1  ...  6  7  8  9  10  |   Order by default

Nov 9, 2004, 11:50am

IF they sold it as a having "good graphics" (as in good _3d_ graphics,
the _2d_ performance of all onboard chips sold today is in fact very
good and across the market all the same even for cards...), then, yes,
you can expect an AGP graphic card - and not an AGP-capable onboard chip
with shared memory like the Intel one.

The problem here is that most people define "good graphics" not in terms
of "good graphics in 3d games" and also, a graphic card costing an EXTRA
100-200$ will cause an immediate heart attack for most customers who
want to pay 200$ for a fully equipped machine <g>.

For a machine that you can use for 3d games during the next 3 years, you
have currently to plan on spending ca. 700-1000$, an office machine with
limited 3d capability and mostly used for writing letters or internet
browsing will come for a mere 200$, though. :-)


[View Quote]

Nov 9, 2004, 12:02pm

Well, I think that they do support AGP, but there's no interface.
<<<

The issue is not whether or not the chip/card is connected via AGP, but
the very limited performance and memory capabilities of the onboard
chips (or low cost graphic cards).

However, when you have an AGP slot with a low cost card, you can simply
plug off the old and plug in a new, better, card, while with onboard
chips, you do not have that option at all.

So "AGP-capable" says nothing in computer specifications, it must be a
dedicated "AGP slot" (and then it does not matter much even if it
supports like 4x or 8x, the difference is more academical on most
machines), it also plays hardly a role whether it supports the DirectX
9a 9b or 9c specification, since only a few hand-picked games support it
anyway.

For AW, for example, a good GeForce3 or GeForce4 is absolutely
sufficient, bought for maybe 25$ as used from the neighbour kid who
replaced it with an actual card to be able to play the latest games <g>.

The smallest GeForce type, Mx400/440, FX5200, etc., is sufficient, but
not recommended though - some of them have sometimes issues with fog,
background pictures and big texture sizes, also with frame rates when
used under high resolutions.




[View Quote]

Nov 11, 2004, 2:55am

http://activeworlds.com/help/aw36/debug_log.html

:-)


[View Quote]

Nov 11, 2004, 2:43pm

Well, he said he can play other games just fine - else my first guess
would have been a northbridge (or general: case) cooling problem. :-)


[View Quote]

Nov 19, 2004, 3:08am

I think the problem is rather the ATI driver here - opposite to common
believe, it is not always the latest driver that will bring the best
results (same with NVidia, but more prominent with ATI), so it will be
worth to try some other, previous, versions. Maybe you can find others
with the same card and can ask them which drivers they use in AW.



[View Quote]

Nov 21, 2004, 11:21am

Well, if he only intends to chat, he might also consider to use directx7
video mode (without T&L), or OpenGL video mode - both have some
disadvantages, but for talking only and a bit of walking around (or even
more when using low to medium maximum visibility), they would work well.


[View Quote]

Nov 12, 2004, 3:13am

we're just the only species capable
of making our weak extremely fit for survival.
<<<

....and the only ones killing for fun and without need for food or living
space, and as well the only ones who kill by means of mechanical tools -
not to mention that no other being on earth can kill as many of its kind
within seconds than we can. So, in conclusion, I think the evolution did
a great job on us. :-)



[View Quote]

Nov 21, 2004, 11:32am

For each daylight saving region, switch dates forth and back are set,
usually by government or international rulings - simply look up those
dates and then implement an if-then switch. :-)

Examples: CET switches on the last sunday in March from 0200 to 0300 and
on the last sunday in October from 0300 to 0200. The USA switches on the
first sunday in April from 0100 to 0200, back like Europe but from 0200
to 0100.




[View Quote]

Nov 26, 2004, 7:42am

If they made it so theirs opened externally I might use it
<<<

To achieve that, simply pick MSIE as your default browser and set AW to
open webpages externally. :-)

The security and tracking risk is actually in both cases the same, since
the AW browser is using the MSIE settings (which is why I cannot stress
often enough that you need to keep your MSIE absolutely actual and
revise all settings carefully, even when you never use MSIE and in AW
only use the internal web view!).




[View Quote]

Nov 28, 2004, 10:41am

Personally, I haven't seen any of those options in the aworld.ini since
at least 2000 <g>.


[View Quote]

Nov 30, 2004, 6:09pm

It only will increase significantly when you use antialiasing 8X in
combination with a screen resolution of 1920*1440 - else, even the 9600
Pro for maybe 100$ is a top pick for AW already. :-)




[View Quote]

Dec 6, 2004, 3:31pm

Or Xelasworld <g>


[View Quote]

Dec 16, 2004, 6:16am

So virtual = asexual? :-)



[View Quote]

Dec 26, 2004, 4:54pm

As it has been said often already, light is, even before high-polygon
objects and before any moving objects, a major source of lag.

Although some graphic cards seems to be unaffected (which comes most
probably from the fact that they are not hardware T&L capable and render
then light software-wise, because eg. in software rendering, there is no
light impact), most are, and expecially those from which one would not
expect it - basically all hardware T&L capable graphic cards).

I have tested various aspects of the light command, using the browser
version 498 (because it was the last one without the framerate cap, this
shows the effets better) and with a GeForce 5900 card. Video Settings
are DirectD8 + T&L. This mileage is different for different cards, but
the proportion is the same - and it is definitely there, even when you
cannot see it anymore due to the 5xx version framerate cap, it will then
rather be noticed as unspecific lag, and, in many cases, the object
polygon counts will be blamed instead.

The bare numbers in an, otherwise completely empty world, and with all
lights visible at a time, are:

0-2 lights, framerate=100
3 lights, framerate=99
4 lights, framerate=90
5 lights, framerate=83
6 lights, framerate=75
7+ lights, framerate=64

In conclusion, the light affects the graphic card performance
drastically when more than 3 lights are visibile at a time. Each
additional light will reduce the performance roughly by 10% up to 7
lights (1 light is used by the world light and almost all graphic cards,
and the DirectD and the OpenGL definitions do not allow for more than 8
hardware lights altogether).

Please note that "visible light" cannot be limited by the "radius"
parameter in the light command or the world features, because the radius
parameter only denotes up to which distance (in m) an object will be
_hit_ by the light, it does NOT denote up to which distance away it can
be _seen_ - this depends only on the current visibility of an avatar. In
other words, when an avatar has set his visibility to 200m, he will
ALWAYS see all lights around him up to 200m, no matter whether this
light shines on objects only 2m around in its radius.

There is no difference in the effect of lights regarding their color,
spot, brightness or fx-settings. A brightness of 0.01 has the same
impact as a brightness of 10.

Therefore, I recommend for the use of the light command:

- Switch lights explicitely out when they are not needed, this can be
obtained by setting remotely brightness to 0 (radius=0 will not work!),
using the name= command and a bump/activate object (imagine a light
switch).

- In worlds that use lights only at certain times, eg. at night, it does
make sense to switch all lights out during the day, eg. by using a bot
which sets all brightness to 0 (in a direct change, radius=0 also works,
it only won't in a remote, indirect change).

- When you use lights as a design element, cut down the visibility in
the world drastically (world features:Fog max). Remember, the light can
be seen at any distance up to 200m, depending on the visibility in a
browser, so reducing the maximum world visibility to values like 50m is
the _only_ way to force browsers to a low visibility).

- Even though 3 and less lights at a time have only little impact on
performance, weaker graphic cards might notice even those 3 lights. Do
also not forget, that the light impact comes on top of the polygon-count
performance decrease!

- If you need to use many lights, you can use as many lights as you
want, but be aware that almost every visitor will only be capable to see
7 at a time (the 7 nearest ones). Only the people who use software
rendering will see them all.

- If you need no active lights, but want an object to glow in the dark
anyway, use the prelight command in the rwx file - this prelight command
is not an active light (it does not emit light that can hit other
objects, but only reflects passively the world light plus the prelight
value) and has _no_ effect on performance.

Jan 7, 2005, 6:05pm

The reason it was shut off was abuse creating huge lag due to offensive
light radii. Do you have a suggestion on a better compromise?
<<<

A radius of 10, 20 or even 30m wont't bring any problem really, because
to see a light, a person must first come that close to the light origin,
after that, the light can be seen even when he walks away up to his
actual visibility (and this would happen with a 3m radius as well).
However, 1,2 or 3 cells is just about the width of a street in AW - in
other words, it impossible to create huge lags in areas with such a
limited range (-> see also my recent detailled post about lights) - and
unrealistic to require a person to approach a light origin at such a
close range to notice it (any spot light or even average wall effect
would be impossible until a person first zooms around like a wild bee in
6m stripes all across a building to make sure to catch all the lights
before being able to enjoy a composition).

However, given the fact that light per se has a bad affect on frame
rates, what about a more general and effective method: including a
"local light off" option into the client, which can disable all lights
on the client side (except the one used by the world light) and leave
clients completely unaffected by any "offensive" lights, even when they
are set to a radius of just 1m. :-)



[View Quote]

Mar 29, 2005, 2:20am

Dunno about the last one.
<<<

was left open for "extensions"






[View Quote]

Apr 4, 2005, 1:34pm

Actually - AW is on of the two reasons why I have still Windows running
on my machines, else it would be Linux too. :-)

Many years ago I bought a TV, but it only could receive one single
channel, because that was all what was available. This very old TV was,
though, capable of receiving more channels as they were offered in the
next 15 years - I did not have to buy a different model only because I
bought it once "with one TV channel".

So, when I had 10 years ago - or have now - a program that only runs
with a Windows "OS", it does not mean that it has to be that way
forever. Of course, since Windows is the biggest customer base, every
company would start with it, but to not expand the possible customer in
the course of time is not a senseful approach to business.



[View Quote]

Apr 4, 2005, 6:15pm

[View Quote] > My server's current uptime:
> [jerme at www ]$ uptime
> 09:43:13 up 314 days, 15:20, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
>

9:14pm up 329 days, 18:00, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00

and...

Server uptime: 680 days 7 hours 20 minutes 47 seconds

:-))

Apr 4, 2005, 6:23pm

[View Quote] Try mapping the NT Kernel memory usage, if you were talking about 9x I
would
agree with you wholeheartedly, it was a piece of shite. My old school
left
its Windows 2K boxes running for weeks at a time.
<<<

I have right now a W98SE machine with a worldserver running for 8 weeks
without a reboot - it is just a question what you do with a computer,
when you play games or run resource hungry and/or substandard
applications, it won't run for a day, not on Windows and not on Linux.
When you use server services, both, Windows (98, 2000, 2003, etc.) and
Linux can run for weeks and weeks without a problem - I once came to a
customer who had a DOS machine running as a server for 3 years <g>. :-)

Apr 11, 2005, 11:10am

[View Quote] because people, in this day and age, want to talk about the world and
what goes on in it
<<<

The question is here rather in what form people want to - or should as
being intended by the owner - conversate.

Personally I do not see the slightest point to go into a virtual
environment and talk in the public (we are not discussing private peer
group talks) to people whom are most unknown to me in a blunt and
unpolite manner.

You are absolutely right, this IS the internet, but that does not only
mean that people who TALK have different values and morals, but also
those who are present and LISTEN. When you exercise your right to swear
or discuss sexual amtters, other might want to exercise their right not
_not_ being bothered by swearing or sex talks. There are two sides of
this and both sides have about the same right.
This is, where so-called "ratings" (which I, btw, generally question
anyway) come into play, they denote zones or environments in which sort
of un-polite-for-all conversations are expected to take place, I even
would go further and say this is an environment where no verbal attacks
or pollution in any form shall take place.
Now, when a person deliberately decides to go into such a place of which
he KNOWS which rules are in effect, he will either feel obliged to
complay with it - or being thrown out, and I do not see anything wrong
with that.
I am sure there arenevioronments where bad behaviour is not only
tolerated, but welcomed or even required - people who feel attracted to
that should go there, and those who don't cannot complain when they go
there likewise either.

This is a discussion that comes up over and over again, but what is
failed to be recognized is simply that a behaviour in a certain matter
is the pre-condition for entering and the rule is set up by the owner.
People who do not like it simply should not go there, or, when there are
enough people who want it, they should ask the owner to set up a world
like Killthem, Fuckme or Terroristhangout - each one to its own, and
nobody will be forced to stay in an (for one) unpleasant environment...

May 24, 2005, 6:27am

Please allow me 3 comments:

5. Coronas will cause a ton of lag if you view a corona through another
corona. This is a common problem if you have semi-large "corona
sprites" flying around a concentrated area. Or if you have a bunch of
lights all lined up, with a corona effect.
<<<

The reason is not the corona itself, but that the corona is a "light"
and light sources will cause lag when there are more than 2 of them in
the perception radius (which makes generally all worlds with
illumination and night scenes laggy). A good approach is to put in the
welcome message a note about the maximum recommended visibility (eg.
30m, 60m, 100m) to make people aware of this design when they enter.
Please note that the lag effect of light becomes worse, the bigger the
max light radius is, since you will then notice lights from far away
already (provided they do not limit their radius themseves).

7. High resolution images tend to cause lag when in numbers. I'm not
sure if this is so true though, as AW has a maximum resolution for
pictures (it will download the full size image but the resolution you
see in AW has a max). I vaguely remember reading a long time ago, in
the release notes, that they increased the maximum picture resolution to
512x512.
<<<

Not really - there is no obvious reason why a static texture (in
opposite to auto-animated ((=filmstrip)) and normal animated ((=via the
animate command)) ones) should cause any lag - except for a few cases of
particularly weak graphic cards in combination with weak computers
(reason is there the swap of textures from graphic-Ram to ordinary Ram).
The maximum size is usually determined by the graphic card used - I have
personally successfully used textures of 2048*2048, if a graphic card
does not support them, they will simply not show up and the space stays
"white" or "black" (in case of big masks). A safe size is around
256*256. For computers bought in the past 2 years with an average
graphic card, sizes up to 1024*1024 won't be a problem.

The only "lag" that graphics really cause, is during their download,
because, although AW does not confirm that, the download/frame
calculation modus has changed in the recent client builds and downloads
affect the frame-rate re-calculation a lot more than it used to be,
especially in combination with a low maxCPU value.
After a graphic has downloaded though, its lag potential is almost non
existant anymore and thus, the advantages of big textures (better
detail) will outnumber its temporary disadvantages.

One addition: auto-animated (filmstrip) textures will always put a great
stress on the CPU (make it run hot), because they always refresh with
the actual frame rate - avoid them when you can and try to achieve a
similar effect with the animate command with slow refresh values.

Don't use texturing objects when you don't have to. Tests have proven
that applying the texture directly to the object is faster than having a
texturing object do it instead.
<<<

the direct texture command is also more reliable. :-) When you need the
same texture really thousands of times and got your own object path, it
is more efficient to change the texture name in the .rwx file itself.

May 25, 2005, 5:48am

The manual is outdated here, though I remember TechnoZeus updated it
once (for 3.4?) with the correct explanations in it - also regarding the
difference between horizontal and vertical 2^n dimensions. :-)


[View Quote]

May 25, 2005, 5:56am

I did some extensive tests about a year ago or so - I remember that then
I also found a handful of video cards that were not affected at all by
lag from light, while all the ones I used and use are (namely GF400,
GF440, GF4ti, GF5900, GF 6800), in both DD7 and DD8 mode and with all
antialiasing/mipmap switched off. GF4xx has other problems too, namely
the "fog" problem and some graphic cards have a problem when
"background" pictures are used - in all cases, it is not a matter of the
driver, but of the specific card or graphic chip (family).

The impact starts with 2 or 3 ligts and then increases dramatically to
the maximum of 7 - not 8, since 1 is taken already by the directional
ligt source, and this applies not only to DD, but also to OpenGL.
Ssoftware mode is not affected at all, btw - you also can see any number
of lights there.


[View Quote]

Jun 6, 2005, 9:23pm

Yes, they can - only people not having them on their local path won't
see them and builders who have enabled error posting will see a lot of
error messages, but basically, it would be possible. :-)



[View Quote]

Jun 7, 2005, 11:43pm

Yes, that is correct - when a world has a registry, it won't work,
but when it doesn't have one, it would work. :-)


[View Quote]

Jun 11, 2005, 5:30am

No, when it happens when using a bot, then the problem is definitely in
the program, since deletions and builds are always issued sequentially
(one after the other) and eg. the property dump/load use the very same
methods - so there is no problem at all with deleting or building
thousands of objects.

If somethng goes wrong, then it is most likely that the commands to the
server are issued by the bot too fast - in this case, the server will
typically crash or hang or disconnect the client (and then all pending
operations are being skipped and when the bot does not take this into
account and maintained a list of confirmed commands, then the items will
be lost). See previous discussions from the last years about this in the
sdk/bots newsgroups).

Another thing is using the "change" command from the sdk - this is not
always a wise thing to do since changes are performed by adding first
and then deleting, so a cell can become full unexpectedly (eg. when some
of the items do not move to another cell but stay within the same cell
or items from another cell go into a cell that is not cleared yet). In
this case, a bot would maintain a list of items to change and first
delete them and then build them rather than using the change command,
which, as said above, works exactly the other way around.





[View Quote]

Jun 11, 2005, 4:32pm

Yes, when you use the aw browser and things go wrong, it is because of
some limit on how many items you can select at a time (you can select as
many as you want, but only a certain amount will be executed) - however,
you will have the same first-build-then-delete-problem as with a bot,
which would make moving a lot of items not desirable anyway.



[View Quote]

Jul 8, 2005, 7:08pm

I agree - personal talks do not belong in this newsgroup nor in any
other!




[View Quote]

Jul 10, 2005, 4:49pm

I second that - I recently ordered numerous items, paid for them and got
them delivered by email within a few hours.



[View Quote]

Jul 28, 2005, 11:19pm

Da Capo !!!



[View Quote]

1  ...  6  7  8  9  10  |   Order by default