1  |   Order by default

May 27, 2002, 5:35am

What about those of us who have multiple computers, or systems with multiple
CPUs which can be singularly disabled or partitions with more than one OS
.... it won't take me (or others equally equipped) long to figure out what
number they're using as the unique ID by a simple process of elimination.
Once it becomes public knowledge it'll be just as simple to change as the
IP.

My guess by the "although not all" is it'll be the P4 ident or as OS ident

Glitter

[View Quote]

May 29, 2002, 5:20am

last time I looked the MAC address was only readable by machines within the
subnet ... though I could be wrong

> I highly believe it is likely that this "computer ID" that they use is
what
> is known to network administrators as a "MAC address".

May 29, 2002, 5:20am

[View Quote] I have 4 machines in this one location, each with a unique ip in on subnet
of 32 and I have three citnumbers ... what's hard? Not that I like causing
trouble or anything .... I'm just trying to point out that its not really
what I call secure.

May 31, 2002, 4:22am

What's stopping someone change that? Todays conversation with a collegue
pointed me to a nice little application that can change the mac address
(like was done on the early DSL modems). Nothing is stopping you getting the
mac address of someone you don't like on AW, getting a tourist account or
whatever and going and getting them banned. I kinda worry about shortsighted
big brother tactis when there's teenagers out there with nothing better to
do with their time than cause trouble.


[View Quote]

May 29, 2002, 5:20am

Accutrans is a neat little package for converting from cob to rwx ... it
also enables you to change the scale, do double sided etc as part of the
translation ... you can also make seqs in it. For free I consider that
pretty good value :)


[View Quote]

May 29, 2002, 2:49pm

You're quite correct. I actually purchased it 2 years ago before it had half
the features is has today. Back then you had to pay for it before you got to
use it. While its an excellent little package I dont think it was worth what
I paid for it back then. How do you work out whats a reasonable price?
Considering all the _really_ free stuff out there I doubt I'd pay for it
again if I had to buy each new release. Just my opinion. Admittedly wayne is
a very nice guy though.

Glitter

[View Quote]

Jun 1, 2002, 4:52am

Why do all the sequences now look screwy? And what needs to be done to fix
them?

Seems most of the ppl I've spoken to have had lots of problems with no
longer being able to get into AW with 3.3 and have gone back to 3.2 ... is
this as common as it seems or do I just have a misrepresentative sample?

Glitter

Jun 1, 2002, 2:56pm

[View Quote] hmmmm I'm on a dual p4 1gig with all the newest bits ... seems like the help
around here is no better than an ISP help desk ... if they're ok then the
fault must be everyone elses.

I know there was some talk about 3.3 and seqs a short while back ... I was
hoping that someone might be helpful enough to point me in the right
direction such that I could help others. Seems when Roland left the rest of
the community spirit left with him. So much for all your hollow words about
community.

yeah I'm disappointed :(

Glitter

Jun 1, 2002, 3:11pm

[View Quote] Sure ...

1. they seem more robotic in nature than before.
2. they don't seem to have any vertical component .. eg; in 3.2 the sit
sequence made the av sit on the ground. The very same sequence and av in 3.3
now just lifts his legs in the air
3. the endwait and endwalk seqs just don't occur for some avs
4. the speed of the seqs seems to be different (unrelated to framerate over
background) ... eg seems to be around 20-25 fps instead of 30 ... I've
tested this with a key frame on every frame in both browser versions over
the same background. the viewable framerate is slightly better in 3.3 but
the seq framerate seems shorter.

that's just for starters. I make abour 4 seqs a day so I know I'm not
messing up vertical scale.

Glitter

Jun 1, 2002, 3:40pm

Well without knowing how it's different exactly how do they expect anyone to
fix the sequences or write new ones??? No matter which scale I use on the
vertical I get no vertical translation at the hip. So do I gather the hip
always stays at precisely the same level from now on or is there a way to
fix this? If "that's just the way it is" you can wave good bye to 3D
animation ... at least waving is something you can still do! Exactly how is
this new animation engine better??? It's at least 20% less efficient on
frame rate and can't do anywhere near the range of movement the old one can?

Why would AW take such a huge step backwards? Oh I forgot ... this is the
same company that banned tourists and charged a fortune ... 3.3 is another
nail in the coffin if you ask my opinion. All I can say is no wonder Roland
bailed before the release!!

Are there any URLs with info on this "feature" ... I can't find it in the
release notes.

Glitter

[View Quote]

Jun 1, 2002, 4:00pm

[View Quote] thx Normy ... about the most practical response I've got yet. I'm just
really pissed off because of all the ppl that have come through the world
today saying all the sequences are no good and whining ... when I tell them
3.3 has messed things up they seem to think they don't have the problem in
other worlds but so far all the world owners I've spoken to today are
getting the same complaints.

I would have thought the intelligent thing to do would be to tell people how
the changes would effect sequences and how to fix them BEFORE the release
.... not just leave us with non-functionmal sequences we've spent hours
making and leave us guessing as to how to upgrade them. I mean lets face it
.... we PAY for a world and citizenship .. I kind think that obligates them
to provide us with the information on how to make stuff work when they
change the tools.

Glitter

Jun 1, 2002, 4:04pm

Well DUH Zeo!!!! I read that ages ago

[View Quote] But just saying its different doesn't tell us how it is or how to upgrade
things now does it. Guess it's time to cancel the credit card deductions ...
AWC is too messed up to waste more money on it.

Jun 1, 2002, 4:07pm

It's different alright ... it's a HUGE step backwards. No more jumping,
dancing or anything that involves vertical movement ... no more fun :( ...
just robotic motion ... guess they're training us all to be mindless unhappy
sheep ... pretty soon you'll only be allowed to wear grey and type your
credit card number.

Jun 2, 2002, 12:12pm

> Jump and women's Happy gestures in AlphaWorld still go up (qjump.seq,
shappy.seq).
> But yes I've seen one custom sequence not to fly up anymore.
> Maybe it's simply a bug, or can be circumvented in the code?

I've made several sequences that do nothing but go up and down and varied
scales etc just to isolate all possibilities. I've done the complete set in
both TS and Acutrans and neither budge an inch. If anything was worked
around in code its probably the ones you speak of. Seeing as I doubt AWC
will provide work arounds for everyones individual seqs I suggest they lift
their game and let us know in what way the new system is different or what
software we need to get to build seqs that will actually work. Something
they should have done long BEFORE releasing the new version.

Btw of course they look smoother at decreased frame rate with no vertical
component ... some call that robotic. Whether you like it better or not is
irrelevant. It's all about whether the seq artist can make what they need to
make or not. If you want a robotic walk for example, it can be made without
bounce. But personally I'd like to have my choice back.

still extremely disappointed and thinking 3.3 was a HUGE step backwards

Glitter.

Jun 2, 2002, 2:06pm

It is certainly not system dependant ... its something to do with how the
sequences were made ... that much is VERY clear. I'm still trying to
identify which sequences were made in which software that still work. So far
seqs made in lifeforms, accutrans, and TS4 no longer have vertical
translation. Some of the much older AW seqs still seem to work but no one
seems to be able to tell me what they were made in.

Opinion about how good something looks is mere opinion. It doesn't
necessarily indicate something is working as it was designed to work.

Glitter


[View Quote]

Jun 2, 2002, 2:12pm

An amusing thing I found today was someone who swore blind that after
updating to 3.3 everything looked exactly the same. I spent a great deal of
time trying to understand how he was getting everything as it was before the
upgrade. He kept saying it was my system (and everyone elses that was wrong
..... 9 in 10). After about 20 minutes he discovered the upgrade had not
worked and he was still in 3.2. This is beyond my comprehension but
nonetheless occured .... it at least gave me a smile for the day.

Glitter

[View Quote]

Jun 2, 2002, 2:25pm

Of the six world owners I've spoken to in the last hour, ALL of them have
said that ALL of their visitors have trouble with the majority of seqs
(except the really older AW ones) ... now this a pretty broad cross section
if you ask me ... and certainly enough to support my observations...
especially considering the complaints are all of the vertical component.

I would like to hear from anyone that has made a seq themselves that
demonstrates vertical motion of the hip. I'd like to know what world I can
view it in and what version and title of software they used. So far no one
has been able to prove this to me ... opinions don't help solve the problem.
Of course if you don't want a solution to this problem that 9 out of 10
people seem to have then just keep out the way while the rest of us try to
figure it out ... I'll be sure not to share the solution with you and waste
your time.

Glitter

[View Quote]

Jun 2, 2002, 4:37pm

Hiya Casay,

Great idea but I tried that first off. The old 2.2 browser wouldn't work
without that pinned. I wondered if the step back (to a new engine) had
caused them to go back in that respect to. I have however just worked out
what is wrong and YES there is a problem with how AW interprets the seqs
now!!!! I'm somewhat reticent to off this information due to the attitude of
the community, but I found the solution when I compared the 2.2 era of qjump
(yes I still have it all burned on CD) to the more recent one offered for
d/l in AWGate ... they are different. How so? Two ways:

1. the vertical scale is 100 times out ... import as 0.1, export as 10x to
fix ... looks like someone in AWC messed up their math ... of course they
changed their seqs or wrote around it but didn't tell anyone!!

2. you now need to specify rotation, facing angle, altitude and location as
keyframes wherever a keyframe exists for one of the others. Eg; you can no
longer assume default is zero but you actually have to specify a key frame
value (albeit zero) for it to work. In3.2 you idnt have to specify defaults
if they were not used ... now you have to specify every piece of information
for each key frame ... making the sequences 4 times the size!!! ...
fantastic upgrade huh?

Oh well ... there's the BUG (not feature) fix for those who are interested.
if anyone wants me to explain that further then they can telegram "Glitter
Kitty" and I'll walk them through accutrans ... considering the complexity
of some of the older seqs however I'd say most of them will take a looooong
time to fix.

Casay ... maybe we could ask Wayne to put in something such that if a key
frame is specified for one dimension that keyframes are automatically set
for all the others (or turn them on as default or whatever).

Glitter


[View Quote]

Jun 2, 2002, 4:39pm

> Opinion about how bad something looks in mere opinion. It doesn't
> necessaruly indicate something isn't working as it was designed to work.
>

when something doesnt look as it was intended then that's bad ... at least
from an artists point of view

Jun 3, 2002, 4:55am

this problem can be completely removed by having a key frame at 179 and
at -180 ... then there is no redraw between them and no sudden flip ... eg
no intermediate frames.


[View Quote]

Jun 3, 2002, 5:25am

> In LifeForms there's a 'Pin to floor' option. The shappy.seq is pinned to
> the floor. In the Lifeforms stage window it shows the Pelvis (center of
> avatar) as being on the same level as the stage. If 'pin to floor' is off
> then the avatar feet are on the stage. I'm trying to remember exactly the
> problem I was having when first testing Accutrans for Wayne. If I recall
the
> pin to floor option had to be on for my seqs to work correctly. I was
having
> the same type of problem where the pelvis would stay in the same spot if
> 'pin to floor' was off.

In accutrans, pin to floor just brings the av (lowest contact point, feet
for example) to the stage and sets the altitude. In lifeforms the pin to
floor brings the hip to the stage. The pin does not get saved in the seq at
all for either .. its just a method of altering vertical position. I
understand you can change how pin to floor works in lifeforms to make it
total av pin or hip pin.

Glitter

Jun 3, 2002, 6:21am

> Hmmm... from my experience with Lifeforms the pin to floor option does
make
> a difference and must save some setting within the seq file. Pre 3.3 if an
> seq that I created in Lifeforms didn't have pin to floor on then at times
> when the seq played in AW the avatar would go below the ground level even
> though it didn't when I played it in Lifeforms.

Thats usually a scale factor between COB and RWX

>
> You're correct, in Lifeforms it brings the 'hip' to the stage. Actually
> though I think it's halfway point of the bounding box of the avatar in the
> seq. When you look at an .seq file in Lifeforms all it shows is a box. Pin
> to floor always puts middle of the box on the stage. It's kind of like the
> bounding box determines eye level, 3/4 the height of the box no matter
where
> you put the eye in LifeForms or Accutrans.
>
> I haven't played with 3.3 at all yet. I sure wish Roland had asked me to
> beta test as this is what I would have worked on and had figured out
already
> . Looks like you really hit on something with the scale though. I only
wish
> that AW would provide some specifics about how the new engine works, what
> program(s) can generate the seqs (aninations) and such. I'd be very
> interested to know if seq's created in TrueSpace still work like they used
> to. I never used TS to make them so I wouldn't be one to test that aspect
of
> this. Hamfon might be the person to ask?

I wish exactly the same too ... both that they asked you to beta test AND
some specifics! I tried in TS but the problem there is I dont make my seqs
at 1:100 scale to it makes getting scale tricky to get right. Maybe Hamfon
could take a look at seqs too?

> If you want to send me any seqs you'd like me to test in Lifeforms to
cross
> reference your results and / or save from Lifeforms directly, I'd be happy
> to. I use the studio version.

Excellent thanks ... I now have lifeforms as well :) ... its pretty obvious
its not the software and _IS_ bugs in the new engine ... I'm still at a loss
as to why they actually needed to change engines ... I don't see why they
did it in the first place. Was it a lisencing issue? Something else? Why
exactly?

Glitter

Jun 3, 2002, 7:53am

Another observation. If the seq has an accompanying end seq and that end seq
doesnt work then the original which otherwise would ... now does not. Eg; if
you fix a walk sequence to work in 3.3 and you test it before fixing the
endwalk then you wont see the fix. I found I had to delete the endwalk from
avatars.dat before I could bug find the walk seq.

All of these little fixes do not fix everything. I still have some sequences
which don't have vertical movement but all things are set correctly.

Another interesting thing was I fixed a jump sequence and it worked as
normal. When I lengthened it by 5 blank frames without changing anything
else. It no longer worked. Take out the extra five frames and it worked
again. Absolutely no explantation for that one!!

Glitter

Jun 3, 2002, 5:23pm

> I'd sure hate to ask Wayne to put something extra into Accutrans to 'fix'
> what AW broke. Yes, it's obviously a bug. Wayne has done so much for this
> community yet no one wants to pay the nominal $20 fee to register the
> program. Maybe he'll make something for the people that have paid for it.
> Who knows. I've always and will continue to try to talk him into making
the
> program expire after 30 days and have people then pay for it. He has done
so
> much to support us yet no one wants to support him. :-(
>
> My .02 is all..
> Casay

I still remember when you walked me through the beta version of it so long
ago. I think I paid $69 for it back then. You are right he does do a lot ...
I'd lost sight of that for a while. A short term trial makes sense ... or a
limited version.

Glitter

Jun 1, 2002, 2:58pm

yesterday I would have been happy to host a couple of worlds for free ...
but today ....

let me know when the community gets a more helpful attitude.

Glitter

[View Quote]

Jun 2, 2002, 3:02am

I have now had my morning coffee and breakfast and I still feel p****ed off
with AW. Can I be honest yet or do I still have to be politically correct
like the rest of the sheep?

Glitter

>
[View Quote]

Jun 2, 2002, 2:15pm

I've been making free seqs for people over the last few weeks and my first
negative response was from someone for whom I'd made 3 seqs .... you tell me
who was helpful!

I know the engine changed, I knew that weeks ago .... but that doesnt help
anyone fix the problem. If YOU'D bother to read you'd know that already. Did
the support email already ... no one has replied yet. I thought I'd try the
community only to discover it wasnt much of a community. You don't like my
opinion ... don't read it. I don't care for yours and won't bother reading
it in future. Gotta love choice.

Glitter


[View Quote]

Jun 3, 2002, 5:19am

Ananas,

I havent looked at Jack yet but I have found that having location or facing
angle set in a sequence but NOT having rotation set will cause the browser
to crash. I accidently unclicked rotation key frame in Acutrans without
noticing and the browser crashed constantly when activating the seq. I fixed
that one click and it was fine. I then deliberately removed this one thing
from other seqs and it caused the browser to crash also. This only occurs
for rotation not the other attributes which clearly indicates its a bug ...
because sometimes you want to move in one direction while making no change
in rotation. The concept of specifying the default for that rotation is fine
.... but why should it crash rather than simply fail to work (like when you
don't specify the other defaults).

For the record on sequences

1. normal scale in AW is 1:100
2. horizontal scale in seqs is 1:100
3. vertical scale in seqs is 1:1 (go figure)
4. all defaults for rotation, altitude, location and facing angle must now
be specified wherever a key frame for one of them exists.
avoid leaving rotation unspecified at any time for any frame where a key is
set for other attributes
5. previous seqs were designed at 30 frames per second. The new engine will
NOT render all frames even when you have ample video capability so you need
to specify every frame as a key to avoid twitchy motion on complex sequences
(= very big seqs)
6. Rotations greater than 45 degrees between key frames will not show in the
sequence at all ... suggesting the real frame rate is 25fps or less. Of
course you shouldn't go that far without a key frame, but it does clearly
demostrate the poorer real performance of the engine. Of course this can
appear as smoother and more robotic ... but that's because intermediate
frames are missing.

Do we write around these bugs and assume they won't fix anything cos they
like the engine just as it is. We could end up having to rewrite them again
later if AW do fix the problem?? As yet there is stilll no response or
leadership from AW on this so I suggest people don't modify their sequences
just yet.

Glitter

PS for the idiots out there: Of course those who still think I have no idea
what I'm talking about can choose to ignore this information. I wouldn't
want to be considered sharing anything and damage my selfish reputation now
would I?


[View Quote]

Jun 4, 2002, 5:28am

reposted for Barbara :) ... sorry for the repeat for others:

These changes have occured going to the new animation engine (3.3 browser):

1. normal scale in AW is 1:100
2. horizontal scale in seqs is 1:100
3. vertical scale in seqs is 1:1 (go figure)
4. all defaults for rotation, altitude, location and facing angle must now
be specified wherever a key frame for one of them exists.
avoid leaving rotation unspecified at any time for any frame where a key is
set for other attributes
5. previous seqs were designed at 30 frames per second. The new engine will
NOT render all frames even when you have ample video capability so you need
to specify every frame as a key to avoid twitchy motion on complex sequences
(= very big seqs)
6. Rotations greater than 45 degrees between key frames will not show in the
sequence at all ... suggesting the real frame rate is 25fps or less. Of
course you shouldn't go that far without a key frame, but it does clearly
demostrate the poorer real performance of the engine. Of course this can
appear as smoother and more robotic ... but that's because intermediate
frames are missing.
7. not having a default specified for rotation where a key frame exists with
values for other attributes specified will cause the 3.3 browser to crash on
activation of the sequence every time.

Most of these bugs can be written around in Acutrans/Lifeforms but it takes
a long time and makes the seqs on average 4-5 times larger. I do not
recommend fixing seqs until we hear from AW with respect to whether they
intend fixing stuff or making us write around the problems or you may end up
redoing them yet again!

Glitter

1  |   Order by default