1  2  |   Order by default

Jan 22, 2006, 7:18pm

Technically, opacities should be chars. They basically go from 0 to 255
in value. Because when we originally went over to AW 3.x, that's how
opacities were done. The calculation between the two is easy anyway.
float = int/255 to get the float equivalent from 0 to 1. int =
float*255 to get the 0 to 255 value. :P

[View Quote]

May 21, 2006, 9:49pm

[View Quote] > 2) What do you prefer to program in (in case they aren't they same answer)?
C#

> 3) Why do you prefer to program bots in the language of your choice?
> List pros and cons please!

For C++, I prefer it because of the speed, and the fact that it is
essentially the standard when it comes to writing native applications.
Only problem is it takes a lot more time to code up even the simplest
things.

For C#, I prefer it because of the ease of use, and the robust language
features it offers over Java. This is probably my *favorite* language.
The downside is that it's byte-code compiled, and interpreted at
runtime. This slows down certain things a bit, but it works for those
simple applications that you want to get done fast.

Jun 1, 2006, 3:12pm

Hi Magine,

Using the latest version of the SDK for 4.1, I haven't had any issues
creating objects with the macro functions. I did at first, but then I
realized I wasn't setting the object type properly before I called
object add.

Also for the movers, are you setting the model after you fill the
structure? Movers, unlike the other V4 objects still rely on the model
field for V3 objects to work.

[View Quote]

Jun 4, 2006, 3:25pm

You know, I actually thought about doing this. I think it's a good
idea, since the current SDK documentation is crap. :)

Best thing is that code examples and links to all the different SDK
wrappers can go up here, also.

[View Quote]

Jun 4, 2006, 4:45pm

I took the liberty of creating lists of all the functions, attributes,
events, callbacks, and return codes with corresponding links to the
non-existant pages about each one. I'll leave that up to other people
to fill in, or do myself as I find time. There's still quite a few
things missing like most of the new data structures, defines, and
typedefs introduced in the 4.1 header. :)

[View Quote]

Jun 4, 2006, 5:12pm

Thanks, looking through your examples... they make great templates for
the rest of the Wiki.

I may go through and add basic C examples for some of the events and
functions, to demonstrate how to go about doing code examples.

Jun 4, 2006, 7:40pm

Seems the pages you did add are formatted well enough for Wiki. :)

Jun 4, 2006, 9:55pm

Yeah, I'm gonna be putting together function and event reference
templates based off of what you have now, I'll include information on
the minimum requirements of each. :)

[View Quote]

Jun 4, 2006, 9:56pm

Hi DM Mercury,

I was going to mention that for events I'd use the work strike did in
terms of those entires, and as far as functions go, I'll try to get
something together later tonight as an example of how the function pages
might light. :)

[View Quote]

Jun 17, 2006, 8:51pm

> Historically Active Worlds has always used a 400x400x400 cube, every single
> bot ever made that includes a beyond-visual-range calculation has used this
> formula, it is hard coded into most bots. Not only is the cube method faster
> in terms of processing time (a simple condition check vs. square root ) but
> it also has other advantages.

I figure I'll address this point. You do realize that you don't need a
square root in the check at all? It's all really simple polar
coordinate math. X^2 + Y^2 = R^2, where R is the Radius. So for a
circle with a 200m radius... all you have to do is:

if(pow(avatar_x, 2)+ pow(avatar_y, 2)) <= 40000)
{
//your code here...
}

And that does a check to make sure something is within the radius. :)
Yes, it is a little more math than what's needed, but it completely
trims out the requirement for a square root function.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PolarCoordinates.html <-- for more
information on polar coordinates.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SphericalCoordinates.html <-- spherical
coordinates, too, incase you need to do checks in a sphere, instead of a
2d circle.

Jun 17, 2006, 11:54pm

[View Quote] Yes, I agree that losing more than half the area that you could see
before isn't the best of ideas.

Anyway, you really only need two powers. The third one can be pretty
much a #define. You'll probably need to do subtraction between two
points still yet, if you want to make sure they are in each other's radius.

#define RADIUS 40000

if(pow(av1_x - av2_x, 2) + pow(av1_y - av2_y, 2) <= RADIUS)

So that could actually just boil down to one addition, two subtracts,
and two multiplies...

x_dist = av1_x - av2_x;
z_dist = av1_y - av2_y;

if((x_dist*x_dist + z_dist*z_dist) <= RADIUS)

Jun 19, 2006, 3:59pm

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.

[View Quote]

Jun 19, 2006, 10:42pm

BTW .NET as a whole is not proprietary. Both the underlying CLI and C# of .NET are ISO standards.
http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER=36769&ICS1=35&ICS2=60&ICS3= - CLI standard.
http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER=36768 - C# standard.

Already efforts have gone into utilizing the CLI with over 40 languages that compile down into CIL (Common Intermediate Language) and projects designed to support programs compilerd into CIL without the use of the .NET Framework or VM. The most notable
being Mono, an open source project to bring the CLI into cross-platform world. As seen here: http://www.mono-project.com/Main_Page

Just figured I'd let people in on the fact that with the ISO standardization of both CLI and C#, they're not much Microsoft anymore. Yes Microsoft, HP, and Intel own patents... but those patents are provided royalty-free to anyone who wishes to implement
C# or CLI.

-Byte

[View Quote]

Jul 3, 2006, 4:02am

[View Quote] It's not quite out yet, due to poor decisions in regards to the current
SDK, it has been a little hard for me to get work on it done.

I should have something out soon, I hope. I just need to finish out
some functions and generate documentation. My wrapper works a little
differently, as it removes a lot of the overhead involved in instance
management, etc.

Seeing as how there is deman for a .NET wrapper, once I get back to my
apartment from the holiday, I'll look into getting a beta version of the
wrapper out for download.

Jun 8, 2006, 9:50pm

That was a good bow too : at

He died, decided he was too lazy to corpse recover and quit the game. : at

[View Quote]

Jun 17, 2006, 8:51pm

> Historically Active Worlds has always used a 400x400x400 cube, every single
> bot ever made that includes a beyond-visual-range calculation has used this
> formula, it is hard coded into most bots. Not only is the cube method faster
> in terms of processing time (a simple condition check vs. square root ) but
> it also has other advantages.

I figure I'll address this point. You do realize that you don't need a
square root in the check at all? It's all really simple polar
coordinate math. X^2 + Y^2 = R^2, where R is the Radius. So for a
circle with a 200m radius... all you have to do is:

if(pow(avatar_x, 2)+ pow(avatar_y, 2)) <= 40000)
{
//your code here...
}

And that does a check to make sure something is within the radius. :)
Yes, it is a little more math than what's needed, but it completely
trims out the requirement for a square root function.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PolarCoordinates.html <-- for more
information on polar coordinates.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SphericalCoordinates.html <-- spherical
coordinates, too, incase you need to do checks in a sphere, instead of a
2d circle.

Jun 17, 2006, 11:54pm

[View Quote] Yes, I agree that losing more than half the area that you could see
before isn't the best of ideas.

Anyway, you really only need two powers. The third one can be pretty
much a #define. You'll probably need to do subtraction between two
points still yet, if you want to make sure they are in each other's radius.

#define RADIUS 40000

if(pow(av1_x - av2_x, 2) + pow(av1_y - av2_y, 2) <= RADIUS)

So that could actually just boil down to one addition, two subtracts,
and two multiplies...

x_dist = av1_x - av2_x;
z_dist = av1_y - av2_y;

if((x_dist*x_dist + z_dist*z_dist) <= RADIUS)

Jun 19, 2006, 3:59pm

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.

[View Quote]

Jul 8, 2006, 7:06pm

Don't even have to use the .NET portions, can make console programs with express that have no UI. You have to buy the full version to get access to MFC and other such nonsense in 2005.

[View Quote]

Jul 8, 2006, 7:33pm

Can I ask why you are against .NET other than anti-Microsoft sentiment? Don't give me that it's a proprietary way of Microsoft forcing their programming methods on us. Both C# and the Common Language Infrastructure (including the Common Intermediate
Language, the Byte-Code, and the Virtual Machine) have been both ISO and ECMA standardized. Proof of this can be found at the mono project, an open-source implementation of the CLI by Novell and others. http://www.mono-project.com/Main_Page for more
information on that. :)

[View Quote] >
> On the contrary - I suggest to keep Dev C++ :)
> .NET is evil!!!
> OTOH I agree with Strike - threading is not a good idea with the SDK!
> Consult with Lady NightHawk - she learned the SDK by herself and she is
> using Dev C++ :)
>

Jul 8, 2006, 9:20pm

I'll give you that, but that's more of a programming style and convenience than anything else.

[View Quote]

May 3, 2006, 12:50am

Purpose of Level of Detail really is to make lower end systems run
better when viewing objects off in the distance. Say now that at 100m
vis they may have issues. Add a LOD that decreases between 50 and 100m
to different levels, and they'd be rendering fewer polygons off in the
distance, so they'd run faster.

[View Quote]

Jun 17, 2006, 8:51pm

> Historically Active Worlds has always used a 400x400x400 cube, every single
> bot ever made that includes a beyond-visual-range calculation has used this
> formula, it is hard coded into most bots. Not only is the cube method faster
> in terms of processing time (a simple condition check vs. square root ) but
> it also has other advantages.

I figure I'll address this point. You do realize that you don't need a
square root in the check at all? It's all really simple polar
coordinate math. X^2 + Y^2 = R^2, where R is the Radius. So for a
circle with a 200m radius... all you have to do is:

if(pow(avatar_x, 2)+ pow(avatar_y, 2)) <= 40000)
{
//your code here...
}

And that does a check to make sure something is within the radius. :)
Yes, it is a little more math than what's needed, but it completely
trims out the requirement for a square root function.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PolarCoordinates.html <-- for more
information on polar coordinates.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SphericalCoordinates.html <-- spherical
coordinates, too, incase you need to do checks in a sphere, instead of a
2d circle.

Jun 17, 2006, 11:54pm

[View Quote] Yes, I agree that losing more than half the area that you could see
before isn't the best of ideas.

Anyway, you really only need two powers. The third one can be pretty
much a #define. You'll probably need to do subtraction between two
points still yet, if you want to make sure they are in each other's radius.

#define RADIUS 40000

if(pow(av1_x - av2_x, 2) + pow(av1_y - av2_y, 2) <= RADIUS)

So that could actually just boil down to one addition, two subtracts,
and two multiplies...

x_dist = av1_x - av2_x;
z_dist = av1_y - av2_y;

if((x_dist*x_dist + z_dist*z_dist) <= RADIUS)

Jun 19, 2006, 3:59pm

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.

[View Quote]

May 4, 2006, 3:35am

1) I found out about AW on a TV show back in 1996
2) I joined because it looked really cool.
3) I've been a citizen since Jan of 1997, 9 yrs now.
4) The simplistic building interface
5) Lots of stuff, including bots, and third party applications.
6) Chatting with my friends and building stuff.

[View Quote]

May 7, 2006, 5:32am

I was 12 when I joined AW, I'm 21 now, so I have spent the good portion
of my teen years as a user of AW. So I will answer. :)

> 1. How did AW affect your growing years?
I wound up spending most of my time on AW in my younger years.

> 2. What role did AW citizenship take in your social life, virtual and
> physical world?
In the virtual world I was VERY social, and knew lots of people. My
real social life was the opposite. I didn't really care to interact
with others at the time.

> 3. Did it enhance your relationships in your location or what aspects
> significantly affected your development?
Well, I think it mostly affected me mentally in how I think and act to
this day. It taught me to be a more creative thinker, and to view
everything from different angles.

> 4.What did you gain or lose being a kid/teen growing up with AW
> experiences in your childhood?
I gained programming skills and math skills from using AW. I remember
a friend taught me the basics of trigonometry when I was only 14 years
old. Something that stuck with me throughout my life. I would say AW
is the main reason why I entered into the illustrious field of
Electrical and Computer Engineering. :)

> 5. Being online and in AW, among adults and teens, how did this
> influence or touch your lives?
I met quite a few mentors in AW, people who really helped nurture my
talents and made sure I was growing up to be someone who could think for
themself.

May 31, 2006, 8:59pm

Welcome aboard, I've had my MacBook Pro since the first day it came out. :)

Anyway, you could either emulate (I'd suggest Parallels, don't kon wht
URL) if you can't do Bootcamp. As for news readers, look into
Thunderbird (e-mail client) it should run on OS X just fine. :)

[View Quote]

Jun 4, 2006, 2:25pm

[View Quote] This bug has been known for quite some time, and was never fixed because
of performance issues. (AW really needs a better transparency algorithm!).

I have found that objects behind the images that are newer than the
objects with the images, don't get cut through. You can try this both
with GIFs and PNGs.

The best example I have of how this works is to place:
http://www.theenginerd.com/images/watpix.png on a picture object (this
is a 1 pixel x 1 pixel semi-transparent PNG file.) You will notice that
everything behind it has dissapeared. Now if you move the objects
behind it and move them back and exit the object dialog, they will
reappear for everyone. :)

Jun 7, 2006, 2:56pm

Well instead of taking out your anger and calling it "crap" why don't
you file a complaint with AWI and call tech support? That would be the
more civil route, instead of simply coming on the NGs and complaining
about something be "crap." :)

[View Quote]

1  2  |   Order by default