Guild of Writers

I guess the discussion about where to discuss open source Myst Online can be closed now.

Open Source Mystonline - General Discussion

Open Source Mystonline - Technical

Heh, I saw that, great

As a side note, pretty bright colours in posts are nice and all, but not everyone uses the black ...

Non-pragmatic people will be unhappy anyway and they tend to congregate on MOUL.

Noted I choose not to be offended

MOUL, despite its clutter, was where things happened.

Anyway, I don't wish to lure you or others to a place you don't like too much, but right now, yes there is a lot of clutter ...

We have to manually approve every member. Not every Joe Six Pack is accepted either. When I review applications, I keep in mind your post count and the quality of your contributions.

Completely neutral here and no, I have no desires yet to become a representative until there is compelling reason ...

You didn't offend me, I have no opinion on the matter and I confess, I never followed the fcal discussions so I don't even know what it is I just felt sorry for the ones who might feel strongly about those things and found themselves called "idiots"

Eh, Trylon, call it my naughty imagination, but ...

Trylon wrote:My main concern was that there are too many idiots our there with stupid ideas like that.

Hmm, I am never too fond of people who call others who have different ideas "idiots" and "stupid", I think you may wish to rephrase that slightly.

Just a question: it came up on MOUL briefly, actually Lontahv mentioned it, if people (can) have their own dataset, what about corrupted vaults and all that? Or wouldn't it be the same with the MOUL source code (rather than the old UU or alcugs)? Or would that be something to hammer out shortly?

Rarrrr, did that frighten you?

Reading the comments in this topic I almost wonder if the GoW still WANTS to work alongside Cyan? It IS what we are here for, is it not? I mean, I personally would LOVE to see some of the gorgeous ages out there in an online environment, not just in CC, so I cannot help but feel positive myself ...

I hope I'm in the right place, just wanted to repeat what I said elsewhere:

Congratulations, Lontahv, Whilyam and Andy, WELL DONE!!! And thanks sooo much for your efforts you put into it all, it is appreciated and if and when MORE comes back, I shall partly "blame" it on all the hardworking people ...

Er... silly question but I have a Vista 64 system, and now there is a 64 bits version of 2.48 (in fact, the x86 version just crashes). However, it does not seem to recognize any settings changes and it doesn't see Python at all. Any ideas? It's not a big deal, I am QUITE happy with 2.47 still