|
|
kf // User Search
kf // User Search
Aug 8, 2005, 7:17am
Yup, considering that a lot of the new version features is not even
included yet in the beta test, I would estimate christmas or rather
spring as a release date for a full stabile version.
However, it will certainly be worth the wait, every minute of it. :)
[View Quote]Mauz wrote:
>
> "LtBrenton" <uaf_brenton at concsols.com> wrote in message news:42f60c4e$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
>
> Duh, it is not even finished yet, it only just went beta a week ago.
> Like 3.6 was in beta for three months, and it only had minor changes to test.
>
> --
> Mauz
> http://mauz.info
|
Oct 24, 2005, 11:14pm
[View Quote]shred wrote:
>
> Trojans on computers?
>
> I don't know what these people are thinking, but that isn't where
> Trojans go.
>
|
Quiet right, the Trojans stayed in their city, it was the Greeks who
used the horse to invade. :-)
[View Quote]
Nov 2, 2005, 10:35am
On a ship in the ocean and before a court of law you are all but in Gods
hands. :-)
[View Quote]SWE wrote:
>
> ya but the great thing about law is it can be seen in many diffrent ways, so
> you dont always get the same ruilings.
>
> -SWE
>
> "Strike Rapier" <markyr at gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:43681814 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
|
Dec 11, 2005, 11:40pm
Try contacting Ananas, he had contacts with the feebies world owner :)
[View Quote]Cryonics wrote:
>
> We know many of you are trying hard to reopen Freebies word, and we have
> made several communication attempts to contact the owner, but he has yet to
> respond. Without a Propdump of the world we would be unable to reactivate
> it.
>
> We will keep you posted about any new developments.
>
> Cryonics
> Activeworlds Inc.
> 95 Parker Street
> Newburyport, MA 01950
> 978-499-0222
> www.activeworlds.com
>
> Please include original text in all replies
> "Shalimar" <shallie at charter.net> wrote in message
> news:4394a0e3$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
|
Jan 6, 2006, 8:33pm
There won't be a 4.0 :-)
[View Quote]equin0x wrote:
>
> They should do a public beta real soon..
>
> The current total of active citizens is equal to that of the 3.0 beta.
>
> I'd say, since we're the loyal, and more costly-paying citizens, that are
> still around.. why are we still in the dark with 4.0?
>
> "elysium" <colinl at ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:43bdbeee at server1.Activeworlds.com...
|
Jan 8, 2006, 6:48pm
[View Quote]Lady Murasaki wrote:
>
> Bets KF a katana model there WILL be. ;o)))
|
There is actually one, but it is not a public release version - the
release version will have the version number 4.1. :-)
Jan 11, 2006, 9:08am
MID files cannot carry a virus anyway, since they are not executeable -
and when they play as intended (and to check that you simply listen to
it - in opposite to a an executeable file that just has the ending "mid"
to hide it), then they wont be infected at all. :-)
I have seen and investigated several of those alleged "virus" alarms and
found that they were all false, also, none of the "real" anti-virus
programs (eg. Nod32, Bitdefender, Norton, etc.) will doubt these files,
it is only a few (and mostly always the same) of the, mostly free, virus
checkers which are a bit generous with signatures. :-)
[View Quote]JerMe wrote:
>
> Since no one has said anything yet.. I guess I'll take a minute to explain.
>
> Some viruses/trojans attach themselves to a specific file in the file
> system, making it easy to identify if a system is infected (take a look
> at one file and you can tell right away). Other viruses attach
> themselves to (or infect) files at random.
>
> I can't tell you why the egyptian.mid file was chosen to be infected,
> but it could have been chosen at random.
>
> From looking at the logs, it also appears that the same virus was
> removed from the same file several times over the course of time. The
> virus removals date back to 02/02/2005, just short of a year ago.
>
> This makes me think that this particular midi file is a false positive.
> Because viruses can 'mutate', most virus scanners are based on pattern
> matching. You may have heard the updates that you download for your
> virus scanner referred to as "virus signatures". That's because the file
> contains the 'signatures' of all the known viruses at the time. These
> 'signatures' are more like characteristics, or a pattern of bits that
> uniquely identifies a particular virus (thus the term 'signature'). The
> pattern of bits can be searched for throughout a file system quite easily.
>
> However, sometimes it just so happens that the signature of bits from a
> virus matches the pattern of bits in a random file (in this case, the
> midi file). When this happens, the virus scanner will complain about the
> virus, and dutifully delete the file. Then, AW re-downloads the file,
> having not found it in the cache, and the virus scanner deletes it
> again.... and the cycle continues every time you visit the world.
>
> -Jeremy
>
> sweets wrote:
|
Jan 12, 2006, 11:03pm
As far as I can see it, it is just pre-defined avatars that are picked
according to the options you selected, and that is, with the right web
script, possible even now (we saw that mechanism to a minor degree in
NewAW already). So, this has nothing to do with a new 4.1 feature. :-)
[View Quote]sweets wrote:
>
> Well I went to see this amazing 4.1 and must say (get ready flamers) that I
> am totally disappointed. Hopefully they plan better for what we will get but
> somehow I doubt it.
>
> Everyone compares it to SL, but I don't even see that comparison. Yes we can
> adjust the avatars looks, but extremely limited. They all have the same
> bodies, just the hair or clothes change, and that in itself is also limited
> (clothing choices for males even worse than AW regular avs), ugly hair, ugly
> shoes, very small choices of chothing, so we all walk around looking
> basically the same, in different colours
>
> The avatar females are all short, the avatar males are all tall....no other
> choices. They all have 'great bodies' of 18 year olds. So I stood with my
> grey hair and my 48 year old 5'9" height jammed into tiny young body LOL
> ....I dont even want to discuss the ugly shoes they had (no bare feet
> permitted)
>
> The choice of skin colour you can have dark or white....and no shading in
> between. I was superwhite, othrs super brown....2 races of people only
> LMAO....female hair could be short, or ponytail only
>
> This cannot at all compare with the abilities they have there to rearrange
> the avs sizes, colours, nail polish, etc with Second Life. Comparing,
> Stagecoach (and AW) is pretty crude. The only comparison I could see what
> both systems have horrible lag, worse than any over-built world here,
> including my own heh
>
> The avatar eyes do not even blink....which takes me back about 10 years.
>
> After being their for awhile, the avs started changing. Males changed to
> females, females changed to males. We switched them back to our choices
> (which had to be redone step by step as the av choices are not saved
> anywhere for easy access, only to have this happen over and over for about
> an hour before we all gave up and quit. We could not retain our VR bodies.
> Either there was a huge glitch in the system as this affected the 5 people
> that I could see, someone had hacked the process, or the owner whoever it
> was was playing with our minds.....whichever the choice, although funny at
> first became annoying very fast. I did not like being forced to be male LMAo
>
> On closing it down, I received an error message from Windows. yeah ok that
> happens....but not often....
> So although it is amusing and entertaining, I can see people getting bored
> with the new features very fast. Hopefully AW will improve this, but I dont
> feel it is even close to what we have been waiting for all this time
>
> sorry
> sweets
|
May 29, 2006, 11:13pm
"Lady NightHawk" <dmurtagh27 at hotmail.com> wrote in
news:447a8a27 at server1.Activeworlds.com:
> OLD windoze and 4.1 install suggestions ... SAVE THIS POST (make a
> Keepers folder in your email progy and drag it there)!!!
>
4.1 will definitely run fine on (OS:) W98SE systems, I also tested
(hardware:) AMD X2 and Pentium M (Laptop) and (graphic card:) GF 6800,
GF7800gtx and Radeon X700 (Laptop) and GF6800 (Laptop).
May 29, 2006, 11:16pm
"Justin Eyres" <justin_ey_1 at hotmail.com> wrote in
news:447b2cca$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com:
> Yeah theres a option to request contacts and as mauz said there is a
> add blocked contact probably since there is option to request And
> hopefully our contacts dont get wiped...ill make a notepad file
> anyways :D
>
>
If the old contacts can be taken over, then for THESE contacts, the new
feature won't work - therefore, one really wants to wipe the old list and
start over using the new "permission" feature.
Jun 5, 2006, 2:05pm
[View Quote]Karten wrote:
>
> Just add the world name to the dump file names, and that will keep them
> seperate.
> I also include the date in the filename for multiple dumps of the same world
>
> Karten
>
> "2ndChildhood" <ludovico at rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:44843af0$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
|
yup, I use for example something like ba-a060605.txt for an atdump of
the world starting with the letters Bb on the 5h of June 2006. But the
seperate folder approach seems to be best really. :-)
Jun 5, 2006, 1:57pm
[View Quote]Star. wrote:
>
> Didn't work for me at all. Never finished loading any worlds, and no
> teleporting to another world. I unloaded it and went back to the original.
> Still freezes my computer after leaving 4.1 if I don't restart first.
> "Jaguar Hahn" <markterrell at gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:44839585$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
|
Absolutely the same here.
Jun 7, 2006, 6:10pm
> Long avatar lists are no longer split into multiple menus side by side (no,
> not the tree) resulting in having to scroll (at a very slow rate) through to
> get to the end of the list.
<<<
Yes, sort of annoying, esepcially since you cannot walk through the list
by using PGUP and PGDN and neither can you go to the end of the list by
scrolling above avatar 0. So when you are unlucky and your avatar is at
the end of a long list, it can take a minute or two to go there...
Jun 7, 2006, 1:48pm
Textures that are too large might not display in all AW though, I do not
know presently the borderline, but it should be 1024 or 2048. Also,
pictures do not display on picture objects when they are too large.
For terrain it is indeed preferably to use the biggest size possible,
since it reduces the stretching on height differences or the pixeelation
and fuzziness and enables very detailled terrain too (even more now,
with 512 terrains possible).
[View Quote]SW Comit wrote:
>
> The past week, while AW was having troubles and building was disabled, I got
> back into playing Oblivion, a modern PC RPG game. Along with this, I was
> fascinated by the "AWE" equivalents available for oblivion. These are large,
> 60MB+ download texture packs which sport 1024 and even 2048, and in some
> cases even 4096 version textures for common outdoor textures in the game.
> Most of oblivion's textures are by default 512x512, whereas most of AWE's
> textures are 256 with default AW at 128.
>
> Along with these texture packs there are communities of modders which were
> discussing the technical limitations of such high res textures. The claims
> are universal, and should hold true for any 3d windows app.
>
> As I always suspected, it's indeed true that there is zero performance hit
> using high res textures so long as your video card has enough Video RAM to
> hold it all. However, even it does run out memory, it merely overflows into
> the system memory instead. When this happens, you won't notice an overall
> drop in fps but instead stuttering as you move from area to area, or turn
> around.
>
> If anyone reading this is a professional in how the computer handles VRAM
> overflow and can offer further information, please do so.
>
> Anyway, this led me to wonder how much is "enough Video RAM". So I
> downloaded a handy lil' tool called Video Memory Watcher. As the name
> suggests, it monitors video RAM represented in a bar graph. Time for some
> benchmarks!
>
> In my tests I kept my vis at 120m, and stood still while everything loaded
> and checked for memory usage. In each area, I would set the benchmark
> standing point as my home and restart the browser, so I'd get a clean memory
> bank for each new area.
> I chose 120m vis because I figure that if you can operate and use 160-200m
> vis in a developed area, then it's likely you have a pretty modern computer
> with a 256MB video card.
>
> -------
>
> Standing at SW City GZ at 120m vis, facing west
> Town square park is a high density area with many textures and details.
> There are also TONS of images in the area which count towards video usage.
>
> With AWE: 55MB
> Without AWE: 49MB
>
> Standing at East Ending at 120m vis, facing southeast
> East Ending is an urban area, packed with buildings and details.
>
> With AWE: 53MB
> Without AWE: 45MB
>
> Standing at central Orton Strip Mall at 120m vis facing east
> Orton is infamous as one of the laggiest places in AW, and quite likely the
> laggiest spot in SW City anyway. It's pretty unlikely anyone would be going
> there here at 120m vis though lol.
>
> With AWE: 67MB
> Without AWE: 54MB
>
> Standing at SW City Ballpark at 120m vis facing west
> The above tests all take place in highly dense areas of town. The ballpark
> area would closer resemble a more average density area you'd come across in
> AW.
>
> With AWE: 33MB
> Without AWE: 23MB
>
> Standing at AWGZ at 120m vis facing north
> Last but not least here's the ol' world GZ.
>
> With AWE: 48MB
> Without AWE: 38MB
>
> -------
>
> Well I think that's all the tests we need. It covered highly developed and
> dense areas as well as average areas. So it looks like your typical build
> scene is only going to be using something around 10MB more video RAM with
> AWE. In any case, a 64MB video card would be fine for AW. If you crank you
> vis way up high, you'll want a 128MB though.
>
> The point of this topic wasn't to promote AWE though. It's more of a
> shoutout to world owners to not be so conservative with your textures. You
> have plenty of headroom! Any video card newer than 2002 should have 64MB or
> more video RAM. Seeing as how its mid-2006 now, it's only fair for AW to try
> its best to keep up with the PC industry. As such, AWE 2.0 will be catering
> to the 128MB and 256MB video card users. Textures will be further heightened
> to 512 and 1024MB resolutions.
>
> If your world is using the AW object path and your interested in using
> higher res textures, your welcome to upgrade your OP to AWE 1.4 content. The
> zip is setup here at www.swcity.net/files/awe/AWE.zip and you can read what
> exactly you'll be changing here
> http://www.swcity.net/files/awe/readme_1.4.txt
>
> PS. minor note - I noticed a slightly higher FPS using AWE during the tests,
> because of the cleaned up objects in the OP. About 3-5% faster.
|
Jun 7, 2006, 6:07pm
Well, I did not know it exactly and for all versions <g>, all I knew
there was some frontier up to which textures and pictures displayed, I
discovered it once and then decided only to make textures of up to
1024*1024 and did not store the exact maximum size in my memory. :-)
In fact, when ones graphic card is too small in memory, it can happen
that they cannot see textures of higher sizes either. 1024*1024 should
be a safe size, though.
[View Quote]SW Comit wrote:
>
> Need less "mights" and more absolutes ;) Should look into it.
> Right now I've just did some tests. 1028 and 2048 work fine. 4096 and
> beyond don't, though. Not that you'd need a resolution that high...
>
> "kf" <none at junk.mail> wrote in message news:4486F62A.64C7 at junk.mail...
|
Jun 11, 2006, 9:50pm
I think the collision algorithm has changed and the door appears now too
small for the avatar to pass through.
[View Quote]sweets wrote:
>
> while in 3.6 those last days I made a new object. When I switched over to
> 4.1, I noticed something strange. The cat could no longer go through the
> doorway of the new object.
>
> Either the cat grew...or the objects shrunk. I closed 4.1 and went back to
> 3.6...and could pass the doorway fine....it had been adjust to just fit the
> cat av. Returning to 4.1 I again tried to enter...same object, same
> OP....the cat would not enter....removed the doorway and he still could not
> get in....I removed the roof and he was ok....
>
> It turned out I had to increase the height of the doorway and roof by
> approximately a foot difference, for that one foot high av. I probably would
> never have noticed this except that was last object and was measured exactly
> to fit the cat's size.
>
> Now my question is....did the avs grow? or did the furniture shrink? LOL
>
> sweets
|
Jun 11, 2006, 9:53pm
Oh, and this can also come from the bounding box of the cat, maybe it is
bigger than the cat body/and or has an unusual origin and the changed
algorithm now takes that into account, while in 3.6, the algorithm did
not.
[View Quote]kf wrote:
>
> I think the collision algorithm has changed and the door appears now too
> small for the avatar to pass through.
>
> sweets wrote:
|
Jun 18, 2006, 9:46pm
Yes, I agree that losing more than half the area that you could see
before isn't the best of ideas.
<<<
It actually would be down to 1/4 (or 25%) only when x and z are cut in
half. :-)
Jun 19, 2006, 8:42pm
Sorry, you are right, I misunderstood the problem. :-)
[View Quote]Byte wrote:
>
> Actually when you look at it... the box went 200m in each direction, or was 400m in the X and Z. 400*400 = 160,000 m^2.
> The area of the circle of 200m radius (400m diameter) is 200^2*pi or 125,663.706. Which is 78% of the area, not 25% :)
>
> It's when you go with the sphere that it comes closer to less than 50% loss on volume.
>
> kf wrote:
|
Jun 20, 2006, 8:53pm
A remarkeable good decision!!!
[View Quote]Cryonics wrote:
>
> License has been removed per popular demand :-). You can download the new
> SDK build 69 at http://www.activeworlds.com/products/download.asp
>
> Cryonics
>
> "Lady NightHawk" <dmurtagh27 at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:44975c31 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
|
Jul 16, 2006, 11:08pm
I installed W98se fine on my modern machines :-) And they significantly
crash less than my xp installations - only the W2003 computer is
superior to it and a rock solid system, comes even close to my Linux
machines. :-)
It simply depends what you need a computer for, sometimes you might want
an XP system, sometimes W2003 or Linux, and in some cases even W98se.
|
