1  |   Order by index

Mar 23, 2001, 12:30am
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Mar 23, 2001, 12:57am

I am, but of coarse, keep the RWX so people could rebuild with a propdump or
what ever, I haven't don't any *heavy* building in my world, so, I'm not
that worried, but Many are agaist me.

Mar 23, 2001, 1:38am

Not me that's for sure, I built everyday for over 2 years now. AW 2217.4s
3609.8e 90

--
SW Comit
swcomit at swcity.net
Mayor of SW City
http://www.swcity.net
President of Community Linkage Commission
http://comlinkage.tripod.com

Mar 23, 2001, 1:57am

I agree, it's time for a change. But *dump* RWX? Nooo way.. I agree with
Spark that we should be able to reload our worlds in the new universe.
Take a look in Zion, world I design; I'm not willing to rebuild all
that...

- Tony M (a.k.a Tony56)

[View Quote]

Mar 23, 2001, 6:02am

Ever heard of backwards compatibility? Didn't think so. RWX implementation is what took AW3 so long to be released because stupid Criterion mindlessly removed it from RW3, killing off the 2 or perhaps 3 developers that actually used it in the first place. Unfortunately AW did (and does) and 5 years of work would have been down the drain if RWX support was removed. Now, if an RWX-to-whatever (COB, 3DS, DXF, etc) converter could be created then perhaps RWX removal wouldn't be so bad, but don't expect as many people to create new objects once they have to pay hundreds of dollars for trueSpace, thousands of dollars for 3D Studio Max, etc.

As for the 64-bit cell database, Andras already mentioned a way it could be implemented that wouldn't corrupt current cell databases, though it'd take more work.

The whole point of this is that AWCI needs to put more focus on actual DEVELOPMENT instead of these get-rich-quick schemes through business partnerships et al. Rick and JP don't need to be making $160,000/year either--they sure as FUCK don't earn it with the amount of incompetence they have at barely keeping AW running.

AW has no patents yet not even AW's closest competitor (if you can call it that), ViOS (http://vios.com/) just sucks. 3D games are SLOWLY getting the "multiuser level editor" mentality, but it's taking YEARS. Neverwinter Nights will the the first game to really even come CLOSE to AW's level, but we'll see. Game publishers just can't seem to put 2 and 2 together and get the clue that it's time for a REAL "multiuser level editor".

[View Quote] > Of course it's easy to talk about complete database restructuring, graphic engine core modifications, and drastic changes in action codes. Some really good ideas are have been put forth. The question is if ActiveWorlds users are ready to pay the price for these kind of changes - your old code, and probably each of your objects, will be more than just "needing an update" if the code behind the very objects used changes drastically.
>
> For people like me, newbies to the scene with little or no actual ActiveWorld building accomplishments to their name, it's a lot easier to conceive of a Great Void - an empty, new, but improved universe. We've got little or nothing to lose. But those with their own worlds, with years of construction at stake, probably feel differently.
>
> Sure, it would be neat if we had a clearer, tokenized, more robust language behind action codes, 64-bit positioning, a more distinct graphic engine, etc. Perhaps ActiveWorlds should discard RWX modeling altogether. I'm curious, though, who here is really ready and willing to really pay the price for REAL updates of this sort. Once REAL changes were implemented, ActiveWorlds would never be the same again. Who's ready to rebuild?

Mar 23, 2001, 8:42am

See the above post entitled "A Fresh Start"" by Wing. Doesn't blow up the
current AW but the change still happens-with new software.
[View Quote]

Mar 23, 2001, 12:08pm

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------38CFDBE2799903C7F99A7841
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I agree to all except for the cell database, here my 2=A2 :

I really do not see how a cell database rewrite for just the mentioned
problems would cause any loss of data. Modifications of the kind that
would be required for the token stuff and for the positioning are some
the most common database modifications, the only thing to do is to write
a conversion tool that takes the data from the old database, aligns the
format for each database field types and writes them to the new
database, a 1:1 conversion.
The problem will not be the loss of data but the compatibility to the
old browsers - and if the OpenGL support works well I think backwards
compatibility becomes less important.

[View Quote] > Of course it's easy to talk about complete database restructuring, =
graphic engine core modifications, and drastic changes in action codes. =
Some really good ideas are have been put forth. The question is if Activ=
eWorlds users are ready to pay the price for these kind of changes - your=
old code, and probably each of your objects, will be more than just "nee=
ding an update" if the code behind the very objects used changes drastica=
lly.
> =

> For people like me, newbies to the scene with little or no actual A=
ctiveWorld building accomplishments to their name, it's a lot easier to c=
onceive of a Great Void - an empty, new, but improved universe. We've go=
t little or nothing to lose. But those with their own worlds, with years=
of construction at stake, probably feel differently.
> =

> Sure, it would be neat if we had a clearer, tokenized, more robust =
language behind action codes, 64-bit positioning, a more distinct graphic=
engine, etc. Perhaps ActiveWorlds should discard RWX modeling altogethe=
r. I'm curious, though, who here is really ready and willing to really p=
ay the price for REAL updates of this sort. Once REAL changes were imple=
mented, ActiveWorlds would never be the same again. Who's ready to rebu=
ild?
> =

> -Sir Chaos
--------------38CFDBE2799903C7F99A7841
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="vha.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Volker Hatzenberger
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="vha.vcf"

begin:vcard
n:Hatzenberger;Volker
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:oct31.de
adr:;;Bornheimer Strasse 15;Bonn;;53111;Germany
version:2.1
email;internet:vha at oct31.de
end:vcard

--------------38CFDBE2799903C7F99A7841--

Mar 23, 2001, 1:58pm

The only backwards compatibility necessary in terms of 3D rendering is between Direct3D and OpenGL. Screw software rendering; it's obsolete and hardly any 3D games support it these days anyway.

The only real issues with backwards compatibility is what Andras stated in an email to me which I posted in AW's newsgroups the other day:

"He is not bullshitting - to have a better [resolution] the whole program (browser/server) should be rewritten to 64 bits arithmetic which is a pain if you think about the AW's database (recently about 4GB). IMO it can be done but it should be done very carefully (and the new database architecture should carry the rotation based on the other two axises too). That change will increase the database about 2.5 times and there will not be ANY backward compatibility. Not to mention the same increase in the
network traffic. The change would make all (ok almost all) bots unusable too.

The other option would be to have a full new set of network protocol and keep the old one for backward compatibility but that solution would put more load onto the
server (converting 64 bits to 32 bits for the old protocol). I rpobably would choose that option hoping that the old browsers/servers will go away eventually."

[View Quote] > I agree to all except for the cell database, here my 2¢ :
>
> I really do not see how a cell database rewrite for just the mentioned
> problems would cause any loss of data. Modifications of the kind that
> would be required for the token stuff and for the positioning are some
> the most common database modifications, the only thing to do is to write
> a conversion tool that takes the data from the old database, aligns the
> format for each database field types and writes them to the new
> database, a 1:1 conversion.
> The problem will not be the loss of data but the compatibility to the
> old browsers - and if the OpenGL support works well I think backwards
> compatibility becomes less important.
>
[View Quote]

1  |   Order by index