1  ...  2  3  4  5  |   Order by default

May 15, 1998, 8:55am

Good luck. AW hasn't and can't develop this fast. There are MANY things that have been suggested and are even on a list of future improvements (dubbed The List™) that still aren't implemented yet. If you can provide COF with additional programmers or monetary support to hire additional programmers, perhaps AW will develop faster.

[View Quote] > Would it be possible to introduced objects that can be moved by
> everybody ?
> This would be interesting if we wanted to play soccers in active world.
> (the ball is an object that can be moved by everybody).
>
> Another idea would be the possibility to change the owner of an object.
> This would be useful to introduce the concept of transaction in active
> world.
> (I know there exist a possibility, but I believe we would need something
> more easy to use).
>
> We could even imagine to introduce the idea of virtual money at some
> point, and more generaly objects
> that you can carry with you and exchange with other people.
>
> No flame please about the idea in introducing commerce inside active
> world.
> I do not want to make money but more do research about ecommerce and
> economics dynamics
> in virtual worlds.

May 17, 1998, 12:13am

[View Quote] > We could imagine (if an open API/protocol is available) that third party would be ready to implement those ideas.
> Those ideas may eventualy later be integrated in the main system.

Again, good luck. AW doesn't develop that fast, especially to allow third-party developers to code for it. The support alone COF would need to provide to them would be too much, since they can barely handle the support of AW to end-users. But, hey, we'll see, eh? <chuckle>

> I believe that Apple had such an approach.
> We can enventually considere that Netscape with its pluggins had also something similar.
> But those exemplesare not neccessary the better. (when you know that Apple isstill in big trouble, and what happened to the Netscape browser).

Yes, hopefully other people can code Communicator better than Netscape did. It's really pathetic how many bugs it has that Netscape allowed to remain and released.

> Anyway, I believe this is something a very common approach in the software industry (and even in distribution): when you do not have the resources, you try to let other do the job. The only thing to watch is not to loose control.

COF doesn't like to give up control, however. We'll see how long they last...

Jun 13, 1998, 9:17am

Preach it, brother. AW develops way too slow. They're gonna lose their "edge" (what little edge they have, or might, have) unless they don't develop it faster...

[View Quote] > Ever since I had AW I wanted 3dfx support. I suggested it to many COF ppl but nothin. I thought about it and it would be able to be done. I really wish you supported it because my friend would
> subscribed if they used 3dfx. I haven't even been using AW since my frame rates are 2fps.....yes that is 2. Mine runs like crap on my 133. But I do have a Pure3D and I can run Quake II at around
> 25fps which is much more graphic intensive. *sign* If only COF would listen. Also I was very disappointed to see that the upgrade I DL was basically just exterior upgrades. The only difference
> since the last time I used AW is that the buttons are different and a new tab WOOHOO!!! I haven't used AW in like 6 months too haha after six months that is all they got done? Am I missing
> something. I coudl care less about the new worlds are crap cause right now AW is pretty unusable.
>
> Thanks, and maybe someone will actaully do something this time.

Jul 13, 1998, 10:48am

Too complicated. Just folders in a SINGLE contact tab will do.

[View Quote] > I use multiple contacts files to solve the problem. Would be nice though,
> to see AW support them internally, so I wouldn't have to close AW and run a
> batch file each time I want to switch to a different contact list.
>
[View Quote]

Jul 13, 1998, 11:17am

I suggested this to Roland a few months ago as a security/spy camera and he said it would mean that much more rendering, essentially halving the frame rate. :/

[View Quote] > It would be interesting to be able to make some kind of viewport into
> another location. Todays computers are probably not ready for it, but the
> basic idea would be to render an entire scene into a bitmap of some type,
> and display that bitmap as a picture or texture on an object. Even if it
> was very infrequently updated, it could be very interesting, but it would be
> ideal if it could some day be done with no real loss of frame rate, and
> could keep up with the frame rate of the rest of the display. As I said in
> the basenote of this thread (or at least had intended to, as I realize now
> that I missed a few words), "This message thread is intended for ideas that
> are a bit unrealistic or are noteably on the futuristic side." I think this
> one qualifies as futuristic... and the next one I'm planning probably even
> more so. I hope other people will have a few to add also.

Jul 13, 1998, 8:27pm

I'd rather have the light source vary in direction and intensity as it passes overhead. This was rumored by Roland and Protagonist to be possible now with AW 2.0. I want more control over the world light source. Damn AW develops soooooo slooooowly...

[View Quote] > Ok guys here we go I'm starting a thread of how to get day and night in
> aw if you have any images or ideas post them on this thread

Jul 13, 1998, 7:24pm

It would also halve the framerate.

[View Quote] > Mmm... not exactly
> the mirror object could act as a render window inside th render window
> and the mirror could render all objects in fornt of it until a certain
> distance that is set is reached and than it will not render objects any
> further than that trust me I know it will work :)

Jul 13, 1998, 10:38am

I'd rather have checkboxes, pull-down lists, and an edit field (for URLs, sign text, etc). All that command typing sucks.

[View Quote] > It's my duty as American-Frenchman to translate this...
>
> Manta says:
>
> If I have understood well the concept of attributes, they are saved in text
> mode, and are communicated through this medium. In this way, when you build
> several objects with attributes in a same area, you get an "area full"
> alert, preventing you to build any further.
>
> So, obviously, a "create animate me" command takes up 17 bytes of text data.
> Imagine if the AW browser would be capable of analysing this ASCII sequence
> of the command and to transform it into a substitute, that would only take
> one byte. This way, the browser could easily reduce the risk of "area full"
> alerts.
>
> the ASCII command would be transform in a number or a single letter for
> example, while it is in transit from server to user, or in storage in either
> place. Or instead of writing "create animate me", you would simply write
> "1". The different often-used commands would be encoded like this:
> Cmd #0 : "create animate"
> Cmd #1 : "bump"
> Cmd #2 : "solid off"
> Cmd #3 : "solid on"
> Etc...
>
> This probably wouldn't be very hard to make possible, and it would greatly
> ameliorate the program's construction phase.

Jul 13, 1998, 9:25am

I believe clipping planes would prevent rendering beyond the plane until passing a certain point and should dramatically increase frame rate if used properly. AW needs to increase in frame rate, BADLY. There's no need to render what's behind things if they can't be seen anyway (excluding through windows, doors, etc). I thought BSP (binary space partitioning) would do this (and it still might), but now I think clipping planes are "it". They could even be clipping plane objects, made just like regular RWXes, except maybe with a tag to denote the clipping. I don't know all the technicalities of it, but, as I was told, it's in like 99% of 3D games (yes, I know AW isn't a "game", but it's still based on the same 3D engine concept as used in 3D games/apps and could probably dramatically increase in frame rate with clipping planes). Anyway, just a thought...

Jul 13, 1998, 10:20pm

Makes taking screen captures for maps annoying and it seems silly AW can't look fully straight up and down anyway...

1  ...  2  3  4  5  |   Order by default