1  2  |   Order by index

Mar 13, 2001, 7:53pm

Well, i was staring off into space at school today when i came up with
this idea. This is a spin off of plugins for the browser, but what if you
had plugins stored in your object path? The short story would be, you could
make your own plugins, to do something. Once you have it done, upload it
then use it to do stuff... Thats the short end... Heres the long end...


There would need to be a plugin SDK, and phrasers, ect, for use in the
browser. But this would open up activeworlds as anything you want it to be.
Gaming, Drawing, anything! A faw ideas of mine, a /plugins/ folder in the
root of your op. Plugins.dat for active plugins, mabey in activeworlds a
"create plugin plugin=blah" type thing. Download on demand of the plugins.

Tell me what you think :)...


~Joeman

Mar 13, 2001, 9:03pm

*cough* WISHLIST *cough*
[View Quote]

Mar 13, 2001, 9:39pm

This is more of a what do you think thing :D...


~Joeman

[View Quote]

Mar 13, 2001, 9:44pm

Actually, this idea sounds like what Eep was suggesting in his
webpages (URL omitted because I don't agree with them, except for the
part about better testing). It would probably be better, though, for
AW to fix the bugs in its browser first before releasing something
like that.

Mar 13, 2001, 11:32pm

That's what we do in wishlist, take ideas and beat the crap out of em until
they're flawless or stupid.
[View Quote]

Mar 13, 2001, 11:50pm

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------2887B936198E83719432CB7C
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Nice idea but huge security risk. As soon as you develop a real plugin,
not just scripting stuff, you have to deal with certifications, trusted
companies, message boxes in the browser asking "may I download this",
plugin version control, restart browser to replace plugin ...

[View Quote] 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

--------------2887B936198E83719432CB7C--

Mar 14, 2001, 12:31am

Mabey it would be like java, only working inside of paramiters, and a
"sandbox". So it could not harm program on your computer, or do anything to
crash the browser :D...


~Joeman

PS... Mabey this isnt such a good idea after all :(...

[View Quote]

Mar 14, 2001, 5:39am

Um, you don't agree with my AW improvements page? How silly...

[View Quote] > Actually, this idea sounds like what Eep was suggesting in his
> webpages (URL omitted because I don't agree with them, except for the
> part about better testing). It would probably be better, though, for
> AW to fix the bugs in its browser first before releasing something
> like that.

Mar 14, 2001, 8:46am

Shows where his priorities are-more senseless fluff instead of
improvements.I wonder if AWCI has brant tell Roland what to do next...
[View Quote]

Mar 14, 2001, 6:12pm

Actually, I'm very satisfied with the direction that AW is taking. I don't
think that AW was ever meant to be a three dimensional game. If people want
to play games, they can visit one of the others you listed on your website;
besides, AW would lose more visitors to these games than they would gain if
they took a gaming approach.

The real reason I don't agree with those pages, though, is that they make it
sound like AW employs thousands of programmers working sixty hours a week to
improve its software. Unfortunately, while that would be nice, it's simply
not true, and the implementation of all the features on Eep's pages would
take until 2010. Therefore, AW is doing the best job that it can with the
resources at its disposal.

Mar 14, 2001, 8:51pm

2010 my ass, by 2010 that list will have multiplied exponentially. Some of
those features are emaarrasingly simple to implement
[View Quote]

Mar 14, 2001, 11:14pm

[View Quote] > Actually, I'm very satisfied with the direction that AW is taking. I d=
on't
> think that AW was ever meant to be a three dimensional game. If people=
want
> to play games, they can visit one of the others you listed on your webs=
ite;
> besides, AW would lose more visitors to these games than they would gai=
n if
> they took a gaming approach.

Ah, yes, yet another person who only thinks in absolute either-or terms. =
Reread the page more carefully and you'll see NOWHERE am I wanting AW to =
ONLY become a game. I simply want more gameLIKE interaction and playabili=
ty. Worlds that don't want to implement gamelike features (jumping, inven=
tory, etc, etc) don't have to. Disabling collision detection bypass (shif=
t) and flying make worlds more gamelike, which world owners have a CHOICE=
of doing, yet you don't seem to complain about them...

> The real reason I don't agree with those pages, though, is that they ma=
ke it
> sound like AW employs thousands of programmers working sixty hours a we=
ek to
> improve its software. Unfortunately, while that would be nice, it's si=
mply
> not true, and the implementation of all the features on Eep's pages wou=
ld
> take until 2010. Therefore, AW is doing the best job that it can with =
the
> resources at its disposal.

Um, nowhere do I claim AW has any more than three (3) programmers, Brant.=
And until recently those "resources" were pretty damn pathetic. AW has =
only had more than one programmer for perhaps around 8 months now since R=
on Britvich (see http://tnlc.com/eep/aw/history.html if unsure who he is)=
left. Now AW has 3 programmers (with the addition of Shamus Young) and h=
opefully that means more old bugs fixed/improved upon instead of complete=
ly new features. A basic tenet in software development is to fix old bugs=
FIRST before creating new ones (through implementing new features). Not =
fixing bugs as soon as possible means they will usually be more difficult=
to fix in the future (especially if new features rely on those bugs). Th=
is is what happened with the "animate me" command ("texture" replaces it =
for the most part, which Roland said should have been there all along), u=
se of the dot (.) to remove textures from on object (which forced me to c=
hange HUNDREDS of objects when it no longer worked in AW3), and the "mask=
me" syntax which basically screwed up EVERYONE'S "animate"-applied maske=
d textures. And this is just all having to do with the "animate" command!=
I could go on and on about MANY other aspects of AW that have bugs that =
are LONG overdue (don't even get me started on the cell database)...

So, please, Brant, get a clue about AW's past development and learn more =
about it before replying.

Mar 14, 2001, 11:45pm

I hadn't said you claimed that AW had more than three programmers. My
point was that it would take years to implement all those features and
to take out all the bugs that develop (and are present currently) in
AW. You have a large section on better debugging, and I don't
disagree with that - why are you trying to convince me that AW needs
better testing?

My argument about gamelike features was that the most important thing
on AW's agenda should be the release of a software rendering engine,
not the development of these "gamelike" additions. The development of
a software renderer does seem to be the most important effort underway
at AW development right now, and that's why I agree with AW's current
direction. I would venture to say that a large majority of AW's
problems could be eliminated by allowing everyone to use one browser
(version 3.2). When AW released 3.0 and 3.1 without software
rendering and was forced to leave 2.2 functional, it created huge
incompatibility problems for itself, in addition to making most of the
newer building commands (move, rotate, and light) and SDK commands
obsolete (For example, the teleport command, which is completely
useless because one is never assured whether it will work properly or
not.)

I'm not trying to argue with you on the point of better testing - I
just believe that your expectations for game-like features are
somewhat unreasonable in the near future and should not be AW's top
priority.

Mar 15, 2001, 12:30am

[View Quote] > My argument about gamelike features was that the most important thing
> on AW's agenda should be the release of a software rendering engine,

Why keep babying the older customers who can't afford your service at it's
full potential? You'll make a lot more money catering to higher end users,
because there are lots more of them, and people running next-generation AMD
CPUs with 512mb of RAM and GeForce III's in a couple months will be
incredibly disappointed with AW when theres so much better stuff out there.
You lose more customers staying low-tech than you do going high-tech. The
vast majority of computers don't stay outdated. They either get broken or
upgraded. Even my oldest computer, a 5 year old Macintosh has exhibited much
better graphics performance than AW has on my Duron 1050 (I know they don't
make them that fast). Why? Not because the mac is better, but because the
software was better.

Mar 15, 2001, 3:47am

First of all, learn to quote.

[View Quote] > I hadn't said you claimed that AW had more than three programmers.

You IMPLIED I made it seem that way.

> My point was that it would take years to implement all those features and
> to take out all the bugs that develop (and are present currently) in
> AW.

I disagree. If AWCI actually focused on bug fixes FIRST, new features could be added later. Some new features would FIX old bugs, which is even better. More bugs are introduced because of bad initial design, and AW 3.1's new action commands are not designed very well, nor are they consistent.

> You have a large section on better debugging, and I don't
> disagree with that - why are you trying to convince me that AW needs
> better testing?

Um, because it does--duh! Better testing would catch more bugs and correct initial bad design!

> My argument about gamelike features was that the most important thing
> on AW's agenda should be the release of a software rendering engine,
> not the development of these "gamelike" additions. The development of
> a software renderer does seem to be the most important effort underway
> at AW development right now, and that's why I agree with AW's current
> direction.

Um, it does? The software renderer is LOW on AWCI's priority list because it's limited by RW3. If I'm not mistaken (and I very well may be because I don't keep up-to-date with AW's development as much), AW 3.2 will be focusing more on OpenGL support so AW can run better under WinNT. This is yet another new feature instead of fixing bugs, but at least hardware T&L should be included which should speed up frame rate for compatible vid cards some...we'll see, however.

> I would venture to say that a large majority of AW's
> problems could be eliminated by allowing everyone to use one browser
> (version 3.2). When AW released 3.0 and 3.1 without software
> rendering and was forced to leave 2.2 functional, it created huge
> incompatibility problems for itself, in addition to making most of the
> newer building commands (move, rotate, and light) and SDK commands
> obsolete (For example, the teleport command, which is completely
> useless because one is never assured whether it will work properly or
> not.)

Uh, ever heard of backwards compatibility, Brant? Doesn't seem like it. Considering I haven't seen you around here before, I'll consider you a newbie to AW, who doesn't have much (if any) experience creating RWX objects. Would you have wanted YEARS of work to suddenly become unusable in the new AW? I wouldn't, and neither would AWCI, which is why Roland had to reimplment RWX support into AW3 because Criterion stupidly removed it from RW3! THAT is what took the most time in AW3's development.

And just like rewriting the cell database would cause a lot of problems if it's not backwards compatible, it must eventually be done AND backwards compatible because of initial poor design! Andras has since claimed RW2 did not support floating point precision (only integers) but I find that hard to believe since AW2x RWXes could support floating points just fine. Anyway, part of testing is not just testing the functionality of existing features but also testing the DESIGN and MENTALITY behind such features...at least when *I* test it is.

No, I don't program, but if I get to know how software works well enough I can question why it works the way it does if I feel it could work better (and I usually do). Then it's just a matter of beating that sense into the usually narrow-minded mentality of the programmer(s) until their software becomes more user-friendly and intuitive. Not everyone (in fact most users aren't) programmers yet most programmers continue to create software only programmers can really use or understand. That just doesn't make sense, and software QA (quality assurance) is partly about retaining this "common sense" usability.

> I'm not trying to argue with you on the point of better testing - I
> just believe that your expectations for game-like features are
> somewhat unreasonable in the near future and should not be AW's top
> priority.

<shrug> I disagree. AW has been floundering ever since its inception back in 1995. It's time AW had a product development goal and get focused into actually DOING something well instead of a few things somewhat adequately!

Mar 15, 2001, 5:14am

LOL you haven't seen Brant around? :)

I agree with many points both of you are saying. Keep it up, and perhaps
we'll figure out the correct step that AWCI should take.

:)
SW Chris
[View Quote]

Mar 15, 2001, 6:19am

You shoulda been there when I pushed through the concept that AW should run only
on Win95 machines with 16 megs of RAM :)

[View Quote] [View Quote]

Mar 15, 2001, 8:45am

Actually, I believe I had one of those :) Ran AW on it towards the end of
it's lifespan
[View Quote]

Mar 15, 2001, 6:41pm

Used ta run it on a 486 with win 3.1, just a little bit of waiting involved. :)

[View Quote] > Actually, I believe I had one of those :) Ran AW on it towards the end of
> it's lifespan
[View Quote]

Mar 15, 2001, 7:23pm

As for my experience with AW (this is irrelevent to the topic, but you
brought it up for some reason), I've been active in the community since July
1998, have won Cy Awards for programming, and am the current caretaker of
AWTeen.

If you haven't programmed, then you most likely don't know much about how
software works. In reality, just making a simple window display in Visual
C++ is a difficult undertaking. Therefore, you can probably imagine how
difficult it is to make an intuitive interface that is accessible to users
with many different levels of experience with computers. Even if you use a
language (such as Visual Basic) that allows a programmer to place controls
on a form easily, deciding exactly how features will be visible to the user
is still a difficult task, and it's hard for programmers to think as
non-programmers when designing an interface. Furthermore, every program
I've ever written has required a redesign of the interface as it evolved (my
AW Utility, for example), simply because it's impossible to predict the
future. AW's interface was most likely the best solution when it was first
developed. I doubt that Protagonist had the idea that there would be more
than 750 worlds in the AW Universe, for example, because programming for the
possibility would only have consumed extra bandwidth, and was not necessary
at the time. Much the same is true for other parts of the browser that you
feel need restructuring.

You contradict yourself in saying that AW should try to fix the bugs, and
then that AW should develop a better user interface. Using an example from
your webpages, implementing the avatars.dat file as part of the world
features would require yet another rewrite of some of AW's code. Doing so
would add further development time and create new bugs, even though the
current implementation of the avatars.dat file is perfectly functional.

Myself, I feel that AW's software is already losing some of its potential
value by having bugs that interfere with its uses, such as the recurring bot
event bug that I describe in the post below. I'm sure that I am not the
only person to experience this bug (60 other people witnessed it as well
during the events). Using this bug as an example, events draw large numbers
of people to AW and many continue to use the program after a big event, but
are not impressed when bugs interfere with the event or future events are
canceled (as I've had to do). Therefore, AW is losing its customers already
to bugs such as these, much more so than to its interface or poor initial
design.

I'm confused as to what your suggestion for AW's direction actually is.
First, you said that you disagreed with me (although it sounds like we
agree) on AW's need for better testing. In your response, however, you say
that, in addition to better testing, AW should have all or most of the
additions that you list on your webpages, including a new interface and a
rewriting of certain key portions of AW's software. It simply can't all be
accomplished at once.

You've confused me by moving so far off the original topic - that bugs
should be fixed before new features are implemented. It seems that we agree
on this statement.

What, then, are we arguing about?

Mar 15, 2001, 8:49pm

[View Quote]
Not really :) Of course, that all depends on what sort of window you want to display. I can grab some of my "base" code and have a GUI that compiles (might not do anything, though) in 5-10 minutes. Then I go back and add code to do the actual work of the app... Not a "difficult undertaking" if you know what you are doing and/or have some basic code that works.


-Agent1

Mar 15, 2001, 9:11pm

You haven't learned to quote yet.

[View Quote] > As for my experience with AW (this is irrelevent to the topic, but you
> brought it up for some reason), I've been active in the community since July
> 1998, have won Cy Awards for programming, and am the current caretaker of
> AWTeen.
>
> If you haven't programmed, then you most likely don't know much about how
> software works. In reality, just making a simple window display in Visual
> C++ is a difficult undertaking. Therefore, you can probably imagine how
> difficult it is to make an intuitive interface that is accessible to users
> with many different levels of experience with computers. Even if you use a
> language (such as Visual Basic) that allows a programmer to place controls
> on a form easily, deciding exactly how features will be visible to the user
> is still a difficult task, and it's hard for programmers to think as
> non-programmers when designing an interface. Furthermore, every program
> I've ever written has required a redesign of the interface as it evolved (my
> AW Utility, for example), simply because it's impossible to predict the
> future. AW's interface was most likely the best solution when it was first
> developed. I doubt that Protagonist had the idea that there would be more
> than 750 worlds in the AW Universe, for example, because programming for the
> possibility would only have consumed extra bandwidth, and was not necessary
> at the time. Much the same is true for other parts of the browser that you
> feel need restructuring.

Then that's a lack of vision on Ron's part. Good designers design for the future, not the present.

> You contradict yourself in saying that AW should try to fix the bugs, and
> then that AW should develop a better user interface.

You seem to have a problem with thinking outside the box, Brant. Some bugs CAN be fixed by developing a better GUI.

> Using an example from
> your webpages, implementing the avatars.dat file as part of the world
> features would require yet another rewrite of some of AW's code. Doing so
> would add further development time and create new bugs, even though the
> current implementation of the avatars.dat file is perfectly functional.

Perfectly functional my ass. In case you hadn't kept up with GUI development over the past few years (and it's obvious you haven't), editing text files is out, and GUI editing is in. The avatars.dat should be configurable from within AW--PERIOD.

> Myself, I feel that AW's software is already losing some of its potential
> value by having bugs that interfere with its uses, such as the recurring bot
> event bug that I describe in the post below. I'm sure that I am not the
> only person to experience this bug (60 other people witnessed it as well
> during the events). Using this bug as an example, events draw large numbers
> of people to AW and many continue to use the program after a big event, but
> are not impressed when bugs interfere with the event or future events are
> canceled (as I've had to do). Therefore, AW is losing its customers already
> to bugs such as these, much more so than to its interface or poor initial
> design.

I doubt it. If what AWCI claims on their universe stats is true, that 1000+ new users (tourists, not citizens) check out AW a day, more people are being lost to a user-unfriendly interface, lack of features, citizenship cost, performance, etc. Bots are used by a VERY VERY VERY small % of CITIZENS (of which there are only around 10,000 UNIQUE, ORIGINAL, UNDUPLICATED accounts at most).

> I'm confused as to what your suggestion for AW's direction actually is.

http://tnlc.com/eep/aw/ and get a clue then.

> First, you said that you disagreed with me (although it sounds like we
> agree) on AW's need for better testing. In your response, however, you say
> that, in addition to better testing, AW should have all or most of the
> additions that you list on your webpages, including a new interface and a
> rewriting of certain key portions of AW's software. It simply can't all be
> accomplished at once.

Duh, but instead of adding features people didn't ask for (like the move and rotate commands), old bugs should be fixed and or circumvented. And I never said AW needs a new interface, but that simply PARTS of it do.

> You've confused me by moving so far off the original topic - that bugs
> should be fixed before new features are implemented. It seems that we agree
> on this statement.

You confused yourself, bub. <shrug> Not my fault you can't keep up...

> What, then, are we arguing about?

I don't know what YOU are arguing about, but I'M questioning your disagreement with my improvements page and how do you don't think AW should become more gamelike.

Mar 15, 2001, 9:37pm

> You seem to have a problem with thinking outside the box, Brant. Some bugs
CAN be fixed by developing a better GUI.

Some bugs can, of course, but the vast majority of current bugs (such as the
recurring sound problems, for example) can't be fixed with a better GUI.

> Perfectly functional my ass. In case you hadn't kept up with GUI
development over the past few years (and it's obvious you haven't), editing
text files is out, and GUI editing is in. The avatars.dat should be
configurable from within AW--PERIOD.

Sure it is, but most of these tourists that enter AWGate aren't interested
in owning worlds - they want to learn how to use the software.

> I doubt it. If what AWCI claims on their universe stats is true, that
1000+ new users (tourists, not citizens) check out AW a day, more people are
being lost to a user-unfriendly interface, lack of features, citizenship
cost, performance, etc. Bots are used by a VERY VERY VERY small % of
CITIZENS (of which there are only around 10,000 UNIQUE, ORIGINAL,
UNDUPLICATED accounts at most).

That's not that bad then, if they're getting between 30-60 new users a day
according to Mauz's webpages - you can't expect everyone to stay aboard.

> http://tnlc.com/eep/aw/ and get a clue then.

You contradict yourself on that page as well (see previous posts).

> Duh, but instead of adding features people didn't ask for (like the move
and rotate commands), old bugs should be fixed and or circumvented. And I
never said AW needs a new interface, but that simply PARTS of it do.

You don't have any justification to say that people didn't ask for the move
and rotate commands. Everyone I know was complaining profusely when Roland
disabled the beta version for non-beta users, and since move and rotate
commands were the main features of AW 3.1, I would guess that they were what
grabbed those users' attention to complain about wanting the beta version so
badly.

> You confused yourself, bub. <shrug> Not my fault you can't keep up...

These sort of comments add nothing to the debate and only increase load
times.

Mar 15, 2001, 9:38pm

Could you send me some of that "base code" so that I could figure out how to
stop programming these ugly console applications, or is it private?

Mar 15, 2001, 10:48pm

[View Quote]
They had no right to complain as they weren't on the beta program. The light command and MP3 support were significant, as well in 3.1.


-Agent1

Mar 16, 2001, 12:36am

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------444EFD91F93CF0E9103E7A0B
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Any experiences on a Compaq DeskPro 386/16 ?
It has Windows386 on a 130MB ESDI HD, 2MB RAM, an EGA card and a 80387
Coprocessor, I could try to upgrade to WinME - but will AW3.1 work for
me there?

[View Quote] 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

--------------444EFD91F93CF0E9103E7A0B--

Mar 16, 2001, 2:00am

mine was win3.1 333mhz, 16mb ram.. and best of all.. 14.4 modem..

--
news://awjbell.com
--
J B E L L
http://platinum.awjbell.com
G O I N G P L A T I N U M


[View Quote]

Mar 16, 2001, 3:43am

[View Quote] > CAN be fixed by developing a better GUI.
>
> Some bugs can, of course, but the vast majority of current bugs (such as the
> recurring sound problems, for example) can't be fixed with a better GUI.

Duh! Which is why I don't advocate ONLY improving AW's GUI! You seem to have a problem with READING carefully, too, Brant. I suggest you reread my AW improvements page more carefully for the NUMEROUS non-GUI-related bugs/features.

> development over the past few years (and it's obvious you haven't), editing
> text files is out, and GUI editing is in. The avatars.dat should be
> configurable from within AW--PERIOD.
>
> Sure it is, but most of these tourists that enter AWGate aren't interested
> in owning worlds - they want to learn how to use the software.

Uh, now YOU switch the topic? We're talking about avatars.dat, which is something worldowners have access too, not tourists. Think, Brant, THINK! My patience is wearing thin with your incompetence.

> 1000+ new users (tourists, not citizens) check out AW a day, more people are
> being lost to a user-unfriendly interface, lack of features, citizenship
> cost, performance, etc. Bots are used by a VERY VERY VERY small % of
> CITIZENS (of which there are only around 10,000 UNIQUE, ORIGINAL,
> UNDUPLICATED accounts at most).
>
> That's not that bad then, if they're getting between 30-60 new users a day
> according to Mauz's webpages - you can't expect everyone to stay aboard.

You've missed the point yet again, Brant. Perhaps you'll be lucky enough for someone else to explain it to you as I tire of you.

>
> You contradict yourself on that page as well (see previous posts).

You simply can't think outside your narrow-minded box of a mind, Brant. I've already rebutted against your supposed "contradictions".

> and rotate commands), old bugs should be fixed and or circumvented. And I
> never said AW needs a new interface, but that simply PARTS of it do.
>
> You don't have any justification to say that people didn't ask for the move
> and rotate commands.

Do you know of anyone who did? I don't and I followed AW's development VERY closely during that time. I knew about multiple lights and DirectSound but it wasn't until a few weeks before AW3.1 beta testing began were the move/rotate commands mentioned. My guess is some "partner" AWCI suckered in requested it so AWCI mindlessly said "Gee, OK! AW has lots of bugs that need fixing but gosh darn it we'll get on our knees and suck you off if you'll be our friend!*$#"

> Everyone I know was complaining profusely when Roland
> disabled the beta version for non-beta users, and since move and rotate
> commands were the main features of AW 3.1, I would guess that they were what
> grabbed those users' attention to complain about wanting the beta version so
> badly.

Um, no. It was simply the fact that non-beta testers were allowed to use the beta and then suddenly NOT allowed to.

>
> These sort of comments add nothing to the debate and only increase load
> times.

So does your incompetence. I'm done dealing with you, twit. Suck filter.

Mar 16, 2001, 9:11am

[View Quote] And every one of those features had the potential to permanently damage or
destroy their computer. Beta users are supposed to be willing guinea pigs.
>
> -Agent1
>
>

Mar 16, 2001, 12:01pm

what
version so
>
> Um, no. It was simply the fact that non-beta testers were allowed to use
the beta and then suddenly NOT allowed to.

They were never allowed to, they just exploited something that Roland never
thought would be abused.

-Myrth

1  2  |   Order by index