1  |   Order by index

Jul 6, 2000, 4:27am

Being able to use seqs on regular objects, not just avs, would be one of the
best additions aw could add. I don't see why this wasn't a feature right
from the beginning, what's the sense in not having it? When people use
astarts and stuff the animations are jerky and take up too much space, and
most of the time require multiple objects. I seriously doubt it would be
very hard to implement this feature since avs already use seqs. One little
code could be added to the object file like seq whatever.

Jul 6, 2000, 11:26am

How would you suggest the seq be activated, or would the seq be in a continuous
loop like the wait ?

[View Quote] > Being able to use seqs on regular objects, not just avs, would be one of the
> best additions aw could add. I don't see why this wasn't a feature right
> from the beginning, what's the sense in not having it? When people use
> astarts and stuff the animations are jerky and take up too much space, and
> most of the time require multiple objects. I seriously doubt it would be
> very hard to implement this feature since avs already use seqs. One little
> code could be added to the object file like seq whatever.

Jul 6, 2000, 3:30pm

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't only multi-clumped models work with SEQs
(since avatars are multi-clumped and have tags defined)? Most models only
consist of a single clump.

-Builderz

[View Quote] > Being able to use seqs on regular objects, not just avs, would be one of the
> best additions aw could add. I don't see why this wasn't a feature right
> from the beginning, what's the sense in not having it? When people use
> astarts and stuff the animations are jerky and take up too much space, and
> most of the time require multiple objects. I seriously doubt it would be
> very hard to implement this feature since avs already use seqs. One little
> code could be added to the object file like seq whatever.

Jul 6, 2000, 3:45pm

If you are going to wish for new things, wish optimistically. Seqs are quite archaic. Most all 3d games use skeletal animation
systems. So I wish that you would wish that aw would wishfully have skeletal animated avatars and objects.

-Myrth

-Wishful, eh? :)


[View Quote]

Jul 6, 2000, 6:23pm

Yes they would have to be multi clumped. But all of those one clump objects
weren't made with the intention of animating them anyway so if someone was
gonna make one animated, they would make it with multiple clumps in the
first place.

Jul 6, 2000, 6:23pm

How can I wish for that if I don't know what it is? lol

Jul 6, 2000, 6:24pm

*Unless* someone wanted to make a whole model move instead of just parts,
then it wouldn't have to be multi-clumped.

Jul 6, 2000, 6:26pm

Dunno, I guess the tag "seq whatever" would mean loop infinitely, and "seq
whatever 1" could mean play once, etc. And of course there would be a
corresponding "create seq whatever" for use in the browser, lol.

Jul 7, 2000, 12:08am

Its a better way to animate objects. Making seqs is a real pain you know. A skeletal animation system or at least mesh animation.
(no more clumps 'required' in avatars)

-Myrth


[View Quote]

Jul 7, 2000, 1:33am

Actually making seqs is very easy for me

Jul 7, 2000, 1:37am

But I use truespace to do mine, lol, but, whether it be seqs or skeletal
animation, aw should still support animation for objects instead of just
avs.

Jul 7, 2000, 11:08am

Yo, twit, learn how to QUOTE.

[View Quote] > But I use truespace to do mine, lol, but, whether it be seqs or skeletal
> animation, aw should still support animation for objects instead of just
> avs.

Jul 7, 2000, 12:58pm

And just what would I be quoting?

Jul 7, 2000, 3:17pm

Um, the message you're replying to, zippy. Note my quote:

[View Quote] > And just what would I be quoting?

Jul 7, 2000, 8:27pm

Why would I want to do that when all you have to do to see what I'm replying
to is go up one message in the string?

Jul 8, 2000, 12:27pm

Because, you twit, it's inconvienent to have to return to the previous thread (which may not always be there, especially on Usenet) when you can simply quote what it is you're responding to EXACTLY. Learn, newbie, LEARN...

[View Quote] > Why would I want to do that when all you have to do to see what I'm replying
> to is go up one message in the string?

Jul 8, 2000, 7:11pm

First of all, I'm not a newbie, and second, if you don't know what a message
is about it obviously isn't meant for you. If you don't like the way I post
messages, don't read them!

Jul 9, 2000, 7:27am

<adds yet another twit to the filter>

[View Quote] > First of all, I'm not a newbie, and second, if you don't know what a message
> is about it obviously isn't meant for you. If you don't like the way I post
> messages, don't read them!

1  |   Order by index