From: Yanek Martinson <yanek@mthvax.cs.miami.edu>
Message-Id: <9110202011.AA16502@mthvax.cs.miami.edu>
Subject: Re: Interfaces to VR devices
To: jim@kaos.stanford.edu (James Helman)
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 91 16:11:32 EDT
Cc: glove-list@karazm.math.uh.edu
In-Reply-To: <9110201902.AA01759@fou-local>; from "James Helman" at Oct 20, 91 12:02 pm
> But providing a common interface to all the different gloves on the
> market (Mattel PowerGlove, VPL DataGlove, Exos DHM, Virtex CyberGlove)
> is another matter.  They all have different numbers and locations of
> sensors, ranging from the PowerGlove on the low end to the 22 sensor
> CyberGlove on the high end.  Combine this with varying built in
> abilities to do gesture recog, internal calibration and force/tactile
> feedback and the MIT "all of the above" strategy becomes, well,
> challenging.

We could have some set of operations/functions that all interfaces
should support, either using the hardware feature or simulating it in
software. Then any application that uses only that basic set of
operations will work with any device. Then, there would be options
unique to a specific device. These interfaces would still support the
basic standard, but add on some new function calls. Then a program may
be written that requires a specific device.

Something like we have with modems. There is a basic command set (hayes
AT set) for neccessary things like RESET, DIAL, ANSWER, HANGUP, etc.
Any software that uses only these commands will work with most modems.
Then there are optional things some modems have, like MNP COMPRESSION,
protocols, interface speed locking, buffers, etc. A program can use
these features but then it will not work with other modems.