1  ...  18  19  20  21  22  23  ...  28  |   Order by default

Nov 16, 2000, 6:24am

Thanks Eep. No time right now, but its duly bookmarked.

[View Quote]

Nov 16, 2000, 12:53pm

Actually, that IS a much better link. Exactly what people need for the job.
Makes a change to find precisely what you are looking for instead of trying
to scrape the info together from multiple sources.

Thanks again.

Grims

[View Quote]

Nov 17, 2000, 3:27pm

Hey, the guy has a point.

For example, there's a post in the SDK newgroup that is HTML (Re:Stumped(was
Re: need a little help please)) and its 11K !!!! - and its just cut/pasted
VB code from the guy's bot.

Grims


[View Quote]

Nov 18, 2000, 6:52pm

Eep, sorry to have to point this out to you, but you are as bad as the rest
of us as just walking away from points like this.

All it achieves is losing the original point on the post (assuming there was
one lol)

Grims


[View Quote]

Nov 19, 2000, 8:25am

It would be much better if you didn't use those words in the first place.

Grims

[View Quote] ok me calm down now me cross out bad words yah

Nov 19, 2000, 2:21pm

Ooohh...... Eep.

I was just levelling the playing field a bit. You made the "off-topic" point
in your FIRST post on this thread.

Don't start on me "sport", because I make sure now that I am not picking on,
targeting or being unfair (in my view) to YOU. All my posts in response to
yours are exactly what I would say to your face. You are NOT being picked on
here.

WAKE UP MAN !

[View Quote]

Nov 19, 2000, 8:28am

No *snore*


[View Quote] lol the boards on my site have just been dead hehe it was an advertising
gimmick lol (did it work?)

Nov 22, 2000, 4:14pm

Derek, he wasn't talking to you, mate.

If you keep misreading the tree, they're gonna flame ya again. You know it.

Grims


[View Quote]

Nov 20, 2000, 8:02am

Are there any other AW related newsgroups - outside of activeworlds.com?

Grims

Nov 22, 2000, 5:28pm

Any chance of a link berserker? I'd like to check it out.

Thanks,

Grims

[View Quote]

Nov 22, 2000, 5:51pm

Sorry ... I got in there before the next sync after your message.

Grims

[View Quote]

Nov 30, 2000, 3:28am

He wants you to e-mail him, dopey.


[View Quote] i will

Dec 2, 2000, 6:21am

Thankyou.

[View Quote]

Dec 2, 2000, 6:33am

Seems like a good point to raise this ...

For those who want to use laptops, are looking to get a new one in the next
3-6 months and don't know already, nVidia are (apparently) currently
mass-producing GeForce2Go ... a laptop G2Force2 card. They claim it will be
available in OEM during the first half of 2001.

I think Dell are an OEM partner of nVidia, so the machines should be at a
reasonable price/quality too.

http://www.nvidia.com/products/geforce2go.nsf

Grims.



[View Quote]

Dec 8, 2000, 11:06am

But the post is nearly a MEGABYTE !!! So even if I was interested (although
I have no idea from the subject what it is anyway), I wouldn't wait for it
to download.

Grims (on a crappy dialup !)

[View Quote]

Dec 13, 2000, 7:58am

I think its more likely that Juno was a priority to get up and running early
if there is a commercial agreement between them and AW.

Probably nothing more sinister than that.

Grims


[View Quote]

Dec 14, 2000, 1:57pm

On top of that, there is usually some level of assumption by a central
server regarding the client software being used against it where the client
is supplied by the author of that server. If the browser is changed, you
could be putting some of these assumptions at risk with unknown consequences
(because, as is the nature of assumptions, they are accepted as safe
processing paths).

Where this fits within the term "illegal" is a little cloudy, but putting
remote components at risk through unauthorised amendment of client software
(no matter how trivial the change may seem at first) is tantamount to the
sabotage of the server too - and, if taken to extremes, that effects
everyone. I think we're all aware of what happens if the server get's
corrupted/unavailable.

Just my thoughts.

Grims


[View Quote]

Dec 14, 2000, 7:13pm

I don't really see that a cracked browser is necessarily an "enhanced"
browser. Fixing what may seem like simple, irritating little things like
only being able to have a single instance of a browser up at any one time
might seem useful to people, but its like that for a reason. You have to go
out of your way to make it do that (although its only a couple of lines of
code) and yet it seems to be the most quoted "benefit" of these browsers.

Despite what people like to think in these newgroups, AWCI won't be out to
make the user's life difficult and I'm pretty sure they don't put things
into the browser just because they feel like it. Hence ... there's a reason
for it.

Grims.


[View Quote]

Dec 17, 2000, 12:42pm

Mind reader !!!

[View Quote] OH please The Derek, get lost, lol. I don't want to read your crap again,
geez...

Dec 28, 2000, 11:18am

But it won't eject a bot that QUERIES GZ. You don't have to query the nine
sectors surrounding the bot's position.

Grims


[View Quote] AlphaWorld will eject a bot that comes close enough to GZ.

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]

Jan 5, 2001, 4:48pm

Well said.

Grims



[View Quote]

Jan 5, 2001, 4:37pm

Oh for F**ks sake......

[View Quote] Where do I say AW CAN do that, dopey? Read the f**king text and try to
UNDERSTAND what people are saying. AW IS NOT GAME! Can you get that into
your thick skull? You would be scared of what I know pal!

>
are
environment
supports
>
> 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.

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?

>
due
AW's
takes
certain
and
put
before
>
> 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.

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.


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

Not even going to bother with this one. You are now back on the filter list
and told to F**K OFF.

>
army
are
>

Jan 5, 2001, 4:52pm

Sorry ... I hadn't noticed this had made it over to this NG.

[View Quote]

Apr 2, 2001, 7:07pm

Anti-sensorship? Geesh!

Why should Eep have the right to abuse people just because he holds
different views to them? This thread, and the others like it that have
cropped up recently, are all about Eeps lack of respect for OTHER people's
right to free speech. That's when people forfeit their own rights ... like
when criminals bet banged up in jail for adversely affecting other people's
lives.

People hide behind the internet like this because its safe. Its pathetic and
runs the danger of spawning a generation of over-opinionated, gutless idiots
who can only express themselves in such a non-confrontational environment.
Eep is simply the most affected person that most of us (that can lead a
functional life in the real world) have experienced so far. The link that
Andras has taken to posting onto these threads (heh heh ... nice one Andras)
about Eeps exploits in other newsgroups indicates to me FAR too much time
spent staring at a screen to express his opinions instead of facing the
world and standing up for his beliefs. Its f**king sad! REALLY f**king sad!

Everyone has the ability to filter Eep if they wish, but that's like moving
home to avoid noisy neighbours. It shouldn't be our problem to sort out ...
its his problem and if need be, he should be restricted from affecting other
people's lives in this way!!

Anti-censorship is idealistic crap ... and it takes a VERY weak-minded
person to need to feel the need to hide behind that for a little validation.

Sorry it had to be your post I latched on to, Wing. Its the culmination of
ploughing through endless threads of "twitf**kwit" garbage from a lowlife.
As far as I am concerned you put yourself out there to be shot at by
bringing such a subjective topic into an unadulterated flame war.

Grims



[View Quote]

Apr 2, 2001, 9:38pm

[View Quote]
> Same reason everyone else is allowed to abuse Eep for not agreeing with
him.

I think you'll find that's a consequence of his actions ... not people
exercising their rights to abuse him. Like shooting back at the guy shooting
at you.


>
> Uhhhhhhhhhh? Since when is discrediting those that don't agree with you in
> any way possible a crime? Please, lets not overcrowd the prisons more
until
> we take over Iraq and turn it into what Australia used to be.

You missed the analogy, Wing. "Like" ... regarding forfeit of rights.


>
> and
> idiots
> environment.
>
> Okay, what generation are you referring to? The internet really only
became
> what it is in the 1990's, making today's middle and high school students
the
> only ones developmentally influenced by it. Being one myself, I can tell
> you, you're lucky if you can get ANY opinions out of most of us, and as
far
> as being able to express themselves in a non-confrontational environment,
> the class wuss has disappeared. Simply because we haven't been raised in
the
> Utopia our parents presented, a sexless, viiolence free world where all
> humans are paper cutouts and therefore there is no race, no religion, no
> NOTHING to differentiate between groups with, doesn't make us defects, but
> it sure as hell assures that there aren't going to be many wusses coming
> into the world unable to make decisions for themselves.

Actually I totally disagree. From what I can see of that generation (partly
due to them being given rights they can't handle thanks to that monstrosity
called "Political Correctness"), too many believe that they are prepared for
making decisions for themselves. That combined with the internet is a recipe
for disaster in my eyes. Despite your apparent animosity towards your
parent's generation, remember that these are the people who started WW2 and
ran with it for 6 years ... and we all know what started that, so don't slag
off what you don't know and apply juvenile stereotypes. The diversity was
there, but they didn't have the benefit of the experience of their older
generations like you guys do. You should be thankful that that generation
learned the lessons the hard way for you ... and respect them for it.

Besides, again, I thought I was clear when I used the term "runs the danger
of spawning" rather than the incorrect "will spawn". Calm down ... there's
no spite here LOL.

Apr 2, 2001, 9:48pm

[View Quote] Cool ... more to comment on LOL


> Andras)
time
> sad!
>
> It doesn't matter how much time he spends staring at a computer screen, it
> makes him no lower than you or I.

Ya see, it all ties in with the lack of social skills. Interaction with real
people rather than words on a screen and other players in games (a) isn't
natural and (b) creates people like Eep who, as I said, hide behind their
keyboard. What accountability is there? If you treat someone like Eep does
face-to-face, when you have NO idea who they are or what they're like, you
stand a good chance of getting pummelled! Big deal hiding behind a computer.


> ...
> Bad analogy. Yes, it SHOULD be our problem to sort out, some people have
the
> common sense to weed out the flames and pick out the good part, kind of
like
> eating a lemon, unless you're REALLY weird, you don't eat the outer parts
> (not sure what you'd call it). But you don't ask the fruit distributor to
> peel them for you.

And you accuse ME of a bad analogy LOL. Although comparing Eep to a lemon
makes me smile.


> Call me names all you want, but censorship makes weaker minded people than
> myself. I seek no form of approval, I'd be perfectly happy if I were in
the
> position of all the world's evil dictators combined-everyone hates me, so
> what.

Wasn't aimed at you ... or anyone in particular. You're far too touchy
(which kinda helps make my point about surviving in the real world).


> bringing such a subjective topic into an unadulterated >flame war.
> Getting shot at doesn't scare me, we all hafta die sometime...

LOL ... no answer to that.

That's it from me on this (unless someone goes for my throat LOL).

Grims

1  ...  18  19  20  21  22  23  ...  28  |   Order by default