1  ...  23  24  25  26  27  28  ...  36  |   Order by default

Jul 2, 2003, 10:26pm

I was commenting on the response about using "create light". It was just a comment... doesn't need a new thread, or a full discussion, as it's an old idea that I'm pretty sure is already well known. Yes, it would be nice to be able to attack things to an avatar and allow the avatar to carry the things around... but some conventions would need to be decided on such as how to decide which joint or clump to attach the object to, and how to decide in what position the object would be attached. There are many possible ways in which an object could be attached to an avatar, and arbitrarily allowing any object to be attached in a predefined way without regard to the size or shape of the object could lead to some pretty strange sites. Also, it would heve to be decided how the attached object would effect avatar collision detection. For example, could an avatar carrying a mansion in it's right hand and wearing a bus on it's left shoulder fit through the doorway of an out-house?

*pictures avatar checking it's watch and brushing it's hair with a house attached to it's hand*

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Jul 2, 2003, 10:29pm

oops... major typo there.. meant to say ttach things, not attack things. (wouldn't want that to be taken the wrong way).

TZ

[View Quote]

Jul 2, 2003, 10:39pm

yes... especially if they were given independant orbit controls.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Jul 8, 2003, 2:46am

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. It would be good to have such orbit controls available in the World Features dialog. To have such controls in AW 3.4 would have been way too much to ask for, since there was already so much being added, but it would be great to see it added in the 3.5 or 4.0 browser.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Jul 8, 2003, 2:58am

Facers had to be implemented in AW, because they were removed from RenderWare. Unfortunately, only an extremely simplistic facer functionality was added. Yes, I agree that nore facer options should be added, but I disagree with the idea that it should only be in trueSpace objects. In fact, since AW already has it's own extensions to the RenderWare scripting language, it would make even more sense to further extend the language to allow more flexible objects with control over which axes align to what. For example, strange effects could be made by setting something like Align Y=-yaw, or Align X=pitch Z=roll, or Align X=FaceX, or perhaps "Align Sprite to just keep the object's "front" always facing the screen head-on.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Jul 10, 2003, 11:56pm

I think you might have missed the point. The idea is that if someone wants their world to work a certain way, they have the choice it to reliably do so. For example, if a person wanted to make their world a giant amusement park, and planned to use commands on certain objects to control the actions of other objects, allowing the visibility range to go too low could break the functionality of their builds and ruin the experience. Not all builds are just for looks.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Jul 11, 2003, 12:01am

There may be many reasons to want the ability to set restrictions or minimums on visibility in worlds, other than gaming. As a simple example, a world owner may want the walls in a maze to tell an interactive story that changes based on which route you take through the maze, and they may be using commands that set sign text in the distance, or may want to keep someone from "reading ahead" as they go.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Jul 20, 2003, 7:55am

yep... and world worners should be able to restrict that within their world as well. In fact, it may even be a good idea to allow some such restrictions to be set (or cleared) with a building Action command also.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Jul 11, 2003, 12:08am

Actually, I think in most cases it's better if they don't. First, because if you lose your connection after logging in, you can read them off-line. Second, because moving them from the server as soon as you log in is much more efficient than first sending the header and later sending the telegram when it's requested. I do agree, however, that an option should be added to allow a person to choose to have unread telegrams stay on the server, at least for the first day or so anyway, if not the full time that the server will store them before they get deleted.

TZ

[View Quote]

Dec 17, 2003, 7:34pm

Perhaps it would be enough to add a checkbox to the login dialog that says "do not recieve telegrams durring this session" so that someone logging onto a computer where they don't want the telegrams stored could put off recieving them until they are back on their usual system.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Jan 20, 2004, 12:34pm

Yep. Still alive. Not online much lately, but still around. As for how "everything" is, that would take a while to answer, since "everything" includes a lot... but overall, things are going okay for me. :)

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Jul 11, 2003, 12:14am

Actually, there are two such ideas which have been discussed and both are worth repeating, in my opinion. First, a default terrain height would allow the height of "undefined terrain" to be set. Second, a "terrain height offset" is what you seem to be talking about, which would be added to the altitude of existing terrain before rendering.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Jul 11, 2003, 12:16am

Would this be a bit like running Notepad along with AW?

TZ

[View Quote]

Dec 17, 2003, 7:34pm

It's never been as simple as attraction to males or females. That's just an oversimplification of something which is by nature extremely complex. There are genetic tendancies to be attacted to specific traits or combinations of traits, and there are social and educational factors which complicate things further. A genetic tendancy toward traits which tend to show up more frequently or more prominently in potential mates would tend to increase the chances of that genetic tendancy getting passed on to a future generation, but keep in mind also that genes do cross over and exchange during meiosis, so it is possible for any trait generally associated with one gender to be passed on to a member of the other gender, provided that the passing on of such trait isn't considered to define the resulting gender in and of itself. Traits do tend, however, to cross over in groups based on physical proximity to each other within the same chromosome, thereby causing a certain amount of aparent consistancy when it comes to which traits tend to accompany which other traits.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Jan 20, 2004, 12:31pm

Not true.

Yes, it is generally the case that the absolute or relative locations of certain genes on their respective chromosomes tend to cause them to be passed somewhat consistently as a group, but this is in no way an enforced behavior. It is true that the X chromosome in mammals carries genes for traits which tend to be lacking on the mammalian Y chromosome and which therefore generally must be in the X chromosome to be present in mammalian phenotypes, but again this is not an absolute requirement and the genes themselves don't seem to much care which chromosome they're carried on for the most part. Also, although presence, absence, or level of certain hormone production tends to be largely responsible for development of multiple features associated with a specific gender, again such mechanisms are not strictly enforced because so many factors may be involved. Genetic effects on developing phenotypes follow the rules of physics and chemistry, not our ideas of how things should work.

Have a look at the following related URLs, if you don't wish to take my word for it. Or, since I only skimmed these materials for relevancy after running a web search, you may choose to search the web yourself...

http://inquirer.gn.apc.org/gender_intro.html

http://www.duj.com/Article/Aaronson.html

http://www.medhelp.org/www/ais/22_CAIS.HTM

http://biol1.bio.nagoya-u.ac.jp:8000/YYZygotes.html

http://genomebiology.com/2003/4/6/R37

http://worms.zoology.wisc.edu/zooweb/Phelps/karyotype.html

http://anatomy.med.unsw.edu.au/cbl/embryo/OMIMfind/gonad/OMIM-278850.htm

http://genetics.faseb.org/genetics/ashg99/f910.htm

http://www.priory.com/med/xx.htm

http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/agcomm/magazine/summer03/xx.htm

http://www.ic.sunysb.edu/Stu/jchenowe/sexual.html

http://ibis-birthdefects.org/start/hermaphr.htm

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/0703/03embryo.html

http://www.physci.ucla.edu/html/arnold.htm

http://www.embarrassingproblems.com/pages2/breasts_g.htm

http://www.jhu.edu/~jhumag/0900web/babes.html

By the way, there is nothing inherently lethal about the YY or YYY chromosome karyotype in and of itself, but in mammals the Y chromosome tends to be lacking in certain genes due to the fact that natural selection has not enforced their presence in that chromosome since their existence on the X chromosome is sufficient for survival of the most common karyotypes.

I hope this short list of on-line literature will help to shed a little light on the subject, although it's quite a divergence from the original topic of this thread. :)

TechnoZeus


[View Quote]

Jul 11, 2003, 12:25am

If they do have it, I hope they don't spend it on something like that and end up having to raise their prices as a result of it.

TZ

[View Quote]

Jul 11, 2003, 12:34am

It makes sense, if you think about it. Storing actual information about who each line of chat text in the chat history window came from would be excessive. I would guess that if someone changes their name after saying something, and then someone else changes to the nname that is left no longer in use, that right clicking on that chat text would identify it as belonging to the person who had acquired the name after the line of text was typed and sent.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Jul 11, 2003, 12:44am

This would take up an awful lot of space, and reduce rendering performance considerably. There are, however, alternatives which could be considered. For example, since each terrain square currently has a single terrain height, perhaps a way could be added to allow a few bits to be used to specify a "relative height" for a point in the center of that square, using a larger placement granularity both for the original height and also the relative height of the secondary height node. This would have to be turned on for a specific terrain square before it could be used on that terrain square, so rendering of other terrain squares would be uneffected. As I said.. this is just an example of one possibility.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Jul 11, 2003, 1:50am

I like this idea of world sizes based on the number of cells total that can contain objects, rather than world boundaries. Perhaps an alternate pricing scheme could be designed to allow worlds to be sold in this way. This would work well with the recently added ability to set an entry point, since the world could then be split into little pockets of stuff with one of them acting as the world's entry point, and teleports linking them. This would also work well with the concept of building on islands in a huge ocean.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Jul 20, 2003, 8:00am

This would be good, but with one exception... the world setting should not be able to set the minimum lower than the universe setting for the minimum browser build. In other words, if your browser is below either the minimum set for the universe you could not enter the universe at all, even if your startup world tried to set a minimum browser build number that was lower than the one you were using at the time.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Jul 20, 2003, 8:04am

The fact that a function could be programmed into a bot does not make that function an already existing browser feature. Yes, it can already be done, and in fact NewAW has been doing it for some time now, but having the function as a world server and browser feature would be nice.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Jan 20, 2004, 12:52pm

Yes, that was always one thing I really likes about PowWow was the ability to participare in a discussion without having to keep your eyes glued to the chat text window. Windows XP has TTS support built-in, but I haven't tested it with AW.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Jan 20, 2004, 12:46pm

Actually there is evidence to the contrary, although the past we travel into may not be our own, and there are many futures. The so-called Grandfather paradox only appears to be self-contradictory if the universe is assumed to have only linear time. Personally, I have always viewed time as having either ray-based multidimensional geometry or a geometry resembling that of quaternian or octonian space. We won't really know for sure until more tests have been done, or someone from the future explains it to us.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Mar 27, 2005, 3:53pm

Yep. Would be nice to see that get fixed.
TZ

[View Quote]

Nov 6, 2002, 3:12pm

What happened to the base note of this thread? It apears to be missing.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Nov 6, 2002, 4:52pm

Ah, okay. Wondered. :)

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Nov 6, 2002, 5:08pm

I'm sure they mean well. It's a lot of posts to go through. I wouldn't blame them if they just decided to clear the whole board, post the charter, and start over.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Nov 24, 2002, 6:19am

Hmmmm.... *wondering what the story was and how such information would be capable of changing it*

:)

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Dec 22, 2002, 10:07am

Hey now... don't be encouraging people to eliminate possibilities in VR worlds based on the limited range of variety that the terrain of Earth you've experienced so far has to offer. :)

TZ

[View Quote]

Feb 6, 2003, 10:58pm

I haven't seen any arguments about this subject at all in the wishlist newsgroup. I haven't looked lately at the other 6 newsgroups that you cross-posted to so I don't know how bad the problem is in any of them, but if the people you are addressing really are "a load of irritating morons" it's very doubtful that yelling at them will change that fact. If they're not, then you just yelled at a bunch of good people for nothing.

If anyone wants to reply specifically to me (about my reply) I'll find your reply if you post it to wishlist but otherwise please post any further replies to this thread to General or Community for followup depending on which one you think is your reply is better suited for.

Just so you know John, it's generally not a good idea to cross post unless you are very sure that what you are posting really needs to be in all of the groups you are cross-posting to and really should have most of the replies to it go to all of the same newsgroups. One of the reasons it's not a good idea is that if any of the moderators of any of the groups it's cross-posted to decides it's inapropraite for that particular group, it will get deleted from all of them.

Note to the moderators... I won't miss this reply if you decide to zap it. Have a nice day.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

1  ...  23  24  25  26  27  28  ...  36  |   Order by default