1  ...  15  16  17  18  19  20  ...  36  |   Order by default

Feb 7, 2003, 6:27pm

The newsgroups aren't "for fighting" but unfortunately there are some people who use them as if that was their sole intended purpose. What you need to realize is that we have very few such people here, and those are the people least likely to be chased off by a post typed in all caps calling people names and telling everybody to shut up.

Also, you cross posted that message to places where the fighting wasn't even happening. I don't know about the other newsgroups, because I haven't had time for them lately (and the more fighting goes on in them the less time good people will make for them) but I know there was no fighting going on in the wishlist newsgroup.

Now, if you're going to cross-post to this thread at all anymore, "PLEASE" state which newsgroup you will be looking for replies in, so that people can eliminate the rest of the newsgroups when replying to you. I'll be in Wishlist if you want to reply to me.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Feb 8, 2003, 8:37am

Really? You say I had it comming to me? Then tell me what I did to deserve it, please.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Feb 9, 2003, 10:01am

Okay. Not a problem.... and I agree it is something that needed to be addressed. As a matter of fact, it was already planned for AW 3.5, which is why AW 3.4 hasn't been released yet. We're now beta testing what "would have been" AW 3.4 as AW 3.4 so in the long run it simply means all the fighting accomplished nothing except to waste a lot of people's time and cause the people waiting for a release upgrade to Active Worlds to have to wait much longer.

Sorry if I seemed to have taken that personally. I mainly wanted to point out that the way it was worded could easily be taken as an accusation against vaguely identified people... which was exactly how that whole mess got going in the first place. Gotta word stuff like that carefully. :)

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Feb 10, 2003, 9:12am

Well, although I'm not the "whole" exec team I still got a lot of personal attacks durring that little war that went on, from people who didn't even know me at all and from people who thought they knew me well and couldn't understand why I would have done the things it sounded like I was being accused of.

I'm sure you can understand that with this in mind I'm not about to let a statement that makes it "sound like" something was done wrong by the committee that I happen to be a member of just pass by without asking for clarification.

Nothing against you, or against anyone, of course.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Feb 6, 2003, 10:43pm

I took it as aimed at anyone who was interested in trying it. :) Still works for that.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Feb 13, 2003, 6:49am

Well, at this point in time objects in Active Worlds don't talk... but the addition of a simple "talk" command (or a send chat command, speak command, or what ever you want to call it) to allow a line of text to be sent to the chat in the same way that it can now be placed on a sign would change that. I think the biggest drawback would be that it would only take one person abusing it to make almost everyone want to disable it. At the least, there would need to be a built in way to mute objects, and a limit on how many lines of chat text can be sent by objects placed by a single citizen within a given amount of time.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Feb 20, 2003, 4:41am

Yep.. and you can also have a bot read commands and description text, and use them to do all kinds of things, if the bot has been programmed that way, but as I said... Objects in Actice Worlds presently don't talk. There is no such functionality built in at this time. It has to be programmed externally, and an external program has to implement it. Of course, you could always just point at description text, and call that "the object talking" ... or have someone stand around and pretend to be an object talking, but those would still not be the same either. It's just a feature that isn't part of Active Worlds at this time.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Feb 20, 2003, 8:33am

If you go back and read my earlier response, perhaps you would understand why I posted the one you aparently didn't understand the reasoning behind, rather than assuming that I didn't bother to check which newsgroup this is.

The original post asked for a way to do something "without a bot" and I had responded by mentioning a way that such a thing could potentially be added. The reply that I then got to my response was one stating that it could already be done with a bot. While I don't wish to criticize anyone for their input, it strikes me as a bit unsuccessful if you have to use a bot to do something without a bot... so I attempted to politely clarify my statement.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Feb 20, 2003, 6:49pm

Actually, I was addressing some of the development/implementation issues, in a positive manor ("...the addition of a simple "talk" command "..." to allow a line of text to be sent to the chat..."), and later pointing out that the existance of an SDK does not invalidate a wish for the ability to be able to do something "without" a bot.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Feb 13, 2003, 7:31am

It would still be nice to have more control over privileges that are currently grouped under "caretaker" not only for citizens, but for bots as well.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Feb 20, 2003, 7:35am

and so can everyone else... without a registry. Sortof defeats the purpose. How about this thought... Since we have our contact list information stored on the universe server now, it should be possible to store customization options like allowing certain people in your contact list to encroach onto your property... and once two objects are encroaching onto each other, the area covered by both objects combined could be treated as shared property. That's just one possibility. Thought I would add it to the discussion. :)

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Feb 20, 2003, 7:37am

Yay!

:)

TZ

[View Quote]

Feb 20, 2003, 8:39am

Read the name of the newsgroup. Hehe.

Couldn't resist.

Seriously though, I didn't say it was an ideal possibility. I just said it was one possibility that I thought I would add tothe discussion. Actually, I think it could be done pretty efficiently, but it would all depend on how it's coded. Anyway, it was just food for thought. Good to toss around the possibilities. Sometimes even just thinking about some totally unreasonable possibility might trigger a really good idea... just because it helps to think in otherwise unexplored directions. :)

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Feb 20, 2003, 6:52pm

I knew what you were getting at... but I could also see how it could be taken more than one way, and considering I had just got done replying to a response from you that said the same thing about something that you had aparently taken the wrong way... well... gotta have a sense of humor. :)

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Feb 20, 2003, 6:57pm

Perhaps that's why Roland decided against it (or just never got around to it). Seems to me he had mentioned that it would take about 3 weeks. It was something that at one time he had definately planned to do though, but he also wanted to completely replace the registry in the process which made it a much larger task.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Feb 15, 2003, 7:17pm

In many ways, a humanoid avatar is already assumed. I doubt one more would hurt. One possibility though, would be to give the world owner the option to turn on or off a feature that caused all avatars to bend at the back or the waste when looking up or down... or maybe indicate whether or not to use it on a per avatar basis, in the avatars.dat file.

(followup to Wishlist, please)

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Feb 20, 2003, 7:40am

Well, it's taking a long time but I think there's a good chance that those lockup isues and such may be eliminated by the time AW 3.4 is released. I hope so, anyway.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Feb 20, 2003, 7:43am

Build 402 runs fine for most people... and loads fast too, mainly because it doesn't have all of the contact list extras.

Here's a wish... I wish there was a place to download older builds. :)

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Feb 20, 2003, 7:56am

AW 3.4 beta build 457 runs fine on my slower ~133 MHz computer, if I don't mind the time it takes to get started.

I think they've done a very good job of keeping the old computers from completely giving up on Active Worlds. Especially when you consider that every decision that favors the slower machines over the faster machines means extra work that does nothing for the company directly. The only thing they get for it, really, is our gratitude... and on the average I think it's safe to say that people with slow computers put a lot less effort into showing the company how thankful they are then the company puts into keeping their slow computers from being unable to run newer versions of Active Worlds.

It's nice to see some effort in the direction of doing nice things for existing and expecially long standing citizens, and I think the company should be commended for it... or at least rewarded by a little positive word of mouth advertising to encourage them think of such positive actions as worth while. :)

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Feb 20, 2003, 6:58pm

No. Why do you ask that? I've just been too busy to get to it for a while.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Feb 23, 2003, 4:24am

You can still run builds all the way back to version 3.2, build 402, in the main universe, and older builds in any universe that chooses to allow it, plus you can run them in stand-alone mode, but if you can't get ahold of them and don't have them already then you obviously can't run them at all. This is particularly a problem for serious beta testers who would like to be able to help track down exactly when and how some old bugs came into existance but have limited space in which to store back-up copies of old builds.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Feb 23, 2003, 4:40am

Care to tell me how? I thought all you could get with that was the available upgrade patches.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Feb 24, 2003, 4:58am

Yes, for a long time now it has been (to my understanding) working only as a patch utility, such that if any file it is intended to replace doesn't perfectly match what it expects that file will simply be skipped. I would guess that this depends more on the particular "kit" than anything else.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Feb 20, 2003, 7:18am

How about a "carry selected objects" function, that would allow you to hide the selected objects and the Object Properties dialog and bring them back later at your new location? For example, a toolbar button could serve this purpose. Just a thought. Follow-up to Wishlist. :)

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Feb 23, 2003, 4:38am

How about this variation...

They could set it so that the following key combinations would change the focus to the indicated locations...

Alt+0 --> 3D Frame.
Alt+1 --> Chat entry box.
Alt+2 --> Whisper entry box.
Alt+3 --> Web Frame.
Alt+4 --> Teleports Tab frame.
Alt+5 --> User Guide Tab frame.
Alt+6 --> Search Tab frame.
Alt+7 --> Worlds Tab frame.
Alt+8 --> Contacts Tab frame.
Alt+9 --> Telegrams Tab frame.

Then you could simply press Alt+9 to set the focus to the Telegrams Tab frame, use your arrow keys to select a telegram, and press the Enter key to display the selected telegram. Of course, it would be nice if you could also use the keyboard to open a context menu for the selected telegram or to select a name in the Contacts list.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Feb 24, 2003, 5:03am

How about an entire "Terrain Defaults" section, in the World Features dialog, including default texture number, default altitude, and perhaps even optional texture name overrides for the numbered textures?

http://host.activeworlds.com/TechnoZeus/aw34/world_features_dialog.html

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Feb 24, 2003, 5:35am

I wasn't forgetting about other universes. That's why I said I'm not sure if it still needs to be there. The only reason it existed in the first place, is because AW 3.0 had not software render mode. Since AW 3.2 has a software render mode I would think the "Latest 2.2 Browser" setting would no longer be needed in any universe, as they could simply set the Minimum Browser that low if they want to allow AW 2.2 or earlier, but as I said... the main purpose of my post was to suggest that the single latest beta field be split into a latest open beta build and a latest early beta build, to allow more people to participate in the testing of an occasional reasonably stable beta, while keeping the standard beta reserved for the more serious and experienced beta testers who know enough not to blame someone else if they neglected to make a backup and the beta version they're testing fails to work on their system at all.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Feb 24, 2003, 9:27am

10,000 what?

TZ

[View Quote]

Feb 25, 2003, 3:28pm

Interesting. I don't see either of those numbers anywhere. No wonder I didn't know 10,000 what. Hehe.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Feb 26, 2003, 7:21pm

Cool. Mine shows a count, but it's barely past 2000, so unless I had been spying on someone else there isn't much way I could have known. Hehe.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

1  ...  15  16  17  18  19  20  ...  36  |   Order by default