1  ...  32  33  34  35  36  37  ...  42  |   Order by default

Aug 14, 2001, 4:13am

Try AW and Windows' Sound Recorder (or other non-DirectSound apps) at the same time. I seriously doubt WinAmp doesn't use DirectSound...

[View Quote] > *shrug* Soundblaster Live has no problems with AW and AW Ear at same time, add Winamp using non-Directsound mode and it still works
> just fine. However, cut to other PC with normal grade sound card (That Ensoniq POS that Creative continued producing like morons)
> and you get a max of one MCI wav at a time. Perhaps it's in the drivers?
>
[View Quote]

Aug 14, 2001, 7:56pm

Perhaps, but has Wing tried AW and Sound Recorder (and other TRULY non-DirectSound apps)? I haven't dorked around with WinAmp (and have no need to since Media Player suffices) but if it's still working with AW despite it's supposed "non-DirectSound" mode, I doubt it's not still using DirectSound in some way...

[View Quote] > You can change Winamp's output plugin so that it doesn't use DirectSound.
>
[View Quote]

Aug 14, 2001, 11:54pm

I doubt it. Try other non-DirectSound apps like GoldWave (http://www.goldwave.com/) and Cool Edit (http://cooledit.com/) with AW.

[View Quote] > The plot thickens, I just hit up another computer with AW and Winamp at the same time in the same configuration, and it wouldn't
> play Winamp. However, sound recorder doesn't play in the background on either machine (By design?)
>
> The best assumption that I can make is that it's driver and hardware specific how sound behaves.
>
[View Quote]

Aug 14, 2001, 3:59am

Why does this sound like yet another vaporware program "developed" by kids?

[View Quote] > Sup Facter 8-) !?!
>
> Long time, no talk...lol. I will post the website URL for my new company and
> the Nexus Portal sometime this coming weekend. Within the next few weeks
> thereafter, I will be posting more and more information of the status of the
> project as well and concept drawings, decided layouts and themes as well as
> some 3d concept work. I'm really excited that this is all coming together
> because I think it will have huge benefits to the immediate VR community as
> well as the general internet population (eventually). Even the prospects of
> using neurotechnology in this project has arisen. Imagine interacting within
> a large virtual environment controlled simply by voice and thought. The
> medical and scientific communities could take alot of interest in it as well
> as the common end-user. Most of all, it will be a open-sourced project since
> so many other technologies will be involved to add even more growth to the
> system. So I will also definately have a forum board going cause every bit
> of input will be greatly appreciated.
>
[View Quote]

Aug 17, 2001, 6:53pm

Sheesh...first I get WFS in Hole and then I try to send a telegram but get error 439 (whatever) and now auth.activeworlds.com isn't responding and my email to support at activeworlds.com just bounced. :/

Aug 20, 2001, 7:22pm

While I don't illegal operations after exiting, I notice my system becomes unstable after a long time with AW and other apps (like ACDSee, Netscape Communicator 4.77, UltraEdit, and ZipTools (Windows Explorer replacement) in the background. Sometimes I'll get odd messages about DLLs/OCXs not being registered properly or loaded, file icons get changed, or Windows will just hang altogether (though that's rare). I have 256MB RAM and it's never depleted whenever these problems occur, either, so I doubt it's lack-of-memory related.

AW will sometimes lose the current world's cell data or some objects or the backdrop (had that happen today) may be missing. I have 32MB video RAM so that shouldn't be an issue either.

[View Quote] > I'm just posting this to see how many others are having this problem. When I exit aworld.exe, I'm given an illegal operation. It
> only happens after aworld has been in use for awhile. Occasionally, it kills the property cache for whatever world I was in, and
> gets to be a real PAIN through that.

Aug 22, 2001, 3:19pm

What part of "forced to hit ok which closes the browser" didn't you understand, Tyrell? Read, sport.

[View Quote] > Altho' I'v no idea what the problem is... you can do what I do if/when I get an error like that... Just ignore it... If you shove it out-a the way (into the left or right side of your screen so only a 1/4 inch or so is showing) you can continue in Alpha for as long as you wish... I'v continued to build for over an hr once after getting an error message...
>
> Won't fix your problem but may make them easier to live with while you'r trying to track down the reason for them... :-)
>
[View Quote]

Aug 22, 2001, 3:20pm

Actually most crashes do NOT return the focus to the app; RARELY does the app still work after a crash.

[View Quote] > What are you doing that causes it?Chances are that it IS a browser problem, possibly faulty objects and maybe hardware issues.
> Tyrell's solution works most of the time though.
>
[View Quote]

Aug 22, 2001, 3:25pm

Correction: XelaG's world revolves around him; the UNISEVER doesn't resolve around him. ;)

[View Quote] > He has a right to have that world, too, XelaG. The world doesn't revolve around
> you. Cancel your citizenships and worlds. I'm sure it would be easier.
>

Aug 30, 2001, 4:50pm

If AW had portal rendering it would be a LOT faster. As it is now, AW just mindlessly renders everything out to the visibility distance. Plus most worldbuilders and objectmakers don't optimize their objects (remove hidden/covered polys, use textures instead of lots of intricate modelled detail, etc). Try going to Hole world and see how your frame rate is; it should be better than most, if not all, worlds with comparable detail (yea right!). ;)

[View Quote] > It seems all good, until you get to the Transparant problem. I really don't
> think I will use it if there are problems with rendering objects. We NEED
> masks. If we can't use them, then you have to replace masked textures with
> complex objects......no one has time for that.
>
> Also, 200 meters of visiblity! Who has a computer that can render a scene
> with that many objects? I don't.....I can't even go above 40. Someone with
> an AMD and a GeForce card might be able to get 10 FPS from it....I don't
> know, maybe not even that.......It would be cool if you could see 24FPS with
> 200m visiblity, but for now that ain't happening. AW Techs, don't increase
> Visiblity until you make a 3d engine that has NO lose of speed and is writen
> in ASM. Or until better computers come out.

Aug 30, 2001, 4:50pm

Transparency is BETTER in 3.2?? Transparency is SHIT in 3.2. Hell, some overlapping polys don't even show at ALL now; at least before they fragmented...but I still
have yet to play with the "opacityfix" RWX command...

[View Quote] > (I'm on beta)
> My computer is 3 years old, and hasn't been upgraded any. While 200 isn't
> fast (about 3-4 frames a second) it is almost comparable to 60m vis in 2.2.
> It is great for screenshots, and when you are trying to find objects you
> mass duplicated on accident.. heh. It isn't a worthless feature at all. And
> the transparency is better then before, it just seems certain objects are
> having problems, this is not the end of the world tho.
>
[View Quote]

Aug 30, 2001, 4:53pm

Uh, my world still suffers from a LOT of transparency fragmentation and I AM a good modeler that can work around it most of the time. However, since I haven't tried the "opacityfix" RWX command yet I can't pass complete judgement on the problem still; but without that command my stuff in 3.2 definitely looks worse than in 3.1. One thing I DID notice that was better was my spotlights, but that's it.

[View Quote] > The transparency problem you're obsessing over is almost moot, the only world that I've seen that will truly suffer from the
> transparency problem its good 'ol AWTeen, center of most of AW's idiot user base (The others all have dedicated, good modelers that
> can work around it) and even then, only their vegetation.

> Also, why in the hell are you using the beta and not posting to beta??? You're not even supposed to have it are you *grins at idiot*
[View Quote]

Aug 30, 2001, 6:27pm

Gee, but I'm not even an "official" beta tester...<blink>

[View Quote] [View Quote]

Aug 30, 2001, 10:39pm

The "opacityfix" command might help...but I have yet to try it. My electric meter masked front (behind glass) disappears in 3.2 too...:/

[View Quote] > Roland says there is nothing he can do to fix it... so basicly my world will
> have to say bye bye.

Sep 1, 2001, 7:22am

First of all, Moff, quote what you're replying too. Second, take a look at Severence: Blade of Darkness (http://www.rebelact.net/darkness/index.shtml). All those shadows are REAL-TIME.

[View Quote] > Shadows would either need super computers, or have worlds fully or semi
> pre-rendered like any decent 3d game. That would be a nice feature. A
> program that would take a world, then render on shadows, lighting, and
> other such cpu intensive effects. Of course this would only be usefull for
> normal sized worlds that are designed to look good, and not huge public
> building worlds like alpha world.

Sep 1, 2001, 10:44pm

Tip: email AWC. Don't post in HTML. Put a blank line between quote and reply text.

[View Quote] > DID I SAY I HAD NOT ASK IN EMAIL?? just forget it :) you can't help unless you have rights to upload textures!

[View Quote]

Sep 3, 2001, 12:44am

Hey, it should be "Midtown Madness", not "MidTown Maddness". ;) Also, you still need to make all external links (pointing to web pages anyway) have " target=_top" in the <a href=url> tags so they're not stuck in the bottom frame. Happy birthday and thanks for adding the bus again.

[View Quote] > There's a lot of new objects that's been added today. There are more to be
> added and are ready to upload but unfortunately I'm not able to still access
> the site and probably won't be until Facter comes back around. Several
> objects were added already though before that happened.
>
> I donated several of my old models that I created when I first started
> making objects years ago. I've done this as a birthday gift to the community
> as I'm going to be 40 in a couple of days!! YIKES!

Sep 10, 2001, 6:30pm

So what are the ones you're willing to discuss? You didn't discuss ANY in this post...

[View Quote] > Well, by now alot of you have in one way or another heard that as of today,
> I am no longer working for Activeworlds Corp.
>
> Firstly, I know you will all look for some big conspiracy, but in all
> honesty there is none, these things happen in business, and sometimes
> decisions need to be made for the betterment of all parties concerned. For
> some time now, I have been dis-satisfied with my work for the company, and
> it all came to a head this week. There are alot of reasons for this
> dis-satisfaction, some I am willing to discuss and some I am not - and the
> ones that I am not willing to discuss are in all honesty water under the
> bridge now, they change nothing.

Oct 2, 2001, 3:16am

Too bad it sucks. Fac didn't spellcheck it ("it's", not "its"). What's with all the "Activeworlds" 1-word shit? It's TWO words: Active Worlds. And, uh, why are trial worlds now called "3D homepages"? They're not homepages...duh. Looks like Rick and JP et al (just who ARE those other twits on the directors page anyway? must be degenerates from that hole-in-the-wall Vanguard corp AWC conned into buying them...seems they're even further detached from AW than Rick and JP are...) are trying yet another inept moronic wanna-be marketing attempt...

The dashes are in that company name is because it seems to be filtered...guess AWC doesn't want people talking about it...

[View Quote] > In case you haven't noticed, the new Activeworlds site is up.

Oct 1, 2001, 8:21pm

Uh, they're not THAT great. They have screwy surfaces, are off-scale, unmirrored textures for doors, the garage floor is too high, curbs are too high, etc, etc, etc. They suck. I've telegrammed gand MANY problems with them so far. At least he managed to fix the off-center chainlink fence gate, however...

[View Quote] > I really think they should add the objects from the 3d homepages to the AW
> object path. They already have them done, and they look great. Just take a
> look at some of the 3d homepage worlds, I must admit, they look quite good.
> It would be nice to be able to use them in AlphaWorld and such... Or at
> least some of the textures. Would really liven up the place I bet.

Oct 1, 2001, 8:27pm

[View Quote] > Best thing about AW 3.2 is that it works even without a 3D card and on Windows NT,

Big deal. I would have rather done WITHOUT software rendering and WinNT support if it meant keeping lighting and transparency the same as in 3.1 (which is better). Now I have to change a lot of objects yet again. I tire of it! People aren't going to want to create objects for AW if this continues: having to redesign ones objects with each new AW version gets REALLY irritating REALLY fast...

> so those users can finally get all the features that have been added since 1999:
>
> Some concerns raised:
>
> * Blurriness
> - Bilinear texture filturing makes textures look smoother instead of
> "comic book style" sharp they were in 2.2

It's called "aliased", newbie; and the Direct3D driver could do bilinear texture filtering fine.

> * Slowness
> - Visibility is floating by default, so it rises as the frame rate rises.
> Set it at some fixed value from the Visibility menu.
> You can set the minimum limit down to 30 meters from the performance settings.

Lame considering the lowest possible setting is 25m...

> - Some slowness may be caused by fragmented file system.
> It is good to clean the cache completely and let 3.2 create it again.

AW is still slow; it's file management system just sucks.

> * No jpgs and bmps in cache
> - RenderWare needs textures to be in .ras format, an uncompressed pixel raster
> that the 3D card can use directly, so the textures load faster on the fly.
> - I suppose some worldowners are pleased that people can't "steal"
> their custom textures straight from the cache anymore.

uh, that hasn't been possible for YEARS, Mauz...

> - Downside is the increased disk space usage. FAT32 file system (available
> in W95 OSR/2 and higher) can pack small files tighter than FAT16 though.

So...what about all the empty directories left behind when the cache disk limit is reached? Talk about bad programming...

> For me, 3.2 works better than 3.1 because the MIDI crashes are gone,
> it supports the fast T&L in my GeForce 3D card, and I can use it
> on my other system with NT behind a firewall that couldn't run 3.x before.
> 200 m visibility is a nice plus for screenshots and immersion.
>
> If you can't get 3.2 to work at all, keep bugging support about it so that
> they fix it before 2.2 and 3.1 get disabled from the universe completely.
> There will be patches released to 3.2 even after this first version.

Oct 2, 2001, 2:56am

It's not just about Criterion. I doubt Roland even questions why Criterion does ANYTHING, let alone suggest to Rick and JP that AW develop its own 3D engine--but it's damn obvious Roland isn't capable of THAT either. The point is: AW isn't keeping up with 3D engines of even 5 years old. Oh, sure, NOW AW has hardware T&L but it's implemented so poorly in RW that it's not even worth using because of the inconsistencies.

I'm SERIOUSLY beginning to question continuing to create content (worlds et al) for AW because of its continuing and growing inconsistencies and hassles in having to redesign everything with each new build. What's the point? Perhaps if I was getting paid for it...but I'm not. As a hobby AW is becoming too much of a hassle to deal with.

[View Quote] > Tell that to Criterion, Eep. They're the ones who keep mucking around
> with RW. I'm sure Roland would love to switch to a much more stable
> rendering engine. Unfortunately, he would then probably have to rebuild
> AW and all it's worlds from scratch, which I don't think is in the cards
> any time soon...
>
[View Quote]

Oct 2, 2001, 8:03pm

Interlucent? What exactly ARE "shining between" objects? <blink> Is English your native language, Kah? Cuz you got some odd word usage at times, bub...

[View Quote] > hardware T&L sure isn't any good (at least the transparency bit),
> interluscent objects looked much better in 3.1 (without opacityfix in 3.2
> they can't be used, and with they lagg like hell and still look ugly)!

Oct 4, 2001, 4:39am

http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?db=*&term=bub&x=13&y=11

[View Quote] > "Cuz you got some odd word usage at times, bub..."
> spoken like a real "bub" or is that boob?
>
[View Quote]

Oct 4, 2001, 4:40am

Learn the language better before attempting to communicate with it. It's that simple.

[View Quote] > I have less trouble with KAH's choice of words than with yours
> sometimes and others seem to understand him quite well too.
> If you had trouble with his postings in no.alt.activeworlds I
> would understand that, hard to read for me too, but his English
> seems quite clear and understandable to me.
>
> Btw.: I'm sure you know where most of the frequent writers in
> this NG come from, and be sure, a lot of AW citizens come from
> Scandinavia.
>
[View Quote]

Oct 4, 2001, 4:41am

The correct terms are "transparent" or "opaque". Probably other non-native English linguists incorrectly used "interlucent", too...

[View Quote] > I seem to recall ppl using that word for objects with transpacency... oh,
> well, maybe not then... no, English is not my native language, I don't think
> you want me to start posting in Norwegian here ;-))
>
[View Quote]

Oct 5, 2001, 11:22am

Um, dipshit, "cuz" is slang for "cause" which is short for "because". Duh. I tire of your ineptness. Suck filter, twat.

[View Quote] > I was more so referring to your use of "Cuz" hehehehehe Learn the
> language, bub! hehe
> damn idiot.
>
[View Quote]

Oct 1, 2001, 8:32pm

[View Quote] [View Quote] See, that's another issue: because software lights take over after the initial 7 hardware lights, and because hardware lights have different intensities/radii than software, there will be NO consistency in getting lights to work correctly for both hardware AND software! So what is the point of having multiple lights then if they're just going to get screwed up anyway? Sheesh...

Oct 3, 2001, 10:44am

You CAN lock the visibility, by setting the frame rate to the max, 100 (last I checked). And I believe 25m is still possible in the visibility options (not pull-down menu, annoyingly--hey, I suggested Roland add it but he ignored be as usual).

[View Quote] > I better understand now why it was programmed this way, but I wish there was
> a way to lock down the maximum visibility without it ever trying to readjust
> itself. Also, I wish I could have 25 min visibility back.
>
[View Quote]

Oct 3, 2001, 11:00am

My mistake about 25m; seems Roland stupidly removed that limit. Why is beyond me since lower a visibility takes less time to refresh the scene when updating objects. AWC seems to be making AW less and less worldbuilder friendly. Single objects et al STILL can't be refreshed without having to mindlessly refresh the entire scene or have a billion different named objects for each new version--it's just ridiculously tedious to create content for AW. If AWC ever expects AW to become more popular in terms of worldbuilding it NEEDS to make AW easier to build with and MUCH less annoying and frustrating to even do the simplest of things. I would urge people to start voting for more designer-friendly features on the new feature voting page so AWC gets the hint...but I doubt they will with their history of ineptness and out-of-touchness with their users...

[View Quote] > You CAN lock the visibility, by setting the frame rate to the max, 100 (last I checked). And I believe 25m is still possible in the visibility options (not pull-down menu, annoyingly--hey, I suggested Roland add it but he ignored be as usual).
>
[View Quote]

1  ...  32  33  34  35  36  37  ...  42  |   Order by default