1  ...  29  30  31  32  33  34  ...  36  |   Order by default

Nov 27, 2002, 10:54pm

We were. :)

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Nov 27, 2002, 10:58pm

Maybe a good idea, but that should probably only count features that are expected to take at least a day to add or have a reasonable potential of adding bugs, and should also not be "strictly" adhered to, because there are situations where it's obvious to the programmer that it's the right time to add a certain feature (such as when they're working on the section of code it would go in anyway and adding it will fit in with what they are doing) and it would be a shame to have to skip it at that time and waste months later.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Nov 27, 2002, 11:00pm

Don't force him into a corner, please... let him do his job.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Nov 27, 2002, 11:03pm

Well if you write to them with that attitude, I don't see any reason they would have to say no... except maybe the fact that they're flooded with feedback at the moment. Worth a try though, if you're serious about it. :)

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Nov 27, 2002, 11:11pm

I have to agree with MrBruce here. Different people have different styles, and at least a style of silently testing in the background waiting to find something that nobody has reported is not disruptive. They could handle a lot of those people quite easily. It's the ones who announce publicly that the next release version is going to be a piece of crap that we have to worry about, because they really don't KNOW what it "will" be like until it's released, and of course those who interrupt people who are trying to get things done to tell them that there are bugs in the beta software need to learn to think more about what is really worth that particular person's time and how weather or not they may already be busy doing things that are of equal or greater importance.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Nov 29, 2002, 2:28am

Brilliantly written. :)

TechnoZeus
PB.. er, um.. Yeah.

:)

[View Quote]

Nov 29, 2002, 2:32am

Classic. :)

TZ


[View Quote] :)

Nov 29, 2002, 2:36am

Gotta love that subtle flame with the obscure target. :)

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Nov 29, 2002, 2:37am

Hehe.

TZ

[View Quote]

Nov 30, 2002, 2:59am

I probably couldn't agree any more either... or any less. :)

TZ

[View Quote]

Nov 30, 2002, 3:08am

You must have spent an awful lot more time in America than I have, to be so sure of what "almost every american" thinks, but it would seem that somehow even with all your experience you've manage to allow yourself to believe things that simply aren't true. Perhaps you should ask "practically all americans" what they think, and give them time to answer before you decide you know. You might want to ask a few people living in America for some help with that task because if you try to do it all by yourself the population you started on will probably all be dead from old age or what ever else, long before you're anywhere near through asking them all.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Nov 30, 2002, 3:18am

I'm not good with History, but weren't people generally already considered to have been adults for at least a few years by the time they reached the age of 13, back in medieval times?

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Dec 9, 2002, 6:30pm

Allowing 3-axis rotation in Alpha World would require a major overhaul of the encroachment detection. On the other hand, to add a vertical move syntax that could be used without being considered a special command would not. For example...
activate move 1
....to move up 10 meters when clicked.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Dec 10, 2002, 3:09am

I don't know about AWTeen, but Alpha World doesn't currently allow use of either the rotate or the move command, except by a few people who have specifically been given the privilege to do so. Therefore it is extremely unlikely that any vandalism involving either of those commands would happen.

As for the idea that the move command would allow "worse" vandalism to be possible than the rotate command, although that would depend on the types of objects available for the most part I would say that is correct at this time, however once the encroachment checking has been reworked that will no longer be the case and in fact this fix would probably be slightly easier to do for the move command than the rotate command. However, what I was talking about is adding support for an alternate move command syntax that would not require any changes in the encroachment checking to be safe for use as an ordinary command since it would "only" support vertical movement. Of course, the existing syntax would still exist and would still be a "special command" until the encroachment checking is fixed, but this alternate syntax would at least allow vertical object movement without it having to be considered a "special" command.

The Rotate command currenly supports both a syntax that expects one value for each axis, and a syntax that expects only a value for the "y" axis. The Move command also supports a syntax that expects one value for each axis. What I am suggesting is to add a syntax for the Move command that, like the alternate syntax for the Rotate command, expects only a value for the "y" axis. This alternate syntax would be incapable of moving objects onto other people's property "at all" so it wouldn't have to be considered a "special" command.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Dec 10, 2002, 5:15am

I know. I was asked by people that I trusted not to do any vandalism to find a way that the commands could be used, so I gave them a way. When that way was removed I was asked again, so I found another way. I knew from the start where the loop-hole was and what it would take to block it completely, and I knew it would happen eventually, but I see Alpha World as representative of Active Worlds in many ways, and in my opinion it has always been in the best interest of the community to have more than just static looking builds in Alpha World, so I continued to give out new ways to circumvent the restriction until the point at which I figured the loop-hole would finally be removed completely. At that point, I used it myself to make my Index of Alpha Worlds Building Supplies more intuituve and more interactive so that it would better serve it's intended purpose, and when that workaround was disabled I didn't bother to look for another workaround because the possibility of it's existance is too slim in my opini

By the way, you may be interested to know why I chose to allow people to take advantage of that particular loop-hole rather than reporting it so that it could be sealed up. Well, I wasn't on the beta team at the time and I learned from a similar situation that sometimes it's better to leave something alone than to get it fixed. Back in 1998, I found a way to use textures from different object paths that were on the same server, using the animate command. (The texture command didn't exist yet.) It was neat to be able to add textures from other worlds, and since the command format wasn't simple I was sure it wouldn't be used by many people, however there was a minor glitch in the way it worked. I knew where the glitch was comming from and what needed to be done to fix it, so I mentioned it to Roland, the lead programmer at that time. Since I'm rather well known for being able to do things previously thought to be impossible he only told me once that there was no way to do what I told him could be done... t

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Dec 10, 2002, 8:16pm

Actually, it was on old off-line nickname. I didn't pick it, but I liked it. Well... there were a few minor variations, so I picked the one I liked the most. :)

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Dec 10, 2002, 9:24pm

They did consider that. Their decision, obviously, was that they could allow world caretakers to make that choice on a per-world basis.

Meanwhile, it is very likely that the move and rotate commands "in their present form" will eventually be taken off the "special commands" list, but I'm guessing that when more sophisticated movement commands such as orbit and moveto are added, they will start out as "special commands" also.

In order to make the present forms of the move and rotate commands no longer capable of causing encroachment in worlds with a registry in place, the encroachment checks will have to be fixed and extended. In the mean time, I still think it would be nice if a simpler move syntax was added to allow vertical movement only, since that could be made available to everyone without having to re-work the encroachment checks first, and besides... it makes sense that such a syntax should be supported because it would be consistent with the alternate y-axis only syntax of the rotate command.

TechnoZeus


[View Quote]

Dec 11, 2002, 1:44am

Well, as I said... to my understanding it's a temporary situation. I could be mistaken, but I think technically the decision has already been made to allow the Move and Rotate command in Alpha World, but only after they can do so without running the risk of encouraging the few people who might vandalize other people's property to take advantage of another easy way to do more dammage... not to mention those people who simply don't give other people's work enough consideration to think about what dammage they may cause inadvertantly to another person's build. Again, this is just "my" understanding of the situation, and if I am wrong about it then I would have to agree that more thought on the issue is probably in order. If I'm right, then it's just a matter of time. Keep in mind also that there are legitimate reasons to keep certain restrictions on Alpha World. I'm with you on the idea that it's the flagship world and should show off Active Worlds in the best light possible to attract more people. I also t

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Dec 11, 2002, 7:51am

Okay. Sounds good. Anybody know if the terrain data is stored in an efficient format? I haven't looked at it, but I'm just thinking about how quickly it could get out of hand in Alpha World if it's not. For example, if someone changes the terrain height or a single cell location at or near each of the far corners of Alpha World, would there suddenly be a huge file containing a bunch of level terrain?

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Dec 11, 2002, 8:36am

Yes, best to find out for sure if possible. There's a big difference between "pretty large" and the size of Alpha World. :)

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Dec 12, 2002, 3:26am

:)

TZ

[View Quote]

Dec 6, 2002, 11:17pm

The advantages to having your own universe are being able to allow in or keep out whoever you want, without regard to what other worlds or universes they may have access to, and being able to divide up the available land into as many or as few worlds as you choose, and having the total number of users allowed at one time not be limited to a single world. For example, if you have a universe with a 50 simultaneous user limit, you can have 20 users in on world and 3 users in each of 10 other worlds at one time, 46 users in one world and 2 uses in each of 2 other worlds at a different time, and then 25 users in each of two worlds at a different time, without having to change your configuration.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Dec 13, 2002, 1:03am

I think there are more people wondering what was intended than complaining... you feel like letting them in on the secret, or are you going to just let them wonder? :)

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Dec 11, 2002, 8:50am

Bad? Looks good for AW from my perspective.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Dec 11, 2002, 7:25pm

Competition isn't what I had in mind... although a certain amount of that may be somewhat helpful. Sure a lot of people think avatar customization is one of the most important features in a program... and other people think a spell checker is. We're all different, and there are a lot of us out here. I'm looking at a much bigger picture, including what I see Shamus as bringing to the development team and the effects that can have. Yes, I think in some ways such "competition" could be a little rough of AW, and cause for some people to worry... but I also think that AW could benefit greatly from the existance of other programs offering "similar" but not identical sets of features... for one, you may have noticed that the advertisement you found for that one was in a forum designed for games, that would not exist if not for the huge number of video games in existance. From what I could see, it's not "really" a game, but it's closer to one than Active Worlds is. I like Active Worlds for what it is, not for what it vaguely resembles... and I know I'm not alone in that way of looking at it. A lot of changes are going to need to happen, and a catalyst to speed some of them along isn't necessarily a bad thing. I don't see that program as something new to compete with Active Worlds, but rather something new to join with Active Worlds in the slow process of changing the world we live in to make it better for those of use who like this sort of stuff. :)

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Dec 12, 2002, 1:36am

Yep... and keep in mind also that for a new development team to take over on development of a program the size of Active Worlds is no easy task. I think they're doing great, for having been working directly with the code such a short time. Imagine what they will be capable of once they've gotten more familliar with it... and what's even more important than capability, in my opinion, is the insight to be able to see what needs to me made possible and why. :)

I have no doubts in my mind that some of the newer projects will in many ways overtake Active Worlds, but I also see that Active Worlds was the embryo that made the birth of a new industry possible, and as that industry grows it will make room for Active Worlds to offer more to their customers without the need for further price increases. Who knows... maybe some day we'll even see a price decrease. In fact, it would seem to me that such a step will eventually become necessary as well as unimistakbly viable and that's one more thing we could all benefit from.

By the way, although AW 3.4 is not likely in my opinion to be released very soon, it is definately getting there and the last time I can think of that a version took long enough in development to make people wonder if it would ever come out was AW 3.0, which was more "under the hood" stuff than anything else. This time, people will "see" a lot of change.

TechnoZeus


[View Quote]

Dec 12, 2002, 1:47am

Well, if you're going to fail at something... at least you picked what to fail at carefully. :)

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Dec 12, 2002, 1:51am

Well, aside from your Internet connection sounding a little better than most AOL subscribers get to enjoy, it sounds a lot like everywhere else on Earth I've expreienced or heard about.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Dec 12, 2002, 2:16am

Well, they may not have slpit months, but most areas have split years into either 2, 3, or 4 seasons and each of them seems to think for the most part that their way is the best way. Also, you may have noticed that the numbers used to represent the years split between 1 B.C., and 1 A.D., although alternative initials are used in some places, but I personally think the whole system has always been a mess and still is a mess. The number of days in a month isn't something that's always been agreed on, and in fact after many changes along the way we seem to have ended up with a system that only vaguely resembles any sort of pattern. 24 hours in a day? Okay, so it's nice that you can evenly divide that by 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 12, so when it was put into effect I'm sure it made a lot of sense to the people who were around at the time. The number of seconds in a minute, or minutes in an hour can be evenly divided by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, and 30, so that's even more versatile... but who these days takes advantage of that? The number systems based on 12 and 60 that were responsable for those divisions are no longer in common usage, and the idea that we can split the month up into 30 days was given up a long time ago because the moon simply wouldn't cooperate. Want a system of time that makes sense? Get a bunch of countries together and have them come up with one that makes sense to at least most of them. How about something based on the Metric system? There's something International for you. The 24 hour clock is arguably more "international" than the 12 hour clock, but the fact that it can be so readily argued either way proves that neither one really deserves the title. Now, you may wonder if I'm nieve enough to think that a universal Metric time system will be accepted world wide within my lifetime... I'm not, but it's a nice thought.

By the way, that would make me about 337.6 kh old, I think.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Dec 12, 2002, 2:34am

I've never seen Active Worlds as a chat probram, and I've never seen it as a game program. Labels are nice when it comes to trying to describe something in one word, but the description always falls short or accuracy and in the case of Active Worlds it falls "too short" which is why it's so hard to get people interested in it. That's the biggest reason why I feel the "free usage" at least at some level, is so vitally important. You can't give someone an image accurate image in their mind of what they may or may not like about Active Worlds with a single word. It just can't be done, because there's nothing else like it. Even a short phrase doesn't quite do it, but as other programs with similar attributes evolve it will get easier to describe them. Right now, for example, the easiest way to describe a lot of these new programs is by stating that they're similar to Active Worlds. Even if the person you're talking about has never heard of Active Worlds, it's better to start off that way than to try to slap some old label on that just doesn't do the trick. I think really, that the category Active Worlds fits best into is that of an "interactive 3D environment" program. The realms in such a program are "interactive worlds" and cover a specific subset of everything from games to simulations to online meeting places to living growing works of art with an unlimited number of artists. So many things fit "into" Active Worlds that people can't agree on what it is, but that's the same problem computer users have when they disagree on what a computer is for. It's for a lot of things, not just one.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

1  ...  29  30  31  32  33  34  ...  36  |   Order by default