|
|
bowen // User Search
bowen // User Search
Dec 22, 2002, 12:48am
[View Quote]"technozeus" <TechnoZeus at techie.com> wrote in message
news:3e05270c$2 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Most be a bother to be so easily annoyed. Hang in there... you'll survive it. :)
|
Apparently he wasn't the only one...
--Bowen--
4/30 something isn't bad though consider most post rarely.
Dec 23, 2002, 1:17am
[View Quote]"technozeus" <TechnoZeus at techie.com> wrote in message
news:3e058e93$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> It's okay. You'll survive it too. :)
|
I didn't really care, it just gets annoying and unsightly.
--Bowen--
Dec 23, 2002, 2:02am
[View Quote]"technozeus" <TechnoZeus at techie.com> wrote in message
news:3e0689ce$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Unsightly, yes... but not annoying, if you consider what reasons there may be. At
least, not annoying to me. :·)
|
Annoying yes, I was referring to yours not his. I thought that's what Maki said and
I concured with, unless I implied that as well...
--Bowen--
Dec 24, 2002, 3:26am
[View Quote]"strike rapier" <strike at rapiercom.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3e07ece7 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> [Kilo, Mega, Giga, Terra, Exo] Bytes
|
I am pretty sure there's only one r in tera. Doesn't terra mean earth?
--Bowen--
Dec 25, 2002, 1:40am
[View Quote]"ananas" <vha at oct31.de> wrote in message news:3E08BFBA.3577201 at oct31.de...
> Could you please give Shamus a P1/133 for Christmas,
> best with WinNT4 - so he can test on "slightly" outdated
> PCs that are nevertheless still very commonly used?
|
LoL, let's all pitch in $1 and we should have enough if most of us do it.
--Bowen--
Dec 25, 2002, 3:22am
[View Quote]"sk8man1" <Gzanone at optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3e09403c at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Would it be possible to add whispers and console messages to a log in
> the world server... It would make a lot of things easier in some worlds
> where we need to be able to see what's going on or proof for things that
> went on. Only the world server log, not available for the public...
|
Mmm.. bots with certain privilages would be able to monitor those things I think.
Maybe not though.
--Bowen--
Dec 26, 2002, 9:40pm
[View Quote]"swe" <sweAT at swe-eDOT.com> wrote in message news:3e0b8fe7 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> wouldnt it be better if 0 is looking down, and 180 is looking up?
|
Yeah, it would.
--Bowen--
Dec 27, 2002, 2:04am
[View Quote]"technozeus" <TechnoZeus at techie.com> wrote in message
news:3e0bd0b1$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> No different to me. The way I understood the original post was that 45 would mean
45 degrees down, whereas straight down would be 90 degrees, and straight up would
be -90 degrees. Upside down and backward would be 180 or -180 degrees. This idea of
looking level being set at 0 degrees and straight down being 90 degrees seems to me
no more or less intuitive than looking level being 90 degrees and straight down being
0 degrees, but looking level being at 0 degrees and 90 degrees being straight down
does fit in better with a standard used in trigonometry.
|
It doesn't look like that according to his post. It sounds like he was just saying
135 was straight up and 45 was straight down. But he didn't specify what "looking
down" was so it could either be directly or at an angle.
--Bowen--
Dec 26, 2002, 8:49pm
[View Quote]"strike rapier" <strike at rapiercom.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3e0b7c04 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> about a million times...
>
> Oi Shamus, get to it plz. lol
|
I'd rather not have more bugs. :P
--Bowen--
Dec 31, 2002, 4:53pm
Althought this would kill older computers, we need it. Maybe an option between object
origin or radius visability. :)
--Bowen--
[View Quote]"technozeus" <TechnoZeus at techie.com> wrote in message
news:3e11c5ca$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> When an uncached object's origin or rotation point first eneters visibility range
and the object is loaded and rendered, the size and orientation of that object's
bounding box should also be cached. This way, while an uncached object is considered
out of visibility range as long as it's origin is out of visibility range, a cached
object could be concidered within visibility range whenever any part of it's bounding
box is within visibility range, or perhaps better yet when it's origin is within the
object's radius of the visibility range. The object's radius, in this sense, would
the the distance from the object's origin to the corner of it's bounding box that is
farthest from it's origin. This calculation would only have to be done once, when
the object is cached, and then saved for use in calculating whether or not the cached
object is within visibility range.
>
> I think this would be a good compromise between the performance of origin based
visibility range detection and the increased realism of bounding box based visibility
range detection. Once cached, a large object would no longer suddenly pop in or out
of visibility right in front of you. For example, at 200 meters visability a ball
with a 190 meter radius and it's origin at it's center currently apears only when
it's surface is about 10 meter from you or closer and vanishes when it's surface is
just over 10 meters away from you.
>
> In the case of the example ball with a 190 meter radius (the actual radius, of the
ball's surface, not the "object's radius" as I previously defined), by allowing the
bounding box to be used for visibility range calculations on cached objects, the ball
would still not first apear until it's surface gets within about 10 meters of you,
but once it has been loaded and cached that huge ball would no longer vanish and
reapear at such a close distance.
>
> Even better yet would be to use a definition of "object's radius" (or a bounding
box radius) that would be a single scalar number representing the distance that
should be added to the visibility range for the specific object without regard to the
object's orientation to assure that the cached object will never be treated as out of
visability range while any part of that object would be "in" visability range.
>
> I figure the non-orientation-dependent aproach would be best because it requires
less calculation to determine if a cached object is in visability range than an
oriented bounding box aproach, and because a large object suddenly bocomming visable
or invisable at close range would be about as obvious if it's tall or wide and set
back in the view as if a narrow face of the object was turned toward you placing that
smaller surface much closer.
>
> Calculating the radius of an object's bounding box as the length of a line from
it's origin to the farthest corner from it's origin at the time the object is first
loaded, and then adding this "object radius" to the visibility range for the cached
object would bring small cached objects (such as a meter or less in radius) into view
only slightly sooner than uncached objects, and so should not have a great impact on
performance, but would have a profound positive effect on the level of realism that
could be achieved.
>
> TechnoZeus
>
>
|
Dec 31, 2002, 11:22pm
[View Quote]"technozeus" <TechnoZeus at techie.com> wrote in message
news:3e123ded$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Actually, it wouldn't kill older computers at all. On the contrary, if properly
used it would actually increase performance. Here's why... Right now, the existance
of a few large objects in the average world makes it necessary to have a visibility
range that is quite a bit larger than what would be needed with the radius based
augmentation. Therefore, with that augmentation in place, the smaller objects could
be given a slightly smaller visability range. Since they are harder to see at a
distance and often obscured by larger objects such as the house they may have been
placed in, smaller objects having a few meters less visability range would generally
not even be noticed, but rendering a small object usually has almost the same
performance impact as rendering a larger object of equal complexity so there would
most likely be a performance gain.
|
It would either kill frames per second or the processor power. Depending on which
approach you're going to take. But it'd only have to do it once per cache so I guess
it could work but would definately take a huge rework of the current cache system.
--Bowen--
Jan 5, 2003, 4:22pm
The caretaker is not necesarilly running the bot. Maybe someone found out his PPW
and is using it to log bots into his world invisibly to change things? Global mode
bots should still be able to see them.
--Bowen--
Jan 5, 2003, 4:23pm
[View Quote]"strike rapier" <strike at rapiercom.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3e18705b at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> I meant because where would the AVATAR_X, AVATAR_Y, AVATAR_Z, AVATAR_TILT,
> AVATAR_ROLL, AVATAR_YAW, come from, as well as session targeting for
> commands such as aw_whisper, aw_console_msg, etc
|
They'd be NULL, wouldn't they? As far as I'm aware, every bot is given a session as
soon as they connect.
--Bowen--
Jan 5, 2003, 11:31pm
> Besides, they would only be visible to bots logged into global mode. It could even
be made into another world option, if the prospect is that disconcerting to you.
I could see a battle of bots with the invisible one disabling that when it enters
then the global one enabling it. It'd be funny. Then it goes into an endless loop
and the universe (the real one) collapses. Oh no! Ahh! Sorry... too much ketchup
today.
--Bowen--
Jan 7, 2003, 12:07am
What AW should really do is rework world administration to be soley browser based on
the citnumber that originally purchased the world. Have a list of server side
options, propdump, atdump, elevdump, caretaker addition in the browser and based on
the users credentials as the owner of the world. Also have an option for others that
should have access to this list, a super caretaker if you will. Then completely
remove host-side caretaker ability as well as the power to "whipe" the world. This
should "fix" some of the problems people have with wayword hosts.
Would be a nice addition to 3.5.
--Bowen--
Jan 7, 2003, 12:10am
[View Quote]"bowen" <thisguyrules at 7k2.4mg.com.ANTISPAM> wrote in message
news:3e1a3672$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> What AW should really do is rework world administration to be soley browser based
on
> the citnumber that originally purchased the world. Have a list of server side
> options, propdump, atdump, elevdump, caretaker addition in the browser and based on
> the users credentials as the owner of the world. Also have an option for others
that
> should have access to this list, a super caretaker if you will. Then completely
> remove host-side caretaker ability as well as the power to "whipe" the world. This
> should "fix" some of the problems people have with wayword hosts.
|
In addition, still allow the host to make dumps, just not whipe... don't confuse me
liberalism with taking that power away. Loading would be another story but you
shouldn't be tampering with a world without the owners permission. And if the owner
gave the super caretaker to the host, then they could.
But then some hosts will require you to give them super caretaker, so, find one that
doesn't. :) (future 3.5 wishlist feature advice)
--Bowen--
Jan 7, 2003, 8:10pm
[View Quote]"technozeus" <TechnoZeus at techie.com> wrote in message
news:3e1afe02$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> In the Active Worlds Server Administration Tool...
> Click Server --> Edit...
> Then enter the name of the world, and the Host, Port, and Password fields will be
available.
> Set the host address, and the port for that world.
> Give it the password that's in the remote world server's world.ini file.
> Let me know how it works out.
|
Hosters usually don't host one world. Setting up multiple servers just allow access
to that is a pain in the ass. Especially when the hoster needs to administrate it in
case of an emergancy.
--Bowen--
Jan 7, 2003, 9:44pm
[View Quote]"shred" <shred at myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:3e1b651f at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> I probably did: I have seen the term "nuking" often used to describe DoS attacks,
but that is used in a different group of people
|
Or a fission/fusion/microwave/x-ray reaction?
--Bowen--
Jan 8, 2003, 12:05am
> Well, yes, but that would make me think of a microwave oven, and I didn't think
that Strike meant that the bots could be microwaved the death once they showed
themselves. It's an interesting idea, though. ^_^
One could only wish they could microwave his bots...
--Bowen--
Jan 9, 2003, 7:28pm
[View Quote]"technozeus" <TechnoZeus at techie.com> wrote in message
news:3e1de726$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Huh?
|
Doing what you just said would give a user access to the hosters entire server, which
means administrative access to every world on that server. So the hoster would need
to set up seperate servers for each person.
--Bowen--
Jan 18, 2003, 3:04pm
[View Quote]"kah" <kah at kahnews.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9307B33FAEAD7kahatkahnewsdotcjbdo at 64.94.241.201...
> "technozeus" <TechnoZeus at techie.com> wrote in
> news:3e28d7a3 at server1.Activeworlds.com:
>
>
> Now you're talking Jacob-lingo in French, dude ;-)) It's not too bad until
> "de votre naissance" (though not correctly built).
|
Translates good though.
--Bowen--
Jan 20, 2003, 8:52pm
[View Quote]"strike rapier" <strike at rapiercom.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3e2c7ab9 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Because Infinity is beyond human contemplation and im just being interesting
|
int x = 0;
while (x<-1)
{ cout << x++ << endl; }
Certainly you can never reach infinity but I can contemplate it pretty well. And end
without actually ending; basically just meaning endless.
--Bowen--
Jan 20, 2003, 8:52pm
Whoops x > -1... my bad.
--Bowen--
Jan 17, 2003, 6:29pm
[View Quote]"strike rapier" <strike at rapiercom.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3e285fc2 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> I thought that was already possable by setting them to zero in the CT
> ejections box?
>
> - Mark
> "ncc 71854" <NCC-71854 at USS-Venture.Starfleet.UFP> wrote in message
> news:3e2856b5 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
|
Isn't it possible to get a 0 for that number?
I've had 0's for one of the numbers before, I can't remember which.
--Bowen--
Jan 20, 2003, 8:38pm
> lol...grr
>
> I mean the following:
>
> Data storage (information from chat commands)
> Whisper
> Say
> Teleport
>
> Avatar Add
> Avatar Delete
> Avatar Change
> Avatar Click
>
> just so people can make RPGs w/o bots, etc.
Explain what you mean by this in specifics.
--Bowen--
Jan 19, 2003, 9:57pm
[View Quote]"jstone2004" <j at jlife.net> wrote in message
news:3e2b3a9c$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> I wish that the SDK was safe with threads, and that a linux SDK would be
> created for those of us who use linux servers :-)
|
I still don't understand why you need multithreading for a bot. :P
--Bowen--
Jan 19, 2003, 10:41pm
[View Quote]"jstone2004" <j at jlife.net> wrote in message news:3e2b3ff8 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> *shrugs*
|
Well find out! :P
--Bowen--
Jan 19, 2003, 10:59pm
[View Quote]"jstone2004" <j at jlife.net> wrote in message
news:3e2b4735$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> I am making a scheduling system with long running tasks, threads are the
> only way to do that. You see, I could write 1,000 lines of threads, or
> 10,000 lines of codes without threads... Which seems more economic?
|
Ergonomic. :P
Well, if you can't get the SDK to work with multithreading you have no other choice
but to implement that 10,000 line system.
--Bowen--
Jan 19, 2003, 11:38pm
[View Quote]"jstone2004" <j at jlife.net> wrote in message
news:3e2b4ca4$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> incorrect, the only other alternative is to do everything with separate
> processes, which would be about 4,000 lines per 1000 threads. But, it would
> still be good to get the sdk threadsafe, and not that hard either
|
Explain to me how I'm incorrect when I'm restating exactly what you said? You said
10,000 and I assume you meant 400,000, you could've been more exact on your example.
1000 threads is insane for an AW bot, kind of wasteful. You're not writing a
webserver here.
--Bowen--
Jan 21, 2003, 12:04am
[View Quote]"jstone2004" <j at jlife.net> wrote in message
news:3e2ca504$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> but since it's not safe with threads...?
|
Doesn't mean it won't work. It's just not well designed for it and you'll probably
end up losing events here and there.
--Bowen--
|
