1  ...  2  3  4  5  6  7  ...  13  |   Order by default

Dec 17, 1998, 8:08pm

[View Quote] [View Quote] You didn't?

> BTW, yes I have come back to AW after about 10 months away

Looks to me like you did...

Perhaps you should've stated this in the first place:

> I was around just after the 1995 asteroid strike, about
> December I think. I registered my current account a little later, in late
> 1996 I think. my citizen number is 126677. And sure, u may have been
> around longer, but I have seen AW develop quite a lot and don't need to
> check history sheets (although they are quite good).

Dec 17, 1998, 8:14pm

[View Quote] [View Quote] Eh, I'll believe it when I see it. Some pretty big names (Intel, Sony) have tried their stint at online multi-user 3D VR yet they've flopped. There just doesn't seem to be a big enough market for this...it's been 3-4 years...that's a LONG time in the computer industry, especially for something trying to catch on. Look at VRML. Need I say more?

> it's a legitiment voting system, but I seriously doubt COF will give a
> shit...
>
> I just thought a compiled wishlist FAQ would more clearly show what has
> already been discussed, and where it might stand with COF. Also, given
> that COF doesn't spend the time in this NG that you all would like, it might
> be a means for COF to respond to wider consensus rather than not responding
> to the deluge of individual requests. If you set it up at a web site, COF
> could occassionally visit there and provide the "official" opinion on the
> feasbility of widely wanted features.

OK, I think we need to stop talking about COF as a single organization and instead refer to the few people who make it up: Rick Noll (Enzo), JP (Cryonics), and Roland Vilette. If you knew more about the personalities of these people, you'd understand "COF" a little better.

Dec 18, 1998, 7:58am

3Dfx Voodoo Rush isn't the only card that works: http://tnlc.com/eep/aw/direct3d.html

[View Quote] > um, stupid? Because lots of ppl have 3dfx/d3d cards, and they can make AW a
> lot more pleasant. At current only a voodoo rush does something...

Dec 18, 1998, 8:00am

Um, you have to actually KNOW what you're talking about. If you state one thing, yet don't back it up, you look like a fool.

[View Quote] > What you have to establish credentials before making comments here? how
> elitist!
>
[View Quote]

Dec 23, 1998, 1:35pm

Nor I. I've never heard of ANYONE asking for that. I'm sure Rick and/or JP thought it would be "cool" though. So Roland, like the obedient paid lackey that he is (heh) has to implement it. Ah, gotta "love" corporate (or how about just stupid, idiotic, and lame) decisions, eh? Oh, wait, this is COF I'm talking about here...NEVER MIND.

[View Quote] > I must have missed it when someone asked for file transfer. Does anybody here
> ever remember asking for that? Or, do you remember someone else asking for it? I
> sure didn't.
>
[View Quote]

Dec 23, 1998, 7:42pm

I'd rather have better hardware support than all this fluff crap Roland's been adding. Why work on the car's sunroof when the engine is much more important? I just don't get COF's "mentality" sometimes...

[View Quote] > I've heard a lot of people ask for that one, actually... Mostly it was included with "make AW into ICQ" posts, but others pictured it as in just handing an object to other people like in snow crash. All it would need is a graphical counterpart...
>
[View Quote]

Dec 23, 1998, 11:35pm

Um, that's not what I meant by "fluff crap". Sheesh. At least my organization field doesn't get QUOTED every freakin' time someone replies...and then requoted when people don't know how to delete it, and so on and so on...

[View Quote] > Your "Organization" stuff very soon will exceed Fluxen's sig:)
>
[View Quote]

Dec 24, 1998, 8:02pm

Oh yea...like that's a valid excuse. There's a word for people like that: morons. And if COF is adding stupid fluff features to AW just for "looks", they're even more moronic than the morons who look at AW's "features" yet never actually "drive" it. Feh...gimme a break...

[View Quote] > ...mabye because they never drive the car, but only look at it?
>
[View Quote]

Jan 3, 1999, 12:26pm

Gee, I'd rather have a nice shiny supercharged 350 Impala that would kick the nice shiny 4-banger Miata to the curb. Wouldn't you? It IS possible, you know...just like a fast 3D engine with all the trimmings is possible too.

[View Quote] > A lot of people would rather have a nice shiny 4-banger Miata than a rusted out Impala, even if that Impala happened to have a supercharged 350 and could do the quarter mile in 11 seconds...
>
[View Quote]

Dec 21, 1998, 3:11pm

Ah, yet another newbie...they need to learn old threads...

[View Quote] > We need more objects in AW, someone needs to ask worlds like Riven! They
> have some great stuff there and maybe even Mars objects! I mean come on COF,
> there are many worlds out there with great objects and you won't take
> advantage of them!

Dec 21, 1998, 3:12pm

Er, learn to READ old threads...

[View Quote] > Ah, yet another newbie...they need to learn old threads...
>
[View Quote]

Dec 23, 1998, 11:37pm

10 years old and already swearing? Tsk tsk...give me your parents' email address please. :) ...if they even care...

[View Quote] > I wish that you could just draw your own object on a paint program and it would
> come up on active worlds at anyworld that would kick ass

Dec 24, 1998, 7:59pm

Learn how to punctuate correctly, kid. :) Yet another kid using his daddy's Net account. Does he know you use it? Tsk tsk...

Right, you can swear all you want, so your parents must not care, he? Oh, wait, why WOULD they; you're using "daddy's" Net account. Weeeee, great parents...not.

[View Quote] > I TURN 11 ON DECEMBER 31. And i can swear all i want. my name is andrew bill is my dads name
>
[View Quote]

Jan 1, 1999, 11:51am

[View Quote] > I just read the AW Newsletter! The beta is coming in just a few days,
> containing i.e. file-transfering and better world-control for
> world-owners!

<twirl finger> Whoopety do...file transfer. That's what FTP, ICQ, and even email are for. I'd rather have better 3D hardware support to actually make frame rate SATISFACTORY compared to other 3D programs...

The option to not show avatars through stuff is cool, and about the only good thing worthy of a new build, in my opinion. Whispering MIGHT be a minor plus, too. I'd like to know what the "Many other small tweaks and improvements" as stated on http://activeworlds.com/newsletter/0199/0199.html are, however.

And whoever created that AW URL directory/file system needs to use more common sense. Considering the "0199.html" file is in the "0199" directory, having the HTML file the same name is unnecessarily redundant. Simply name it "index.htm", "index.html", or "default.htm", or "default.html", and just use http://activeworlds.com/newsletter/0199/ as the link. Isn't efficiency neato? I think so...

Perhaps I should start a "Web & HTML Tips" page...

> This is getting better (c:

VERY slowly...

Jan 1, 1999, 4:07pm

[View Quote] [View Quote] Just think how happier you'd be if AW didn't actually LAG, JERK, and TWITCH on your system...

>
> I talked to Protagonist once about that showing-avatars-through-objects-stuff some months ago. He said that it was only one single line of coding that made it like that, but if he removed it AW would be "twice more slower" than it is now! Hope he'd found an way to remove that line without making AW slower!

This is where that 3D card performance improvement would help, see...and if AW had better 3D hardware rendering, it would run more smoothly, faster, and allow for more COOL things like multiple, colored, positionable light sources (lanterns, flashlights, candles, spotlights, moving suns--day/night cycles, etc), and even video cameras! Not to mention more complex objects (including avatars) and more than 50 avatars in view. So, you see, improving 3D rendering is FAR more important than silly file transfering and whispering...

But there IS hope (I hope): supposedly within a year (probably more), AW will have better Direct3D support, so we'll see...but how Roland will do it (if he bugs Criterion enough to improve their Direct3D rendering driver, uses a new 3D engine, or just creates a 3D engine from scratch) is the question.

>
> But I'm still happy to see improvements (c:

You must be new. These "improvements" don't justify the 2.5 month wait time since build 266.

Jan 1, 1999, 4:08pm

<twirl finger some more> Whoopety doooo...more "sunroof" crap. Fix the ENGINE of the car if it doesn't run well and screw the sunroof. If the car doesn't run very well, no matter how well it works, it'll still be shit. See the analogy yet? Anyone? Geez...do I have to spell it out any more blatantly OBVIOUS?

[View Quote] > I believe one of the "tweaks" is a Worlds Chat like animated "beam out"
> when your avatar teleports or logs out.
>
> per conversation with Roland...

Jan 2, 1999, 2:47pm

Software 3D rendering is just lame with the amount of 3D cards on the market and their low prices. Even RenderWare's hardware acceleration is pathetic. I get MUCH better frame rates in Tomb Raider than AW...and TR3 has multi-colored, multiple, dynamic lighting, particle effects, fog, smoke, mist, rain, snow--well, just see for youself at http://tnlc.com/eep/tr/compare.html. In essence, even the original TR blows AW away in terms of rendering, and it's over 4 years old! (AW is about the same age yet still uses the same software rendering engine.)

Even on a P2/350 (64MB DIMM 100MHz 8ns RAM), 100MHz frontside bus, and AGP 2x Millenium G200 (16MB RAM)—hardly "Speak-n-Spell", eh?—AW still lags (not to mention crashes when using MMX and/or the Direct3D drivers. That's just pathetic. Hardware rendering would speed things up MUCH better, and not Criterion's shit Direct3D driver either, but a REAL Direct3D driver, preferably bypassing RenderWare altogther. RenderWare is obsolete.

[View Quote] > One must keep in mind that when runs a 'Speak-n-Spell' system NOTHING is going to work properly...
>
> Instead of bEep whining all the time about the failings of COF he might look into upgrading his antiquated computer. There's a limit to 'lowest common denominator'.
>
[View Quote]

Jan 2, 1999, 6:08pm

Shyea...right. I'll believe it when I experience it. I can tell 3D so easily. Most 3D modellers/animators mess up on the lighting (making the object too shiny/reflective and/or bright/glared). Plus the jerkiness/twitchiness of 3D animation is VERY easy to spot, not to mention the overall plastic/doll-like look to humans. And when in doubt, look for polygon edges. Got a URL for it perhaps? 3D has a LONG way to go before it's believably real...to me at least.

And "Advanced Rendering Technology" has to be the cheesiest, most cliche name something can have. Talk about technobabble...almost as bad as "state-of-the-art", "cutting edge technology", and "on the leading edge". Feh...there's another lame phrase I can't seem to recall at the moment, but it's equally as annoying when used by people who don't even know what the hell they're talking about (like advertisers/marketers/public relations types/etc).

[View Quote] > That reminds me about something!
> I wathched CNN yesterday evening, norwegean time (yes we do get CNN in norway as well), and they had this program about the electronic future (no, it was not discovery - i'm sure it was CNN). Some of the things they told would come in the future, and wich is being developed at the moment, was 3D wich is so real you don't know if it's made by nature or by computers. It is being developed in a university somewhere in the US (maybe it was england, i don't know).
>
> I saw some examples of the 3D engine, a woman standing holding a glass-bulb looking into a mirror with dust and some fog on the ground. The reflections, the twisting of what's behind the bulb and everything! It seemed totally real!
>
> They called it Advanced Rendering Technology.
>
> Now that's the future of AW! The programmers said they simply looked at the nature and programmed what they sawed into the ARD-engine.

Jan 2, 1999, 8:16pm

But a good HARDWARE renderer would work so much better. :)

[View Quote] > I bet even a good software renderer would work fine on a P2/350.
>
[View Quote]

Jan 2, 1999, 8:19pm

Um, textures and lighting (although lightNing would be cool too) are part of the 3D engine itself; avatar animation, action commands, fading avatars, file transfer, and whispering are not. If the car runs like shit, having a good paint job, $2000 stereo system, and sunroof won't matter worth a shit.

[View Quote] > duh, we could do without avatar animation, textures, lightning and action
> commands, too. However, with all these things it looks a lot nicer. It's a
> good thing to give the car a new paintjob/colour. However, then *also* give
> it a better motor if it sux. Personally I would like fading avatars.
>
[View Quote]

Jan 2, 1999, 8:27pm

--------------04B2B1BE97A0BEBA8176E985
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

[View Quote] > Well, when you are right you are right. 3D will never cross the point to where it is indistinguishable from reality.
>
> I am a moderate Star Trek fan (not a Trekky). The first thing that came to my mind when I read your post was that the creators of Star Trek: The Next Generation could have chosen 3D animation for the basis of what we know as the Holodeck, but they chose something that is, in theory (fictional theory, but....), much more versatile.
>
> They probably foresaw that the possibility of traditional 3D rendering engines creating such realism would be very unbelievable (besides the fact that VR animation was, by that time, hardly original). They could have chosen to go the traditional route, but chose something that could open more possibilities (if only fictional).
>
> In other words, 3D rendering was already a familiar concept so they went with something that people were unfamiliar with and could give the illusion of being possible someday. With the traditional 3d rendering engine concept, if it had been chosen, people would be saying "Yeah, right! Give me a break!" But, with the energy/matter manipulation concept not many people had the background experience from seeing it in the media to have a basis for saying such things.
>
> But, I am sure that even if energy/matter manipulation ever comes into the realm of reality, there will always be some flaw in the design that will prevent the total illusion of reality from being pulled off completely. Any creation of man which depends totally upon synthetics and human calculation will inevitably fail to be a fool proof illusion of reality. No matter how real it may seem, there will always be some "crack in the wall" of the illusion that will give it away.

Well, it all depends on how one defines "reality" and "illusion". For some, "reality" IS the "illusion". Others don't even know what "reality" is. Me, eh...I've stopped driving myself insane trying to FUCK with the damn thing ("reality"), let alone figure it out. But even Star Trek's holodeck has its flaws, but only because the people who use it have something to reference against. Characters inside the holodeck consider everything "normal" (exceptions might be Moriarty and Regina from The Next Generation) and the nightclub singer from Deep Space Nine), but only because they were PROGRAMMED with the reference of "the real world". Anyway, I'd believe the realism aspect on a holodeck way more than today's computer 3D for sure.

And I think Paramount didn't choose 3D because it was too expensive (and still is for the most part) to create, and video editing effects were cheaper and looked more realistic anyway. STTNG already had an average cost of $1.2 million per episode; 3D modelling costs (especially considering they already did their special effects through Industrial Light & Magic) would've easily doubled that figure probably.

--------------04B2B1BE97A0BEBA8176E985
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
[View Quote] --------------04B2B1BE97A0BEBA8176E985--

Jan 3, 1999, 12:23pm

What idiot would have a P2/350 WITHOUT hardware acceleration? :) 3D cards are standard these days..

[View Quote] > *if* the P2/350 has hardware acceleration, of course... :-)
>
> but yes, it's true. AW could use hardware.
>
[View Quote]

Jan 3, 1999, 7:29pm

Um, how long have you been in AW, Rolu? AW's been in desperate need of a new 3D engine for years. My point is, the engine needs work before the sunroof is added. Everything else is fluff. The engine should be the main priority for Roland. AW's system CPU requirements is a Pentium (no MHz specified). I have a Pentium-rated 133MHz CPU and AW LAGS like shit on it. The earliest Pentium speed is, what, 60MHz? Now let's think here...either COF ups their minimum requirements, or they get a new engine because right now it's shit, dig? This ain't brain surgery to see why the engine is more important than all these shit fluff additions...

[View Quote] > Sure, but then give the car a good paint job, $2000 stereo system, a sunroof
> *and* a new engine. It will drive better *and* look better. AW is in urgent
> need of some speed and performance increase. However, it also needs its
> "look" to attract new visitors and keep old ones. So, I would say, go after
> a better (preferably full screen) 3D-engine, but keep an eye on the details.
> It is a balance between performance and looks. I consider the performance
> the most important thing at the moment.
>
[View Quote]

Jan 3, 1999, 7:31pm

Why are you blockheads responding to a rhetorical question? I should've narrowed it down to:

"What idiot (who uses 3D apps) would have a P2/350 WITHOUT hardware acceleration?"

[View Quote] > Well, Rolu's father had a Hercules Stingray 128 3D, but gave it to Rolu...
>
[View Quote]

Jan 4, 1999, 10:31am

Avatars rendering with the scene is just an option for those with world option access, although I think it should be in the user settings, as should an increase in the visibility limit of 120 meters.

[View Quote] > Your saying the new beta is going to lower the FPS by 25%??? Surely COF is not that stupid?
>
[View Quote]

Jan 4, 1999, 8:41pm

What're you babbling about?

[View Quote] [View Quote]

Jan 5, 1999, 6:45pm

[View Quote] [View Quote] No, you didn't. You seem to still be stuck on the sunroof instead of the engine. The engine should come first; not the sunroof. Dig?

> Pentium-rated 133MHz CPU and AW LAGS like shit on it. The earliest Pentium
> speed is, what, 60MHz? Now let's think here...either COF ups their minimum
> requirements, or they get a new engine because right now it's shit, dig?
> This ain't brain surgery to see why the engine is more important than all
> these shit fluff additions...
>
> I've got a P-200 + Hercules Stingray 128/3D, in AWGate I get 4-7fps at 40m,
> densely built area's without avatars 18+fps at 40+m, empty area's (all green
> open field) 72-80fps at 120m. Especially with a lot of avatars in sight the
> (still not very high) performance goes down.

Way to miss the point (yet again). Not everyone has a P200 and good 3D card. AW's minimum requirements are shit.

> I agree that Roland should get
> a better 3D engine. Mabye everyone should go search for a better engine and
> give what they found to Roland, if he doesn't have time for it.

No, what Roland needs to do is bug the shit out of Criterion to provide ADEQUATE RenderWare Direct3D drivers. You'd think after COF (although probably actually Worlds) paid, what, $10K (or a few $K to upgrade from version 2.0) for RenderWare 2.1 they'd at least want to get their money's worth. I already tried bugging them but I can only do so much since I don't actually have a license with them. COF should. I even posted about this on their listserve but Criterion never responded and some other people who paid big money for RenderWare were pretty pissed too. For all intensive purposes, RenderWare is dead.

Jan 5, 1999, 6:46pm

Well they there are damn plenty of idiots out there then...<shake head>

[View Quote] > Yopu asked your rethorical question cuz you thought the answer is 'nobody',
> right?
> OK; but appearantly the answer should be 'plenty of ppl'.
> So your rethorical question was not so rethorical after all...
>
[View Quote]

Jan 6, 1999, 2:46pm

For AW's minimum system requirements, AW runs like a Yugo with a 1-cylinder engine and no oil. Not everyone (in fact, most don't) have Celerons/300+ CPUs. The average computer is still around a Pentium 166MHz and 16MB RAM (MAYBE 32). The car is running (barely) like shit.

[View Quote] > But the car is running fine! Sure, the alternator whines a bit and she struggles up the tall hills- but if ya live in a flat state (ie, decently fast PC like celery 300+) and aren't obsessed about top speed, the sunroof makes better sense. Of course if you're into muscle cars, you wouldn't care about the air conditioner and power locks- It's mere preference anyhow. My point being, a huge % of the people would rather opt for keyless entry and a 10-disk changer than the V8! Just because you'd rather have a TV-like frame rate doesn't make it gospel. Although it is a rather good analogy- carries along pretty
> far :-)
>
[View Quote]

Jan 6, 1999, 2:49pm

[View Quote] [View Quote] There's NO reason not to have a 3D accelerator if you use 3D apps. Shit, you can get a piece-of-shit S3 DX-based vid card for $20 or less. If you can't afford that, you shouldn't even be owning a computer. Even good medium-to-high-end 3D cards are only around $100 these days. 3D is CHEAP!

1  ...  2  3  4  5  6  7  ...  13  |   Order by default