea was very good for demonstrating the 
>> different capabilletes of the system including the two acousic 
>> simulation approched.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> --PLu
>> ---------------------------------------
>> Peter Lunden 
>> The Interactive Institute
>> Box 24 081
>> SE-104 50 STOCKHOLM, Sweden
>> Phone: +46-8-783 24 59
>> Cell: +46-70-845 53 03
>> ICQ: 253544648
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Uni-verse mailing list
>> Uni-verse@blender.org
>> http://www.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/uni-verse