1  ...  11  12  13  14  15  16  ...  42  |   Order by default

Jul 17, 2002, 7:17am

[View Quote] > The 132 chars limit can be changed with a simple registry modification as you'll notice in this post, your text won't wrap.

Wraps fine to me. <shrug>

> HKCU\Identities\GUID\Software\Microsoft\Outlook Express\5.0\News\Message Plain Character Line Wrap can be set to any value, I set it to 7fff (32767 chars). Of course under \5.0\Mail\ you can do the same for e-mail wrapping.

Much more of a hassle than Netscape Messenger. ;)

> As for the updates frequent visits to http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com (which are a must, OE user or not) conveniently take care of everything.

Assuming the new Windows Update still works for your Windows version. Under 2K it gives me an error. It only seems to support XP anymore anyway.

> To me it's the best solution for email-news; I've tried tons of programs, even wrote one when I was desperate with all the html bull I received and nothing comes even close to OE. I still use Lurker32 for fast offline queries (http://www.wugnet.com/csreviews/software/lurker32/) but the UI is just terrible. If only they added an html blocking feature it would be close to perfect, second most requested feature after *nix ports. Follow-ups set to general.discussion.

OE is crap at newsreading. "Ctrl+U" for next unread message (and other awkward 2-key combinations) vs simply "N" (and other 1-key commands) in Netscape Messenger. And forget combining (or even saving) multiple yEnc-encoded (or just multiple) messages. And OE annoyingly caches the ENTIRE saved message to disk IN ADDITION to saving it. Uh...talk about wasteful--something Microslop is indeed.

No thanks! OE is crap.

[View Quote]

Jul 19, 2002, 5:55pm

IE may APPEAR to only take 5MB RAM but that's only because Windows already loaded the rest into RAM at startup. Remember, IE is integrated into Windows. And, yes, both Netscape Navigator AND IE were originally based on Mozilla.

[View Quote] >
> Um, first of all, I didn't say it WAS open source, I said it was BASED on
> open source. The same as netscape. I did use the quick launch, it still
> took longer than IE to start up. It took up 50 mb's of my ram to run it, IE
> takes 5. Mozilla was the base of IE, a long long time ago. Before AOL
> owned anything but AOL.

Jul 19, 2002, 8:18pm

I didn't realize we were talking about web browsers, Bowen--especially considering the subject: "newsreaders woes". Regardless, parts of Outlook/OE may be loaded in RAM too but I doubt it (or at least not nearly as much as IE is).

[View Quote] > Well then you just proved my point. You can't unload it so why waste even
> MORE ram on another web browser that does the same thing? Sure there's
> subtle differences in the way they view webpages, but they do the same
> thing. I don't need to waste more ram of my already low system resources.
> :P
>
[View Quote]

Jul 19, 2002, 8:20pm

$100 for 256MB SDRAM? What a ripoff. I can get 512MB for ~$80 here (Silicon Valley, of course)--and DDR RAM is quite cheap too.

Please stop quoting sigs and other unnecessary text so much when you reply. You too, Goob! Learn how to use your newsreader please. ;)

[View Quote] > Netscape burns through my ram, AW doesn't (anymore). I don't have money,
> care to spring me $100 to get some more ram? The prices have risen from the
> free price tag to $100 for 256 mb's around here. I believe AW uses more
> video card ram then netscape does (if netscape uses any).
>
[View Quote]

Jul 19, 2002, 8:52pm

That's the point: scrolling up. Top-posting nullifies having to scroll up. You simply scroll down if you don't what's going on--and you see at the top who posted what. Simple. Sigs don't need to be quoted and longer line lengths fix quoted text formatting breakup. Get efficient, man! ;P

[View Quote] > Well outlook isn't loaded into memory until you click a link like "mailto:"
> or start it up yourself. What else could it be besides the browser itself?
> The topic generally sways from the original subject. I do replys and I
> don't change the subject.. it's pointless, no one does really excluding the
> die hard usenet freaks like you. Why're you top posting? ;) It's as much a
> style note as quoting sigs (so you know who it's from and don't need to
[View Quote]

Jul 19, 2002, 11:15pm

I don't adhere to Usenet protocl but simply EFFICIENT "protocol". ;)

[View Quote] > Psh, efficiency in sigs is about 100 bytes on the average (usually shorter
> exluding those punks who like to put little funky images around them).
> Usenet protocol usually states that you don't top post either.. soo, why do
> you do it if you do everything else per standard? :D
>
[View Quote]

Jul 20, 2002, 5:08am

The less to deal with, the better. The easier to read, the better. The more efficient, the better. Dig?

[View Quote] > Well I don't post in html, all is saved. 1 or 2 kb's extra is nothing bad
> :), especially when posts don't get too long. Once they hit 10 kb's, then I
> worry.
>
[View Quote]

Jul 20, 2002, 7:45am

By design...

[View Quote] > I've noticed something in 3.3. Since I've upgraded, I do gestures and they
> work just fine. But if I try and move, it just quits doing the gesture and
> does the walk animation. In 3.2 and earlier it kept doing the gesture when
> you moved. What's up with that? Is it just me or is it something to do with
> 3.3?

Jul 21, 2002, 11:47pm

That's the problem, Bowen: you don't care. :/ This is the same kind of mentality people who abuse the environment and do other destructive behavior have. I'm not implying you do this but there are parallels...

[View Quote] > No one's forcing you to download or read my messages though.. or 99% of the
> people who post here. They're not familiar with the "efficiency" standard.
> I just don't really care. I'm on broadband, sooooo no worries.;)
>
[View Quote]

Jul 22, 2002, 2:55am

Sure, Bowen, it's all relative. But that doesn't mean you can't take a piddly 2 seconds to delete unnecessary quoting and sigs. Learn how to use newsgroups correctly, man. Your quoting REALLY looks like crap when it breaks up like it does. Take some pride in your computer usage and learn how to use it more efficiently. It benefits everyone in the long run, including you.

[View Quote] > Well that's the greatness of free choice. The newsgroups really don't play
> an intricate role in the AW environment. So, if you want to partake in
> them, you take the risk of downloading 1 kb longer messages or HTML messages
> and/or file attachments. It's your choice. Simply comparing my (my being a
> generalization to most users in the NG) not taking out a sig or two or not
> changing the subject line to someone spamming or what have you is just
> silly. :) I do clip my "quotes" when they get too long, other than that,
> I'm just don't feel the need to spare you a kb every 2-3 messages. Ignore
> the thread, don't download it's headers, etc.
>
> I also don't think it's abuse in what I do.. you should've seen when
> whomever posted that freaking giant penny in the AWTeen newsgroup. Now
> that's abuse.
>
[View Quote]

Jul 22, 2002, 7:07am

Well, now you're just being lame. First of all, the subject I changed, "caring (was Re: newsreader woes)", is actually shorter than the previous one, "newsreader woes (was Re: URL breakup)", which was changed a few posts ago, by the way. You must be getting desperate for rebuttals. ;) Try not to de-evolve too much in your desperation. Just let it go and you'll be fine. You seem to understand my point so just accept it and move on.

[View Quote] > piddly 2 seconds to delete unnecessary quoting and sigs. Learn how to use
> newsgroups correctly, man. Your quoting REALLY looks like crap when it
> breaks up like it does. Take some pride in your computer usage and learn how
> to use it more efficiently. It benefits everyone in the long run, including
> you.
>
> But, didn't you make the subject line longer and then in fact cause it to
> take up more memory? Where's that efficiency?? Everything is relative:
> time, money, awarness, life in general. Only 2 seconds? Not if I want to
> make it perfect for you. Everyone is too picky, which is why I gave up. So
> why'd you requote your old quote that I quoted? I thought you only quote
> what you're replying too?
>
> I'm using a non-usenet newsgroup, there's no rules that say I have to clean
> up my messages. Dear god I'm not the only one doing this, like I said 99%
> of other users don't care and don't do it. Why single me out? Pride in my
> computer usage? Computers are tools. If I want to be the uber efficient
> master, I'd do it. I simply use it to get what I need to get done, and then
> have some fun. Who's going to benefit from a 1 kb shorter message? Jeez,
> it takes a 14.4 modem 1 second supposedly to download 1 kb file. Did you
> notice I cleaned up all the stuff too? No.. probably not until I pointed
> that out.
>
> Tampering with the original message has dire consequences later on too.
> Say.. someone wants proof but the original message is gone now? They won't
> believe you until they see the signature, what then? It's all relative like
> you said. Computers are relative too, they're just pieces of
> metal/silicon/whathaveyou with electricity flowing through them and some
> moving parts here and there with magnets, nothing more. Measuring the data
> is relative too. You can't measure anything exactly, because there's always
> something smaller. Maybe my 3 kb post was really 2.98 kb's or really
> 2.9999999999999998. We're just wasting even more bandwidth and storage
> space fighting an extremely stupid battle that can't be won. Neither of us
> will budge. I'm too lazy, you're too stubborn. That's life. Wait, isn't
> that relative too? :D
>
> Dedicated to make make long posts for eep in this thread, to waste some more
> bandwidth and storage space.

Jul 25, 2002, 3:08am

Heh, what a cool site! I found old versions of my RW site (http://tnlc.com/rw) but, unfortunately, not the original. I only still have Tyrell's maimed version. :/ Anyone else have the original?

[View Quote] > I can came across a very interesting website today in a newsletter. It
> included a link to "The Internet Archive" http://www.archive.org/. This has
> copies of websites from multiple dates such as one from when it first
> started and every change of it to the present. I've got to say yahoo.com,
> amazon.com, etc look very very boring in 1996 hehe. Anyways if you type in
> an address in the "WayBack Machine" Box it will show you a list of old
> version of a website.
>
> Interesting one here: Activeworlds.com
> http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.activeworlds.com
>
> The oldest version is from 1998, perhaps because they weren't actually
> activeworlds until later on. I have no idea what Circle Of Fire's website
> address was. If anyone knows I'd like to see what it looked like...

Jul 25, 2002, 3:12am

Oh and I was also able to get some of the RW 2.x demos from http://web.archive.org/web/*/www.csl.com ! I've been looking for them for years since my hard drive crash (just say no to IBM drives). :/

[View Quote] > Heh, what a cool site! I found old versions of my RW site (http://tnlc.com/rw) but, unfortunately, not the original. I only still have Tyrell's maimed version. :/ Anyone else have the original?

Jul 26, 2002, 4:26am

Shut up.

[View Quote] > I'm gonna eat my brain brain brain!

Jul 28, 2002, 8:25pm

I'd rather have the coronas fade in AND out, like in Grand Theft Auto 3. Yet another Roland inconsistency...

[View Quote] > I was more concerned with getting rid of the "blinking effect". Since
> astart/adone constantly refreshes the command, it causes the corona to
> fade in, then blink off and fade in again, ad infinitum. I was hoping
> they could find some way to make it only fade in once. They somehow
> fixed the light command when it had similar problems, so maybe they can
> fix this too. *shrug*
>
[View Quote]

Jul 30, 2002, 7:20am

Uh, huh? You replied to Goober King, not me. Coronas don't fade out; they only fade in. Look again.

[View Quote] > fade outs work for me, eep.
>
[View Quote]

Jul 31, 2002, 8:25pm

No, it doesn't with the Windows version, but there are problems with the propdump/load process, which is supposedly fixed in the latest world server beta build.

[View Quote] > Editing the file or not... Running a linux server and taking propdumps with
> the current version of the admin tool will *always* yeild a garbage propdump
> file. It doesn't matter if you edit the file or not. I'm not sure if this
> holds true with the windows version of the aw server. I doubt it will....
> Can someone test it?
>
[View Quote]

Jul 31, 2002, 8:27pm

They're not animated masks; they're simply rotating to simulate being blown in the wind. I've done this a lot in old Hole (only running when I'm in AW).

[View Quote] > I'm wondering how I can make special animated Masks.
> Any of you that have played Soldier of Fortune 2 in Jungle missions
> and seen the long grass, that is the type of objects I'm trying to get
> made. I wish for animated grass like that in the game, looks like it's
> moving very slightly with the wind. The 3d trees they use are 3d
> objects but the leaves are masks and are animated also to look as if
> they were moving around slightly.
>
> Anyone know how it can be done? Or anyone have those kinds of cool
> objects already?

Aug 1, 2002, 5:00am

So don't make them sprites. Roland screwed up sprites when he implemented axis-aligned polygons in AW3--he didn't allow them to be rotated like they were in AW 2.2 and they no longer oriented to ALL axes. I, of course, immediately bitched to him about this but he just didn't care, as usual...and no one else seemed to care either, unfortunately.

Perhaps more people WILL care--and learn to care IMMEDIATELY when there's more likely something will be changed than wait years later and HOPE it changes. That's why I'm making such a big deal about AW 3.4's field of view (FOV) being so extreme in 1st-person view. It's something like 120 degrees, which is WAY to distorted! Supposedly in the latest beta build it dynamically adjusts relative to the 3D pane width, but I have yet to try it. I'd still like an option to set it to a specific setting, however. 3rd-person view is an odd 68 degrees or something. Most 3D games have the FOV at 90 degrees--and it works. Why AW has to be different is beyond me.

Anyway, you have to bitch as much as possible during the beta or things most likely won't be changed for years later, if ever. Unfortunately, I've been the one doing most of the bitching over the years so Roland and AWC/AWI have gotten sick of me. It's not easy being the sole fighter for AW citizen "rights" but I guess someone's gotta do it. Surely more people care enough about AW to be a part of keeping it from getting even more annoying and frustrating to use...

[View Quote] > In a galaxy far far away, known as general.discussion, an identity
> claiming to be known as "eep" <eepNOSPAM at tnlc.com> scribed the
> following:

>
> I meant sprites, had forgotten their true name. You can't rotate
> sprites as they face you all the time. These ones in the game are
> animated. So I'm guessing, as has been said already, that I must
> create a filmstrip of both the texture and the black and white
> masking... This will be lots of work... I've made a simple mask:
> http://www.anduin-lothario.com/object_path/models/grass1.zip
> http://www.anduin-lothario.com/object_path/textures/grass1.jpg
> http://www.anduin-lothario.com/object_path/textures/grass1m.zip
>
> It's grass, but to get that to animate 'smoothly' it would take a big
> filmstrip, some of the blades would need to be moves slightly for
> every strip... Would look good though... I'll try and make one, will
> take time to get perfect though :-/
>
> Thanks anyway all :o)

Aug 1, 2002, 5:08am

Why do they have to be sprites anyway? Sprites aren't realistic. Just make a more detailed plant/bush/weed and rotate that.

[View Quote] > In a galaxy far far away, known as general.discussion, an identity
> claiming to be known as "eep" <eepNOSPAM at tnlc.com> scribed the
> following:

>
> Hmm, my bad. After looking carefully at the game, they are sprites,
> but they are rotating. Sprites in AW face you, like in the game, but
> there's no way of flipping and rotating them at all... Is there some
> kind of object that can do this? Like a sprite, but can be rotated?
> Animate panels I looked at, but they don't keep facing you, so it
> wouldn't look at good if turning around and looking at it from a
> different angle. Unless 2 of the animate panels were crossed together
> to form an 'X' and then rotate them slightly. Wouldn't look anywhere
> near as good though :-/
>
> Ideas?

Aug 1, 2002, 4:56pm

[View Quote] > Perhaps it would help if more people were on the beta rather than the
> same 10 people every time. :P

Well, that doesn't really matter; the point is, beta testers need to take testing more seriously. Too many seem to be just along for ride...

> And, in a purely Eep moment, don't cross-post to beta, as most of us
> aren't allowed to post there. :P

So remove the newsgroup when you reply. <shrug>

[View Quote]

Aug 5, 2002, 6:55pm

[View Quote] > more likely something will be changed than wait years later and HOPE it
> changes. That's why I'm making such a big deal about AW 3.4's field of view
> (FOV) being so extreme in 1st-person view. It's something like 120 degrees,
> which is WAY to distorted! Supposedly in the latest beta build it
> dynamically adjusts relative to the 3D pane width, but I have yet to try it.
> I'd still like an option to set it to a specific setting, however.
> 3rd-person view is an odd 68 degrees or something. Most 3D games have the
> FOV at 90 degrees--and it works. Why AW has to be different is beyond me.
> Because, AW has a floating, rectangular viewport size, while games fill the
> whole screen. This makes the entire excersize far more complex. I believe
> that games that use "cinemascope" (the movie-screen 16:9 aspect ratio) have
> vertical aspects right around 120, and I think it can work if done properly.

But most of the time AW's viewport is NOT at 16:9 aspect ratio but standard 1.33:1 (4:3) ratio. No matter HOW square (or vertically taller) I make the 3D pane, the FOV is still too distorted--it's even worse when the pane is very thin horizontally; it is just very distracting. Why not allow for a default 90 degrees which IS standard? At least an aworld.ini option so it shouldn't be TOO much work to implement...

Aug 3, 2002, 1:32am

Software rumored about that has never seen the light of day. Examples: Duke Nukem Forever, Jetta Lewis' "new universe", Cyboria, etc.

[View Quote] > What is Vaporware?

Aug 3, 2002, 5:59pm

No, but do you see it released yet? Supposedly it's in beta testing but can you test it? I can't; hence, it's vaporware to me.

[View Quote] > Cyboria? Er... That wasn't cancelled was it?!
>
[View Quote]

Aug 3, 2002, 6:00pm

The problem with most of these AW clones is that they don't have the one thing that sets AW apart from every other program out there (game or app): real-time multi-user building. Until these clones can at LEAST do that they simply won't be able to compete with AW.

[View Quote] > Cyboria's the only one that isn't a direct replica of Active Worlds. Or
> worse, Active Worlds with a few missing features (to make it look like it's
> a different program altogether).
>
[View Quote]

Aug 3, 2002, 6:01pm

Chatzone is also vaporware in the sense that it's still in beta testing (albeit seemingly further along than Cyboria and most of the other AW clones that have come and gone over the years) but it still doesn't have real-time multi-user (or even single-user) building; it's basically floundering.

[View Quote] > Aren't you forgetting www.chatzone3d.co.uk?
>
> That isn't a direcst replica... its going to have better features.. maybe it
> is a replica but it's going to be missing a few of aw's errors.... i.e.
> light travelling through walls.... isn't that impossible since light travels
> ina straight line and there is a huge wall in the way? :P
>
[View Quote]

Aug 3, 2002, 8:44pm

Chatzone has jumping too. Regardless, until EITHER app gets real-time building, they won't be able to compete with AW much, if at all. How long has Cyboria been in alpha testing? Much longer than Chatzone has been, I believe. Cyboria is even more vaporware that Chatzone is.

[View Quote] > *shrug* okies. :-P All ya gotta do is talk to Derek and you can alpha test
> it. :-) There's not much to see and do but chat and look around the only
> world that's there (Imagica). The programmers are doing a total revamp of
> the program to make it all C++ and Delphi (I'm pretty sure...) and when that
> version comes out, there is going to be multi-user building I think. It will
> also mark the end of tha alpha testing and start the beginning of beta
> testing. They've been doing it for a couple months now. It should be out
> soon but I guess you'd have to talk to Derek about that. :-P
>
> I'm really excited with Cyboria's potential. Derek seems to be very
> motivated with this and has tons of great ideas that will clearly show a
> line between Cyboria and Active Worlds. One of the features right now that
> sets it apart from Active Worlds is the ability to jump. It's more of a low
> gravity jump but it's a jump nonetheless. I think that Cyboria will have
> more of a gaming audience. While the building will be rather simple, there's
> lots of ideas for bots and games. One major difference that allows for
> gaming is the way people move. In Active Worlds, the exact position of each
> person is not a top priority. Active Worlds is more worried about keeping
> everything smooth whereas Cyboria can be rather jumpy to make sure that each
> person sees others at the exact position they are standing at. That means
> you'll need a fast connection to play games smoothly but at the same time,
> you can chat without a problem on any connection.
>
> So Cyboria will be a fairly general type of program. It'll give much more
> support than Active Worlds in game design and playing games but still give
> plenty to allow for the more common worlds in Active Worlds like building
> and exploring worlds.
>
> But you are right, if the programmers don't keep themselves motivated to
> work on it, it doesn't matter what their plans are. Lots of people have the
> greatest ideas but never follow them up. I hope that's not the case with
> Cyboria.
>
[View Quote]

Aug 4, 2002, 5:46pm

Yea, well, let us know when it's actually worth using. But at least it seems closer to AW than Chatzone and Cyboria anyway....

[View Quote] > You are semi correct. PlasticPlanet 3D (PP3D for short) cannot be run
> without first connecting to a central server. It cannot be run off-line
> or in "local mode" at this point in time. When you start the program, it
> asks you for a username and a password. Pick anything you want that has
> not already been taken, click "Logon," and it should connect to the
> server and load the default world.
>
> Right now, there is only one main world. You *can* build while connected
> to the world, but there are only three or so editable objects there at
> this point in time. You can move them, rotate them, click on them, etc.
> Here is where things differ. Currently, when you build or edit an
> object, the changes take effect only to you, not others around you. The
> changes are not stored on the server, nor locally on your system. The
> objects appear the way they were before you edited them. So you can mess
> with them to your heart's delight, close PP3D, start it again and the
> objects will revert back to their normal place.
>
> The lead programmer of PP3D was on vacation for a few weeks. Like I said
> before, he is working on the server aspect of the software. This will
> allow objects to stay changed when users log on or off, support more
> than one world, allow changes to be seen by other users, etc. One last
> thing; you mentioned bots. To my knowledge, there are no bots available
> for PP3D yet.
>
[View Quote]

Aug 4, 2002, 2:21am

AWCOM doesn't exist. AWC's directors may get into trouble but AWI's Rick and JP are basically free and clear of any misdoings (i.e. "cooking the books") they may have done at AWC since they bought AW from AWC and are no longer a public company. <eyes JP suspiciously>

[View Quote] > Do you ever wonder when we'll AWCOM Employees being carted off by the police
> on T.V. just like WorldCom?

Aug 4, 2002, 5:31pm

Again, AWCOM doesn't exist. Activeworlds Corporation (AWC) does but it no longer owns Activeworlds, Incorporated (AWI), which owns Active Worlds (AW).

[View Quote] > In part all of you are missing her post....
>
> 1 - LOOK AT THE NAMES used....
>
> WorldCom = AwCom [AWC]
>
> What did WorldCom do that might be similar to AwCom? ir what did AwCom
> that might be similar to WorldCom?
>
> In WorldCom's case they made such huge exposure because of the millions
> involved.
>
> In AWC or as many of the people call it it is AwCom [Why? It looks so
> similar to some other types of names...]
> Then they can put all of these in the "FUNNY" pages and poke fun at them
> as she is doing now.
>
> 2 - So in [Be hunorus people] AwCom's case they haven't blown all that
> many millions YET. When they get to the same level of WorldCom and get
> the worlds attention.... I'm sure that the employees of AWC = AwCom
> will get their butts parked in some police jail soon enough.

1  ...  11  12  13  14  15  16  ...  42  |   Order by default