1  ...  13  14  15  16  17  18  ...  28  |   Order by default

Jan 11, 2003, 4:38pm

Read the thread Andras mentions ... Brant states that the non-inclusion of
such an option was down purely to a desire to release the bot without any
further scope creep ... and is to be included in an impending version.

The words "teacup" and "tempest" spring to mind. I don't know why Andras saw
fit to brand the s/w "spyware" where as a simple "btw, please note this
application will 'call home' as part of the auto-upgrade facility ... view
any perceived security risks as you see fit" would surely have sufficed
inplace of the rant he did post.

Perhaps a new piece of text on your download page would be appropriate
Brant? .... something like "if you're prohibitively paranoid, don't download
this!!"

Grims

[View Quote]

Feb 7, 2003, 8:52am

Blocked sender more like.

[View Quote]

May 21, 2003, 9:13am

can you two spell B O T S ??? Shut up will ya!

[View Quote]

Jun 18, 2006, 7:09am

I think a more considered, less sarcastic response would have been more
appropriate here.

People have bought citizenships and world licenses based on what
Activeworlds and the SDK did before the forced upgrade ... and the
combination of the changes brought in with 4.1 has clearly moved the
goalposts for many. Now even the design of existing SDK applications needs
to be readdressed because of changes in the platform.

Bearing in mind the level of communication and documentation from AWI
relating to 4.1, I think this type of complaint is only to be expected.
Clearly very few people knew what was coming and the impact it would have on
existing projects or new projects.

Grims

[View Quote]

Jun 18, 2006, 7:06pm

No, I don't think we do agree. My reply was to Cryonic's post. I think HIS
reply should have been more considered and less sarcastic, and I think
complaints such as Strike's are only to be expected.

Whilst I believe that we now have to deal with what we've been dealt and try
to move forward from the position we find ourselves in, I also find it
inconceivable how the heck we got to this position in the first place. If
I'd had a vested interest other than a citizenship before the upgrade,
expecting 3.6 + the new 4.1 features, I'd have the right 'ump now as well,
especially with the operational changes in and lack of any documentation for
the SDK.

I don't necessarily condone broadcasting complaints, but its astonishing
that Cryonics should respond in that manner and, to me, its out of line.

[View Quote]

Jun 20, 2006, 11:38am

"potential or possible" = "I wonder what's the best way to do it"
"very difficult, if not impossible" = a challenge!

[View Quote] > "presently existing in fact and not merely potential or possible"

Jul 6, 2006, 12:49pm

The only reasons I can see for 4.1 versions of bots not being available are
(a) the original developer is not available to recompile/release a new
version or (b) its reliant on the COM wrapper and the developer is waiting
for the 4.1 version.

I think Xelagots fall into (a), but if its (b) it seems that the best way to
deal with it would be for all these people to ask AW very nicely to release
an interim COM wrapper - one that can connect to the 4.1 universe but to 3.6
spec.

Then people can get their worlds back how they were before this forced
migration.

[View Quote]

Jul 27, 2006, 8:44am

I'm hitting this now. The instance isn't being informed of bots already in
the area when it enters. Other instances (that arrive subsequently) are
reported OK though.


[View Quote]

Nov 15, 2000, 3:58pm

Just a thought. Don't know much about dynamic IP allocation (except that it
seems that in the UK no-one - cable, ADSL, etc. - will give you a fixed IP
address without a leased line - in my area anyway) but ....

If you ban a dynamic IP address, theoretically aren't you banning someone
later who hasn't one anything wrong (i.e. the NEXT person allocated that IP
on dialup) ????

Grims


[View Quote]

Nov 17, 2000, 7:57am

I totally agree with zero.

By giving your password/privileges to other people, you are effectively
letting them operate in AW as you. If you DO give out your password, then
its your choice. If you own the world, then give them the privileges
outright. If you don't, then morally you shouldn't do it because YOU have
been given the rights by the world owner - and not your "friend" - because
he/she trusted YOU.

The only valid reason for using the privilege passwords that I can see is if
YOU want to host bots. How many people out there share e-mail and ISP
passwords?

Grims.


[View Quote]

Nov 18, 2000, 7:07pm

At the end of the day, the reason for chaning a password (when not forced to
by the server/software) is BECAUSE it has been compromised, so yes, the
change should become effective immediately. How "easy" this would be to
implement is another matter since the I would imagine that the security
"features" of AW are only appear to be utilised at login-time. Having said
that, there is always a solution, just not always a pretty one.

Grims

[View Quote]

Nov 15, 2000, 9:38am

Just one thing..... Flying.

Recently I've spent a lot of time "on the road" and therefore have been
using a laptop. As ppl may know, the number pad keys are a little awkward to
get to on a laptop (usually needing a "function key" of some kind and a key
in the middle of the keyboard some where.

What would be nice is alternative keys for flying .... on the standard
keyboard somewhere.

I know that would have made my life somewhat easier over the past 6 months.

Grims

Nov 16, 2000, 12:57pm

Awwww c.mon. Its obvious what the scroll lock key used for.

"Scroll Lock" is short for "Turn on/off Scroll Lock light on keyboard".
Duh! lolol

Grims

[View Quote]

Nov 16, 2000, 4:35pm

was there any text with this or am I just to impatient for it to download?



[View Quote]

Nov 17, 2000, 8:02am

I like the gravity/non-gravity idea. Trying to maintain a fixed position in
"space" to overlook something (like your building) is a pain.

Grims

[View Quote]

Nov 17, 2000, 8:03am

Perhaps it is a secret ... ??

Grims

[View Quote]

Nov 18, 2000, 7:03pm

Eep, I would imagine, from the name you make for yourself (no offense), that
hosting such a central "feature request" list on your site might not be the
most productive (and I believe I've already shared my views on these
"petitions".

Isn't the reason for this NG to put forward new ideas?

Just a thought.

Grims

[View Quote]

Nov 18, 2000, 7:37pm

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

Grims

[View Quote]

Nov 19, 2000, 8:33am

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.

Grims.


[View Quote]

Nov 17, 2000, 7:44am

What would you suggest AW do to check whether an e-mail address is free?
They aren't going to keep track of EVERY e-mail host in the world are they?
One of the ISPs I use is free (ex-call charges). Does that count?

Grims

[View Quote]

Nov 17, 2000, 8:07am

Since its a wishlist, Roland only really needs to read the posts. I think he
responds sometimes to discuss some items, but at the end of the day, one the
idea has been put down in writing, there's no need to respond to them. Its
just a suggestion box.

I am sure Roland appreciates the input. He's not a child.

Grims.

[View Quote]

Nov 18, 2000, 7:08pm

Anyone got any idea WTF this was for? This is getting silly now.

Grims

[View Quote]

Nov 18, 2000, 7:35pm

.... and i'll be right behind ya wing.

Grims

[View Quote]

Nov 21, 2000, 5:17pm

Unless I am missing something somewhere in the options and help files, an
option NOT to upgrade to a different major version would be nice (like where
2.2 keeps prompting to upgrade and it upgrades to the 3.0 beta. Just plain
annoying that).

Some indication of which version/build you would be upgrading to would be
nice too.

Grims

[View Quote]

Dec 4, 2000, 8:54am

So effectively (for your own purposes anyway - if no-one visits your area)
you can add new objects that you (and anyone else you distribute the
objects/textures to) can use even to AlphaWorld?

Could be fun (!), but I can see that things may get a little out of hand if
everyone who is just "playing" in AlphaWorld starts to do this. Breaks the
concepts of what AW is really.

Grims.


[View Quote]

Dec 28, 2000, 11:18am

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.

Grims

[View Quote]

Dec 29, 2000, 3:41pm

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.

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.

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).

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

Grims



[View Quote]

Jan 4, 2001, 6:53pm

Geesh ... here we go again ...

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

I believe, if you read this point properly, I say that a COMPLETED AW world
EQUATES to a predefined gaming level - i.e. AW has a broader scope than that
of the level editor. If the environment is "fixed" such as in gaming levels
(quake, half-life, etc.), then the overall rules of that "level" are fixed
and only certain, supported activities have any interactive effect. Creating
a "level" for something like a game would be the same as building your world
off-line and uploading it like a web-page. With AW, you create the
environment whilst interacting with it ... big difference.

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

See above. AW doesn't just allow the creation of worlds. AW allows the
real-time maintenance of the worlds, whilst everyone is interacting with it
.... a bit like having someone trying to play a quake level while you were
still creating it. If you take this feature away, then you have a level
editor, BUT this is clearly one of the core concepts of AW and therefore,
public building wouldn't be possible.

> 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.

"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.

> 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.

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.

Grims



[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.

Jan 4, 2001, 7:27pm

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.

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.

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.

Grims



[View Quote] I've seen games where you could level a mountain just by shooting at it.
I've seen games where you could build structures while playing, whole army
bases, and shoot them to pieces. You can even play them multiplayer. And
they all ran faster than AW. Now tell me how the "worlds" of those games are
more fixed than those in AW?

Jan 5, 2001, 12:28pm

OK, I take your points, but I look on the two scenarios as different -
especially the "mission packs" point since this, to me, demonstrates my
point. "Mission packs" are basically additional pre-defined scenarios that
the game can run. They don't relate to going in to other worlds in AW, since
the same abilities are available in other worlds as in the original. You can
change them dynamically from from any location. I know exactly what I mean,
but I seem to be having a problem articulating it ... sorry. I still see
vast differences between the scope of AW and those of an environment
tailored to specific environments (such as games with massive level
definitions).

In terms of my views on AW ... the concepts behind AW are so much more
generic than anything else we have been discussing here. Sophistication
isn't the point, its the capabilities that the product allows over the
alternatives that set AW aside. The "rules" that AW applies to its worlds
are far less restrictive than those in games. The two sets of rules are
focussed on different subjects. As I was saying to Eep, in my view, the 3D
game environment that people compare AW to equates to a completed and
published world. With the lack of an ability to state/script specific
actions within an object definition for AW to the extent that is afforded to
games programmers who are writing a specific game, AW falls behind in
functionality and interaction whilst still having to follow the same
processing. BUT is not the key point I have been trying to make ... which
was that level editors create predefined environments (and new/updated
environments which manifest themselves as your "mission packs") for a game.
These environments are interacted with by the game itself ... but NOT while
the level is being built. That is the focus of the game concept ... there's
always a theme and a set of rules which relate to that theme, whereas AW is
an attempt at a kind of "global interaction". I basically see no comparison
because there is no theme defined for AW at all - no related
rules/assumption. What games don't have to worry about is someone coming
along and unexpectedly MOVING the walls of the U-Boat you're navigating. If
they move because someone has pressed a button, then there is specific code
to make the walls move in which is then executed within each of the
instances of the game to which it is relevant. AW allows much, much, much
lower-level activities than that. AW is aimed at mimicing the core
activities within a "virtual world", not the instigation of predefined
action.

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

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

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

Grims.




[View Quote]

1  ...  13  14  15  16  17  18  ...  28  |   Order by default