1  |   Order by index

May 9, 2004, 10:54am

I've been in there (.com) alot lately, and they have Buggies, AW should have
buggies, and alot of the cool stuff there has, like group convo's, and
stuff...! I dunno how they would have to completely redo over the source
code... AW is more, Simple...

--

Ry
Free World Hosting - www.ryshosting.tk

May 9, 2004, 10:55am

And the Tech/Programming team are completely out of here.

May 9, 2004, 12:41pm

Actually, the code behind a vehicles wouldn't have to be too ugly. The most
difficult part, I imagine, would be that you'll need some decent physics to
handle it properly. Code-modeling a moving box with some spinning cylinders
which grip terrain isn't exactly rocket science, the problem is fitting all
this into AW's extremely complicated existing code, I would guess. You need
a way for an avatar to be attached to another world entity which, once
attached to an avatar, reacts to the user's input in a realistic way; using
the "move forward" key as an accelerator pedal. Effectively, once the user
enters the vehicle, the user needs to become the vehicle, however through a
smooth transition instead of some sudden shift (avatar would need to get
into the vehicle and sit down, obviously, and then the vehicle becomes some
sort of "avatar attachment", much like a gun or a hat or some other similar
object -- this presents another fun idea, objects which can be attached to
avatars at certain locations, such as clothing accessories, which would
allow for some user av customization without going to a full-scale custom
avatar generation system a la second life).

In theory, you can accomplish most of this with a bot; it can look like a
vehicle, turn in the direction the user faces, accelerate realistically over
terrain (more or less, depending on how much time you're willing to put into
the actual "ground vehicle simulation..." personally I've only put air
vehicles into my world).. the problems here are that 1) the vehicle lags if
the user is on a slow connection since the vehicle itself is on the server,
2) The user cannot actually have his/her avatar inside the vehicle; they
have to drag along behind in warp, which really limits certain fun
possibilities like having an interesting aircraft cockpit the user can look
at (perhaps with working instruments? O_O) 3) The user cannot input their
intention to alter the speed of the vehicle without resorting to text
commands, gesture buttons, or some kind of custom toolbar interface.
Obviously there needs to be some way for an avatar to go into "vehicle
mode," causing it to use a whole second set of movement physics when you
attempt to "walk/run."

After all that absurd stuff above I'll finish by saying that I don't doubt
AWI knows how much the users would appreciate vehicles, and I wouldn't be
very surprised if I found them implemented in some upcoming beta version in
the relatively near future.

[View Quote]

May 9, 2004, 1:09pm

I think I made a post about this (and other There-only features) a while
back. AW appears to be adding streaming support (like the ShoutCast
streaming There has) and voice chat, so that's at least two things that
will hopefully be added to AW that There already has.

As for vehicles, I've heard rumors that they'll be added, but I still
remain skeptical. What I would really like to see is the ability to hold
objects (such as a coffee mug or a weapon) or have an inventory system
in place. FPS and adventure games would really take off in AW if his
happened. Think of There's paintball guns.

On the other hand, if AW adds too many of There's features, it may be
called a "copy cat" (or maybe There should be called the copy cat, it
depends on your opinion). But at the rate the press seems to ignore AW
in 3D/VR reviews, I don't think that's a problem.

Builderz
http://www.3dhost.net

[View Quote] > I've been in there (.com) alot lately, and they have Buggies, AW should have
> buggies, and alot of the cool stuff there has, like group convo's, and
> stuff...! I dunno how they would have to completely redo over the source
> code... AW is more, Simple...

May 9, 2004, 3:38pm

[Editor's Note: The following is very long. It may also be made from at
least 45% tangents to the original subject -- you have been warned. In fact,
you're best off just not reading it. To be honest, you should really be
going home now anyway; you've been staying in my guest room for a week
already and I don't even know you. Bye. ]

I personally think AW can still win out by, as they have in the past,
focusing on 3rd party developer innovations. I know a lot of people see the
bot interface as a limited-capability system, however I feel that it
provides an exceptional degree of user freedom to develop AW-based
applications such as games, something which is much harder in environments
like SL or There. I do not mean to imply that one cannot create a game in
these environments, however as far as I know it is not possible to create a
piece of C++ software using an SDK for these environments. In AW, I can
create a game and it will still remain my intellectual property; I have
source code and an EXE, among other things, which I could, if I wanted to,
sell to another developer or a user.

In AW, I can buy a world and it becomes my environment; it runs on my PC, I
alter the rules, I change everything about the appearance, I write a game to
run on top of it and it's completely different in every way from other AW
environments owned by other users. In the future, we'll be able to have
custom physics rules and more complex server/client plugins. In effect, when
I buy an environment from AW, I'm buying a liscense to use their technology
(rendering engine, physics, netcode) to make whatever I want; in most cases,
users just make a chat/build world, however I could also make an RPG, a
first person shooter, a place to showcase my company's new car design, an
interactive simulation of aircraft design, etc. (woo, that's a fun idea for
prox.. "build your own spaceship." ;D)

It's interesting... I feel as though I'm finally beginning to understand
part of how AWI behaves. The users tend to berate them quite a bit, to
attack their business practices and whatnot, but I feel it's important for
us (the vocal minority of users) to remember that we really don't know
anything about building/marketing a piece of software like this (unless you
happen to be a software developer from a competing company, in which case...
what are you doing here reading this?? ;D). I think they're trying very hard
to make this work in a marketplace that sees AW as effectively a game
without gameplay. AW-copys (and I call them that remembering that AlphaWorld
first came to be (in public) in 1995, long before, as far as I know,
There.com or SL ever existed) deal with this by pretending to be games;
sacrificing developer freedom for features that will catch the attention of
the average user, like guns that actually make a sound and fire little
bullets, or little vehicles you can ride. In my opinion, AW doesn't have
these features because (aside from because There and SL are backed by
$millions and AW is financially limited) its focus has always been on
creating a true VR instead of a cheap thrill for the 10-18 age range. Call
me in eight years and tell me how There.com is doing, won't you? Oh, wait, I
guess it's rather unlikely that current users will be around in eight years,
assuming the SW itself even is. Another strange AW difference...

[Editorial rant: In fact, overall I'm glad [AWI doesn't] listen to us. If
they did, AW would be nothing but Alpha Prime GZ and other builds from 5+
years ago; we'd only be able to look at terrible, ugly historical builds and
chat about how nice the sky is today while running bingo tournaments, riding
flying skateboards, and organizing weekly "Hentai Hunts" where the citizens
rummage through the personal lives and criminal histories of 10 lucky
"citizens of the week" trying to find some act of perversion or other
questionable behavior which can be used to psychologically skewer them and
then kick them entirely out of AW. It would have a fullscreen mode and a
scale command, but half the users would still be running a 2.0 variant... :O
End rant :D]

AW's primary goal from the start has been "virtual reality," a highly
ambiguous term and a difficult goal to live up to. Concepts like "chat" and
"building" were temporary features to keep the users amused during the alpha
testing phases of the product development--I don't mean to imply that they
were to be removed, simply that they were likely not intended to be the
primary driving force behind the software. Virtual Reality implies something
more significant than chat.. it implies a living world which the user can
interact with, not just as a player carrying out some role for his or her
amusement, but as anything they desire: As a simple participant, talking to
other users and possibly making a little home for themselves, as a
full-scale developer, using their knowledge of technology to shape a part of
the "virtual world," or in fact as a player in a game made by one of these
other users! The best part, of course, is that you can do all this and more
if you're up to the challenge.

Okay, enough of that..
-Monkey v.34a

[View Quote]

May 9, 2004, 4:17pm

I think buggies, and jetpacks / hoverboards, etc, could be done ... it's a
matter of making the buggy an avatar and having the wheels turn while you
move (seq). But whether they could make it as realistic as there in the way
they move (like when you go over bumpy terrain yer buggy might lift off LOL)
that's another issue.

For me the sole thing that keeps me in aw (over there for which I do my 2
hrs a month) is the ability to build what I want. I can also create my own
objects / avs and use them in my own world. That's what keeps me in aw.

LNH



--

[View Quote]

May 9, 2004, 4:49pm

jetpacks could be done now with current stuff just a matter of adding it as
an object/avatar :-) jus get a seq when a user is flying flames shoot out,
if you want detachable ones then you'd need an update :-) but hey we can do
allot. 4.0 will have vehicles im told, chrispeg said to me that many
features users would want will be added then, 4.0 which is due out December
o4-first quarter 05 should be very good!
[View Quote]

May 9, 2004, 10:07pm

I dont' agree because of the fact it would take away the main purpose of AW.

--

Signed,
TheMask

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

http://www.delusional-minds.com

May 10, 2004, 3:52am

I don't see how that's going to take away from AW from becoming a "massive
distributed computing AI which eventually takes control of the Earth and
finally erradicates all remaining biological life." Unless you mean that the
added physics for the vehicles would take away CPU time which would
otherwise be used to run the genocide machines, of course. :O

Furthermore, I would like to officially request consideration for a change
of the AW Statement of Purpose which better reflects its function as VR
software rather than an AI command for science fiction genocide bots.

Furthermore (II), I would like to appologize to anyone who has read this
message.

[View Quote]

May 10, 2004, 5:05pm

Yeah.

--

Signed,
TheMask

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

http://www.delusional-minds.com

[View Quote]

1  |   Order by index