1  ...  2  3  4  5  6  7  ...  42  |   Order by default

Feb 22, 2001, 7:50am

Exactly; avatar sounds could be specifiable in the new avatar dialog box (instead of having to edit a user-unfriendly avatars.dat file).

[View Quote] > Hmmm, wouldn't that be more tied into the indivual avatar? For example, a
> birde avatar wouldn't make the same noise as a normal avatar.

Feb 22, 2001, 8:31am

Yea, fine, the sadists can dork around with text files...

[View Quote] > Why instead, optional - would be good for GUI freaks and command liners
>
> eep schrieb:

Feb 22, 2001, 8:52am

I'm smacking you up and down and all around...right now even.

[View Quote] > thanks a lot - but would't it be the masochists in your eyes, people who
> like to deal with text files?
>
> eep schrieb:

Feb 22, 2001, 5:09am

Avatars float and bounce too much when going down objects; they need more weight or something.

Feb 22, 2001, 5:19am

This ties in with my object properties dialog box replacement (http://tnlc.com/eep/aw/object_properties.html). Pull-down menus with previous description and action field settings so one doesn't have to reenter (or go and find and copy-and-paste) them from elsewhere. They could be stored locally as the user encounters (edits) the fields, and will be remembered when AW closes.

Typing of which, AW should also remember saved custom colors (in the color picker dialog) for world background and world lights.

Feb 22, 2001, 5:29am

Feb 22, 2001, 6:49am

works:
http://tnlc.com/rw/terms.html#scale
tnlc.com/rw/terms.html
tnls.com/#test (non-existant link)

doesn't work:
tnlc.com/rw/terms.html#scale

Feb 22, 2001, 12:15pm

Roland told me that the near clipping plane is not exactly flush with the 3D pane because of 3Dfx Voodoo chip compatibility (supposedly they can't handle near clipping planes that close or something). I suggested he make it optional because not everyone has Voodoo chips and even now that 3Dfx is defunct it makes even more sense to make it optional. It's very annoying when using smaller avatars or simply shifting through things to have polygons clipped too soon; it makes it impossible to do any real close detailed inspections of objects (necessary even more since AW3 because there are no viewers compatible with AW3+'s RWX, which is now a propietary format of AW).

Feb 23, 2001, 2:29pm

I want to have something bob up and down while moving back and forth, but because AW can only take one move command per trigger I can't do this. :/

Multiple rotations would be nice, too...and both should be specifyable to start either simultanously with, before, or after other movements/rotations (perhaps depending on order in action field).

Mar 23, 2001, 9:58am

Let's not forget that AlphaWorld (AW) is the largest AW world (which, consequently, has the largest cell database). Most worlds wouldn't be bothered with a 64-bit (or higher) cell database increase (or backing it up).

[View Quote] > If AW has to rewrite the database or anything then they should try backing
> it up, you know, in case they figure out a way to change that so it works
> with the "new" AW, that is if their hard drive can handle it (...mine can
> handle AW and 3 copies of it and still be able to hold the stuff it has on
> it now...) Though if they did I'd want to have like super changes to AW
> (visible limbs in first person mode, maybe voice stuff, av noises, stuff
> like that) because I wouldn't think of it being worth losing all of my
> builds for more visibility or soemthing.
>
[View Quote]

Feb 25, 2001, 9:17pm

Try 120m; and supposedly Roland may find a way to increase it to 200m in AW 3.2, but I'll believe it when I see it (especially since he said YEARS ago it would take a cell database rewrite to increase the vis limit, add full-axis object rotation--not requiring action commands, etc). Then there's that stupid 400m far clipping plane limit imposed by RW3, which is just lame. AW needs so many improvements (http://tnlc.com/eep/aw/improve.html - yes, I need to update it for AW3+) it's pathetic, but it IS slowly getting better, assuming AWCI can stay focused...

[View Quote] > I think it would be cool if we could set our maximum visibility to whatever
> we wanted (or if not whatever, a really high limit) because then we could
> possibly see for half a mile instead of about 310 feet.

Feb 26, 2001, 12:25am

Currently objects can be clicked (activated) from up to 120m away (depending on visibility, line-of-sight, and object size). I would like activate and bump options ("distance=n") to force a certain distance an object can be activated/bumped to make it more realistic. So, for example, if I wanted something to be tipoverable (like a construction cone), it could be only be done so within a meter.

activate distance=1
bump distance=1

Mar 4, 2001, 7:43am

[View Quote] > you can do most of this, but shadows are crazy! To do shadows with
> activeworlds would bring down the FPS a bunch.

Take a trip to Hole and Cubed and perhaps you'll think differently. Shadows, if done right and with optimized objects, don't even cause a DENT in frame rate.

> And, you can allready go
> through an object with shift on, and its called create solid off.

Perhaps he simply doesn't realize the current ability to disable shift in worlds. Ideally, collision detection bypassing should be a separate key and not integrated with straffing and disabling gravity.

> Also, stuff can rotate on the z access, create rotate 0 0 1. Stuff can go side to
> side and back to fourth, create move 40 0 0, create move 0 0 40.

No, that requires ACTION commands, which are limited in what they can do anyway. Objects need to have BUILT-IN full-axis rotation. Roland claims a cell database rewrite would allow this yet somehow Shamus added in rotate action commands (which are stored in the cell database) that do EXACTLY what AW's object manipulation commands NEED to do. Roland doesn't know what he's talking about, as usual...I sure would like to see his response about it but seeing as how he only reads the beta newsgroup (and not lately, it seems), he doesn't have a CLUE about what's going on.

At any rate, this newsgroup is pointless since AWCI doesn't read it (or give a shit about it) anyway. If you want them to start paying attention and actually IMPLEMENT the things you want, you have to start bugging the programmers (Roland, HamFon, and Shamus) and other AWCIers. If enough people bug them they'll eventually HAVE to do the things we want or face yet another outlash against their incompetence and stupidity.

[View Quote]

Mar 4, 2001, 9:26pm

Not even 3D games have automatically created shadows--they have to be created manually. However, most 3D games with intricate shadows (Half-Life, Trespasser, Vampire: The Masquerade - Redemption, etc, etc) MOVE the shadows automatically relative to light sources (and some up vertical angles, etc). Until AW gets a way for polygons to move relative to light sources (and FULL and other single-axis axis-alignment), don't expect this anytime soon.

Roland can't even fix AW's current bugs before introducing more, so he sure as hell ain't smart enough to implement something most 3D games already have...

[View Quote] > I think he was talking about shadows created automatically, not an object
> for the shadow :). Your worlds are the most realistic i have seen, and the
> shadows are great. But, saddly most of us dont have the time to map out
> shadows... And uh, sorry about the Z access stuff, it was late and i was
> tired :)...
>
[View Quote]

Mar 5, 2001, 8:08pm

You must not have read my AW improvements page (http://tnlc.com/eep/aw/improve.html) or you (and joeman) would have seen z-axis object rotation has been on it for YEARS.

[View Quote] > I think what joe zip ment by
> "but to rotate in the z-axis as well, for example, a pp01.rwx at the
> same angle as a roof01.rwx,"
> Is simply this soemthing like create set rotation 0 0 45 and more or less
> permently set by comand line the rotation of pp01.rwx. kind of a cool idea
> when you think bout it would make it like haveing a literly unlimited number
> of objects to use in aw.

[View Quote]

Mar 14, 2001, 5:37am

Not a new idea; check my AW improvements page: http://tnlc.com/eep/aw/improve.html

This post should have been in the wishlist newsgroup.

[View Quote] > Well, i was staring off into space at school today when i came up with
> this idea. This is a spin off of plugins for the browser, but what if you
> had plugins stored in your object path? The short story would be, you could
> make your own plugins, to do something. Once you have it done, upload it
> then use it to do stuff... Thats the short end... Heres the long end...
>
> There would need to be a plugin SDK, and phrasers, ect, for use in the
> browser. But this would open up activeworlds as anything you want it to be.
> Gaming, Drawing, anything! A faw ideas of mine, a /plugins/ folder in the
> root of your op. Plugins.dat for active plugins, mabey in activeworlds a
> "create plugin plugin=blah" type thing. Download on demand of the plugins.
>
> Tell me what you think :)...

Mar 17, 2001, 6:19pm

Or even in keyboard commands (perhaps a z-axis rotation modifier key). Regardless, it's assumed any new keyboard object manipulation command would make it into the object properties box anyway, obviously. Bug Roland, Rick, and JP about it if you want it badly enough. The more people who do the more likely they'll think many people want it and will probably implement it. Oh and it helps to own a universe or be a "big name partner" too...

[View Quote] > Yes know, I do read eep's web page often.
> But that Z axis rotation would be vary useful in the object properties box.
>
[View Quote]

Mar 17, 2001, 9:55pm

You can and I have many times. The annoying part is figuring out how many RPMs/second (uh, shouldn't that be RPS instead, Roland? <bonk>) to get it to work right. Degree-rotation would be MUCH simpler and easier to use. <bonk Shamus>

[View Quote] > i must have misunderstood the question then.. cuz i'm certain you could do
> that to flip an object..
>
[View Quote]

Mar 18, 2001, 3:01am

[View Quote] > honestly when I first heard the rotate command i thought that's what it
> WAS... like rotate 28 would move it to 28 degrees of it's normal positon
> (rotating over the x axis since rotating over the y is already done with
> page up/down) i was dissappointed when i heard it wasn't.. trying to figure
> out the RPM thing is a pain in the ass to make objects get to the correct
> angle.. *sigh* something else to annoy roland with..

Helps to read the docs, eh? RTFM

> I thought i was filtered, eep *smile* I was amazed to see you reply to me in
> something other then a flame-thank you.

You will be again if you revert to your former inadequate self.

[View Quote]

Mar 17, 2001, 9:57pm

Custom font colors has been on the AW improvements list for YEARS...

[View Quote] > Subject speaks for itself. The latest version of Windowblinds doesn't work
> with AW. Not 100% neccessary, but it'd be nice. Also, compatibilty with
> Windows display controls would be nice. You see, when I set my dialog
> background to black I couldn't see citizen or PS text. At the very least
> Roland could add somthing that detects the background color and inverts the
> text if it's 0,0,0 (black) so all the text in the panes are the opposite
> color as normal, but assures their ease of visibility

Mar 17, 2001, 9:50pm

[View Quote] > I can't say I'm the oldest AW Citizen in the world, I've only been around a few months or so and have been lurking in this NG since I began. But IRL I'm a professional software developer with a happy hobby of 3D editing and I have some suggestions.

How professional? What are your credentials?

> Whether they have been said already or not I dunno, but here's my two cents:

You'll want to check out http://tnlc.com/eep/aw/improve.html for most of these:

> Whoever came up with the idea that complete rotation of objects on ALL THREE AXIS was unnecessary, or chose an engine where this was impossible, should be hauled out and shot. Not only would the ability to rotate a triangle/pane around significantly lower the number of objects and memory consumption, it would make building much more fun and less frustrating. Top of my wish list is the ability to rotate on the X axis. So what if it might make for some weird looking trees and confusing "mask" textures, it's worth avoiding some bizarre combinations to just rotate a pane around so that it fits.
>
> I've already encountered a number of situations where I wanted to change several objects at once into a single different object. Changing land types is one of them - ever have to delete a 10X10 "empty" plot just to change it's ground to something other than what you used to claim the property? It's a pain in the ass. Ever want to insert a "create color" command on several objects at once? Can't do it. Come ON, you can't tell ME that it's all that tough to code a C/C++ FOR loop to do mass changing. Just don't disable the property box when I select more than one object.
>
> Every last Citizen should have some space on the FTP to place some (perhaps a limited number) custom objects and/or textures; and every last object available in any and every world on the AW Server should be available in AW proper. Limiting objects and commands that are clearly available elsewhere is absolutely silly. It doesn't even speed anything up. It just slows us builders down.
>
> Every last Citizen should have the rights to eject tourists at will. If tourists suffer from this they can just buy the damn license. PeaceKeepers should only have to discipline errant Citizens.
>
> There's been some pondering of communities here. I have found that many tourists, and indeed many Citizens, never make it out of GZ. Why? Because they like to chat, and it's hard to find other people to chat with elsewhere. I suggest abandoning Ground Zero entirely. The startout "gate" should change regularly, even daily, from site to site. Perhaps there can be contests for who's land "sponsors" GZ, or we could use the winners from some other contest, or maybe it can be random. If GZ changed every day, newcomers and old could choose favorite places to be and "communities" could be more readily established. Think about it.
>
> This one might be harder to implement, but would greatly improve AW: The ability to turn off SHIFT and/or flying commands should be inherent to each property, maybe even each sector. We should be able to wall each other out of our own properties if we so desire. Also, I would like to see a "Soundproofing" option. In one word: PRIVACY. Yeah, I want to chat uninterrupted with my friends. New rules separating "public" and "private" behavior could then be implemented. If some sort of age or rating barriers could be made (say, a wall that is solid for minors or rating-challenged individuals), we could even get a little more lax on "adult" content while simultaneously defending the kids.
>
> AW Developers: If there aren't enough developers working, HIRE ME and we'll get some things done. I could write half of these changes myself in cute little easy-to-add-on modules if you (for some reason) can't.

Preach it, brother! Now go apply for AWCI's programmer position and see what happens. :)

Mar 18, 2001, 8:50pm

[View Quote] > Yes, I am preparing my resume for ActiveWorlds - but I don't know if they will like my terms. A good amount of ActiveWorlds seems to be run on a volunteer basis, and I only have so much time (and patience) for such things. Bluntly, to infringe on my work time would literally require a pay raise. My absolute minimum at this time for contract jobs is $40 an hour - and that's for jobs I personally consider *fun* and *easy*, neither of which I suspect AW Development to be. For all those hopeful replies (in email, posts, and telegrams), we'll see in time, but don't bet anything yet. I have posted a wish list.

I have to wonder about a "professional" programmer who has a name of "Sir Chaos" though...;)

> Eep:
> Yes, I have seen your page. Your extensive love/hate relationship with AW and its staff indeed has churned up some good ideas, some of which I agree with. Do you have a life?

Unfortunately, yes.

Mar 19, 2001, 1:03am

No, but "Sir Chaos" sounds like too much of a wanna-be hacker kid or something, which some of his "ideas" remind me of...

[View Quote] > What do you expect his name to be? 'Programmer'? That sounds too wannabe.
[View Quote]

Mar 19, 2001, 4:46am

Heh, ah, BBS handles...I used to have one that sounded wanna-be hackerlike--had the mixed case and everything (before I knew it to be hackeresque, mind you). But, no, really, I just came up with it as a codename when I was a wee lad and played G.I.Joe. But I eventually grew out of it...

[View Quote] > As a matter of fact, "Sir Chaos" originally *was* the title of a "wanna-be" hacker kid, some nineteen years ago when I (arguably a kid then at 12) made it up for use on a Commodore 64 bulletin board. Pleased to hear that you like it, "Eep Squared".

Mar 22, 2001, 8:31pm

I suggested this YEARS ago but Roland just said the action commands need a total rewrite anyway...it's been 3+ years and still no rewrite...

Don't post in HTML.

[View Quote] > I think it would be cool if AW had a hard action "language" and an easy one. This would be like for new people you can use the easy one (create solid no, light, etc.) which would be easy to remember after a while. But for some of us who are really experienced there could be a harder one with shorter commands but would save cell space big time. For example, create could be removed, or replaced by C, bump could be B, and activate could be A, then for commands like light with lots of variables you can have one letter per variable, like brightness is b, color is c, pitch p, angle a, and so on. This would help us squeeze just a little more creativity out of the cell space in AW.

Mar 23, 2001, 6:02am

Ever heard of backwards compatibility? Didn't think so. RWX implementation is what took AW3 so long to be released because stupid Criterion mindlessly removed it from RW3, killing off the 2 or perhaps 3 developers that actually used it in the first place. Unfortunately AW did (and does) and 5 years of work would have been down the drain if RWX support was removed. Now, if an RWX-to-whatever (COB, 3DS, DXF, etc) converter could be created then perhaps RWX removal wouldn't be so bad, but don't expect as many people to create new objects once they have to pay hundreds of dollars for trueSpace, thousands of dollars for 3D Studio Max, etc.

As for the 64-bit cell database, Andras already mentioned a way it could be implemented that wouldn't corrupt current cell databases, though it'd take more work.

The whole point of this is that AWCI needs to put more focus on actual DEVELOPMENT instead of these get-rich-quick schemes through business partnerships et al. Rick and JP don't need to be making $160,000/year either--they sure as FUCK don't earn it with the amount of incompetence they have at barely keeping AW running.

AW has no patents yet not even AW's closest competitor (if you can call it that), ViOS (http://vios.com/) just sucks. 3D games are SLOWLY getting the "multiuser level editor" mentality, but it's taking YEARS. Neverwinter Nights will the the first game to really even come CLOSE to AW's level, but we'll see. Game publishers just can't seem to put 2 and 2 together and get the clue that it's time for a REAL "multiuser level editor".

[View Quote] > Of course it's easy to talk about complete database restructuring, graphic engine core modifications, and drastic changes in action codes. Some really good ideas are have been put forth. The question is if ActiveWorlds users are ready to pay the price for these kind of changes - your old code, and probably each of your objects, will be more than just "needing an update" if the code behind the very objects used changes drastically.
>
> For people like me, newbies to the scene with little or no actual ActiveWorld building accomplishments to their name, it's a lot easier to conceive of a Great Void - an empty, new, but improved universe. We've got little or nothing to lose. But those with their own worlds, with years of construction at stake, probably feel differently.
>
> Sure, it would be neat if we had a clearer, tokenized, more robust language behind action codes, 64-bit positioning, a more distinct graphic engine, etc. Perhaps ActiveWorlds should discard RWX modeling altogether. I'm curious, though, who here is really ready and willing to really pay the price for REAL updates of this sort. Once REAL changes were implemented, ActiveWorlds would never be the same again. Who's ready to rebuild?

Mar 23, 2001, 1:58pm

The only backwards compatibility necessary in terms of 3D rendering is between Direct3D and OpenGL. Screw software rendering; it's obsolete and hardly any 3D games support it these days anyway.

The only real issues with backwards compatibility is what Andras stated in an email to me which I posted in AW's newsgroups the other day:

"He is not bullshitting - to have a better [resolution] the whole program (browser/server) should be rewritten to 64 bits arithmetic which is a pain if you think about the AW's database (recently about 4GB). IMO it can be done but it should be done very carefully (and the new database architecture should carry the rotation based on the other two axises too). That change will increase the database about 2.5 times and there will not be ANY backward compatibility. Not to mention the same increase in the
network traffic. The change would make all (ok almost all) bots unusable too.

The other option would be to have a full new set of network protocol and keep the old one for backward compatibility but that solution would put more load onto the
server (converting 64 bits to 32 bits for the old protocol). I rpobably would choose that option hoping that the old browsers/servers will go away eventually."

[View Quote] > I agree to all except for the cell database, here my 2¢ :
>
> I really do not see how a cell database rewrite for just the mentioned
> problems would cause any loss of data. Modifications of the kind that
> would be required for the token stuff and for the positioning are some
> the most common database modifications, the only thing to do is to write
> a conversion tool that takes the data from the old database, aligns the
> format for each database field types and writes them to the new
> database, a 1:1 conversion.
> The problem will not be the loss of data but the compatibility to the
> old browsers - and if the OpenGL support works well I think backwards
> compatibility becomes less important.
>
[View Quote]

Mar 27, 2001, 8:59pm

It would be better to simply have them in a pull-down menu. http://tnlc.com/eep/aw/improve.html for more info. Bug Roland.

[View Quote] > I have no idea if this as been suggested but to help ppl with small screen
> resolutions would it be possible to scroll the actions bar in worlds with a
> lot of actions?

Apr 4, 2001, 4:42am

It's called scaling (transformation) and has been on my list for years...

[View Quote] > Gee...lately I've been full of ideas (I guess school has done
> something...warmed up my brain it)...
>
> Anyways, I've been thinking it would be cool if we could warp objects, like
> take a pp08 and stretch it so instead of 8x8 its 14x5 or some weird
> dimension like that. This could not only be used for effect but for filling
> in odd-sized gaps in builds so we don't have to overlap (yes, yes, I know
> about the control-shift thing). But we could also possibly stretch walls to
> make them a little bigger and thus reduce cell space usage. This would also
> be a good idea for avatars, then they could be stretchy like from The Sims.
> Though it would be harder to create objects, avatars, and to texture avatars
> it would be useful for little things, and it could possibly be used in
> another way, just plain warping. with warping we could add ripples to stuff
> too :)
>
> I know that this may not be possible for some time (due to those wonderful
> folks at RW) unless AW switches 3d engines (which would sort-of stink
> because then we'd have different objects...though AW could possibly go
> through the main worlds with an object-switching program and also give it to
> private world owners).

Apr 4, 2001, 8:16pm

Duh. RW3 has FAR more options AW3 doesn't take advantage of. Hell, it only took Roland 3+ years to add multiple lights which RW2 (and probably earlier versions) supported. Roland just sucks at 3D programming.

[View Quote] > Just a follow-up. I asked Roland about this [avatars being actual flesh
> instead of seperate objects aka "skin and bones"] and he said that RW is
> supposed to be capable of this but its just a matter of the AW browser being
> able to do that.

1  ...  2  3  4  5  6  7  ...  42  |   Order by default