|
To drop Clertion (spelling?) (Wishlist)
To drop Clertion (spelling?) // Wishlist
Jun 2, 2001, 4:54am
They take way to damn long to update, get a better rendering engine, maybe
some of you folks (wing, andras) can think of one?
Jun 2, 2001, 11:46am
Criterion and Renderware? Roland said something like he couldn't think of a better one for AW or something... check the TechTalk logs that Mauz keeps.
-Agent1
[View Quote]"s p a r k" <crazyglue3 at hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3b188d8a at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> They take way to damn long to update, get a better rendering engine, maybe
> some of you folks (wing, andras) can think of one?
>
>
|
Jun 2, 2001, 12:37pm
It's Criterion, not Clariton. Rendering company vs. eyedrops :P
Probably can't think of a better one for his skill level, but I can think of THOUSANDS of rendering engines that are better. Theres
an old old old OLD Macintosh game which was ported to PC in one version called Marathon 2. This rendering engine is a step above
AW's. Since Bungie went bye bye and got eaten by some big company or somthing, I'm sure you could get a lic for it for like 50
cents. Not even 3d accellerated, but damn purdy compared to AW in hi-res mode and gets decent framerates on a 10MHz moterola CPU
(Which is now used in cell phones). Only limitation is that it might be a fullscreen only deal, not sure cuz I've never actually
*played* the PC version, but it was on mac.
However, while equalling AW's current state, it leaves no room for future development, cuz, well, nobody is developing it anymore.
If AWCUM is as rich as they say they are, they should be able to afford the Quake 1 or 2 engine, they're overpaying for Renderware,
it's not delivering the performance, nor the software that they promised (Software renderer).
Hell, there are some AW users that are quite capable of developing AW's OWN rendering engine if they'd just be put on the payroll. H
Roland's skill level is what's holding us back, NOT that Renderware is the only suitable engine. Renderware is the only suitable
SIMPLE engine.
[View Quote]"agent1" <Agent1 at my.activeworlds.com> wrote in message news:3b18ee41$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Criterion and Renderware? Roland said something like he couldn't think of a better one for AW or something... check the TechTalk
logs that Mauz keeps.
>
> -Agent1
>
> "s p a r k" <crazyglue3 at hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3b188d8a at server1.Activeworlds.com...
>
>
|
Jun 3, 2001, 2:47am
I'm not a programer (yet!) But I tend to agree with you...
I can't get shit with frame-rate becuase it doesn't like my computer...
Dunno
~S p a r K
BzzzzT!
[View Quote]"wing" <bathgate at prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3b18fa11$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> It's Criterion, not Clariton. Rendering company vs. eyedrops :P
>
>
> Probably can't think of a better one for his skill level, but I can think
of THOUSANDS of rendering engines that are better. Theres
> an old old old OLD Macintosh game which was ported to PC in one version
called Marathon 2. This rendering engine is a step above
> AW's. Since Bungie went bye bye and got eaten by some big company or
somthing, I'm sure you could get a lic for it for like 50
> cents. Not even 3d accellerated, but damn purdy compared to AW in hi-res
mode and gets decent framerates on a 10MHz moterola CPU
> (Which is now used in cell phones). Only limitation is that it might be a
fullscreen only deal, not sure cuz I've never actually
> *played* the PC version, but it was on mac.
>
> However, while equalling AW's current state, it leaves no room for future
development, cuz, well, nobody is developing it anymore.
>
> If AWCUM is as rich as they say they are, they should be able to afford
the Quake 1 or 2 engine, they're overpaying for Renderware,
> it's not delivering the performance, nor the software that they promised
(Software renderer).
>
> Hell, there are some AW users that are quite capable of developing AW's
OWN rendering engine if they'd just be put on the payroll. H
>
> Roland's skill level is what's holding us back, NOT that Renderware is the
only suitable engine. Renderware is the only suitable
> SIMPLE engine.
> "agent1" <Agent1 at my.activeworlds.com> wrote in message
news:3b18ee41$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
of a better one for AW or something... check the TechTalk
> logs that Mauz keeps.
news:3b188d8a at server1.Activeworlds.com...
maybe
>
>
|
Jun 6, 2001, 4:08am
Sorry if I sound like a newbie here, but can .rwx objects work without
renderware?
--
SW Comit
swcomit at swcity.net
Mayor of SW City
http://www.swcity.net
President of Community Linkage Commission
http://comlinkage.tripod.com
[View Quote]"s p a r k" <crazyglue3 at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b188d8a at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> They take way to damn long to update, get a better rendering engine, maybe
> some of you folks (wing, andras) can think of one?
>
>
|
Jun 6, 2001, 11:21am
theoretically, it's possible. manually processing the ".RWX" file and
calling all the engine functions to render it shouldn't be too hard....
[View Quote]sw comit <swcomit at swcity.net> wrote in message
news:3b1dc8f0 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Sorry if I sound like a newbie here, but can .rwx objects work without
> renderware?
>
> --
> SW Comit
> swcomit at swcity.net
> Mayor of SW City
> http://www.swcity.net
> President of Community Linkage Commission
> http://comlinkage.tripod.com
|
Jun 6, 2001, 1:52pm
still, it wouldn't look the same, and with all consequences changing
rendering engine could be fatal for the AWCI...
KAH
[View Quote]"tony m" <tony56444 at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b1e2e4e at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> theoretically, it's possible. manually processing the ".RWX" file and
> calling all the engine functions to render it shouldn't be too hard....
>
> sw comit <swcomit at swcity.net> wrote in message
> news:3b1dc8f0 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
>
>
|
Jun 6, 2001, 1:58pm
But this is exactly what AW 3.1 does - interpreting the RWX files since Criterion dropped the support of it :(
Andras
[View Quote]kah wrote:
>
> still, it wouldn't look the same, and with all consequences changing
> rendering engine could be fatal for the AWCI...
>
> KAH
>
> "tony m" <tony56444 at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3b1e2e4e at server1.Activeworlds.com...
|
Jun 6, 2001, 2:30pm
How wouldn't it look the same? RWX files just define geometry and maybe texture mapping... Not much propreitary info in the files themselves...
-Agent1
[View Quote]"kah" <kah at kahbot.com> wrote in message news:3b1e51ca at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> still, it wouldn't look the same, and with all consequences changing
> rendering engine could be fatal for the AWCI...
>
> KAH
>
> "tony m" <tony56444 at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3b1e2e4e at server1.Activeworlds.com...
>
>
|
Jun 6, 2001, 4:03pm
I was thinking more along the lines of the "architecture" of the object's
file itself. I mean another kinda' rendering engine would need to
understand the script, right?
--
SW Comit
swcomit at swcity.net
Mayor of SW City
http://www.swcity.net
President of Community Linkage Commission
http://comlinkage.tripod.com
[View Quote]"agent1" <Agent1 at my.activeworlds.com> wrote in message
news:3b1e5ab8$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> How wouldn't it look the same? RWX files just define geometry and maybe
texture mapping... Not much propreitary info in the files themselves...
>
> -Agent1
>
> "kah" <kah at kahbot.com> wrote in message
news:3b1e51ca at server1.Activeworlds.com...
hard....
without
>
>
|
Jun 6, 2001, 5:51pm
(N00b terms) Renderware 3.1 does not understand RWX. Roland had to physically write a parser for the RWX files and turn them into
somthing the renderer understood. All that is neccessary to switch to another rendering engine is to grab the RWX and cob
interpreters and change the functions of the RW3.1 engine to those of the new engine, which is a rather simple process.
[View Quote]"sw comit" <swcomit at swcity.net> wrote in message news:3b1e7088 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> I was thinking more along the lines of the "architecture" of the object's
> file itself. I mean another kinda' rendering engine would need to
> understand the script, right?
>
> --
> SW Comit
> swcomit at swcity.net
> Mayor of SW City
> http://www.swcity.net
> President of Community Linkage Commission
> http://comlinkage.tripod.com
>
>
> "agent1" <Agent1 at my.activeworlds.com> wrote in message
> news:3b1e5ab8$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> texture mapping... Not much propreitary info in the files themselves...
> news:3b1e51ca at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> hard....
> without
>
>
|
Jun 30, 2001, 11:45am
Then find out what the folks at madonion.com used and use that! Man that 3d
stuff (3dmark 2000 and 2k1) looks kickin
[View Quote]"wing" <bathgate at prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3b1e89a9 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> (N00b terms) Renderware 3.1 does not understand RWX. Roland had to
physically write a parser for the RWX files and turn them into
> somthing the renderer understood. All that is neccessary to switch to
another rendering engine is to grab the RWX and cob
> interpreters and change the functions of the RW3.1 engine to those of the
new engine, which is a rather simple process.
> "sw comit" <swcomit at swcity.net> wrote in message
news:3b1e7088 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
object's
maybe
and
>
>
|
Jul 1, 2001, 7:42pm
Mad Onion uses a proprietary engine, and any engine, including renderware could be made to look like that, albeit at the expense of
performance. The highly efficient 3dmark engine is still bogged down like hell by the stuff they put in there, and on purpose too.
If we were to use the 3dmark engine, we'd have potential for Roland to add support for more advanced hardware features, which he
probably wouldn't, and probably more efficient rendering. However, if we were to use the engine for the types of models and scenes
rendered by 3dmark, we can ALL kiss our framerates buh-bye unless we're running Geforce III's.
[View Quote]"captain mad mike" <cmadmike at crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:3b3dd7f9$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Then find out what the folks at madonion.com used and use that! Man that 3d
> stuff (3dmark 2000 and 2k1) looks kickin
> "wing" <bathgate at prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:3b1e89a9 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> physically write a parser for the RWX files and turn them into
> another rendering engine is to grab the RWX and cob
> new engine, which is a rather simple process.
> news:3b1e7088 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> object's
> maybe
> and
>
>
|
Jul 2, 2001, 2:08pm
woohooo hehehe lets start a petition, and since good comp parts are cheap
now its pretty easy to upgrade (get a duron, a new mobo, and a video card
for about $300 I think)
[View Quote]"wing" <bathgate at prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3b3f993d at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Mad Onion uses a proprietary engine, and any engine, including renderware
could be made to look like that, albeit at the expense of
> performance. The highly efficient 3dmark engine is still bogged down like
hell by the stuff they put in there, and on purpose too.
> If we were to use the 3dmark engine, we'd have potential for Roland to add
support for more advanced hardware features, which he
> probably wouldn't, and probably more efficient rendering. However, if we
were to use the engine for the types of models and scenes
> rendered by 3dmark, we can ALL kiss our framerates buh-bye unless we're
running Geforce III's.
> "captain mad mike" <cmadmike at crosswinds.net> wrote in message
news:3b3dd7f9$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
3d
the
themselves...
changing
file
work
>
>
|
Jul 5, 2001, 12:17am
uhm.....its not that bad on rendering, the stuff from 3dmark 2000 ran quite
fast on my radeon
[View Quote]"captain mad mike" <cmadmike at crosswinds.net> wrote in message
news:3b409c91$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> woohooo hehehe lets start a petition, and since good comp parts are cheap
> now its pretty easy to upgrade (get a duron, a new mobo, and a video card
> for about $300 I think)
> "wing" <bathgate at prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:3b3f993d at server1.Activeworlds.com...
renderware
> could be made to look like that, albeit at the expense of
like
> hell by the stuff they put in there, and on purpose too.
add
> support for more advanced hardware features, which he
> were to use the engine for the types of models and scenes
> running Geforce III's.
> news:3b3dd7f9$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
that
> 3d
to
of
> the
and
> themselves...
> changing
> file
too
> work
>
>
|
|