the only thing that stands out as a must have feature is the visual representation of the world and the ability to create a new room just by clicking on the map where you want the new room. the visual representation is best if it only shows one layer at a time.
the only thing that stands out as a must have feature is the visual representation of the world and the ability to create a new room just by clicking on the map where you want the new room. the visual representation is best if it only shows one layer at a time.
Some mud clients already include graphical mappers - as well as buttons and menus. It would probably be quicker and easier to use that than create your own web interface from scratch.
the only one with a mapper utility I've seen is zmud and that one is just way more complicated than any other graphical building utilities I've seen out there. I took one look at it and decided it wasn't worth the effort to learn it and then customize it to do what I wanted.
Mudlet and MUSHclient both have working mappers as well, although I think they're still under development.
07 Jun, 2010, soulnafein wrote in the 26th comment:
Votes: 0
Sorry for the late answer. I'm currently working on an area editors. I think that during the initial stage of a MUD it is necessary to edit large quantities of room with ease. I opted for a GUI app (for ruby lovers I'm using FXRuby). Later I'll probably integrate this with the client I'm planning to develop so that OLC can be achieved both with pure text commands or forms that opens when typing certains commands (e.g. editroom)
Sorry for the late answer. I'm currently working on an area editors. I think that during the initial stage of a MUD it is necessary to edit large quantities of room with ease. I opted for a GUI app (for ruby lovers I'm using FXRuby). Later I'll probably integrate this with the client I'm planning to develop so that OLC can be achieved both with pure text commands or forms that opens when typing certains commands (e.g. editroom)
The only ruby GUI framework I have experience with is Shoes. TBH it seems like a weird niche because of the way you'd have to distribute the code + require installing Ruby. If I was going the GUI with Ruby route I'd probably look at JRuby or HotRuby (for java and flash).
07 Jun, 2010, soulnafein wrote in the 28th comment:
Votes: 0
I was worried myself about distributing ruby GUI apps, althought I discovered that there are softwares that package your app in an exe together with Ruby and whatever libraries you need. The only disadvantage his the large size of the installer.
I was worried myself about distributing ruby GUI apps, althought I discovered that there are softwares that package your app in an exe together with Ruby and whatever libraries you need. The only disadvantage his the large size of the installer.
Yeah, but there's a fatal flaw with this concept. The binary for the interpreter is prebuilt into the executable. Which, as you said is a larger distribution, sure, but it's also just lousy performance compared to the would-be interpreter that's been built from source for said system. Also it has to be built for a specific platform.
Also, there's a rbyte library being developed for the project in specific that can compile things down to a type of intermediate code. While it's not uncompilable, it's better than the interpreter packaging system already mentioned in this thread.
11 Jun, 2010, ProjectMoon wrote in the 31st comment:
Votes: 0
Heeeeeeey…. jewel-mud. I found that randomly on GitHub awhile ago and have been watching it. Greetings, human.
11 Jun, 2010, Chris Bailey wrote in the 32nd comment:
While it's interesting, it can't be "win" until it runs on Windows. It does look like Shoes development will be continuing.
On the other issue… I've been using OCRA to distribute Ruby apps. It works very well for people who aren't power users or system oriented (like people in my gaming groups). They be running Windows, so you don't have to build the application on their machine.
While it's interesting, it can't be "win" until it runs on Windows. It does look like Shoes development will be continuing.
It's true that it's not completely ready for windows yet, but I'm going to cut 'em some slack since it's so new. From what I've read it does have some windows support and the main hurdle thus far has been the gem compatibility ala 1.9.x for windows. This is somewhat expected at this point in time. It's something I'll likely use in the future, though.
I like Shoes, but I'd like it more if it used MVC model and built html/javascript support into it.
08 Aug, 2010, Chris Bailey wrote in the 35th comment:
Votes: 0
Sorry for the Necro but I was reading over this thread and noticed that Tyche mentioned OCRA. I missed that while the thread was active and wanted to thank him for pointing it out. It's a very handy utility.