Can Realmworks use an External viewer?

[Bidmaron]

[Edited]
I am not getting into a dispute, KBS. Originally, I had posted material showing that there are currently no lossless codecs that stream, but I deleted it because that is really not cogent to RW and was simply my adverse reaction to one of your posts.
But just let me ask you to please tone down the haughty air of your posts on occasion.
You attacked a recent poster who made a seemingly reasonable request to increase view limitations simply because you saw no reason for the request in the way YOU use RW.
Okay, maybe you have an idea of a way to use RW so as not to need so many views. (and based on your usage of the program, I can see how this might be true). The better way to have handled that would be to ask Valyar (I think) how he was running into the View usage limit. Then, if he was doing something where your experience indicated there was a better method to achieve his goals, you could point it out.
Instead, you just come across with almost a statement that only an idiot could think he needed more than 7 views. I feel you may have a valid solution, but I am still wondering what it is because your reaction was so off-putting that Valyar didn't reply any further. (probably to avoid a flame war).

Anyway, you do great things for the community, but please realize you often come across in a very holier-than-thou tone that deprives us of learning the point you very likely have to make.

Thanks, and I hope you consider this in the spirit of a fellow user asking you to help the rest of us learn from your long and honestly impressive experience with the program.

 

[EightBitz]

You attacked a recent poster who made a seemingly reasonable request to increase view limitations simply because you saw no reason for the request in the way YOU use RW.

Amen. When someone requests a feature, people all too often respond with some sort of statement that they don't need that feature, so neither should anyone else.

I'm paraphrasing, but that's often the tone. And that's an invalid argument. When someone requests a feature that you don't support, just leave it to the devs. What's it really matter to you? If you do support it, then weigh in with your support so the devs can gauge its popularity.

If the devs call for a poll, then by all means cast your votes yay or nay. Other than that, just let it be.

 

[daplunk]

Sorry guys but sitting back and watching new people struggle through the things we have learnt with experience is not something I think we should be doing as a community.

In this case we know the tool is not designed to be used as a VTT. The Dev's have told us the program was never intended to be a VTT.

So it would be cruel imo to sit back and watch newer users request features that we know are necessary because they are trying to replicate the functionality of a VTT. Better to ensure they know the capabilities of the program now before they get a few months in and realise the program is not designed for what they are trying to use it for.

We also know the dev's are basically not here.

 

[kbs666]

[Edited]
I am not getting into a dispute, KBS. Originally, I had posted material showing that there are currently no lossless codecs that stream, but I deleted it because that is really not cogent to RW and was simply my adverse reaction to one of your posts.
But just let me ask you to please tone down the haughty air of your posts on occasion.
You attacked a recent poster who made a seemingly reasonable request to increase view limitations simply because you saw no reason for the request in the way YOU use RW.
Okay, maybe you have an idea of a way to use RW so as not to need so many views. (and based on your usage of the program, I can see how this might be true). The better way to have handled that would be to ask Valyar (I think) how he was running into the View usage limit. Then, if he was doing something where your experience indicated there was a better method to achieve his goals, you could point it out.
Instead, you just come across with almost a statement that only an idiot could think he needed more than 7 views. I feel you may have a valid solution, but I am still wondering what it is because your reaction was so off-putting that Valyar didn't reply any further. (probably to avoid a flame war).

Anyway, you do great things for the community, but please realize you often come across in a very holier-than-thou tone that deprives us of learning the point you very likely have to make.

Thanks, and I hope you consider this in the spirit of a fellow user asking you to help the rest of us learn from your long and honestly impressive experience with the program.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_codecs#Lossless_video_compression

Right at the top of the list is H.264

What does YouTube use? H.264. Do not tell me my business.

Also I did not attack a new poster who wanted more views. I tried to find out why he needed so many. It really doesn't make a ton of sense and I know Rob and Rob is the one who said years back that he couldn't imagine anyone needing more than 7.

Speaking of starting a flame war, you just tried to start one with this P/A garbage.

 

[Bidmaron]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_codecs#Lossless_video_compression

Right at the top of the list is H.264

What does YouTube use? H.264. Do not tell me my business.

I cannot let this falsehood stand.
If you click on the codec information, you will see that Wikipedia says this: “H.264 is typically used for lossy compression, although it is also possible to create truly lossless-coded regions within lossy-coded pictures or to support rare use cases for which the entire encoding is lossless.” so except in the most rare case, h264 is lossy.

 

[Dark Lord Galen]

I don't think LWD will ever implement printing because it will be too easy to violate the copyright of a purchased product.

Disagree, the same was thought on the advent of computers in general...

While not a Patent/ Copyright Lawyer myself (left brained Engineer here) I do have friend that is, but this is certainly not the forum nor thread for defining the differences and legalities.. suffice to say there are several grey areas (that Rob & LWD discovered when trying to trudge through the obstacles they present) but they are no more risky or "easy" than when cd burners or the advent of Xerox machines came along....

Some grey areas of IP are: How the was the work as originally distributed. Meaning if there was never a published and distributed work in electronic form, then it could fall under fair use /and or derivative works depending.. Also since this forum (and many others) are not solely US in its user base, international law will also vary from place to place...

I'm certain these are the discussions that LWD and their "partners" have discussed in detail. but to apply never.. donno about that.. There wouldn't be the aforementioned DVD burner, Xerox machine nore DRPG sites that also make use of the approach.

They provide a method to import information,

eh, no... unless you mean "they" as in the community provided a means to do it, when it was infact LWD job to do so. And those dedicated creative souls that got tired of waiting created a work around for import / export and some means of printing stepped in to make it possible.... OR the "great choice" of a delimited Stripped out text version via cut and paste....

........ but your "already formatted information" sounds like it isn't in a format that they support. It would be difficult to support many different formats when trying to pick from within each particular format which elements should be placed into which category type and which snippets within that type.

Again no....... to clarify..... While there are as many formatted things as there are stars in the sky , I'm not suggesting LWD have realmworks pre-anticipate all of them.
What I am suggesting are things that are entirely doable.

• The ability to Export a user friendly template into a word or excel file (since most have that or the open GL version), Allow the user to populate it and re-import without having to understand how to write code... (not an issue for me, but we are talking UI stuff here)
• Import formats for font styles, paragraph lay out, etc.. these already exist in Word and can be feed to other programs... I do it all the time for Acad, and various programs my wife uses for Sewing and Embroidery.
• Import / Create custom buttons, markers, etc for maps, tool bar etc.. This is simple 1980's stuff here.

I could go on and on but hopefully this clarifies what I am implying when I say "already formatted information"... RW doesn't have to do everything or plan for every contingency.. As you add a font to word, it is in Excel too, right? If you had a folder just like Herolab that contained User docs for your "custom things" you could create mapmarkers, repetitive snipet layouts, etc all you wanted.

Am I over simplifying, sure, but its not impossible, nore does LWD have to have a crystal ball and think of ALL possible contingencies before they release it into the wild. IT could grow using the shoulders of other work that already exists in most people's machines, or at the vary least in a "community file structure".... just a thought...

It aggravates me to no end that RW insists on blowing out the font styles and paragraph indents, etc that I have already done elsewhere for a delimited text file to have to do it all over again.

Anyway since this is not pertinent to the thread, I will conclude with.... RW lack of 64 bit support will hamper the ability long term to do lots of things all other core programs already do utilizing memory above 2g.... including mapping, video display, and even multitasking with other programs when the REAL goal is to enhance our game for our players....

DLG

And for any that love Grey of lawereessee lol.. here is Mike's Blog
https://www.henrypatentfirm.com/blog/difference-between-patent-trademark-copyright

 

[kbs666]

I cannot let this falsehood stand.
If you click on the codec information, you will see that Wikipedia says this: “H.264 is typically used for lossy compression, although it is also possible to create truly lossless-coded regions within lossy-coded pictures or to support rare use cases for which the entire encoding is lossless.” so except in the most rare case, h264 is lossy.

Such as in fast motion between frames or in regions between frames. When a region is static between frames lossy compression is fine, since the entire region is static. Again do not tell me my business.

You claimed upsampling is done. Upsampled video looks terrible. Downsampling is what is done because that looks amazing if done properly. You claimed no video codecs in use are capable of lossless compression, the most popular codec in use today is capable of such and delivers lossless compression when needed, as determined by the encoder on a routine basis by one of the two biggest streaming services in existence with very good results.

You clearly do not know as much about video as you think you do.

Maybe instead of calling me a liar and trying to start a flame war you should actually get some facts right?

 

[Acenoid]

Just updraded to 2k here. Didn't see a big purpose for 4 k ... though iam already thinking about it
Also didnt see the 3 pages of discussion ... lol

Probably the monitor is too large for me

Anyways, regarding features a64 bit and all that. In case the content market fails, I suggest them to change the business model and have a RW "base" version. Give it compatibility updates forever (for e.g. 64 bit upgrades) and add major new features as DLC, also include minor / promised improvements for free so each update / DLC will have something for power users who like to enjoy all the new features (and pay for it) and give some bits to the standard users to keep them hooked on the product and maybe convert / convince them to upgrade to latest DLC / expansion however you want to call it.

If I would be VP there that would be my strategy ;P

 

[MNBlockHead]

Not sure why what could have been a very interesting discussion needed to descend into nastiness, but I have no problem learning some interesting new technical tidbits at the expense of others' emotions.

Anyway, high-dpi will eventually be the norm, but they are mostly an annoyance for me at this time. I didn't realize my new laptop was 4k when I got it. I wish it were not. Dealing with multi-screens and docking is a pain in the rear, for one example. Perhaps if I bought a 4k monitor to use with my docking station it wouldn't be a problem.

Many application looks like crap on high dpi screens and I've spent far too much time learning about compatibility settings and how Windows handles resolution changes when moving windows from a display with one resolution to one with another resolution. About the only situations where I appreciate a high DPI screen is when I a watch videos when I'm on the road.

As for the OP's request, I can see where he is coming from. It would be nice to have just one map that you can zoom into. That's what I started doing until the map kept crashing RealmWorks. Now I use an approach like the one DaPlunk shared earlier in this thread. Except, at the world level, I don't use a grid. I just place pins for kingdoms and major geographic features. I then cut out the kingdom portion of the map and make a new map to be used with a topic on the kingdom, and so on.

But even if RW could handle huge images with hundreds of pins, I don't think it would work well with the pins as they work now. When zoomed to global or even kingdom level, you wouldn't be able to see anything for all the pins. You would need some way to draw clickable regions on the map (a feature requested in other threads). Ideally, you would not need pins--though, RW should keep pins as an option for those that like it--or when you really need to call attention to something that you can click through to another topic).

 

[EightBitz]

Sorry guys but sitting back and watching new people struggle through the things we have learnt with experience is not something I think we should be doing as a community.

In this case we know the tool is not designed to be used as a VTT. The Dev's have told us the program was never intended to be a VTT.

So it would be cruel imo to sit back and watch newer users request features that we know are necessary because they are trying to replicate the functionality of a VTT. Better to ensure they know the capabilities of the program now before they get a few months in and realise the program is not designed for what they are trying to use it for.

We also know the dev's are basically not here.

"I don't want this feature, so why should you?" is still an invalid argument.

I was responding to Bidmaron's comment that "You attacked a recent poster who made a seemingly reasonable request to increase view limitations simply because you saw no reason for the request in the way YOU use RW."

If someone is requesting a feature that is clearly out of scope, that's a different issue and a different argument. That goes beyond requesting a feature. That's requesting a new paradigm, and a more objective argument can be made as to the impracticality of the request.