1  2  |   Order by index

Mar 7, 2004, 7:35am

What will it have? AW 3.3 was being talked about in the newsletters 7 months
before it was released. 3.4 and 3.5 just came out without much announcement
or hype at all.

Mar 7, 2004, 9:14pm

3.5 is beta?

~John

[View Quote]

Mar 8, 2004, 5:18am

3.3 had more features......we got more bugs than anything this time,
however, on a lighter note, we got a new toolbar!!!!!! ... I think they need
more ideas ;P


[View Quote]

Mar 8, 2004, 11:09am

I haven't D/L'd 3.5 yet, but it was my understanding that the new features
in 3.5 were more for the world owners. Is that right?
I don't own a world, that's why I haven't bothered with 3.5
That, and all I hear is bitching about 3.5 hehehehe

Tart Sugar
I used to be Snow White, but I drifted.

[View Quote]

Mar 8, 2004, 11:30am

Yes however their is a new toolbar you will benefit from (somehow)

--

Ry - #323710
AWRPG - Citizen of Kao'a
[View Quote]

Mar 8, 2004, 1:09pm

The 3.5 browser allows you to see what the world owner sets: water
under terrain and a different offset of terrain (the terrain may be
moved up or down). These are 3.5 world owner options, true, but
without the 3.5 browser you won't see them.

What about the people who haven't bitched about it? Like me and quite
a few others? :)

Alex

On 8 Mar 2004 08:09:57 -0500, "tart sugar" <tartsugar at comcast.net>
[View Quote] >I haven't D/L'd 3.5 yet, but it was my understanding that the new features
>in 3.5 were more for the world owners. Is that right?
>I don't own a world, that's why I haven't bothered with 3.5
>That, and all I hear is bitching about 3.5 hehehehe
>
>Tart Sugar
>I used to be Snow White, but I drifted.
>
[View Quote]

Mar 8, 2004, 2:57pm

[View Quote] .... And for universe owners. Ordinary users notice in 3.5
mainly the floating tabs and the new toolbar buttons à la E N Z O.
People who give tours or parties may like the invite option.
And if you cannot see /me emotes then you will miss part of chatting fun in AWGate ;)
But what I liked most was that they fixed lots of bugs,
even crash bugs, that had been hanging around for ages.

--
Mauz
http://mauz.info

Mar 8, 2004, 4:59pm

AWI should team up with the Mozilla team. They do great work. They could
make the whole browser skinnable...

[View Quote]

Mar 8, 2004, 5:21pm

mainly the floating tabs and the new toolbar buttons à la E N Z O.
<<<

.... while the so-called rating symbols that have relevance exclusively
to the USA, as well as the contact list AFK symbol with relevance only
to english language, remain hardcoded in the browser?
I am not sure which was more important to have for universe owners; if I
was changing some, I had changed all. :-)


[View Quote]

Mar 8, 2004, 5:22pm

Nah, let Mozilla work on Firefox and Thunderbird.

[View Quote]

Mar 8, 2004, 5:27pm

> ... while the so-called rating symbols that have relevance exclusively
> to the USA, as well as the contact list AFK symbol with relevance only
> to english language, remain hardcoded in the browser?
> I am not sure which was more important to have for universe owners; if I
> was changing some, I had changed all. :-)

Let's not get into this discussion again. It's an American product.
You can't go rent SpaceBallz on VHS and convert it into Norwegian.

Mar 8, 2004, 5:44pm

Mozilla 1.6 is fiiine. I'm more excited about 1.7 than I am about Firefox.

[View Quote] > Nah, let Mozilla work on Firefox and Thunderbird.
>
[View Quote]

Mar 8, 2004, 6:07pm

I was speaking to Grimm about aw4.0. There going to have voice chat. Not
good for us world hosters on limited bandwith, but since my counter-strike
server support that, it wouldnt be much.

--

Signed,
TheMask

:: Owner of Delusional-Minds Hosting ::
Free world hosting.. Just a T-Gram will do it.

http://www.delusional-minds.com

[View Quote]

Mar 8, 2004, 6:31pm

The voice chat rights will be handled similar to the world rights from what
is thought so far and what I have picked up... Hence if bandwidth is a prob
you could just remove peoples ability to use it.

- MR

[View Quote]

Mar 8, 2004, 7:00pm

Voice chat?! Finaly after years of wonder, I'll know how the hell "ur",
"thx", and alternating caps is pronounced.

Mar 8, 2004, 7:50pm

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it make more sense and use less
bandwidth on the world server if the voice chat/speech was just sent
peer to peer to others around in the world?

Aren't whispers sent peer to peer (directly sent from one user to
another using the AW browser)? I don't see why voice can't be done in a
similar fashion.

I don't mind if the browser contacts the world server to see who has the
right to speak in a world, but the world server shouldn't have to relay
all of the voice data to everyone in the world, should it?

Builderz
http://www.3dhost.net

[View Quote] > I was speaking to Grimm about aw4.0. There going to have voice chat. Not
> good for us world hosters on limited bandwith, but since my counter-strike
> server support that, it wouldnt be much.
>
> --
>
> Signed,
> TheMask
>
> :: Owner of Delusional-Minds Hosting ::
> Free world hosting.. Just a T-Gram will do it.
>
> http://www.delusional-minds.com

Mar 8, 2004, 8:24pm

Finally my Logitech Premium Headset 300 will be in good use!

[View Quote]

Mar 8, 2004, 8:40pm

It does not matter where the product is from, but where it is supposed
to be _sold_. If I sell my game to China, they will expect me to
consider chinese issues.

It is not that AW is labelling their product as "for US use only". :-)


[View Quote]

Mar 8, 2004, 8:49pm

[View Quote] The product is intended for US sales. But is _available_ for the
worldwide market. Just because I make my bubblegum available in france
doesn't mean I make it compatible with french chewing procedures.

Mar 8, 2004, 8:58pm

The product is intended for US sales. But is _available_ for the
worldwide market. Just because I make my bubblegum available in
france doesn't mean I make it compatible with french chewing procedures.
<<<

Right, that is why there is an _official_ distributor in Europe. :-)

But - I give you chance to prove your point too: where do you find any
note that the product is for use and sale in the USA only?

Mar 8, 2004, 9:04pm

[View Quote] > The product is intended for US sales. But is _available_ for the
> worldwide market. Just because I make my bubblegum available in
> france doesn't mean I make it compatible with french chewing procedures.
> <<<
>
> Right, that is why there is an _official_ distributor in Europe. :-)
>
> But - I give you chance to prove your point too: where do you find any
> note that the product is for use and sale in the USA only?

You don't, that's my point. But just because I make my shirts with two
armholes doesn't mean a person with three arms can't buy and use it.
Are these analogies even helping? They make sense that's for sure. I
never said you _couldn't_ buy a product that's intended for sale in USA,
but that doesn't mean the company needs to cator to the whims of an
international audience if it didn't really intend to have a major market
there.

But 3.5 fixes all your problems (you have the ability to fix the AFK
icon to anything you'd like). :P... which was really the only problem I
could think of.

Mar 8, 2004, 9:09pm

Just because I make my bubblegum available in france doesn't mean I make
it compatible with french chewing procedures.
<<<

You even have to translate all descriptions into French before it will
be considered to be allowed to be made available <g>.

BTW, of the 25 universes listed on Mauz page, more than 33% are non-US,
and even when the product was once thought to be sold in USA only, the
status today is simply different. If you find out that 1/3 of your
chewing gum is bought in China, then you will tear off a leg to make it
compatible with Chinese expectations - unless you do not bother about
or do not want to have or keep any customers at all. :-)

Mar 8, 2004, 9:14pm

[View Quote] No, how would you mix it?

> Aren't whispers sent peer to peer (directly sent from one user to
> another using the AW browser)? I don't see why voice can't be done in a
> similar fashion.

Dont be a twit... that would mean giving away everyones IP, they go though
the server.

> I don't mind if the browser contacts the world server to see who has the
> right to speak in a world, but the world server shouldn't have to relay
> all of the voice data to everyone in the world, should it?

Yes, it should...

> Builderz
> http://www.3dhost.net
>
[View Quote]

Mar 8, 2004, 9:14pm

[View Quote] > Just because I make my bubblegum available in france doesn't mean I make
> it compatible with french chewing procedures.
> <<<
>
> You even have to translate all descriptions into French before it will
> be considered to be allowed to be made available <g>.
>
> BTW, of the 25 universes listed on Mauz page, more than 33% are non-US,
> and even when the product was once thought to be sold in USA only, the
> status today is simply different. If you find out that 1/3 of your
> chewing gum is bought in China, then you will tear off a leg to make it
> compatible with Chinese expectations - unless you do not bother about
> or do not want to have or keep any customers at all. :-)

It's their problem if they buy my gum when it wasn't intended to be sold
there. :P

Mar 8, 2004, 9:21pm

[View Quote] [View Quote] Via IP address...

>
>
> Dont be a twit... that would mean giving away everyones IP, they go though
> the server.

Oh god no! Not my IP address! Something available to everyone on the
internet, god what would I do!? I think we have more to worry about
from Matt then we would form someone getting the IP address of someone.

>
>
> Yes, it should...

No it shouldn't. Think Kazaa,Napster,et al...

Mar 8, 2004, 9:22pm

Don't forget, stuff like AFK and other internet-speak bits and bobs are
becoming fairly universal, as is the english language. I don't think
someone in germany would throw their computer out their window in
frustration of everything being in german except for some little globaly
used net-bit that happend to have origins in english.

I doubt most know what OK stands for, but it is also fairly universally used
all over the world.

I think we're really getting nit-picky here on the regional issue here.

Mar 8, 2004, 9:48pm

here in Quebec laws have been passed concerning USA entertainment, as I am
sure they have been in other countries. And yes USA has bent over backwards
to comply with these new laws because there is a market. No product,
including movies, is allowed to be sold or distributed here in Québec unless
a french copy with french labeling and instructions is available FIRST. This
law also covered labelling and packaging of food which must be bilingual.
Not sure how all this could relate to internet as is still such a young
market nobody really seems to know which laws apply but the fact is that any
company must cater to the whims of the country he wishes to sell to.
sweets
PS and a shirt with 3 arms would probably end up in court as supplying
defective/faulted products LMAO. I do not envy company owners trying to keep
up with all the laws of the world.

Mar 8, 2004, 10:16pm

The VoIP (at least in the beta that I have) works similar to a server side
mixing system.

A 2 way stream is established to the server using the standard connection
- Each microphone sends an outgoing stream to the server
- Each client sends its 'mute' list to the server
- Each client sends its codec idc to the server

The server then takes each of these syncronous feeds and mixes them on a
'per client' basis, filtering out any muted persons from the relevant client
streams, the server then sends these individual streams back. The standard
for broadband is 4.3kb/s on the version I have, way too much to have 30
different streams all aimed at once IP address stream each time... you would
need everyone on T3!

As for your napster thing... I think you will find that all the data on them
may be being sent from mutliple sources, but is binary idential from all
these sources, in the case of AW these sources are very different in each
case. It is also required as the different forms of codec compression need
to be set server side so the client can decode it...

Granted, I havent seen the 4.0 implimentation of it first hand but I know
the general gist... The AW programmers have got it right in this case, I am
highly impressed at the work chris has done, infact its jaw dropping.

- Mark R


[View Quote]

Mar 9, 2004, 2:57am

Strike, since you seem skilled in the voice chat area, have you tried
There's voice chat before? If so, what are your thoughts on it?

In my previous post, I sort of thought that the AW chat would be a
"walkie talkie" type of voice chat just between two people who wanted to
initiate a conversion. They would "connect" to each other and send the
voice data back and forth between themselves. That's why I questioned
the thought of the world server having to handle the voice stream.

But if everyone in a world is going to be talking all at once, then yes,
I guess it would make more sense for the server to handle that or at
least direct where the voice streams are going. I hope there is some
limit or radius with it though, like someone outside of visual range or
X amount of cells away won't be able to hear you or something.

Builderz
http://www.3dhost.net

[View Quote] > The VoIP (at least in the beta that I have) works similar to a server side
> mixing system.
>
> A 2 way stream is established to the server using the standard connection
> - Each microphone sends an outgoing stream to the server
> - Each client sends its 'mute' list to the server
> - Each client sends its codec idc to the server
>
> The server then takes each of these syncronous feeds and mixes them on a
> 'per client' basis, filtering out any muted persons from the relevant client
> streams, the server then sends these individual streams back. The standard
> for broadband is 4.3kb/s on the version I have, way too much to have 30
> different streams all aimed at once IP address stream each time... you would
> need everyone on T3!
>
> As for your napster thing... I think you will find that all the data on them
> may be being sent from mutliple sources, but is binary idential from all
> these sources, in the case of AW these sources are very different in each
> case. It is also required as the different forms of codec compression need
> to be set server side so the client can decode it...
>
> Granted, I havent seen the 4.0 implimentation of it first hand but I know
> the general gist... The AW programmers have got it right in this case, I am
> highly impressed at the work chris has done, infact its jaw dropping.
>
> - Mark R

Mar 9, 2004, 3:57am

I'd like to see some new building commands in 4.0, and I want to see them
get rid of that 8 light source limit problem

1  2  |   Order by index