1  |   Order by index

Oct 18, 2000, 10:22pm

OK, I tire of having to set object refresh to 0 minutes, visibility to 25m, and turn off multiple avatars and their animations (SEQ) just to refresh a single object, texture, sound, SEQ, etc! A SINGLE object refresh is LONG overdue and I think we should DEMAND it be implemented into AW.

And especially since there is no AW3 RWX viewer, the current RWX viewers are useless to see the better light shading, prelighting, and other AW3-only RWX effects. Since AWCI has not provided an AW3 RWX viewer, in order to see how objects will BEST look in AW it is necessary to refresh them in AW.

Sure, one can make a bajillion versions of the same object with minor, incremental changes, but, come on, how realistic is that? Not only does that needessly fill up the world's models cache, it's annoying to have to delete all those versions.

Plus, there is no way in AW to change all of the RWX commands like surface settings, opacity, texturemapping tile amounts, etc, etc so a single object refresh is even MORE necessary.

I would like to see a single object refresh before or included with AW 3.1. If anyone else does, too, I suggest you start posting here and confronting, Roland, Shamus, Rick, JP, Lucrezia, and other AWCIers about it.

--

http://tnlc.com/eep/ - Active Worlds, Tomb Raider, 3D game comparison, The Sims
Enable line/word wrap if text not wrapping. http://tnlc.com/eep/wrap.html for more info.
DON'T QUOTE SIG WHEN REPLYING!

Oct 19, 2000, 12:26am

Good idea. I'm all for it.

--
-Mike Nelson-
AIM AWBirdMike
AW Cit BirdMike (292200)
Owner of AW World A-Centre


[View Quote]

Oct 19, 2000, 12:28am

DEMAND ?? !!

Remember who we are dealing with.
We better have plenty of CAKE.RWX on hand.

(couldn't resist)

[View Quote]

Oct 19, 2000, 12:34am

Well I for one would love to see it done, we have to bare in mind that
roland has been given a deadline of the 1st of December for 3.1 so I dont
imagine it will be in 3.1 but from the tech talk post I can see there is a
load of cool stuff that will be. Maybe in 3.1a or 3.2 perhaps.

What I would love to see even more is a stop to cracked browsers maybe an
algorythum could be created to do this. Everyone get your brian in gear and
help roland out on this one as it would be a wise investment for all

Lord Vector.
[View Quote]

Oct 19, 2000, 2:42am

I'd love to see an rwxmod type program for 3.0 stuff. It's greatly needed.
Casay
[View Quote]

Oct 19, 2000, 1:39pm

Interesting... a man who has dealt with COF in the past and knows how
they feel about their customers is trying to start a petition... can
anyone say "futility"?

Still, I agree that having a 3.0 viewer would kick ass, but I'm not so
sure about the single object refresh idea. It may be too complex to
code. (not that I know what goes into such coding) Would the world
server have to scan for that specific object and then refresh it? Might
be a bit of a resource hog... Perhaps a "Refresh World" or "Refresh
Scene" option would be better, where you just go up to a menu, pick
"Refresh World", and all the objects in your view will re-download. This
would be a user option as well, since there have been quite a few times
where I've been in someone else's world and had to re-download the world
cache just to see a different object...
--
Goober King
The pessimist that just doesn't go away...
rar1 at acsu.buffalo.edu

Oct 19, 2000, 3:31pm

I would have imagined that a single object refresh would just require
the browser to ask the web server for a re-download, and then simply
re-load the scene (which doesn't involve downloading) to show the new
object (assuming it is different, which could easily be checked using a
file comparison.)

[View Quote]

Oct 19, 2000, 3:40pm

Exactly, Dth. This could be implemented in the object properties box with a simple "refresh object" button. It's nowhere near as complex as Goober is making it out to be. And, in case you weren't with us during AW3 beta, Goober, a petition was started by me to get invisible object selection disabled...and it was in the next build because many people complained about it to Roland. This is how we need to get things implemented and fixed in AW, it would seem, so I recommend if you peopleDO want a single object refresh to get behind this petition and act on it.

[View Quote] > I would have imagined that a single object refresh would just require
> the browser to ask the web server for a re-download, and then simply
> re-load the scene (which doesn't involve downloading) to show the new
> object (assuming it is different, which could easily be checked using a
> file comparison.)
>
[View Quote] --

http://tnlc.com/eep/ - Active Worlds, Tomb Raider, 3D game comparison, The Sims
Enable line/word wrap if text not wrapping. http://tnlc.com/eep/wrap.html for more info.
DON'T QUOTE SIG WHEN REPLYING!

Oct 19, 2000, 3:55pm

Doing 2 or 3 different checksums on the program would be quite efficient and
easy to do... I would very much like to see that happen too...

FoxMcCloud

"lord vector" <mike at vectorscape.com> a écrit dans le message news:
39ee5dab at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Well I for one would love to see it done, we have to bare in mind that
> roland has been given a deadline of the 1st of December for 3.1 so I dont
> imagine it will be in 3.1 but from the tech talk post I can see there is a
> load of cool stuff that will be. Maybe in 3.1a or 3.2 perhaps.
>
> What I would love to see even more is a stop to cracked browsers maybe an
> algorythum could be created to do this. Everyone get your brian in gear
and
> help roland out on this one as it would be a wise investment for all
>
> Lord Vector.
[View Quote]

Oct 19, 2000, 3:57pm

I agree it would be really useful, and would like to see it in a next
version, too...

FoxMcCloud

"eep" <eep at tnlc.com> a écrit dans le message news:
39EE3930.D58C8513 at tnlc.com...
> OK, I tire of having to set object refresh to 0 minutes, visibility to
25m, and turn off multiple avatars and their animations (SEQ) just to
refresh a single object, texture, sound, SEQ, etc! A SINGLE object refresh
is LONG overdue and I think we should DEMAND it be implemented into AW.
>
> And especially since there is no AW3 RWX viewer, the current RWX viewers
are useless to see the better light shading, prelighting, and other AW3-only
RWX effects. Since AWCI has not provided an AW3 RWX viewer, in order to see
how objects will BEST look in AW it is necessary to refresh them in AW.
>
> Sure, one can make a bajillion versions of the same object with minor,
incremental changes, but, come on, how realistic is that? Not only does that
needessly fill up the world's models cache, it's annoying to have to delete
all those versions.
>
> Plus, there is no way in AW to change all of the RWX commands like surface
settings, opacity, texturemapping tile amounts, etc, etc so a single object
refresh is even MORE necessary.
>
> I would like to see a single object refresh before or included with AW
3.1. If anyone else does, too, I suggest you start posting here and
confronting, Roland, Shamus, Rick, JP, Lucrezia, and other AWCIers about it.
>
> --
>
> http://tnlc.com/eep/ - Active Worlds, Tomb Raider, 3D game comparison, The
Sims
> Enable line/word wrap if text not wrapping. http://tnlc.com/eep/wrap.html
for more info.
> DON'T QUOTE SIG WHEN REPLYING!
>

Oct 19, 2000, 5:59pm

Agreement is fine, but action is required. Let Roland, Enzo, Cryonics, Yo=
ung Shamus, Lucrezia Borgia, and other AWCIers KNOW you want it in the ne=
xt version. Bring it up at tomorrow's TechTalk, email/telegram AWCIers--w=
e gotta do this grass-roots style...

[View Quote] > I agree it would be really useful, and would like to see it in a next
> version, too...
>
> "eep" <eep at tnlc.com> a =E9crit dans le message news:
> 39EE3930.D58C8513 at tnlc.com...
o
> 25m, and turn off multiple avatars and their animations (SEQ) just to
> refresh a single object, texture, sound, SEQ, etc! A SINGLE object refr=
esh
> is LONG overdue and I think we should DEMAND it be implemented into AW.=

ers
> are useless to see the better light shading, prelighting, and other AW3=
-only
> RWX effects. Since AWCI has not provided an AW3 RWX viewer, in order to=
see
> how objects will BEST look in AW it is necessary to refresh them in AW.=

,
> incremental changes, but, come on, how realistic is that? Not only does=
that
> needessly fill up the world's models cache, it's annoying to have to de=
lete
> all those versions.
rface
> settings, opacity, texturemapping tile amounts, etc, etc so a single ob=
ject
> refresh is even MORE necessary.
W
> 3.1. If anyone else does, too, I suggest you start posting here and
> confronting, Roland, Shamus, Rick, JP, Lucrezia, and other AWCIers abou=
t it.

--

http://tnlc.com/eep/ - Active Worlds, Tomb Raider, 3D game comparison, Th=
e Sims
Enable line/word wrap if text not wrapping. http://tnlc.com/eep/wrap.html=
for more info.
DON'T QUOTE SIG WHEN REPLYING!

Oct 21, 2000, 1:29am

What is it that can be done in cracked browsers? are they able to steal
objects or build in private worlds with them? Ingie

[View Quote] > Well I for one would love to see it done, we have to bare in mind that
> roland has been given a deadline of the 1st of December for 3.1 so I dont
> imagine it will be in 3.1 but from the tech talk post I can see there is a
> load of cool stuff that will be. Maybe in 3.1a or 3.2 perhaps.
>
> What I would love to see even more is a stop to cracked browsers maybe an
> algorythum could be created to do this. Everyone get your brian in gear and
> help roland out on this one as it would be a wise investment for all
>
> Lord Vector.
[View Quote]

Oct 21, 2000, 3:25am

a cracked browser allows you to fly/shift in worlds where fly/shift is
disabled. it also allows you to select objects if object selection is
disabled. I think there's even one where it gives you the URL to a world's
object path

--
- Chandler56
"Use your free will to the ULTIMATE advantage: Assassinate the Government!"
____________________________________________________________
[View Quote]

Oct 21, 2000, 3:27am

a superb idea, Eep. id love to see this :)

--
- Chandler56
"Use your free will to the ULTIMATE advantage: Assassinate the Government!"
____________________________________________________________
[View Quote]

Oct 21, 2000, 5:44am

So don't just TALK about it, DO something about it as I've suggested below.

[View Quote] > a superb idea, Eep. id love to see this :)
>
[View Quote] --

http://tnlc.com/eep/ - Active Worlds, Tomb Raider, 3D game comparison, The Sims
Enable line/word wrap if text not wrapping. http://tnlc.com/eep/wrap.html for more info.
DON'T QUOTE SIG WHEN REPLYING!

Oct 21, 2000, 1:25pm

I would also like to see this idea implemented. I asked Roland and he told me there are not going to be any more feature addtions to
3.1 (because of his Deadline...). I'll be trying to help get this done for the next version, though :)

-Agent1



[View Quote]

Oct 26, 2000, 3:45pm

Just a quick note, checksums are not effective against preventing cracked
browsers (whether it be 1, 2, or 10 checksums). Anyone hacking the browser
can simply disable the checksum code as well...piece of cake.

The general problem of preventing hacked clients is called "Operational Code
Authentication" and is widely recognized to be unsolvable. If you put a lot
of work into it, you can make it slightly more difficult to hack browsers,
but you can never make it impossible, any solution you implement can still
be easily disabled or bypassed by a hacker. The problem is, your client's
executable code is on their machine, and so by definition they have full
access to it. Using process editors or disassemblers, and given enough
time, they can reverse engineer any algorithm or change any code in the
browser. In short, there is no series of bits or bytes that the server can
send back and forth over the wire that can somehow verify that the browser
that is talking back to it is "official" or "hacked."

For one interesting discussion of the general issue of OCA and why it is
impossible to solve, see:

http://www.distributed.net/source/specs/opcodeauth.html

(scroll down past the first bit)

-Roland


[View Quote]

Oct 27, 2000, 11:05am

OK, I'm probably looking to get some major grief from people over this, but
aren't "petitions" a little militant for a community like this?

I am quite new to AW and so won't be aware of the history, but there seems
to be some form of relationship that already exists between the user
community and the developers, but this appears to be fraught with antagonism
and "our side of the fence" mentality. I am assuming here that a joint
venture between Active Worlds (as a supplier) and the community (as the user
group) has already been tried in some form, as a formal channel to put new
ideas forward. Why did this fail for there to be a need for raising these
"petitions" in a newsgroup?

I have read a number of these "petitions" now, and the responses from the
developers, and it seems unnecessary to dive in with this agressive
approach. There are technical reasons why some things cannot be done EASILY,
but everything is a matter of technical infrastructure and (more to the
point) TIME and MONEY - THEIR MONEY. Ideas are just ideas until a solution
can be found. Before a solution can be found, the feasibility of the idea
needs to be assessed and whether, infact, a solution to that specific item
is what the real requirement IS. It is just as likely that the real answer
is to provide generic extensions elsewhere that implicitly provide the
requested features - and bring a whole lot more with it - with the only cost
to the user being perhaps a bit of a longer wait for the bit they wanted.

Roland and Agent1 appear to be on the technical development side for the
browser, and they have work to do to produce the next version. Anyone who
has worked in a serious development environment knows that one of the key
success factors for development projects, whether largescale or minor
releases, is the pre-planning and FROZEN specification of the work. Trying
to DEMAND new functionality 6 weeks before the delivery deadline isn't
realistically going to get much credance for (at least) two reasons.

(a) A "WE WANT THIS, WE WANT THIS" approach (as you will probably remember
from when you were a kid) tends to get ignored and often only results a good
slap for your troubles and less voice everytime you try it!

(b) AW will have planned the effort needed to be dedicated to the
development of v3.1 and defined what was going to be implemented and how.
Changing this at a late stage tends to cause more harm than good.

The "petition" concept being used in the newsgroups makes me think of people
with banners (walking in circles), but at least picket lines have some form
of spokesman (or spokeswoman, sorry). Its only when people are incited to
shout from the back of the hall that the process really breaks down. A
little structure on the community side (and obviously buy-in from AW) and
things happen a lot smoother.

From what I am reading, the ideas that are put forward are understandable
and reasonable, providing a section of the user community with appreciable
benefits. This will not be lost on AW, but, looking at it from their side,
reading some of the the posts and the tone in which they are written would
irritate the hell out of me and I would be inclined to resist the
suggestions on that basis. At the end of the day, its THEIR product and they
can, if they wish, do what they like with it. You, as the users, and your
views are important to them, since you are their life blood, but it is them
that (quite rightly) control what their product does and doesn't do and,
more to the point, HOW it does what it does. There are wider considerations
outside a single request for additional functionality.

AW have their own agenda for progressing the product as a whole (whether
people outside the organisation agree with that agenda or not) and the user
community is a vast source of ideas and sugestions for additional features
for the product. If these ideas can be channelled to AW in a constructive
manner without people feeling the need to "gang up" on them, there would be
a more constructive relationship there that would be more inclined to be
listened to.

If there isn't a formalised usergroup meeting or spokes-channel (is that
what "TechTalk" is?), then GET ONE! Whether it is a volunteer role or
someone inside AW, doesn't matter, just put something in place. From the
amount of posts I see from a lot of individuals in these news groups, a
number of people outside Active Worlds are very focussed on improving the
product and taking it forward. Although characteristic of "niche"
communities, this is something that all involved should try to maintain as
AW gradually breaks out of the niche market and goes more mainstream.

If there IS already a channel there for communicating ideas and issues to
AW, what can anyone expect to achieve from raising a "petition" in a
newsgroup? Since Roland & Co have already got their work cut out delivering
v3.1 on time, I think it would be in everyone's best interests for him and
hist colleagues not to have to trawl though newgroups answering specific
items that could be dealt with in a consolidated manner.

Eep, I have visited The Hole and Cubed and was very impressed. From your
work there, and from your posts in the newsgroups and your web-site, you are
clearly very knowledgable in the Active Worlds environment and its
limitations/possibilities, and have many ideas for that may or may not
benefit AW as a product and an organisation. Due to what I have seen, I have
a healthy level of respect for you and your opinions (whether I agree with
them or not) so please don't take this as a direct attack. Considering the
content of your AW web-site, I know you will appreciate a good rant when you
see one :O). Also, this is not belittling your request for the single
object refresh, which has some healthy support. Its purely about this
"petition" approach. Yours was just the post I latched on to, 's all.

Now, as I said, I know I am opening myself up for a likely onslaught of
grief from people, but that's ok. Its healthy. I hope I don't make enemies
through this - that would be disappointing and unnecessary. Right now, I
feel for the AW guys and the bashing they get in here. If the relationship
is broken between the community and the developers, where would the users
stand then? Just where you stand with Microsoft products today. Nowhere!
(Just a thought).

Grims


[View Quote]

Oct 27, 2000, 11:17am

I'm not on AWCI's payroll (as far as I know :) ). I do, however, know that sometimes it is hard to add features that users want.
Especially when there are only one or two (or three) people actually working on the browser.

-Agent1

[View Quote]

Oct 27, 2000, 11:38am

Sorry Agent1. My mistake.

Grims.

[View Quote]

Oct 27, 2000, 12:45pm

I totally agree with you, grimble, petitions or bugging roland until we get the new features we want just isn't the way to go...

I have the privileges of the root account in the universe I'm in most of the time (which is why you won't see me around a lot in AW)
so I have a lot of power and can create what I want in there, and I also program bots. This all gives me a LOT of ideas of new
features and improvements that I even haven't talked about in here because it would just add to the ambient noise...
I can understand Roland (and the others) put a lot of time into programming AW and listening to users. Well, although programming is
his job, he could do without reading the posts in here. If he even IS reading the posts in this newsgroup, it IS because he does
want to know what we want and try to give us the best he can. The TechTalks are another example of this...
If AW didn't want to communicate or listen to their community, they just wouldn't have opened these newsgroups.
What I think is that they're trying to listen to us, and are only rewarded with people telling them they aren't doing their job
correctly... I respect Roland a lot, although I don't know him, and particularly because he has the patience to read and respond to
some posts in here that I would clearly just have deleted without bothering if I were him...
Plus, I know that as a programmer I want my work to be appreciated by users, and I really don't appreciate harmful comments like
some people tend to like to post in this NG... they're in no way constructive and would result in me thinking I will never implement
this feature if it's asked for that way...

Anyway I don't think this post will make anything advance (although I hope so), but I wanted to say what I had to say...

FoxMcCloud

"grimble" <Grimble2000 at btinternet.com> a écrit dans le message news: 39f97d9f at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> OK, I'm probably looking to get some major grief from people over this, but
> aren't "petitions" a little militant for a community like this?
>
> I am quite new to AW and so won't be aware of the history, but there seems
> to be some form of relationship that already exists between the user
> community and the developers, but this appears to be fraught with antagonism
> and "our side of the fence" mentality. I am assuming here that a joint
> venture between Active Worlds (as a supplier) and the community (as the user
> group) has already been tried in some form, as a formal channel to put new
> ideas forward. Why did this fail for there to be a need for raising these
> "petitions" in a newsgroup?
>
> I have read a number of these "petitions" now, and the responses from the
> developers, and it seems unnecessary to dive in with this agressive
> approach. There are technical reasons why some things cannot be done EASILY,
> but everything is a matter of technical infrastructure and (more to the
> point) TIME and MONEY - THEIR MONEY. Ideas are just ideas until a solution
> can be found. Before a solution can be found, the feasibility of the idea
> needs to be assessed and whether, infact, a solution to that specific item
> is what the real requirement IS. It is just as likely that the real answer
> is to provide generic extensions elsewhere that implicitly provide the
> requested features - and bring a whole lot more with it - with the only cost
> to the user being perhaps a bit of a longer wait for the bit they wanted.
>
> Roland and Agent1 appear to be on the technical development side for the
> browser, and they have work to do to produce the next version. Anyone who
> has worked in a serious development environment knows that one of the key
> success factors for development projects, whether largescale or minor
> releases, is the pre-planning and FROZEN specification of the work. Trying
> to DEMAND new functionality 6 weeks before the delivery deadline isn't
> realistically going to get much credance for (at least) two reasons.
>
> (a) A "WE WANT THIS, WE WANT THIS" approach (as you will probably remember
> from when you were a kid) tends to get ignored and often only results a good
> slap for your troubles and less voice everytime you try it!
>
> (b) AW will have planned the effort needed to be dedicated to the
> development of v3.1 and defined what was going to be implemented and how.
> Changing this at a late stage tends to cause more harm than good.
>
> The "petition" concept being used in the newsgroups makes me think of people
> with banners (walking in circles), but at least picket lines have some form
> of spokesman (or spokeswoman, sorry). Its only when people are incited to
> shout from the back of the hall that the process really breaks down. A
> little structure on the community side (and obviously buy-in from AW) and
> things happen a lot smoother.
>
> From what I am reading, the ideas that are put forward are understandable
> and reasonable, providing a section of the user community with appreciable
> benefits. This will not be lost on AW, but, looking at it from their side,
> reading some of the the posts and the tone in which they are written would
> irritate the hell out of me and I would be inclined to resist the
> suggestions on that basis. At the end of the day, its THEIR product and they
> can, if they wish, do what they like with it. You, as the users, and your
> views are important to them, since you are their life blood, but it is them
> that (quite rightly) control what their product does and doesn't do and,
> more to the point, HOW it does what it does. There are wider considerations
> outside a single request for additional functionality.
>
> AW have their own agenda for progressing the product as a whole (whether
> people outside the organisation agree with that agenda or not) and the user
> community is a vast source of ideas and sugestions for additional features
> for the product. If these ideas can be channelled to AW in a constructive
> manner without people feeling the need to "gang up" on them, there would be
> a more constructive relationship there that would be more inclined to be
> listened to.
>
> If there isn't a formalised usergroup meeting or spokes-channel (is that
> what "TechTalk" is?), then GET ONE! Whether it is a volunteer role or
> someone inside AW, doesn't matter, just put something in place. From the
> amount of posts I see from a lot of individuals in these news groups, a
> number of people outside Active Worlds are very focussed on improving the
> product and taking it forward. Although characteristic of "niche"
> communities, this is something that all involved should try to maintain as
> AW gradually breaks out of the niche market and goes more mainstream.
>
> If there IS already a channel there for communicating ideas and issues to
> AW, what can anyone expect to achieve from raising a "petition" in a
> newsgroup? Since Roland & Co have already got their work cut out delivering
> v3.1 on time, I think it would be in everyone's best interests for him and
> hist colleagues not to have to trawl though newgroups answering specific
> items that could be dealt with in a consolidated manner.
>
> Eep, I have visited The Hole and Cubed and was very impressed. From your
> work there, and from your posts in the newsgroups and your web-site, you are
> clearly very knowledgable in the Active Worlds environment and its
> limitations/possibilities, and have many ideas for that may or may not
> benefit AW as a product and an organisation. Due to what I have seen, I have
> a healthy level of respect for you and your opinions (whether I agree with
> them or not) so please don't take this as a direct attack. Considering the
> content of your AW web-site, I know you will appreciate a good rant when you
> see one :O). Also, this is not belittling your request for the single
> object refresh, which has some healthy support. Its purely about this
> "petition" approach. Yours was just the post I latched on to, 's all.
>
> Now, as I said, I know I am opening myself up for a likely onslaught of
> grief from people, but that's ok. Its healthy. I hope I don't make enemies
> through this - that would be disappointing and unnecessary. Right now, I
> feel for the AW guys and the bashing they get in here. If the relationship
> is broken between the community and the developers, where would the users
> stand then? Just where you stand with Microsoft products today. Nowhere!
> (Just a thought).
>
> Grims
>
>
[View Quote]

1  |   Order by index