1  ...  7  8  9  10  11  12  |   Order by default

Mar 2, 1999, 8:00pm

This has already been debated to death in here. OpenGL isn't the standard currently, Direct3D is. More vid cards support Direct3D than OpenGL at this time.

[View Quote] > Let me just say that the direct3D support for AW is pretty bad. Why dont
> we use OpenGL? It renders faster, and makes smoother graphics.

Mar 3, 1999, 5:23am

Those are software OpenGL drivers (glue32.dll, opengl32.dll, and maybe some others) like RenderWare's software drivers. Unless your card has explicit OpenGL hardware support, it'll only run OpenGL through software.

[View Quote] > Odd thing is , my card ( Mystique 200 ) is an *old* card , and openGL was not on it's list of campatabilities . Yet I d/l'd the openGL drivers and installed the Pipes screen saver , and have no trouble at all using it . Perhaps there's more hardware that supports it than is known of

Mar 3, 1999, 5:24am

Thank you, Grover.

[View Quote] > why not? AW doesn't run on any platform that isn't windows (or a windows emulator), so being win-centric is probably the best
> position to take! So, for once, I agree with Eep: D3D is the way to go for windows. DirectX itself should then port to OpenGL or
> whatever the particular card supports.
>
[View Quote]

Mar 3, 1999, 10:37pm

Uh, this was what VRML was supposedly supposed to do, Rjins. However, VRML still needs a rendering engine (like RW, Direct3D, OpenGL, etc.) to render it. Oops. Not much in computers stands the test of time for very long anyway...

[View Quote] > What we truly need is when Roland gets the go-ahead to start the long process of untying AW from Renderware, that AW should no longer be tied to ANY particular api!. We need a standard of describing a virtual world system that stands the test of time and API changes.

Mar 4, 1999, 10:23pm

Sounds like a job for the OS... Windows 3D anyone?

[View Quote] > What we need is something that starts with the multiuser shared database environment and then interface that underlying structure to a rendering API.

Mar 5, 1999, 8:50pm

[View Quote] > I don't agree. OpenGL is growing. So, invest in the future. Make AW somewhat platform-independant.

Well, seems RenderWare 3 is already doing just that without anything from AW except to upgrade to it. RW3 has OpenGL, Direct3D, and Glide support.

> Not everyone is running Windows, you know.

However, currently AW ONLY runs on Windows, which has been my main argument for only concentrating on a native Direct3D driver.

> OpenGL runs on more 3D cards than the hardware-drivers of Renderware. I'd go for OpenGL.

Yes but Direct3D runs on far more cards than OpenGL and RW hardware (Direct3D and Voodoo) drivers combined. Direct3D is still more of the Windows standard.

Mar 6, 1999, 6:08am

http://technologies.csl.com/rwarch.htm has Direct3D, software, Glide, and OpenGL as output to the frame buffer.

[View Quote] > Well the point is moot now with Renderware 3.0 finally in the finishing stages. :) It will support OpenGl, glide, and some others. Not sure about d3d... their web server makes my winsock knock offline and even locks up my system sometimes. :/ That's with both NS3 and IE4.
>
[View Quote]

Mar 3, 1999, 6:44am

How about not rendering objects into the scene within the full 360-degree visibility radius, but instead only in the actual view? This should speed things up a bit, although pauses from scene rendering would be annoying too. :/

Mar 3, 1999, 10:34pm

I don't think this is the same as what I'm talking about, Grover. The objects behind you are still there, rendered in the scene, just not rendering in VIEW, which is different.

[View Quote] > This is already done, Eep, to at least a certain extent. Try going into an area with a 10,000 vert object. Look at it, and
> record fps. now turn around, and record fps again. I garuntee you that it'll be faster without that object in your field of
> view!
>
[View Quote]

Mar 3, 1999, 10:36pm

Well, no more so than moving around in a world anyway, which constantly moves objects in and out of the scene depending on one's visiblity limit.

[View Quote] > Yeah, everytime you turn around then you'd have to reload the scene. A pain in the butt???

[View Quote]

Mar 5, 1999, 2:46am

Unfortunately, I don't agree with you; hence my reply. Either you need to word what you're saying better, or you need to read things more carefully to make sure you FULLY grasp the situation. "Dude" seemed to do this, yet you misresponded even to his elaboration. What I am referring to is whenever you move, AW pauses each time an object is rendered into the scene (not necessarily into the view). The visibility radius is a RADIUS, not a "triangle" view fanning out from the avatar. What I'm proposing is that whatever is in VIEW is rendered into the scene. But, anyway, since AW/RW pause with each object scene inclusion, it would probably just make things even more annoying than they already are, so nevermind.

The thing I want to lose is the pause with scene rebuilding. AW needs to be more fluid in this respect.

[View Quote] > key words- "TO A CERTAIN EXTENT" duh! must you try and belittle anything anyone says, even though you actually agree with it??
>
[View Quote]

Mar 4, 1999, 8:50pm

Yea, and they can start with the z objects. I remember asking Cryonics and E N Z O about letting us at least use the zbeamb.rwx and they said yes, but, of course, never actually made them into non-z-objects. All of Mars' z objects should be converted to "normal" objects anyway. I'd also like more pipe (tank) lengths (longer tankb and tankc, for example) and the pipe elbows to fit correctly on the other pipe objects. Plus I'd like some 45-degree angled elbows and 45-degree vertically angled tankb (and other lengths) too.

[View Quote] > When looking over the vast array of objects in Alpha World, I can't help
> wondering why Mars has such a pitiful object catalogue. When was the
> last time this world had any new objects? C'mon AW.COM, give Mars some
> more objects!
> There are no toilets or beds, only two tv screens and a deeply pathetic
> number of sectional peices. It's not like new objects would need to be
> nmade from scratch, as there are many likely candidates in Colony and
> other worlds. And could we have some human objects as well? The human
> figures available in Metatropolis add quite a bit of atmosphere - could
> we have something similar on Mars? There are spacesuited figures on Moon
> (okay, I know this is a private world, but you could ask nicely :D), as
> well as a number of really great space related objects.
> I'm pretty sure that the reason Mars is nearly always empty is that it
> has such a limited object catalogue.

Mar 7, 1999, 11:50pm

Well, the URL part is already in The List™, but dunno if Roland considered the teleport-coords-to-clickable-teleport-within-chat-window-text part.

[View Quote] > Why not simply add a small piece of code (sounds so easy...) wich checks
> if you write either a teleport or a url/mail address. Then it prints the
> whole sentance you said to the dialog box, but makes the
> url/teleport-part into a link. If the user press the link he/she will be
> sent to that url/coordinate.
>
> That shouldn't be too hard? I have to admit I got the idea from IRC, but
> it is very useful! It will eliminate all those questions from tourists
> saying like "what's a telepart?" and "how to i telega.. eh... port??"
> (c;
>
> Think about it, Roland... (c:
> (...if you ever get to read this in your buzy life, that is)

Mar 8, 1999, 5:40pm

[View Quote] > Oh, ok (c:
> Maybe I can ask Rolu to add it to The List(tm) in the same wish as the url-link one (c:
>
> BTW
> The List is the wishlist Rolu was running? (c:

No, The List™ is Roland's list.

Mar 9, 1999, 5:45pm

Even more what, sucking? You're right, considering I don't even KNOW Hungarian and don't try to communicate with it, unlike you who try to communicate through English (which yours isn't that bad).

[View Quote] > P.S. - ok Eep - my English sux but your Hungarian is even more!

Mar 9, 1999, 9:46pm

But I STILL don't try to communicate in Hungarian, however...<blink>

[View Quote] [View Quote]

Mar 11, 1999, 8:53pm

Yea, not even me. Oops.

Mar 8, 1999, 10:43pm

Turning when frame rate is high is too fast. AW needs to proportionately speed the turning so as to not cause overturning. Right now AW turns at a constant speed. I think it would be better if turning was proportionally sped up or slowed down relative to the frame rate. As the frame rate increases, turning becomes slower; as the frame rate drops, turning becomes faster to compensate. Dig? I think I've overexplained this enough as it is, wouldn't you say?

Mar 8, 1999, 11:02pm

Too complicated. Take mouse turning for example. Turning is based off how fast you can move the mouse. A similar thing would be nice for keyboard turning. However, since you can't exactly press down the keys any harder (they're either down or up and don't act like a piano or electronic music keyboard where the keys can be much more sensitive), I feel the frame rate-based proportional turning is a good solution.

Mar 9, 1999, 1:05am

[View Quote] > at least have it on a toggle switch then... and I still say a slider either in addition to or seperate from the toggle switch for setting the speed would be a nice feature. We have speed / acceleration settings for mice, so why not for turning in AW?

Because the speed would be PROPORTIONALLY constant to the frame rate, dig? The turn rate would not change absolutely; only relatively. Perhaps I should elaborate more on what I mean by proportional turning. Right now AW turns at a constant speed in 1st person perspective from the moment the arrow key is pressed until let go. 3rd person perspective turning seems smoother, but only because the camera lags behind turning.

What I'm proposing is turning that smoothly/gradually, but quickly, builds up to the maximum turning speed. This will hopefully eliminate overturning and make AW turning seem less jerky/twitchy. Dig?

Now the frame rate-based proportional turning part just means that the time it takes to get up to full turning speed will be SLIGHTLY (not much, but enough to still make turning seem smooth and gradual, yet quick) longer as the frame rate increases. Note that the time is SLIGHTLY different, because when the frame rate is shit, you know how long AW takes to turn. Well, when the frame rate is low, AW should turn FASTER than when the frame rate is high, OK?

So if all of this is built-in, intelligently and intuitively, no user-controlled toggle switches and sliders are necessary.

Mar 10, 1999, 5:26am

One workaround I've found is to use the mouse for turning while using the arrows for forward/reverse.

I'd also like looking up and down to be more smooth and not in steps like it is now. AW is way too jerky...in everything it does. "Sometimes you just have to let it flow." Keep the flow. Flow is good. Go with the flow..._.´¯`·._.´¯`·._.´¯`·._.´¯`·.

[View Quote] > I totally agree with them, we need proportional turning. There's a problem when your frame rate is too low as well... I first felt we needed proportional turning back when I first logged on 3 years ago with a 486-66. Now the problem is at the other end of the spectrum. 720 is great for blading, but sucks when you're just trying to wander around. :)

Mar 10, 1999, 6:37am

Thanks, although I like this one better:

·´¯`·._.·´¯`·._.·´¯`·._.·´¯`·._.·´¯`·._.·´¯`·._.·´¯`·._.·´¯`·._.·´¯`·._.·´¯`·._.·´¯`·._.·´¯`·._.·´¯`·._.·´¯`·._.

It's smoother.

[View Quote] [View Quote]

Mar 10, 1999, 10:42pm

I'd rather have control over what my avatar does and not have idle SEQs do it automatically. Eventually it could even be to the point where VR suits (with joint sensors) are worn and anything you do, your avatar does. Walking/running/flying (obviously) might still have to be done using unconventional device (i.e. keyboard, mouse, "movement device", etc), but sophisication might exist to the point of using treadmills or those suspension devices (don't recall the actual name) used in astronaut training that have full 320°³(?) movement capability.

But I definitely think from 3rd person perspective (and from other avatars' 1st and 3rd perspectives), the avatar's head should at least move in-sync with looking up and down (page up/down keys). And instead of turning the entire body when looking left/right (left/right arrow keys), the head (if using a human avatar) should only turn (to a certain extent), at which time other parts of the body (shoulders, torso, etc) would move to allow for more rotation. I think parts of existing SEQs could even be used for this, too. Non-human avatars would probably turn differently.

The more realistic AW gets, the more immersive it will be, and the more popular it will get. Just always keep the idea of the Star Trek: The Next Generation+ holodeck in mind...

[View Quote] > Yep agreed. Roland and I were discussing at AV98 this very topic... in conjunction with reworking the avatar actions scheme. What would you think of having the camera follow the avatar's head as you turn or nod? I think it could get nauseating at times unless you had configurable limitations (like whether to roll or pitch or just yaw, and side to side extremes).
> Any similar or opposing ideas?

Mar 11, 1999, 7:34pm

Good point. What I meant was if a person looks up and down, their avatar's head should move as well, and this should be visible from other avatar's 1st and 3rd-person perspectives.

But in 3rd-person perspective, the camera should be user-controllable (ala Tomb Raider) instead of at fixed positions like it is now.

[View Quote] > You can use pageup pagedown in 3rd person? I can't. Or did you mean 1st person? heheh or do you just wish we could :)
>
[View Quote]

Mar 10, 1999, 10:56pm

Some guy named Jim (forgot his last name) asked me in an email about my object animation command idea, so where's the message where I outlined it: news://news.activeworlds.com/35C669D6.839CF959%40tnlc.com

Mar 11, 1999, 8:45am

This same fucker spammed me twice yesterday. Damn spammers!

[View Quote] > Jono Go
> jonogo at indosat.net.id

Mar 14, 1999, 6:17am

An option not to log heartbeats. They take up a lot of space in the ever-growing world log. In fact, I'd like better logging features, like a way to get statistics from them (# times user x logs in, average time per session, etc).

Jul 21, 1999, 1:50am

I think only the world cell database is 16-bit, but I'm not sure. AW uses Faircom databases which are copyrighted from 1984-1996. Considering 32-bit Window apps didn't start catching on until Win95, using database code from 1996 means it's probably still 16-bit. This is all speculation though. Can anyone confirm this (no, not that it's speculation)?

[View Quote] [View Quote]

Jul 21, 1999, 3:22pm

Uh, 1 kilobyte = 1,024 bytes, Horizons. Kilo = one thousand in the metric system, but in computer storage terms it means 1,024. You seem to lose your train of thought often...slow down and think what you're writing about.

8 bits = 1 byte (2^3)
1 kilobyte = 1,024 bytes (2^10)
1 megabyte = 1,024 x 1,024 = 1,048,576 bytes (or 1 million bytes or 2^20)
1 gigabyte = 1,024 x 1,024 x 1,024 = 1,073,741,824 bytes (or 1 billion megabytes or 2^30)

And this is just bytes. Converting bits to bytes is even more confusing. ;)

bits per second (bps)
kilobit
megabit
gigabit
etc...

[View Quote] > 32-Bit values can be used in 16-bit adresses but they aren't processed as
> effenciently I think because of the way the bits are alocated into bytes,
> Remember 8 bits to 1 byte. 100 Bytes to 1 Kilobyte, but 1024 Kilobytes to 1
> Megabyte. I don't know why this makes any sense any more because I lost my
> train of thought.
>
[View Quote]

Jul 22, 1999, 2:37am

I wouldn't WANT to be in charge, however. I'm not the only user of AW. I =
didn't create AW. AW just needs DIRECTION, it would seem. I feel that dir=
ection left with Ron (AW creator) when then-COF shit on him. My ego isn't=
big enough to think I'm responsible to immitate such direction, but I do=
feel I can extrapolate the needs of the citizens (mainly through reading=
about their feelings and also through discussions with them) and create =
a possible AW development plan more oriented towards them.

Ultimately it's up to the programmers as to the final result, but I've no=
ticed that most programmers need persuasion (be it words of encouragement=
or a boot to the head) so what they create is actually usable by non-pro=
grammers. Plus most programmers tend to be in a fairly narrow-minded (rel=
ative to the end-user) perspective of how a program should operate. These=
programmers need to be more flexible in their program designs, allowing =
for more variety in how they're used. This may take more work, but the pr=
ogram will be more widely used and, thus, popular.

If AW is to be more popular, it must change. This means keeping up with c=
urrent 3D gaming standards. No, AW doesn't necessarily need to have bumpm=
apping and compete with Quake III, Outcast, and Draken (which have much m=
ore money, programmers, and resources than AWCI does), but it should at l=
east be up to par with something as old as Tomb Raider (TR; which has bas=
ically just rehashed its 3D engine, adding minor enhancements here and th=
ere, for each of its 3 games--4 is in the works, still based off the same=
engine). AW's 3D engine, RenderWare (RW), has remained relatively stagna=
nt since it was introduced into AW over 4 years ago. TR's engine has had =
more development in less time than RW has had in an even longer period of=
time. I can only hope that RW3 will propel AW beyond TR and at least up =
to par with current 3D game engines, but I have my doubts. Inevitably it =
will be up to Roland and HamFon to implement RW3 into AW well enough to t=
ake advantage of all of its features...

[View Quote] [View Quote]

1  ...  7  8  9  10  11  12  |   Order by default