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

Oct 12, 2000, 9:10pm

Think about it: having to download a, say, 50-100K image every 15 minutes (depending on how realistic you want the day-night light cycle to be) would get annoying. You're better off making a "skybox" ground object and having the world light source affect it normally (since light doesn't affect the backdrop).

Please REPLY (and to the correct thread) to a message instead of starting a new topic, don't change the subject (unless you leave the old one in and out "<new subject> (was <old subject>)"), and leave in quoted text so tracing your message history isn't as annoying.

[View Quote] > Yes, I know of the Pana changer, or whatever it's called (no offense) I guess what I was trying to say
> is to be able to change the background when people arrive at your plot of land in an open building world
> or for changing the look of your world if you want to have different levels or something.
>
> What do you mean by inefficient, Eep? You mean it would take up too much of your building
> space/allowable?

--

http://tnlc.com/eep/ - Active Worlds, Tomb Raider, 3D game comparison, The Sims
Enable line/word wrap if text not wrapping. http://tnlc.com/eep/wrap.html for more info.
DON'T QUOTE SIG WHEN REPLYING!

Oct 13, 2000, 4:55pm

That isn't a skyBOX, but simply 2 planes (ground + cloud). A BOX has 6 sides.

[View Quote] > Just take your regular ground object, and copy the regular ground "plane". Add a bit to the Y value and then fiddle with that new
> plane.
>
[View Quote] --

http://tnlc.com/eep/ - Active Worlds, Tomb Raider, 3D game comparison, The Sims
Enable line/word wrap if text not wrapping. http://tnlc.com/eep/wrap.html for more info.
DON'T QUOTE SIG WHEN REPLYING!

Oct 26, 2000, 8:18pm

Please review http://tnlc.com/eep/aw/improvements.html before posting here.

[View Quote] > I notice in AW3.0, one can ajust ambient lighting in a world, However I
> think local lighting effects should be made possible. For example A room is
> dark untill you tell it to be light (lol couldent think of any other
> wording) or build a lamp or torch etc. Which would create light and dark
> area's as in the real world. It would of cource cast shadows etc etc etc
> etc. This would greatly add to the realistic quality of the software.
> Possibly also make it possible to make a sun that rotates the world casting
> shadows and a moon at night etc, perhaps pehaprs perhaps... :o)
> Something else that could be handy would be someway of creating a mirror. I
> dont know about the technical side of such an object that actually appeared
> to reflect images would be but I just think it would be cool.
> I dunno, maybe you dont want it too look realistic, or the technical aspects
> of these ideas are such that would make it impossible to use. Maybe the idea
> has already come up and been turned down? I dunnno.
> Cheers for reading my utter garbage

--

http://tnlc.com/eep/ - Active Worlds, Tomb Raider, 3D game comparison, The Sims
Enable line/word wrap if text not wrapping. http://tnlc.com/eep/wrap.html for more info.
DON'T QUOTE SIG WHEN REPLYING!

Oct 30, 2000, 6:20am

http://tnlc.com/eep/aw/improve.html

Please learn how to be less inept.

[View Quote]

Oct 30, 2000, 3:12pm

However, I would not have used a cynical smiley and I probably would've posted the correct link after I poked around the domain some...

[View Quote]

Oct 30, 2000, 3:12pm

Uh, if people are THAT inept at using Windows, they shouldn't be dicking around with AW...

Windows has a welcome tour for a REASON, you know...

[View Quote]

Oct 31, 2000, 10:11am

[View Quote] Yes, your body EXPLICITLY knows how citric acid works, even if you aren't aware of it consciously.

> A computer is a tool, not a holy cow.

AW is a tool, too, and like any tool you need to learn how to use it effectively.

> Well made programs ease the life of users instead of making it more
> complicated. A secretary who uses M$-Word on her companies computer
> should not be forced to deal with the OS that runs in this noisy
> box, she should not even need to know what an OS is.

Should a person driving a car not know what an engine is? They'll find out sooner or later when their engine eventually siezes due to unchanged, dirty oil!

> How can an artist who wants to use Bryce see the need to deal with
> Windows?

How can a person who wants to drive see the need to deal with the road?

> Would a program like AW be as popular as it is if it would
> expect users to use a command line to start it, edit the INI file
> with NotePad and write scripts to place the objects?

Probably not, but there don't seem to be a shortage of people who just like to chat without building.

Nov 1, 2000, 2:50am

First of all, lose the lame Netscape Messenger address card. Second, learn to quote.

[View Quote] Write WHAT down? See above about learning how to quote.

> Understanding a computer must be very hard for a person who is not
> really interested in PCs - and it takes much more time to really
> understand if the operating system hides essential things.

So understand it enough to UNHIDE things so you can understand it even MORE. Duh.

> Even in the time when DOS 2.x was the default OS in companies they
> tried to keep the users away from maintaining their PC themselves,
> blocked direct DOS access and overlayed it with interfaces.

<shrug> There's no reason AW needs to be degraded to that level.

> The citric acid thing might does not really compare to an OS. But
> your car example does not work either, many own a car and never made
> an oil change themselves.

And their car ran like shit and eventually seized its engine. Anyone who choose to remain ignorant to their car (or computer) needs is just asking for trouble. My car example works FINE. If you are dicking around with the downloads window in the first place, you should already know where AW is installed and how to access it through Windows Explorer.

> Lots of users really see a PC as a mystery, some things that happen
> inside are too abtract, the desktop is not really like the top of
> their desk.

Ignorance is bliss, eh? Thankfully not everyone is as lemminglike.

> I agree that you can get much more out off your computer if you know
> about its organs and are familiar with bits and bytes, but again -
> you have a big interest for these things so it is easy for you to
> learn. Knowledge exchange does not start at a high level and many
> new users need guidance on their first steps.

> I like the community idea that exists in AW and therefor I will keep
> trying help unexperienced users. No one forces you to do the same.
> When I was new to all this I have read your pages about cell space
> and building hints and found them very interesting. But for users who
> don't want to deal with so many details I break the informations into
> smaller parts that are easier to understand or extract essentials.

Knowledge SHOULD start at a high level, with showing the FULL picture (or at least as much of as is known) and then allowing the student to learn however THEY want to learn--in smaller parts (as can be easily attainable through my site index, for example) or in a comprehensive, detailed source (as my site attempts to be for AW RWX creation).

I've always been pissed (for as long as I can remember) about how institutional education insists on teaching things modularly and rarely, if ever, integrating multiple subjects. On my site I choose to let people learn how THEY want to learn, which is why I have so many redundant links within my pages, to other RWX sites and sites that will help in understanding 3D concepts and terms, and to AW University for that insitutionalized education approach.

> If I see a small problem that is easy to solve, why not post it in
> this wishlist. It saves my time explaining some things so it is my
> wish to see that solved - and as long as no one takes my right to
> speak away or filters my postings I will keep posting simple wishes
> too, if I see need for it.

And I'll continue to post my opinon about your wishes.

Nov 1, 2000, 11:56am

"alife"? "alive", twit. Newbies reply by email AND newsgroups, like you did. You're such a newbie it hurts. Evolve or I'll be forced to filter your primitive ass.

[View Quote]

Nov 18, 2000, 6:49am

http://tnlc.com/rw/rwx.html#ground to learn practically everything you ever wanted to know about AW grounds but were afraid to ask, including how to use modular ground AND have gravity enabled.

[View Quote] > Yes this is true, but there are two things about this. 1. Locally, you cannot decide if there is a
> ground object or not, therefore you still don't really have a choice, and 2. The ground object
> existing or not should not control the gravity. Some people choose not to have a ground and just
> make it themselves (like DEM2RWX worlds), and walking up stairs and hills and stuff can be a pain in
> the bootie.
>
[View Quote]

Nov 18, 2000, 4:24pm

I agree, to which you can find more info about such a feature request at http://tnlc.com/eep/aw/improve.html#gravity

I would like to suggest to everyone that before posting in this newsgroup you review this web page to see if your wish is already on it (or a variation thereof). Then discuss additions/corrections/suggestions on THAT wish here and if enough people chime in in agreement, I'll add it to the list and hopefully Roland will add it to AW! If it's VERY popular and REALLY needed/wanted, perhaps a petition and "wish fulfillment" (how cheesy; let's call it "feature request" instead) campaign can be initiated.

[View Quote] > Thats kewl but I still wish there were a user option about gravity or now (if the world permits of
> course)
>
> "Java is a machine. You put Java code in one end, and money comes out the other." - Anonymous
>
[View Quote]

Nov 19, 2000, 11:33am

Hence why I made an AW improvements page so Roland could get right down to what needs improving in AW without all the bullshit.

[View Quote] > Looking at the size of some of these threads and the deviation from the
> topics on a lot of them, is it any surprise?
>
[View Quote]

Nov 19, 2000, 11:37am

Hardware T&L (transform and lighting for the ignorant) is up to Criterion. I think I heard they are working on it for RenderWare but I'm not sure. Regardless, Criterion seems to still be caught up in all the so-called "next-generation" console marketing hype. Once they realize it IS just hype, and that the PC simply blows consoles away, perhaps they'll work on making the PC RW more up-to-date with other PC 3D engines. Until then, don't expect it in AW ANY time soon.

[View Quote] > the point is: if we can agree on what is the most important features, like
> say: everyone who has a geforce card join together and keep telling Rolland
> we want hardware T&L support maybe he'll make it a priority....
>
[View Quote]

Nov 19, 2000, 11:39am

I've emailed Criterion before about the fragmented polygon bug, but I don't think I ever got a response (or if I did it was a useless PR one). Anyway, Roland mentioned in a recent TechTalk that he talked to Criterion about that and other bugs but they were no help as usual. What he NEEDS to do is band together with other RW developers and start putting pressure on Criterion to fix all their damn bugs...

[View Quote] > But AW would have more clout with Criterion than us poor, insignificant
> users. Perhaps it would be best to go through Roland somehow. My main point
> here is that I think there has to be a more effective and non-antagonistic
> manner of influencing future product updates than these flaming petitions.
>
[View Quote]

Nov 19, 2000, 8:42pm

I've told him about it. He knows about it--he just doesn't care, much like he doesn't seem to care about this newsgroup because there is simply too much to improve in AW and not enough time to do it all. Hopefully with Shamus as a programmer now AW WILL get improved quicker and more often, but we'll see...

I'm already glad to see the AW 3.1 features coming, so it's a start. Now if it can just keep up AW will perhaps be competitive with other 3D games and level editors.

[View Quote] > The list IS popular and very logical. However if Roland doesn't even look at this NG I doubt he
> will look at the improve list... (unless you know he has in the past)
>
[View Quote]

Nov 21, 2000, 4:08pm

a link to release notes to see what's been changed before or while waiting for upgrade to download

Jan 9, 2001, 4:10pm

[View Quote] > I do not use the mouse for movement. I use the arrow keys (either the
> four keys between the numeric keypad and the main keypad, or the numeric
> keypad with Num Lock turned off). I've found that in 3.0, right after I
> type something, then hit return, I cannot move at all with either set of
> arrow keys. If I try to use either + or - key to fly, it just types out
> in the text entry box.

I only have this problem when I click into the whisper chat field.

> I've done a little experiment, it seems Roland has made the arrow keys
> so that they move the cursor in the text entry box. Oh joy. trading a 2%
> benefit for a 98% frustration. I did not notice this before because I'd
> try to move *after* I hit return and my text entry box would then be
> empty (so the cursor had no text to move across).
>
> You know, if it was not so damn painful to use the mouse to move, this
> would not be an issue. The mouse as movement control sucks majorly.

Uh, you must not play very many (if any) 3D games (particularly FPSes) then because mouselook and keyboard movement are the de facto standard.

> That needs to be completely reworked, but I thought the keyboard focus would
> be easier to fix. I have this old drawing app that was originally
> released for Windows and Unix, so the programmers did not follow the
> Windows Way very closely, thus the pan and zoom are the easiest to use
> of *any* app I've *ever* tried. To pan (move) you hold the right mouse
> button and move the mouse slightly then stop (while still holding the
> button). Shazam! It's like an accelerator, the a small displacement of
> the mouse (from where you first clicked the right button) causes a small
> velocity in the direction of the mouse displacement, a large
> displacement causes a large velocity. You can slide all over your
> drawing surface very fast with complete control. Release the mouse
> button and motion instantly stops. To zoom click and hold the middle
> mouse button (it requires a three button mouse) and if you sweep the
> mouse from upper-left to lower-right you zoom in to fit the box you just
> drew so that it is full screen size. To zoom out you sweep the mouse
> from lower-right to upper-left, the box you drew compared with the full
> screen size is your ratio for zooming out. Well, we don't zoom in AW,
> but you get the idea. A really great user interface that is fast and
> easy to use and control.
>
> Something like this could be done in the AW browser for movement. Click
> and hold the right mouse button then move the mouse in the direction you
> want to go, the distance you move the mouse is the speed of movement. To
> select an object simply click and release the right mouse button without
> moving the mouse. The program could have a threshold radius of mouse
> movement before it decides the user wants to move their avatar. The
> object could be selected on button release if the threshold radius was
> not exceeded. Something like this has been done in some VRML browsers,
> but poorly. To move faster than a snail you'd need a mouse pad about
> half a meter across because you need to move and hold the mouse really
> far to get any speed. This is silly, motion should start at 2 or 3 mm
> and should be an eye watering blur with a mouse displacement of about 5
> cm or so.

This kind of mouse movement is just horrible. Go try a Superscape and/or an app like LEGO Creator (which uses Superscape) and see for yourself.

[View Quote]

Dec 14, 2000, 11:48am

Stop posting in HTML, newbies. And, Darian, lose the graphic logo.

[View Quote] > Wow its actually you! I have some responses... 1. First order of busin=
ess: AW 3.1 will have lighting, as in being able to create an object and=
say "you're a light, now brighten the room damn it!". This should be am=
azingly good for metatropolis (and even lower the crime rate). I can't wa=
it hehe :-)2. Second: Ok, I looked into the reflectivity thing and got a =
general idea of why Roland keeps telling me "No Way, No How." As I see it=
, reflectivity (mirrors and such) depend on a closed world atmosphere wit=
h set boundries OK, so I have my browser normally set to 120M visibility.=
If I placed a mirror down, the browser would have to track another 120M=
worth of objects, and its another 120M per mirror object. That can real=
y add up and slow you down! Even if you programmed it to where it wouldn=
't render any objects outside the visibility of another object (say you h=
ad the mirror in a room) it would still have to render them because what =
if it were, for example, one of the new transclucent window panes you can=
put pictures on? It would just be the backdrop behind that! 4. what abo=
ut custom object paths that the builder can specify? so instead of using =
an object from the main path (pict3.rwx) they could specify this as the o=
bject name: <snipped irrelevant information> The issue again rises about =
slowing down the people with all of the custom objects, but then again, v=
isibility is limited (right?) so you would only be loading objects within=
a radius and (if you set it) of a certain size in KB... that would be wo=
rth it. You have to download the objects anyway -- it wouldn't be any slo=
wer. (OK, thats not exactly true. If someone were hosting objects on th=
eir 56K connection then it would be a really slow download, however with =
a 56K connection I would estimate your IP changes at least once a day (du=
e to disconnects). No one would even try beyond once to host objects on =
their systems. Its not a big risk to add this feature :-) 5. Out of curi=
ousity... At what point is active worlds going to actually advertise? B=
iggest complaint I get about AW is that people have no idea who or what t=
hey are... AW is great, indeed, but as it stands, their marketing sux. W=
ord of mouth, while somewhat effective, shouldn't be depended on by a com=
pany with a listing on NASDAQ... I want to see a commercial during the su=
perbowl for Active Worlds! This is one of those annoying loops. You need=
money to advertise, and you need to advertise to make money. Maybe Vent=
ure Capital? ..... However, I COULD see this... "Who needs this supe=
rbowl stuff, anyway? If you love footwall so much why not get right in t=
he action and play against people all over the world? You gotta make the=
FootballBot yourself but hey go for it!" 6. This one is probably a long =
shot but here goes: Hey AW! Since you enjoy the use of Animated JPGs, wh=
y not let some of us know where to get a program to make them? Animating =
a JPG file for AW manually is rather like jumping into a bathtub full of =
razorblades: I'd rather avoid it if I can... if there aren't any programs=
to automate the animated JPG process, then for the love of god, make one=
! I would love to, but as you should very well know there is no time lol =
However I think this is a good idea -- any programmers want this nice jo=
b? People I am sure would take advantage of it! 7. I don't expect AW to =
actually do this one, but it would be pretty darned kewl: be able to run =
a java applet in a picture frame in VR. Java picture effects would REALL=
Y enhance VR :) That would be nice, however it would slow AW WAAAAAAAAY d=
own. I love Java, don't get me wrong. In 1.3 the speed improvements ama=
ze me. However, the Applet plugins still leave quite a bit to be desired=
=2E.. Hope Roland ... actually reads this... You wish lol ;-)
>
[View Quote]

Dec 22, 2000, 5:05am

See, the problem is AW doesn't have portal rendering. Deus Ex (modified Unreal engine) has mirrors but they're usually in closed rooms (bathrooms, locker rooms, hallways, etc) and because of portal rendering (which hides most of the level when not directly in view--through windows, around buildings, etc), mirrors aren't much of a polygon drain. AW just mindlessly renders everything out to a certain distance and doesn't take into account actual line-of-sight visibility, which is why it gets bogged down VERY easily.

[View Quote] > No you set multiple angles and then it would be more mirror like but other than that it would be rather difficult to implement a true mirror object. If they did it would lag most 3d cards to the dirt.
>
[View Quote]

Dec 25, 2000, 1:40am

Probably; ask Roland since he obviously doesn't read this newsgroup.

[View Quote] > Would they have to rewrite a ton of code in AW, like the rendering and
> visiblity system, to do this?

Dec 29, 2000, 8:12am

Level editors don't create static environments (levels). Most current 3D game levels are anything BUT static. Objects can be broken, walls blown up, floors crumbling, etc, etc. You've obviously never played a 3D game. Hell, even Duke Nukem 3D from FOUR years ago had VERY dynamic levels. Multiplayer games handle level changes JUST fine. AW is simply lagging behind 3D games in general.

By making AW more gamelike, not only does it expand what could be possible with AW, it gives AW MUCH more marketable features. To me the business plan is obvious, but Rick and JP are obviously clueless about where to take AW--even Ron Britvich agrees per an interview by Rob Moyes (see http://tnlc.com/eep/aw/history.html for link).

I see a lot of potential in AW, which is why I don't plan on leaving it ANY time soon, but I will continue to speak out against its bad management, marketing focus ("e-commerce et al), and slow development until AWCI shapes or ships out and REAL management/development takes over...or until something better comes along (which isn't too far off).

[View Quote] > I think AW would need more of a commercially viable reason to rewrite their
> core 3D handling code. Mirrors would fall into a "nice to have" category in
> my view and "nice to have"s with a high development/implementation risk to
> the product (i.e. large cost/small return) don't make a lot of sense.
>
> Also, I think its time to stop comparing AW with all the 3D multiplayer
> games on the market. The only substantial dynamic data these games have to
> handle is the activities of the other "characters" in the environment.
> Handling a situation where the environment itself is changing (as required
> by AW to allow people to build, etc.) is a TOTALLY different matter. If AW
> only provided fixed worlds to run around in and interact with then that
> would be a fairer comparison. However, AW provides a more true-to-life
> environment which can be manipulated in real-time by many users
> simultaneously and it is this that sets it aside from the others. AW is not
> a level-editor for a game engine and in no way can it be compared to one
> because of (at least) one fundamental difference. Level-editors are
> effectively compiler/optimisers for fixed environments and that is not what
> AW is.
>
> Maybe the infrastructure on which AW is based is reaching the end of its
> shelf-life (personally, I think the changes from v2.2 to v3.0 fell well
> short of qualifying as a major product release), and v4 should be a
> strategic redirection, but right now, with the split between the
> server-based and client-based processing being so client heavy, some things
> are just not practical.
>
> If mirrors were to be added to AW, then they should be true mirrors and not
> a compromise of any form. If that means redeveloping large chunks of the
> rendering code or even switching rendering engines, then you've just got to
> accept that its not going to happen until AW can show in a business plan
> that the costs involved would be recouped, with interest, over a fixed
> period of time. Making such a change WITHOUT that business plan in place
> would constitute negligent management.
>
> AW are not going to prosper by blindly pandering to the requests of the
> likes of us, most of whom pay an annual pittance to AW to dabble in their
> environment. Even world owners (who pay) don't provide much of AW's
> revenue - their focus is, quite rightly, elsewhere. Business makes the world
> go around ... not hobbyists. Anyone who cannot accept the service AW provide
> should vote with their feet and be done with it.
>
[View Quote]

Dec 30, 2000, 4:42am

[View Quote] > The main point I was making (perhaps poorly) was that the end result from a
> level editor is a fixed environment ... basically a set of predefined rules
> which equates ONLY to a fixed, completed world in AW (replace this wall with
> this one when someone shoots it, crumble the floor when someone walks on
> it). What it cannot handle, as AW can, is the scenario where one "player"
> can be on the third floor of a castle when another "player" comes along and
> replaces it with a rose garden. This is where I see the fundamental
> difference to AW which is focussed as a real-time, muti-user, interactive
> environment.

Again, this is simply incorrect. AW can VERY easily allow such dynamic environments which include your so-called "fixed" environments of level editors.

> If it is used to create a world which is then baselined and published, then
> yes, a comparison can be made, but I don't see how the central supports of
> the AW "community" (basically AlphaWorld and other public building worlds)
> could still be provided in that case.

Why can't you? AW already DOES support its "community" while at the same time allowing people to create worlds. <shrug>

> I have to agree that there is a likelyhood of new, better alternatives
> overtaking AW, but then that's how things work in the world. Its inevitable
> that someone else WILL come along and steal (at least) some of AW's market
> share. Its how AWCI respond to that intrusion that will decide their fate. I
> doubt they are a big enough company right now to pre-empt it.
>
> Final comment ... I know I've expressed this opinion before and I'll try to
> make it the last time. What AWCI do and how they do it is their business. A
> little more recognition of citizens as "customers" would be nice, but at the
> end of the day, if they don't want to concentrate on placating existing
> customers, then they don't have to. If they want to run the company into the
> ground (which I am not saying they are doing by any means), then it is the
> shareholders they answer to, not the customers (us).

Under Delaware Corporation Law, which AWCI is incorporated under, the shareholders have NO power over AWCI or its management. Please learn about things before commenting on them.

> When there's comparitive competition, then we'll see what happens.

You obviously don't pay attention to the gaming industry much. Perhaps you missed how popular Quake, Half-Life, and other games with level editors are. And with more and more multiuser online-only games coming in 2001, AW's so-called "market share" will be even more stressed.

[View Quote]

Jan 5, 2001, 2:10pm

[View Quote] > Geesh ... here we go again ...

Indeed. Try actually READING this time.

[View Quote] You obviously don't have any clue about where the online gaming industry is heading. If you knew about games like 10six, you would know that editing a level (or "camp" as it's called in 10six) is QUITE possible while you're being attacked. While 10six doesn't have extensive editing capabilities like AW and TRUE level editors, it's a minor preview of what's coming up from games like Neverwinter Nights and already present in Vampire: The Masquerade - Redemption where the level can have elements added and deleted in real-time while other people are playing it.

So get your head out of the sand and learn about these things BEFORE responding to this post and making yourself look even more clueless about the gaming industry.

> shareholders have NO power over AWCI or its management. Please learn about
> things before commenting on them.
>
> "Answer to" does NOT mean power over the running of the company. By
> definition, a shareholder has the power to plummet the company into
> financial ruin and therefore AWCI has a basic responsibility to them. The
> corporation law covering a company is irrelevant to the effect of the
> shareholders actions.

Wrong again. Shareholders have NO power over AWCI--even to the extent of selling all their stock, which AWCI will simply buy back like they have been.

> missed how popular Quake, Half-Life, and other games with level editors are.
> And with more and more multiuser online-only games coming in 2001, AW's
> so-called "market share" will be even more stressed.
>
> To my mind, there is no other product around at the moment that even comes
> close to what AW can offer. Multi-user, online games do not combine AW's
> ability for dynamic content (and lets get this straight ... dynamic meaning
> TOTALLY dynamic, not just a select few supported activities pre-coded into a
> "level" definition such as the destruction of a specific wall or a bridge)
> with the capability for mass usage and interaction. There is no comparison.

There is relative comparison and if you actually had a clue about the other games out there and upcoming ones I've mentioned you'd realize this. AW is pale in comparison to what most level editors can do, so AW's worlds aren't TOTALLY dynamic either.

And learn how to increment reply, newbie.

[View Quote]

Jan 5, 2001, 2:15pm

[View Quote] > Not the same thing at all. Games where you can "level a mountain just by
> shooting at it" have that opportinity predefined within the level. 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.

Good god you're fucking dense, grimble. First of all, AW doesn't even ALLOW shooting, jumping, or most other game environment interactions, so for you to say that AW places no restrictions on the user just shows you're even MORE clueless about AW and 3D games than I thought.

> As for games were you can build ... you can only build those things that are
> supported within the game and interaction with these "objects" is also
> restricted to what is supported within the game. AW provides an environment
> where there are very few rules, and therefore handles any activity in a
> generic manner. 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.

AW public building worlds don't allow building with ANYTHING, as you imply, but impose restrictions on unconvered land, the ground zero building limit radius, whether or not the world has an object registry, eminent domain rights, etc, etc.

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

You forget that AW has hardly any physics, and most 3D games don't have that detailed enough physics, but I'm sure if a 3D bowling game had an "alley/lane editor", the pins could be knocked down from whatever angle the designer wanted.

Stop acting so cluelessly inept and LEARN about things before attempting to communicate about them, eh? God damn.

[View Quote]

Jan 6, 2001, 4:42am

[View Quote] > Oh for F**ks sake......
>
[View Quote] And that's the problem, dipshit: AW ISN'Ta game, which is why it continues to flounder. AW has MUCH potential to be MORE gamelike, but Rick, JP, Roland, et al still don't get it.

> You would be scared of what I know pal!

<yawn> You haven't impressed me so far...

> are
> environment
> supports
> imply, but impose restrictions on unconvered land, the ground zero building
> limit radius, whether or not the world has an object registry, eminent
> domain rights, etc, etc.
>
> You're getting pedantic now ... running out of sound arguments? ... and you
> CAN build with anything ... in your own world. MAKE the object, USE the
> object. Pretty simple to understand I would have thought. What game allows
> you to do that then?

Level editors do, which is basically what AW is.

> due
> AW's
> takes
> certain
> and
> put
> before
> that detailed enough physics, but I'm sure if a 3D bowling game had an
> "alley/lane editor", the pins could be knocked down from whatever angle the
> designer wanted.
>
> Guess what "Here's an example (of the point - don't take it too literally
> regarding AW)" meant? E-X-A-M-P-L-E ... meaning a method of demostrating a
> point and "don't take it too literally regarding AW" meaning not necessarily
> relating to AW ... because is was an E-X-A-M-P-L-E of the P-O-I-N-T.

Well the point wasn't made because the example doesn't apply. <shrug> Back to Argument 101 with you!

Jan 6, 2001, 4:53am

[View Quote] [View Quote] Ah but some games allow for exactly this. While a true deformable level hasn't been made (to my knowledge), some games have deformable elements like blowing up things (buildings, smaller objects, parts of walls, etc), deformable terrain (should see more of it this year), etc. Why do you think saved games are getting bigger? ~1-10MB is common, depending on level file size, of course, but that should show you that not only is your character's position being saved, but positions and states of just about everything else in the level: enemies, animals, movable objects, broken objects, etc, etc. 3D games are getting more and more interactive all the time and that is where I see AW heading if only Rick, JP, and Roland can pull their heads out of their wanna-be "e-commerce" asses and get the picture before a REAL game developer simply does it themself, which is already happening.

>
> 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.

AW isn't as much about chat as it is about creating. I've said it before and I'll say it again: AW is a multiuser level editor--period. But it still needs a lot of improvement before it can be a viable alternative to current 3D game level editors.

>
> 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.

....which can be a game in and of itself! Just look at all the puzzle games that involve moving objects...

> to
>
> 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.

....and vision. Rob Britvich seems to've taken AW's vision with him because Rick, JP, and Roland sure as fuck don't have one for AW--and, no, "e-commerce" is not a vision but simply an overhyped bandwagon catch-phrase that's dying along with the much overhyped .com mania of the past year.

Feb 10, 2001, 1:28am

Uh, the realism movement came AFTER the Renaissance (at least 150 years after it, I might add). Yes, the 20th century had a lot of abstract movements, but in 3D computer graphics, of which AW is most definitely included in, realism is important. Realism doesn't have to mean boring or stagnant. Fantasy worlds can still be realistic in that they are believable, immersive environments. It's common to first introduce the gamer/user into a recognizeable environment (i.e. urban) and then gradually transform that environment into something less recognizeable (as in Half-Life with the aliens gradually populating the game more and more, with the player ending up on an alien world).

The neat thing about realism in AW is that world builders don't HAVE to implement it into their worlds if they don't want to. But to deny more realistic effects to those who are desiring it would be foolish for AW's development.

[View Quote] > I'd like to say something about realism vs abstraction. In art history realism/naturalism had a peek around the renaissance; when brunelleschi et al found out how to make perspective drawings. Since then realism in itself has lost it's position in art, and even in renaissance paintings there are something higher than pure realism; e.g.. how the colors dynamically counterbalance each other etc. The funny thing is that when fine arts on one hand has tried to move away from realism, computer graphics is going to exact opposite way.
>
> In saying this I don't mean that realism in AW is wrong, just that I find it peculiar that so little research/testing is put into more abstract worlds. And if the intention of AW is to compete with html we need to investigate concepts as: representation, abstraction, analogy, metaphor etc.
>
> ps: I think the reflectivity issue is more a renderware feature than an AW feature.
>
[View Quote]

Feb 10, 2001, 3:37pm

[View Quote] >
>
> I agree. My intention was never to say that AW should not implement realistic effects, I was just asking if there are something beyond realism worth exploring for world builders.

People have. Look at the ACCD (whatever it's called) world by that Art Center college; last time I went to it (probably at least a year or so ago) it had some fairly abstract stuff in it. I like making things look realistic because I feel realism is much more of a challenge than abstractism. It's easy to make something UNbelievable (unrealistic; just look at all the rehashed, overdone computer/video games involving aliens, demons, beasts, monsters, and other nonsensical crap) but it's much harder to make something believable (realistic).

> I want AW to evolve to something more than just "a fun place to chat and build", but then people need to explore how to clarify the "rules". And I think the rules in your website are a lot clearer than the rules in your world(s) (eg. symbols for download/screenshot etc.)

Rules? In my website and world? What do you mean?

Feb 10, 2001, 6:22pm

[View Quote] [View Quote] Usefulness is relative. Entertainment is useful. 3D (VR) has been used for years in architecture, object modelling (cars, industrial design, etc), and of course gaming. The holodeck is the next step, then a neural interface to simulate memories without the need for a physical environment (ala holodeck, VR peripherals, etc).

> Will this be how we explore the web in the future? I for one hope so.

Perhaps; I have a similar vision on my AW page (http://tnlc.com/eep/aw/) but it's somewhat vague. I'm just interested in getting an easy-to-use, intuitive 3D "level editor" (worldbuilder, whatever) so I can create my own 3D gamelike environments with a LOT of interaction, realism, and immersiveness, without having to learn programming or deal with clunky, unintuitive, badly-programmed current level editors and 3D modellers.

> PS: I like the "new" eep, but how long will it last?

As long as it suites me; don't question it.

> I bet you are just dying to flame me, aren't you?

<twitch> Must...resist...temptation...to flame...<twitch>

Dec 16, 2000, 5:43pm

I agree. This might require totally rewriting the action command system (which is LONG overdue), but I say go for it.

[View Quote] > In the "in world modeling" spirit of eep, if we could get direct controll over the script (like in the web window), it would be a lot easier to experiment with prelight, surface, free rotate etc...anyway I'm not sure if this is the way to go but I think modeling/building should be where the resources are put after 3.1 is finished.

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