1  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  ...  20  |   Order by default

Jan 4, 2001, 9:41pm

[View Quote] Well, everything has to be predefined in some way, otherwise it can't
happen. By the way, I wasn't speaking about a specific mountain, I was
speaking about the terrain in general. It morphs when you shoot at it, or
make big explosions. So if the terrain happens to be a mountain somewhere,
you could keep shooting at it until it was a big hole. What you do therefore
has an impact on the terrain as a whole.

> AW places
> no such restrictions on the user, where they can build a mountain, delete
> it, replace it with a park bench, stick a pole in the middle of the park
> bench, build a house around the park bench and pole, delete the pole, etc.
> etc. etc. ... ad infinitum.

It doesn't? Well you seem to overlook a few things... first of all, if the
object isn't available, it can't be built in AW. There is a set of
predefined objects you are working with. You can insert an object, place it
somewhere and rotate it a bit (but only around it's up-down axis).

This works the same in such a game: there are objects, which are at specific
places, etc etc. The objects that are available are limited by the people
who made the game, just as the objects available in a world are limited by
the owner. Do you really think everything in a game is hard-coded into the
executable? That would be very silly. The kind of games that look like AW
usually just are a reality-simulator. The levels, monsters, players, etc are
all completely modular.

> As for games were you can build ... you can only build those things that
are
> supported within the game

In AW you can only build the things provided by the world's owner. If you
own a world yourself, you can put in anything you want.

In those games, you can only build the things provided by the creators of
the game. It is possible to add things, if not by the players, then by the
creators themselves. (read: add-on packs with extra levels, monsters,
pickups, bonusses, etc)

See the similarities?

> and interaction with these "objects" is also
> restricted to what is supported within the game.

Of course it is. But this is the same in AW. You can only interact with
stuff in predefined ways. You can come up with new, creative ways to use
those interactions, for example a bot that reacts on an avatar gesture. But
you don't really create any new way to interact. Interaction in AW is
limited to moving (moving to a certain area, or bumping into things),
talking, using gestures and clicking on things. Nothing more. This is how AW
restricts what you can do. You can use some of these things by standard
(clicking, bumping, coming near an object), and write little scripts for
them. But scripts are nothing special, it's a fairly common way to make
things happen. For example, the Creatures series of games is completely
driven by a scripting language. Creatures happens to be 2D, but it would be
nothing different if it were 3D. Also, you can write bots, but that's
similar to writing a plug in for a game. For example, someone has made an
excellent plugin for Quake, Reaperbots. This plugin controls a bunch of AI
players, and you can use it to brush up your deathmatch skills. (I can
recommend it to anyone who likes quake multiplayer)

> AW provides an environment
> where there are very few rules, and therefore handles any activity in a
> generic manner.

Just the same for games. Most 3D games provide an environment for the games
to live in, the game itself is created by the levels and the objects. Even
Wolfenstein 3D could run customizable levels!

> In the games you mention, the restrictions placed on the
> player represent the "fixed" aspects. You can only do what the game
supports
> which falls well short of a user's capabilities in AW.

In AW you can only do what AW supports, which isn't really all that much.

> It is hardly surprising that these games perform so much better than AW
due
> to the assumptions and subsequent shortcuts that can be made within the
> processing BECAUSE of these restrictions.

You seem to be working with *very* old knowledge, or you grossly
overestimate AW's capabilities.

> With the generic nature of AW's
> concept, everything must be handled in a "correct" manner ... and that
takes
> processing power.

In a game, stuff must be handled in a correct manner too. Take Carmageddon
II. There's a world, with various objects, and there are cars, which are
objects too. Now crash your car into a streetlight at 300km/h. As for the
game, this is just a matter of two objects hitting each other. Therefore, it
has to model the crash to see what happens. The streetlight might break off
and fly away, the car will deform, start to spin and maybe loose a few
parts. Nothing is constant, compared with other crashes - the size and shape
of the car, the size and shape of the streetlight, the overall world gravity
(lunar gravity bonus, anyone), the thickness of the free space around you
(you could be underwater), the speed and weight of the car, the speed and
weight of the streetlight (could already be moving), etc etc etc.

There are assumptions, of course. First of all, real world physics - gravity
for example. And the objects have been preprogrammed to tell the game that
they can break or deform at certain places. But *what* happens, and when and
how, has to be done in the game itself.

Now, for AW, the only physics it has to deal with are the movements of your
avatar. You'll fall down, unless you are flying, and you won't walk through
solid objects, unless you use shift. And if you are flying you'll keep on
going for a while after you stopped pressing the keys.

> Here's an example (of the point - don't take it too
> literally regarding AW). Imagine a ten-pin bowling alley. The rules are
> strict here - if the ball hits the pins at a certain point, from a certain
> direction, the fixed starting position of the pins can be relied upon and
> the after-effects of the strike can be rapidly rendered BECAUSE of this
> fact. Now imagine the same bowling alley in AW ... where the pins can be
put
> anywhere. Each object (e.g. the ball, the pins, etc.) must be handled
> discretely and all the impacts individually calculated and rendered before
> moving on to the next point in time (e.g. frame) because there are no
> assumptions that can be made. There is a massive overhead in handling
> real-world, flexible environments where rules are few and far between
> compared to those where the bounds of interaction are so limited.

Nice example, but it doesn't apply here at all. The physics of the bowling
alley aren't dealt with by the world server, nor by the AW client (unless
you try to walk through it). AW has no native support for moving objects
that influence other objects, and doesn't do any real world physics on them
either. What really happens is this: there's a bot (plug-in) that provides
the game. The bot only knows about balls and pins. The bot notices that you
try to throw a ball, and then handles the moving and the impact. This is
exactly the same as in a standalone bowling game, and everything happens on
the computer the bot runs on. The only thing your client gets through is
where the pins and the ball move, which is the same as when someone's avatar
moves, or when someone moves an object while building.

There simply *is* no real-world, flexible environment with few rules. AW has
very strict rules, even. You seem to think of AW as something much more
sophisticated than it is.

Rolu

Jan 5, 2001, 5:52pm

[View Quote] Well, actually every world in AW is about the same. A world is just a
collection of objects. What objects, and how they are placed, is different
in each world, but if you look at it in an abstract way, it's all more of
the same. There are no special or extra abilities in any of the worlds.

> You can
> change them dynamically from from any location.

And with that, you change the definition of the world a little. You can't
change the levels in most 3D games while you are playing, *not* because it's
hard to do, or impossible, or would mess with something 'precompiled', but
because *it would ruin gameplay*. Imagine running through a maze, and
instead of solving it, you delete walls until you get to the exit. That's
why.

> I know exactly what I mean,
> but I seem to be having a problem articulating it ... sorry. I still see
> vast differences between the scope of AW and those of an environment
> tailored to specific environments (such as games with massive level
> definitions).

AW *is* tailored to a specific goal, namely a 3D chat program. AW itself
does nothing special outside of that scope, all games and other things come
from 3d party bots, which are specifically suited for a particular game.

>
> In terms of my views on AW ... the concepts behind AW are so much more
> generic than anything else we have been discussing here. Sophistication
> isn't the point, its the capabilities that the product allows over the
> alternatives that set AW aside.

It's quite possible to make a fully functional bowling alley in Quake. Duke
Nukem 3D has a billiard table somewhere in one of the first levels. By
modifying the data files of Carmageddon you can play as a pedestrian instead
of as a car. You can always use things in other ways than intended, nothing
special about that. It's even more fun.

> The "rules" that AW applies to its worlds
> are far less restrictive than those in games. The two sets of rules are
> focussed on different subjects. As I was saying to Eep, in my view, the 3D
> game environment that people compare AW to equates to a completed and
> published world.

That's a false assumption. A level is just a data file telling the game how
that level is built. Nothing, except a decision of the creators of the game,
prevents you from adding things. Your whole point, and excuse for why AW is
behind 3D gaming, seems to be that you can add/delete/move objects when in a
world? If so, this is silly at best.

> With the lack of an ability to state/script specific
> actions within an object definition for AW to the extent that is afforded
to
> games programmers who are writing a specific game, AW falls behind in
> functionality and interaction whilst still having to follow the same
> processing.

Why do you think AW doesn't have a better scripting language? Not because it
is needed for generality. It's mainly a lack of time.

> BUT is not the key point I have been trying to make ... which
> was that level editors create predefined environments (and new/updated
> environments which manifest themselves as your "mission packs") for a
game.

If that's your key point, your whole argument falls, because it is false.
You assume that all game levels, once completed by the editor, are somehow
magically optimized and after that are completely static. But then what? If
the game allows you to, you can change the level while playing it. That's
just a matter of adding/deleting/changing things, it's just not desirable
for gameplay.

> These environments are interacted with by the game itself ... but NOT
while
> the level is being built. That is the focus of the game concept ...
there's
> always a theme and a set of rules which relate to that theme, whereas AW
is
> an attempt at a kind of "global interaction". I basically see no
comparison
> because there is no theme defined for AW at all - no related
> rules/assumption.

AW has a theme - 3D chat. It has rules - there is a world, in which you are
represented by an avatar. This world is composed of a bunch of objects. You
can move your avatar through that world, and might occasionally bump
something. And AW assumes it has to take care of nothing, except for making
sure your avatar doesn't move through solid objects, except for when you
want to.

> What games don't have to worry about is someone coming
> along and unexpectedly MOVING the walls of the U-Boat you're navigating.
If
> they move because someone has pressed a button, then there is specific
code
> to make the walls move in which is then executed within each of the
> instances of the game to which it is relevant. AW allows much, much, much
> lower-level activities than that. AW is aimed at mimicing the core
> activities within a "virtual world", not the instigation of predefined
> action.

Suddenly moving walls doesn't matter at all - see below.

> The bowling example was meant as an example for the point, not AW. AW's
> infrastructure doesn't allow such scenarios to be created efficiently ...
> (even bots wouldn't be able to perform that kind of task and keep the
effect
> realistic to all client's). The Carmageddon II reference you made forced
me
> to think a bit more (thanks for that!!), but I still came up with the same
> basic thoughts. The car is an object and it therefore a set a rules that
> define how it interacts with things such as how it deforms when hit
> (although I would imagine that the basic shape of the car isn't actually
> effected in terms of the object itself rather than just how it looks) and
> the rest is just a change of velocity that is then handled by the game.

Yes. And now for AW?

> AW
> doesn't deal with specifics - all activity is handled in a generic way but
> you can't describe an object to the extent that a real-world needs. AW is
> the very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, poor cousin of the
> "Thirteenth Floor" environment - modelling a world and not a scenario.

There you go wrong. AW doesn't handle any activity in a general way. It
doesn't simulate a real world. In the eyes of the program, the world is just
a static bunch of objects. Every now and then, the client gets messages like
this: "That walk01.rwx over there is now moved to this position" or "This
avatar moved to that position". And if you try to move, it goes like this:
"hm, the user tries to walk forwards. Let's see, is there some solid object
at the new position? If not, move, if so, don't move.". That's all AW does -
it doesn't care for any physics, except for some general things to make your
avatar move. It doesn't care about the physics of the other avatars in the
world. There is *no* object interaction, for example a ball hitting a stick.
If you are looking at a bowling game, there is nothing simulated or whatever
by AW. Everything about the game is handled by a bot. The AW client just
gets a bunch of messages about objects that get other locations. And when
there is no bowling bot, there can be no bowling, because AW doesn't support
such things.

> Thinking about it though ... is the AW performance really that bad? v3.0
> flies on my machine (PIII 500, 128MB, Voodoo 3 3000). The restriction is
> this pathetic dialup I have here. Bet there wouldn't be half the compaints
> about it if they had a "full screen" mode rather than windowed.

Considering what it does, it isn't really nice at all. It could probably be
much better.

>
> Interesting discussion, but I think we're going to have to agree to
> disagree. Shame no-one else wants to join in.

Agreeing to disagree is ok, but only as a last resort, or on things clearly
subjective (blue is a nice colour).

Rolu

>
> Grims.
>
>
>
>
[View Quote]

Feb 9, 2001, 7:35pm

[View Quote] If you'd do that, you won't get a sphere, but a torus. A doughnut shaped
world. Still a very interesting shape :-)

rolu

Dec 22, 2000, 11:05am

[View Quote] Voice stuff is a nice toy, but nothing more. You probably couln't even
understand most people.

Rolu

Dec 22, 2000, 5:47pm

if you put dots in your name (like R.o.l.u) you can make it blue, because
the program thinks it's an url. We're having fun with it at awgate at the
moment, but I think it's not really ok :-) It works that way with normal
text too, great way to stand out :-)

R.o.l.u

Dec 24, 2000, 5:47pm

Better way: don't assume that names can be URL's :-)

[View Quote]

Dec 27, 2000, 1:04pm

[View Quote] Just make it easy to add new top level domains and there's no problem at
all. If you do it well, it should be a matter of seconds to add a bunch of
new TLD's to the URL recognize code. And if it would only recognize stuff
with at least one dot in it, ending on some TLD (and only in normal text,
not in names) it would recognize URL's better, too.

Trying to resolve IP's is a very bad idea as this can take several seconds,
especially if the URL doesn't exist. This would give a lot of unnecessary
lag.

Rolu

Dec 27, 2000, 3:35pm

[View Quote] Three alphanumeric non-empty strings with two dots inbetween, surrounded by
spaces. I know. What's your point?

Rolu

>
> -Agent1
>
>
[View Quote]

Dec 27, 2000, 8:39pm

[View Quote] My remark about TLD recognition was about an alternative to the current URL
recognition.

> I'd rather have it find more links that aren't valid, than not find a real
one

If you think so, then go for the TLD recognition. There are URL's that have
only one dot in them.

And what *real* URL's do you think won't be recognized by TLD recognition,
but will be recognized by the currend bla.bla.bla recognition?

>
>
>
> -Agent1
>
>
[View Quote]

Dec 28, 2000, 10:23am

[View Quote] You were talking about "how does mIRC do it" and "how can that apply to the
AWbrowser".

Some quotes:

"Does mIRC require the protocol prefix to recognize URIs? **That would be
easy to implement I think.**"

"Or does it resolve the IP from names that could be an URL and mark only
the valid ones? **If it does that it would become a problem as the browser
had to constantly resolve adresses**, **visiting crowded areas like AWGate**
would not be a good idea then."

You were clearly talking about the AWbrowser.

I then gave my opinion about how it should be done, also considering your
idea's.

You said:

"Implementing it "guess-based" is not a good idea, especially at the
moment as long as not all new top level domains are decided."

My answer:

"Just make it easy to add new top level domains and there's no problem at
all. If you do it well, it should be a matter of seconds to add a bunch of
new TLD's to the URL recognize code."

And another recommendation:

"And if it would only recognize stuff
with at least one dot in it, ending on some TLD (and only in normal text,
not in names) it would recognize URL's better, too."

And finally my answer to your IP resolving question:

"Trying to resolve IP's is a very bad idea as this can take several seconds,
especially if the URL doesn't exist. This would give a lot of unnecessary
lag."

"Rolu, you did not read what I wrote "

apparently you didn't even read it yourself?

Rolu

>
> rolu schrieb:
based
URL
real
have
recognition,
surrounded
mark
the
like
at
a
recognize
normal
several

Dec 29, 2000, 11:18am

[View Quote] isn't USWF part of the community, then?

Jan 5, 2001, 2:45pm

flaming can be fun at times, how about a flame war newsgroup?

[View Quote]

Jan 5, 2001, 5:59pm

rather boring too

[View Quote]

Jan 4, 2001, 9:44pm

Or a button called "avatar" which brings up a window where you can select
the avatar you want from a scrollable list, with a preview pane of the
avatar, rotating around so you can see what it will look like.

Rolu

[View Quote]

Jan 5, 2001, 2:45pm

except for the rotating avatar in the preview pane, this should be quite
easy. Maybe change it into a text field with some data about the avatar? For
example, name, age, sex, height, and some extra stuff the creator of the
avatar could put in, and then a normal picture of the avatar (again made by
the builder), so you can see how it looks. Should be quite easy.

Rolu

[View Quote]

Jan 5, 2001, 7:51pm

[View Quote] no, on demand, of course, just like it works now. If the avatar has already
been downloaded, you'll see it immediately in the preview pane, otherwise
when you select it it will be downloaded, and the pane will say something
like "downloading..." until it has arrived.

Rolu

>
> agent1 schrieb:
avatar. Not too hard if it's already been downloaded.

Jan 7, 2001, 4:57pm

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C078E3.967F2C40
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


[View Quote] It would look cool, but you wouldn't want to do so because of cell space =
(as you mention), and also because of the framerate you would (not) get.

Rolu

------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C078E3.967F2C40
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4522.1800" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"sw comit" &lt;<A=20
href=3D"mailto:swcomit at swcity.net">swcomit at swcity.net</A>&gt; wrote in =
message=20
<A=20
=
href=3D"news:3a58966f at server1.Activeworlds.com">news:3a58966f at server1.Act=
iveworlds.com</A>...</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I really agree with you tyrell.&nbsp; =
But, they=20
haven't thrown us a bone in months and months now (object wise, not=20
textures).&nbsp; It's so hard to do small details.&nbsp; You end up =
using the=20
tops of pointed objects, like fire hydrents and street lamps, and it =
gets old=20
after about 3 years of building every day.&nbsp; The smallest object =
you can=20
pretty much make it&nbsp;a button, and those are kinda big if you =
convert it=20
to real life measure, about half a foot.&nbsp; AW has just given us =
bulk=20
objects, nothing small.&nbsp; I look around my room and there's stuff =
all over=20
the place: bottles, papers, CD cases, pencils, a scanner, speakers, =
clocks,=20
books all over, a used toothpick (lol).&nbsp; Try doing just a few of =
those in=20
AW and you probably end up using half your cell space.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>It would look cool, but you =
wouldn't want=20
to do so because of cell space (as you mention), and also because of the =

framerate you would (not) get.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>Rolu</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C078E3.967F2C40--

Jan 7, 2001, 1:42pm

I believe it's already on the list, and it's a good idea too. But people
shouldn't freak out when someone doesn't respond either.

Rolu

[View Quote]

Jan 18, 2001, 8:40am

[View Quote] ....just as some people said about bots, when the SDK was new.

Rolu

> -Twisted Horizon
[View Quote]

Jan 9, 2001, 7:57am

It costs them nothing, they just get less revenue. That's quite a
difference.

[View Quote]

Jan 16, 2001, 6:20am

If it uses a font you don't have, just use another (standard) font. Just as
it goes with webpages.

Rolu

[View Quote]

Jan 16, 2001, 6:24am

Not all fonts are small, actually some can be very large. And they would
probably all end up in your fonts directory and become a big mess after a
while. If you want some weird text somewhere, why don't you just use a
picture? Then you are sure everyone can read it.

Rolu

[View Quote]

Jan 17, 2001, 6:06am

[View Quote] You didn't say that, you said you wanted to choose a font. About every other
program that allows you to do so lets you choose from all fonts you have
installed. A selection of fonts is nice, but there's always the issue of
people who want to use other fonts than included. Why would you include one
font and not the other?

> not every font on the web. And when it says "you need to update AW,
> blah blah blah" you get the fonts AW lets you use and the font files would
> detect your font directory and go there...

The font files will detect nothing. That's the installer's business.

Jan 18, 2001, 9:29am

[View Quote] It's not. It's about the same.

> If they want use another font, big deal, it's
> better than only getting one choice. Your argument is stupid, why wouldn't
> you want this?

I never said I didn't want this. However, you failed to tell us what your
idea was. As you said in your original post:

<start quote>
I wish we could choose the font style on signs. For example:

create sign bcolor=_____ color=_____ font=_____
<end quote>

The standard with these kind of things is that you have to have the font
that's specified on your computer. It works that way with HTML, it works
that way with word processors. This is obvious, and if you have something
else in mind, you should have said so. However, later on you said (in a
reply to a message of Tony56)

<start quote>
I'm not talking about all the 500 fonts, lol, just the basic system fonts,
like 8 or so.
<end quote>

Here you were talking about *basic system fonts*, not about anything
downloadable on the fly, or included with the browser. (it's still possible
that even one or more of those basic fonts are missing, or look different on
different computers)

Later, you changed your idea:

<start quote>
AW would give you a SELECTION of
fonts, not every font on the web. And when it says "you need to update AW,
blah blah blah" you get the fonts AW lets you use and the font files would
detect your font directory and go there...
<end quote>

Now you want to include the fonts with the AWbrowser. This is not what you
originally said.

We were not arguing against different fonts, we were merely pointing out
possible problems with it. In response, you got annoyed and kept changing
your idea (while pretending it was what you originally meant, which was
clearly not the case). Some of the things we pointed out were very obvious,
yet you didn't seem to have thought about them. Therefore, I think you just
didn't really think about your idea at all. Then don't blame us for thinking
about it. If you have an idea, that's good, but you should think about it a
bit, find a few possible problems and solutions, and then post it (with a
clear description). If an idea turns out to be too difficult/stupid/whatever
(and I'm not saying this idea is), you'll prolly have found that out by then
yourself. If it is a good idea, it will be clear what you mean.

Rolu

Jan 29, 2001, 9:29am

[View Quote] but he is right about the 60m^2 - 60m^2 is 60 times one m^2. 60 horizontal x
60 depth is 60^2 m^2. Or (60m)^2.

Rolu

Jan 28, 2001, 9:25am

It's already fixed in the beta.

Rolu

[View Quote]

Feb 2, 2001, 10:45am

Vevo has several zooms, but most of them are way too large to make sense for
a small world, so you can leave them out. On the other hand, you could put a
few more in on the other side. If your largest zoom uses 5 pixels per cell,
you only have a picture 500x500 pixels. Size depends on how much is in your
world, but it wouldn't be more than a few 100kb's. You could also do a 1 or
2 pixel/cell thumbnail view, and maybe a 25pixel/cell zoom, which would be
2500x2500 pixels, a megabyte or so.

Rolu

[View Quote]

Jan 31, 2001, 10:18am

An mp3 encoded .wav is just an mp3 file with an extra .wav file header.
There are dozens of codecs you can use within a .wav file. Wav is not a
codec, the most common (and bloated) codec used in .wav files is PCM.

You can't stream all files, only files that can be played when incomplete.
Ram is quite a bad file format actually, but mostly because of the (buggy)
player. The file size doesn't really have anything to do with it, this just
depends on how much you compress it. You can encode mp3's at 32kbps mono and
have crappy sound and a small size.

Rolu

[View Quote]

Jan 30, 2001, 6:23pm

[View Quote] Only if you don't do it the right way (and I don't say that's easy). But
this is not a problem of skins, it is a problem of every addition. Anything
you add can contain bugs.

> There
> was recently a security vulnerability in the skin feature of Windows
> Media Player 7

Microsoft doesn't really think when it comes to security.

>. I doubt skins are high on "The List" of things Roland
> wishes to fix/add to Active Worlds.

prolly - it doesn't add much to the program.

> -Builderz
>
[View Quote]

Feb 6, 2001, 8:53am

[View Quote] Skins do *not* have to be fixed size. If you want to skin something with a
variable size, you use building parts. If you want to skin a variable sized
button, you make little pictures for the corners, the sides and the center,
and then the program can assemble the whole button out of it. This requires
more work, but it's certainly possible. And it wouldn't be slower or
something than a fixed size skin, except for when you create the button -
and you would hardly notice it.

> and don't grow very well. So if
> someone made an 800x600 fullscreen skin, low res users would be out of
luck
> as would extremely high res users because 800x600 can get FRIGGIN TINY on
> some resolutions. If they skinned the web pane, it's stuck open.

This wouldn't be true even with fixed size skins. You could always make a
skin with the webpane and one without.

> If they
> didn't you can't use it.

see above

> If the skin's text pane is 3x the size of the view
> pane, it's stuck that way. For things like Winamp where the menus don't
> change, all is well and good. Also, Winamp windows aren't resizable with
the
> exception of the playlist and minibrowser which are special exceptions to
> the rule because the edges of the window can be extended.

That's one example of a resizable skin. You could do that for everything,
and you are set. Winamp uses a very basic kind of skinning, and in one way
this is good because it makes skins recognizable (all controls are always at
the same place). On the other hand, they gave up resizing for it. On yet
another hand, resizing winamps main window isn't really useful at all.

rolu

1  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  ...  20  |   Order by default