*Yes* File-transfering is here! (Soon) (Wishlist)

*Yes* File-transfering is here! (Soon) // Wishlist

1  2  3  4  5  6  |  

fredrik and joakim stai

Jan 1, 1999, 11:43am
I just read the AW Newsletter! The beta is coming in just a few days,
containing i.e. file-transfering and better world-control for
world-owners!

This is getting better (c:

=?iso-8859-1?q?eep=b2?=

Jan 1, 1999, 11:51am
[View Quote] > I just read the AW Newsletter! The beta is coming in just a few days,
> containing i.e. file-transfering and better world-control for
> world-owners!

<twirl finger> Whoopety do...file transfer. That's what FTP, ICQ, and even email are for. I'd rather have better 3D hardware support to actually make frame rate SATISFACTORY compared to other 3D programs...

The option to not show avatars through stuff is cool, and about the only good thing worthy of a new build, in my opinion. Whispering MIGHT be a minor plus, too. I'd like to know what the "Many other small tweaks and improvements" as stated on http://activeworlds.com/newsletter/0199/0199.html are, however.

And whoever created that AW URL directory/file system needs to use more common sense. Considering the "0199.html" file is in the "0199" directory, having the HTML file the same name is unnecessarily redundant. Simply name it "index.htm", "index.html", or "default.htm", or "default.html", and just use http://activeworlds.com/newsletter/0199/ as the link. Isn't efficiency neato? I think so...

Perhaps I should start a "Web & HTML Tips" page...

> This is getting better (c:

VERY slowly...

fredrik and joakim stai

Jan 1, 1999, 1:26pm
[View Quote] [View Quote] Agree (even if I don't have a 3D card at all), but I'm still happy to see these improvements!

>
> The option to not show avatars through stuff is cool, and about the only good thing worthy of a new build, in my opinion. Whispering MIGHT be a minor plus, too. I'd like to know what the "Many other small tweaks and improvements" as stated on http://activeworlds.com/newsletter/0199/0199.html are, however.
>

I talked to Protagonist once about that showing-avatars-through-objects-stuff some months ago. He said that it was only one single line of coding that made it like that, but if he removed it AW would be "twice more slower" than it is now! Hope he'd found an way to remove that line without making AW slower!

>
> And whoever created that AW URL directory/file system needs to use more common sense. Considering the "0199.html" file is in the "0199" directory, having the HTML file the same name is unnecessarily redundant. Simply name it "index.htm", "index.html", or "default.htm", or "default.html", and just use http://activeworlds.com/newsletter/0199/ as the link. Isn't efficiency neato? I think so...
>

Hehehe... Yup...

>
> Perhaps I should start a "Web & HTML Tips" page...
>
>
> VERY slowly...

But I'm still happy to see improvements (c:

rolu

Jan 1, 1999, 2:00pm
[View Quote] You don't have a 3D card now, but I bet you will do in the future. It won't
take long or 3D acellerator cards will be standard in every computer. I
think AW should be decently prepared for that.

>
good thing worthy of a new build, in my opinion. Whispering MIGHT be a minor
plus, too. I'd like to know what the "Many other small tweaks and
improvements" as stated on http://activeworlds.com/newsletter/0199/0199.html
are, however.
>
>I talked to Protagonist once about that
showing-avatars-through-objects-stuff some months ago. He said that it was
only one single line of coding that made it like that, but if he removed it
AW would be "twice more slower" than it is now! Hope he'd found an way to
remove that line without making AW slower!

I bet that won't be possible... It's just a matter of wheter the avatars can
be rendered apart from the scenery or not. But if you render the avatars
togeather with the scene, you have to render the whole scene again every
time an avatar moves a bit, even if you stay at the same place. If you
render the avatars apart from the scene, you only have to re-render the
avatars when they move, and not the scenery. This saves a lot of time,
however, it has as a drawback that the avatars will always be at top.

>
common sense. Considering the "0199.html" file is in the "0199" directory,
having the HTML file the same name is unnecessarily redundant. Simply name
it "index.htm", "index.html", or "default.htm", or "default.html", and just
use http://activeworlds.com/newsletter/0199/ as the link. Isn't efficiency
neato? I think so...
>
>Hehehe... Yup...
>
>
>But I'm still happy to see improvements (c:

It might become something as famous as Microsoft - over a hundred years or
so. :-)

>

zer0

Jan 1, 1999, 3:31pm
I believe one of the "tweaks" is a Worlds Chat like animated "beam out"
when your avatar teleports or logs out.

per conversation with Roland...

zer0 :)

=?iso-8859-1?q?eep=b2?=

Jan 1, 1999, 4:07pm
[View Quote] [View Quote] Just think how happier you'd be if AW didn't actually LAG, JERK, and TWITCH on your system...

>
> I talked to Protagonist once about that showing-avatars-through-objects-stuff some months ago. He said that it was only one single line of coding that made it like that, but if he removed it AW would be "twice more slower" than it is now! Hope he'd found an way to remove that line without making AW slower!

This is where that 3D card performance improvement would help, see...and if AW had better 3D hardware rendering, it would run more smoothly, faster, and allow for more COOL things like multiple, colored, positionable light sources (lanterns, flashlights, candles, spotlights, moving suns--day/night cycles, etc), and even video cameras! Not to mention more complex objects (including avatars) and more than 50 avatars in view. So, you see, improving 3D rendering is FAR more important than silly file transfering and whispering...

But there IS hope (I hope): supposedly within a year (probably more), AW will have better Direct3D support, so we'll see...but how Roland will do it (if he bugs Criterion enough to improve their Direct3D rendering driver, uses a new 3D engine, or just creates a 3D engine from scratch) is the question.

>
> But I'm still happy to see improvements (c:

You must be new. These "improvements" don't justify the 2.5 month wait time since build 266.

=?iso-8859-1?q?eep=b2?=

Jan 1, 1999, 4:08pm
<twirl finger some more> Whoopety doooo...more "sunroof" crap. Fix the ENGINE of the car if it doesn't run well and screw the sunroof. If the car doesn't run very well, no matter how well it works, it'll still be shit. See the analogy yet? Anyone? Geez...do I have to spell it out any more blatantly OBVIOUS?

[View Quote] > I believe one of the "tweaks" is a Worlds Chat like animated "beam out"
> when your avatar teleports or logs out.
>
> per conversation with Roland...

byte me

Jan 1, 1999, 10:11pm
Eep this is a very rare occassion... but I do agree AW needs far more better hardware support mainly renderware SUX!! the only thing I like aobut renderware is you can make objects in a text format and not buy any clunky and expensive 3d modellers that add a billion vertexes and slow aw down.

[View Quote] > <twirl finger some more> Whoopety doooo...more "sunroof" crap. Fix the ENGINE of the car if it doesn't run well and screw the sunroof. If the car doesn't run very well, no matter how well it works, it'll still be shit. See the analogy yet? Anyone? Geez...do I have to spell it out any more blatantly OBVIOUS?
>
[View Quote]

tyrell - alpha prime

Jan 2, 1999, 1:29am
One must keep in mind that when runs a 'Speak-n-Spell' system NOTHING is going to work properly...

Instead of bEep whining all the time about the failings of COF he might look into upgrading his antiquated computer. There's a limit to 'lowest common denominator'.

[View Quote] > Eep this is a very rare occassion... but I do agree AW needs far more better hardware support mainly renderware SUX!! the only thing I like aobut renderware is you can make objects in a text format and not buy any clunky and expensive 3d modellers that add a billion vertexes and slow aw down.
>
[View Quote] --
Tyrell - Alpha Prime - 21.8s 457e 90 - "Mundus vult decipi"
"No matter where you go...there you are."
http://www.dlcwest.com/~rpatter/index.html
ICQ UN - 272905
All those who believe in psychokinesis raise my hand.

byte me

Jan 2, 1999, 2:38am
I admit my ole PPro 200 is slowing down a lot... in aw anymore these days, but it's mainly caused by newbiews, who over build, or put to many polys on a object...

[View Quote] > One must keep in mind that when runs a 'Speak-n-Spell' system NOTHING is going to work properly...
>
> Instead of bEep whining all the time about the failings of COF he might look into upgrading his antiquated computer. There's a limit to 'lowest common denominator'.
>
[View Quote]

facter

Jan 2, 1999, 7:11am
eep, your absolutly right, i wish they do some REAL improvement instead of all this cosmetic crap...these functions dont even warant a .1 up from 2.0, maybe a 2.01...but 2.1 ? Sheesh, what a let down this next build is going to be.

Come on guys, improve the damn browser, dont just give the car a new paintjob and hope for the best . . .

[View Quote] > <twirl finger some more> Whoopety doooo...more "sunroof" crap. Fix the ENGINE of the car if it doesn't run well and screw the sunroof. If the car doesn't run very well, no matter how well it works, it'll still be shit. See the analogy yet? Anyone? Geez...do I have to spell it out any more blatantly OBVIOUS?
>
[View Quote]

byte me

Jan 2, 1999, 7:44am
agreed, the only good thing is a couple improvements in the world servers but hey those are no fun to use, and file transfer? come on! ICQ works just fine!!!! avatars in main scene, tis a bit cool sounding. Fading avatard? maybe cool to the newbies but hey I could do with out. whisper well that might be a bit
better... a good way to comunicate with bots...

[View Quote] > eep, your absolutly right, i wish they do some REAL improvement instead of all this cosmetic crap...these functions dont even warant a .1 up from 2.0, maybe a 2.01...but 2.1 ? Sheesh, what a let down this next build is going to be.
>
> Come on guys, improve the damn browser, dont just give the car a new paintjob and hope for the best . . .
>
[View Quote]

=?iso-8859-1?q?eep=b2?=

Jan 2, 1999, 2:47pm
Software 3D rendering is just lame with the amount of 3D cards on the market and their low prices. Even RenderWare's hardware acceleration is pathetic. I get MUCH better frame rates in Tomb Raider than AW...and TR3 has multi-colored, multiple, dynamic lighting, particle effects, fog, smoke, mist, rain, snow--well, just see for youself at http://tnlc.com/eep/tr/compare.html. In essence, even the original TR blows AW away in terms of rendering, and it's over 4 years old! (AW is about the same age yet still uses the same software rendering engine.)

Even on a P2/350 (64MB DIMM 100MHz 8ns RAM), 100MHz frontside bus, and AGP 2x Millenium G200 (16MB RAM)—hardly "Speak-n-Spell", eh?—AW still lags (not to mention crashes when using MMX and/or the Direct3D drivers. That's just pathetic. Hardware rendering would speed things up MUCH better, and not Criterion's shit Direct3D driver either, but a REAL Direct3D driver, preferably bypassing RenderWare altogther. RenderWare is obsolete.

[View Quote] > One must keep in mind that when runs a 'Speak-n-Spell' system NOTHING is going to work properly...
>
> Instead of bEep whining all the time about the failings of COF he might look into upgrading his antiquated computer. There's a limit to 'lowest common denominator'.
>
[View Quote]

fredrik and joakim stai

Jan 2, 1999, 5:52pm
> Software 3D rendering is just lame with the amount of 3D cards on the market and their low prices. Even RenderWare's hardware acceleration is pathetic. I get MUCH better frame rates in Tomb Raider than AW...and TR3 has multi-colored, multiple, dynamic lighting, particle effects, fog, smoke, mist, rain, snow--well, just see for youself at http://tnlc.com/eep/tr/compare.html. In essence, even the original TR blows AW away in terms of rendering, and it's over 4 years old! (AW is about the same age yet still uses the same software rendering engine.)

That reminds me about something!
I wathched CNN yesterday evening, norwegean time (yes we do get CNN in norway as well), and they had this program about the electronic future (no, it was not discovery - i'm sure it was CNN). Some of the things they told would come in the future, and wich is being developed at the moment, was 3D wich is so real you don't know if it's made by nature or by computers. It is being developed in a university somewhere in the US (maybe it was england, i don't know).

I saw some examples of the 3D engine, a woman standing holding a glass-bulb looking into a mirror with dust and some fog on the ground. The reflections, the twisting of what's behind the bulb and everything! It seemed totally real!

They called it Advanced Rendering Technology.

Now that's the future of AW! The programmers said they simply looked at the nature and programmed what they sawed into the ARD-engine.

-CyberTwins

=?iso-8859-1?q?eep=b2?=

Jan 2, 1999, 6:08pm
Shyea...right. I'll believe it when I experience it. I can tell 3D so easily. Most 3D modellers/animators mess up on the lighting (making the object too shiny/reflective and/or bright/glared). Plus the jerkiness/twitchiness of 3D animation is VERY easy to spot, not to mention the overall plastic/doll-like look to humans. And when in doubt, look for polygon edges. Got a URL for it perhaps? 3D has a LONG way to go before it's believably real...to me at least.

And "Advanced Rendering Technology" has to be the cheesiest, most cliche name something can have. Talk about technobabble...almost as bad as "state-of-the-art", "cutting edge technology", and "on the leading edge". Feh...there's another lame phrase I can't seem to recall at the moment, but it's equally as annoying when used by people who don't even know what the hell they're talking about (like advertisers/marketers/public relations types/etc).

[View Quote] > That reminds me about something!
> I wathched CNN yesterday evening, norwegean time (yes we do get CNN in norway as well), and they had this program about the electronic future (no, it was not discovery - i'm sure it was CNN). Some of the things they told would come in the future, and wich is being developed at the moment, was 3D wich is so real you don't know if it's made by nature or by computers. It is being developed in a university somewhere in the US (maybe it was england, i don't know).
>
> I saw some examples of the 3D engine, a woman standing holding a glass-bulb looking into a mirror with dust and some fog on the ground. The reflections, the twisting of what's behind the bulb and everything! It seemed totally real!
>
> They called it Advanced Rendering Technology.
>
> Now that's the future of AW! The programmers said they simply looked at the nature and programmed what they sawed into the ARD-engine.

rolu

Jan 2, 1999, 6:28pm
I bet even a good software renderer would work fine on a P2/350.

[View Quote]

rolu

Jan 2, 1999, 6:32pm
duh, we could do without avatar animation, textures, lightning and action
commands, too. However, with all these things it looks a lot nicer. It's a
good thing to give the car a new paintjob/colour. However, then *also* give
it a better motor if it sux. Personally I would like fading avatars.

[View Quote]

dean

Jan 2, 1999, 6:36pm
--------------0A5738160906E2BB5100D7C2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Well, when you are right you are right. 3D will never cross the point to where it is indistinguishable from reality.

I am a moderate Star Trek fan (not a Trekky). The first thing that came to my mind when I read your post was that the creators of Star Trek: The Next Generation could have chosen 3D animation for the basis of what we know as the Holodeck, but they chose something that is, in theory (fictional theory, but....), much more versatile.

They probably foresaw that the possibility of traditional 3D rendering engines creating such realism would be very unbelievable (besides the fact that VR animation was, by that time, hardly original). They could have chosen to go the traditional route, but chose something that could open more possibilities (if only fictional).

In other words, 3D rendering was already a familiar concept so they went with something that people were unfamiliar with and could give the illusion of being possible someday. With the traditional 3d rendering engine concept, if it had been chosen, people would be saying "Yeah, right! Give me a break!" But, with the energy/matter manipulation concept not many people had the background experience from seeing it in the media to have a basis for saying such
things.

But, I am sure that even if energy/matter manipulation ever comes into the realm of reality, there will always be some flaw in the design that will prevent the total illusion of reality from being pulled off completely. Any creation of man which depends totally upon synthetics and human calculation will inevitably fail to be a fool proof illusion of reality. No matter how real it may seem, there will always be some "crack in the wall" of the illusion that will
give it away.

[View Quote] > Shyea...right. I'll believe it when I experience it. I can tell 3D so easily. Most 3D modellers/animators mess up on the lighting (making the object too shiny/reflective and/or bright/glared). Plus the jerkiness/twitchiness of 3D animation is VERY easy to spot, not to mention the overall plastic/doll-like look to humans. And when in doubt, look for polygon edges. Got a URL for it perhaps? 3D has a LONG way to go before it's believably real...to me at least.
>
> And "Advanced Rendering Technology" has to be the cheesiest, most cliche name something can have. Talk about technobabble...almost as bad as "state-of-the-art", "cutting edge technology", and "on the leading edge". Feh...there's another lame phrase I can't seem to recall at the moment, but it's equally as annoying when used by people who don't even know what the hell they're talking about (like advertisers/marketers/public relations types/etc).
>
[View Quote] --------------0A5738160906E2BB5100D7C2
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Well, when you are right you are right.&nbsp;&nbsp; 3D will never cross
the point to where it is indistinguishable from reality.
<p>I am a moderate Star Trek fan (not a Trekky).&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
first thing that came to my mind when I read your post was that the creators
of <i>Star Trek: The Next Generation</i> could have chosen 3D animation
for the basis of what we know as the Holodeck, but they chose something
that is, in theory (fictional theory, but....), much more versatile.
<p>They probably foresaw that the possibility of traditional 3D rendering
engines creating such realism would be very unbelievable (besides the fact
that VR animation was, by that time, hardly original).&nbsp; They could
have chosen to go the traditional route, but chose something that could
open more possibilities (if only fictional).
<p>In other words, 3D rendering was already a familiar concept so they
went with something that people were unfamiliar with and could give the
illusion of being possible someday.&nbsp;&nbsp; With the traditional 3d
rendering engine concept, if it had been chosen, people would be saying
"Yeah, right!&nbsp;&nbsp; Give me a break!"&nbsp;&nbsp; But, with the energy/matter
manipulation concept not many people had the background experience from
seeing it in the media to have a basis for saying such things.
<p>But, I am sure that even if energy/matter manipulation ever comes into
the realm of reality, there will always be some flaw in the design that
will prevent the total illusion of reality from being pulled off completely.&nbsp;&nbsp;
Any creation of man which depends totally upon synthetics and human calculation
will inevitably fail to be a fool proof illusion of reality.&nbsp;&nbsp;
No matter how real it may seem, there will always be some "crack in the
wall" of the illusion that will give it away.
[View Quote] --------------0A5738160906E2BB5100D7C2--

paul

Jan 2, 1999, 6:57pm
When you consider that REAL 3D modeling can have 10's of thousands, even
100's of thousands of polygons, it's not to much to ask that AWB be able to
handle a couple of thousand or less polygons on a relatively few number of
objects. You can't even build a decent realistic scene now without the FPS
dropping to 4 or 5 fps using just the aw objects.

Paul

[View Quote]

=?iso-8859-1?q?eep=b2?=

Jan 2, 1999, 8:16pm
But a good HARDWARE renderer would work so much better. :)

[View Quote] > I bet even a good software renderer would work fine on a P2/350.
>
[View Quote]

=?iso-8859-1?q?eep=b2?=

Jan 2, 1999, 8:19pm
Um, textures and lighting (although lightNing would be cool too) are part of the 3D engine itself; avatar animation, action commands, fading avatars, file transfer, and whispering are not. If the car runs like shit, having a good paint job, $2000 stereo system, and sunroof won't matter worth a shit.

[View Quote] > duh, we could do without avatar animation, textures, lightning and action
> commands, too. However, with all these things it looks a lot nicer. It's a
> good thing to give the car a new paintjob/colour. However, then *also* give
> it a better motor if it sux. Personally I would like fading avatars.
>
[View Quote]

rolu

Jan 2, 1999, 8:20pm
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0111_01BE36A6.78340A20
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

At StarTrek they made the holodeck display reality because it is easier =
to film reality than to make 3D animations. If they would make every =
holodeck scene in 3D virtual reality - wheter it is good or bad 3D - it =
would take way more time and money.
[View Quote] They probably foresaw that the possibility of traditional 3D =
rendering engines creating such realism would be very unbelievable =
(besides the fact that VR animation was, by that time, hardly original). =
They could have chosen to go the traditional route, but chose something =
that could open more possibilities (if only fictional).=20

In other words, 3D rendering was already a familiar concept so they =
went with something that people were unfamiliar with and could give the =
illusion of being possible someday. With the traditional 3d rendering =
engine concept, if it had been chosen, people would be saying "Yeah, =
right! Give me a break!" But, with the energy/matter manipulation =
concept not many people had the background experience from seeing it in =
the media to have a basis for saying such things.=20

But, I am sure that even if energy/matter manipulation ever comes =
into the realm of reality, there will always be some flaw in the design =
that will prevent the total illusion of reality from being pulled off =
completely. Any creation of man which depends totally upon synthetics =
and human calculation will inevitably fail to be a fool proof illusion =
of reality. No matter how real it may seem, there will always be some =
"crack in the wall" of the illusion that will give it away.=20

[View Quote] Shyea...right. I'll believe it when I experience it. I can tell =
3D so easily. Most 3D modellers/animators mess up on the lighting =
(making the object too shiny/reflective and/or bright/glared). Plus the =
jerkiness/twitchiness of 3D animation is VERY easy to spot, not to =
mention the overall plastic/doll-like look to humans. And when in doubt, =
look for polygon edges. Got a URL for it perhaps? 3D has a LONG way to =
go before it's believably real...to me at least.=20
And "Advanced Rendering Technology" has to be the cheesiest, =
most cliche name something can have. Talk about technobabble...almost as =
bad as "state-of-the-art", "cutting edge technology", and "on the =
leading edge". Feh...there's another lame phrase I can't seem to recall =
at the moment, but it's equally as annoying when used by people who =
don't even know what the hell they're talking about (like =
advertisers/marketers/public relations types/etc).=20

[View Quote] > That reminds me about something!=20
> I wathched CNN yesterday evening, norwegean time (yes we do =
get CNN in norway as well), and they had this program about the =
electronic future (no, it was not discovery - i'm sure it was CNN). =
Some of the things they told would come in the future, and wich is being =
developed at the moment, was 3D wich is so real you don't know if it's =
made by nature or by computers. It is being developed in a university =
somewhere in the US (maybe it was england, i don't know).=20
>=20
> I saw some examples of the 3D engine, a woman standing holding =
a glass-bulb looking into a mirror with dust and some fog on the ground. =
The reflections, the twisting of what's behind the bulb and everything! =
It seemed totally real!=20
>=20
> They called it Advanced Rendering Technology.=20
>=20
> Now that's the future of AW! The programmers said they simply =
looked at the nature and programmed what they sawed into the ARD-engine.


------=_NextPart_000_0111_01BE36A6.78340A20
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 =
transitional//en">
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>At StarTrek they made the holodeck =
display=20
reality because it is easier to film reality than to make 3D animations. =
If they=20
would make every holodeck scene in 3D virtual reality - wheter it is =
good or bad=20
3D - it would take way more time and money.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: =
5px">
[View Quote] yesterday evening, norwegean time (yes we do get CNN in norway =
as well),=20
and they had this program about the electronic future (no, it =
was not=20
discovery - i'm sure it was CNN).&nbsp; Some of the things they =
told=20
would come in the future, and wich is being developed at the =
moment, was=20
3D wich is so real you don't know if it's made by nature or by=20
computers. It is being developed in a university somewhere in =
the US=20
(maybe it was england, i don't know). <BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; I saw =
some=20
examples of the 3D engine, a woman standing holding a glass-bulb =
looking=20
into a mirror with dust and some fog on the ground. The =
reflections, the=20
twisting of what's behind the bulb and everything! It seemed =
totally=20
real! <BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; They called it Advanced Rendering =
Technology.=20
<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; Now that's the future of AW! The programmers =
said they=20
simply looked at the nature and programmed what they sawed into =
the=20
ARD-engine.</P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0111_01BE36A6.78340A20--

rolu

Jan 2, 1999, 8:21pm
*if* the P2/350 has hardware acceleration, of course... :-)

but yes, it's true. AW could use hardware.

[View Quote]

rolu

Jan 2, 1999, 8:21pm
"motor" should be "engine"

[View Quote]

=?iso-8859-1?q?eep=b2?=

Jan 2, 1999, 8:27pm
--------------04B2B1BE97A0BEBA8176E985
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

[View Quote] > Well, when you are right you are right. 3D will never cross the point to where it is indistinguishable from reality.
>
> I am a moderate Star Trek fan (not a Trekky). The first thing that came to my mind when I read your post was that the creators of Star Trek: The Next Generation could have chosen 3D animation for the basis of what we know as the Holodeck, but they chose something that is, in theory (fictional theory, but....), much more versatile.
>
> They probably foresaw that the possibility of traditional 3D rendering engines creating such realism would be very unbelievable (besides the fact that VR animation was, by that time, hardly original). They could have chosen to go the traditional route, but chose something that could open more possibilities (if only fictional).
>
> In other words, 3D rendering was already a familiar concept so they went with something that people were unfamiliar with and could give the illusion of being possible someday. With the traditional 3d rendering engine concept, if it had been chosen, people would be saying "Yeah, right! Give me a break!" But, with the energy/matter manipulation concept not many people had the background experience from seeing it in the media to have a basis for saying such things.
>
> But, I am sure that even if energy/matter manipulation ever comes into the realm of reality, there will always be some flaw in the design that will prevent the total illusion of reality from being pulled off completely. Any creation of man which depends totally upon synthetics and human calculation will inevitably fail to be a fool proof illusion of reality. No matter how real it may seem, there will always be some "crack in the wall" of the illusion that will give it away.

Well, it all depends on how one defines "reality" and "illusion". For some, "reality" IS the "illusion". Others don't even know what "reality" is. Me, eh...I've stopped driving myself insane trying to FUCK with the damn thing ("reality"), let alone figure it out. But even Star Trek's holodeck has its flaws, but only because the people who use it have something to reference against. Characters inside the holodeck consider everything "normal" (exceptions might be Moriarty and Regina from The Next Generation) and the nightclub singer from Deep Space Nine), but only because they were PROGRAMMED with the reference of "the real world". Anyway, I'd believe the realism aspect on a holodeck way more than today's computer 3D for sure.

And I think Paramount didn't choose 3D because it was too expensive (and still is for the most part) to create, and video editing effects were cheaper and looked more realistic anyway. STTNG already had an average cost of $1.2 million per episode; 3D modelling costs (especially considering they already did their special effects through Industrial Light & Magic) would've easily doubled that figure probably.

--------------04B2B1BE97A0BEBA8176E985
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
[View Quote] --------------04B2B1BE97A0BEBA8176E985--

rolu

Jan 2, 1999, 8:46pm
Sure, but then give the car a good paint job, $2000 stereo system, a sunroof
*and* a new engine. It will drive better *and* look better. AW is in urgent
need of some speed and performance increase. However, it also needs its
"look" to attract new visitors and keep old ones. So, I would say, go after
a better (preferably full screen) 3D-engine, but keep an eye on the details.
It is a balance between performance and looks. I consider the performance
the most important thing at the moment.

[View Quote]

dean

Jan 2, 1999, 10:19pm
--------------5ED341E25E1481E67753FBE9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

[View Quote] > At StarTrek they made the holodeck display reality because it is
> easier to film reality than to make 3D animations. If they would make
> every holodeck scene in 3D virtual reality - wheter it is good or bad
> 3D - it would take way more time and money.

That was not my point. I said nothing about actually using 3D
animation to shoot the scenes, but using the concept as a premise for
the technology which made possible the holodeck (which would not be
called the holodeck in such a case). What would be the point in
using something that would look like 3D animation instead of fulfilling
the effect of creating an imaginary world with no discernible
differences from reality? Hence, the use of real actors and
actresses.

--------------5ED341E25E1481E67753FBE9
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
[View Quote] <p><br>That was not my point.&nbsp;&nbsp; I said nothing about actually
using 3D animation to shoot the scenes, but using the concept as a premise
for the technology which made possible the holodeck (which would not be
called the holodeck in such a case).&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; What would
be the point in using something that would look like 3D animation instead
of fulfilling the effect of creating an imaginary world with no discernible
differences from reality?&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Hence, the use of real
actors and actresses.
</body>
</html>

--------------5ED341E25E1481E67753FBE9--

thecheese

Jan 2, 1999, 10:34pm
I heard from a bird, (that was good, eh?), that it brung the FPS down around
a fraction of 1/4. thats bad fer me, so 1/4 of 1.3... thats.. too slow fer
me 8-(

cheese

[View Quote]

=?iso-8859-1?q?eep=b2?=

Jan 3, 1999, 12:23pm
What idiot would have a P2/350 WITHOUT hardware acceleration? :) 3D cards are standard these days..

[View Quote] > *if* the P2/350 has hardware acceleration, of course... :-)
>
> but yes, it's true. AW could use hardware.
>
[View Quote]

fluxen

Jan 3, 1999, 2:55pm
My uncle, for one :)

--

[ Fluxen Dean-Christian Strik ]
[ ICQ: 11760568 ISG RhinoSoft ]
[ fluxen at bigfoot.com dean2 at bigfoot.com ]

The nice thing of standards is that there are so many to choose from.
-- Andrew S. Tanenbaum

[View Quote]

1  2  3  4  5  6  |  
Awportals.com is a privately held community resource website dedicated to Active Worlds.
Copyright (c) Mark Randall 2006 - 2022. All Rights Reserved.
Awportals.com   ·   ProLibraries Live   ·   Twitter   ·   LinkedIn