Zugg Software :: View topic

Newbie Joined: 27 Aug 2002 Posts: 4 Location: Russia

In the help file i saw words stating that zMapper could be used from programs other then zMud as a mapping tool, how could it be done?

Enchanter Joined: 10 Oct 2000 Posts: 656 Location: USA

Zmapper can be used as a stand alone or as a plug-in to Zmud.

In addition I believe Zugg will be coded full COM support. Once this is complete, if its not done already, zmapper will then have the ability to be accessed from other programming languages that support COM.

The negative side is that somebody will have to code this into the applications you want it to work in. Or, If the application allows users to perform COM scripting, then you could do this manually.

I hope this helps answer your question, perhaps somebody else can do a better job at explaining this.

Talahaski
Processor PIII 1000
Memory 265MB
Video NVIDIA 64MB
Windows XP
Zmud Version 6.34
Zmapper Version 1.10

Newbie Joined: 27 Aug 2002 Posts: 4 Location: Russia

I see.. just thought that COM server in zMapper was already implemented and was surprised not finding any

Enchanter Joined: 10 Oct 2000 Posts: 656 Location: USA

Taken from the help files

You cannot script zMapper by itself. In order for the scripting objects to work properly, you must have zMUD installed. The zMapper COM objects described in this section are then available via the zMUD COM Automation object.

If you do a FIND on the help files under COM you will find a page titled "zMapper and zMUD"

In this section Zugg explains all the COM object interfaces available for Zmapper. My guess is since it is already in the help file, it is probably already coded and should work.

Talahaski
Processor PIII 1000
Memory 265MB
Video NVIDIA 64MB
Windows XP
Zmud Version 6.34
Zmapper Version 1.10

Posted: Sat Aug 31, 2002 8:26 pm

As mentioned, the COM support is *ONLY* for zMUD. There is no generic COM support for zMapper yet.

Newbie Joined: 27 Aug 2002 Posts: 4 Location: Russia

Eh.. Dear Zugg, I planned to use your wonderful zMapper without zMud, because i like other client that i like more then zMud:P only feature i need is a mapper, so i tried to use your's. pity that it is impossible.

Posted: Sat Aug 31, 2002 10:18 pm

Can't imagine likeing another client better than zMUD. Perhaps you can mention what you don't like about zMUD.

Also, if you read the posts you'll see that the API is planned, just not implemented yet. zMapper is currently a BETA version, which means it has bugs and is missing some features. You can really only add COM control to a program that is stable. Otherwise you end up with a kludged set of objects when stuff gets changed and you have to maintain compatibility with the original COM objects. So, I've added the COM objects to zMUD as a test, and based upon that feedback I'll then add the COM objects to zMapper.

But I doubt you will ever find using zMapper with your other client as easy and useable as using zMUD with the intergrated mapper. In particular, you will probably find using the COM API slow and cumbersome. You certainly won't be able to use the zMapper to perform speedwalking between rooms like zMUD can with it's mapper.

Anyway, it just sounds like an awful amount of trouble to go to just to keep a different MUD client.

Newbie Joined: 27 Aug 2002 Posts: 4 Location: Russia

quote:

Can't imagine likeing another client better than zMUD. Perhaps you can mention what you don't like about zMUD.

I use ??? client and here are the points:
1. ??? is free.
2. ??? is open-source.
3. ??? is much faster because it is simpler, and in the combat mud i play speed is everything.
4. ??? had active scripting support long before you implemented it, and all the cool features of zMud (which i need) i can implement myself in scripts or modify the code itself.
5. ??? is simple. it doesn't show lots of garbage on your screen, almost all of the screen is MUD text, it doesn't slow down to process complex mega-triggers.
??? - won't advertise another client on your site, do you agree?
if you want to be more serious i can discuss the disadvantages of zMUD with you more directly (email?)

quote:

Also, if you read the posts you'll see that the API is planned, just not implemented yet. zMapper is currently a BETA version, which means it has bugs and is missing some features. You can really only add COM control to a program that is stable. Otherwise you end up with a kludged set of objects when stuff gets changed and you have to maintain compatibility with the original COM objects. So, I've added the COM objects to zMUD as a test, and based upon that feedback I'll then add the COM objects to zMapper.

Yes! Yes! My feedback votes for the COM support, or even better for exposed dll functions!

quote:

But I doubt you will ever find using zMapper with your other client as easy and useable as using zMUD with the intergrated mapper. In particular, you will probably find using the COM API slow and cumbersome. You certainly won't be able to use the zMapper to perform speedwalking between rooms like zMUD can with it's mapper.

Anyway, it just sounds like an awful amount of trouble to go to just to keep a different MUD client.

Well, that is not trouble, i know what programming is, so it will be just an interesting task.

Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2002 6:08 pm

First, thanks for keeping the ??? confidential.

1. ??? is free.

Since you'll have to pay for zMapper in order to use it, even to call the COM functions, it doesn't seem like price should be a big issue. The advantage of charging for zMUD is that I can fully support it. zMUD has been around 6 years, much longer than any other MUD client. Usually when the people in charge of a free product get a real job, or graduate from school, support goes way down. So, I'd like to think that with zMUD you are getting something for your money, especially given the free upgrade policy.

2. ??? is open-source.

I personally don't think this matters. Open-source means that ??? will remain free because there is no way to run a business with open-source software. Yes, it might be a good way to get "community" programming help, but since I do this fulltime myself, I'd be surprised if they ever got as far as some of the advanced features in zMUD.

3. ??? is much faster because it is simpler, and in the combat mud i play speed is everything.

I actually doubt this. We've run controlled benchmarks of zMUD against all other MUD clients, and even simple Telnet programs. "Simpler" has no bearing on speed. What matters is how they designed their screen output routines. zMUD has the fastest screen output of any other program we have tested, although there are some close contenders. Then if you start adding triggers and stuff like that, clients get very different. It's easy to write inefficient triggers in zMUD to slow it down. So, you have to make sure you are comparing the same conditions. zMUD's trigger parser is by far faster than anyone else that implements regular expression triggers. If you want to email me more details on this, I'd be happy to discuss specifics. But bottom line is that "simpler" doesn't necessarily mean "faster", and zMUD is *very* fast when you use it properly.

4. ??? had active scripting support long before you implemented it, and all the cool features of zMud (which i need) i can implement myself in scripts or modify the code itself.

Since zMUD has active scripting now, this seems like a moot point.

5. ??? is simple. it doesn't show lots of garbage on your screen, almost all of the screen is MUD text, it doesn't slow down to process complex mega-triggers.

In zMUD you can select FullScreen for your window and the entire window will be MUD text. You can even put the Window caption on the left side of the screen instead of the top. When this is done, the *entire* vertical region of the screen is used for text. My guess is that you didn't know about this features. And I talked about triggers above...I've looked at all the major MUD clients, and tested a variety of regular expression parsers, and the parser in zMUD has always been the fastest.

??? - won't advertise another client on your site, do you agree?
if you want to be more serious i can discuss the disadvantages of zMUD with you more directly (email?)

I'd be happy to get more direct email on this. I take great pride in zMUD and will put it's quality up against any competitor.

Of course, we have deviated from zMapper in this discussion and are talking about zMUD now, so we should probably continue this via email.

Oh, it will be a COM interface, and *not* exposed DLL routines.