Does anyone know if John also bought the Trade Wars rights
and/or code to the Majorbbs port of it?
High Velocity did the port, but they are gone now.

Corey+

quote:
Does anyone know if John also bought the Trade Wars rights
and/or code to the Majorbbs port of it?
High Velocity did the port, but they are gone now.


Epic Interactive Strategy has attempted to acquire the rights to High Velocity Software's MBBS/WorldGroups port of Trade Wars. Unfortunately, according to the former owner of HVS, the only copy of the original source code was lost on a damaged tape backup. EIS originally wanted to acquire the game not to enhance it, but just to make it playable, but it doesn't look like that's ever going to happen at this point.

Lisa M. Cutler
aka Rave
EIS Product Support

quote:
quote:
Does anyone know if John also bought the Trade Wars rights
and/or code to the Majorbbs port of it?
High Velocity did the port, but they are gone now.


Epic Interactive Strategy has attempted to acquire the rights to High Velocity Software's MBBS/WorldGroups port of Trade Wars. Unfortunately, according to the former owner of HVS, the only copy of the original source code was lost on a damaged tape backup. EIS originally wanted to acquire the game not to enhance it, but just to make it playable, but it doesn't look like that's ever going to happen at this point.

Lisa M. Cutler
aka Rave
EIS Product Support


hmm, now with the TWGS version worldgroup sysops don't
need a special version for thier system anymore.
I run my TWGS on the same computer as my worldgroup.

quote:
hmm, now with the TWGS version worldgroup sysops don't
need a special version for thier system anymore.
I run my TWGS on the same computer as my worldgroup.


Correct. The RLOGIN feature of TWGS was included in the server as a method for Worldgroups systems to directly connect to the server while maintaining the security and accounting features of the Worldgroups platform.

There are some known problems with using the RLOGIN connection, and it's taken about a year, but these problems have been traced back to the RLOGIN module of Worldgroups. (WG exhibits the same problem when a RLOGIN call is initiated to the system, as well as when one WG system initiates a RLOGIN call to any other system.)

However, most sysops won't experience this problem unless they have heavy traffic on their TWGS server.

Lisa M. Cutler
aka Rave
EIS Product Support

quote:
quote:
hmm, now with the TWGS version worldgroup sysops don't
need a special version for thier system anymore.
I run my TWGS on the same computer as my worldgroup.


Correct. The RLOGIN feature of TWGS was included in the server as a method for Worldgroups systems to directly connect to the server while maintaining the security and accounting features of the Worldgroups platform.

There are some known problems with using the RLOGIN connection, and it's taken about a year, but these problems have been traced back to the RLOGIN module of Worldgroups. (WG exhibits the same problem when a RLOGIN call is initiated to the system, as well as when one WG system initiates a RLOGIN call to any other system.)

However, most sysops won't experience this problem unless they have heavy traffic on their TWGS server.

Lisa M. Cutler
aka Rave
EIS Product Support


ya, I am one of the few people who have a code license for my worldgroup bbs sytem, I know a lot of C and I can't find whats wrong with the rlogin moduals, do you know anyone who would want to take a crack at fixing this with me?

Corey
aka Curly
tsgc.dyndns.org

quote:
ya, I am one of the few people who have a code license for my worldgroup bbs sytem, I know a lot of C and I can't find whats wrong with the rlogin moduals, do you know anyone who would want to take a crack at fixing this with me?


I've discussed this with JP several times. The RLOGIN problems in Worldgroups stem from the TCP/IP module that the RLOGIN, Telnet, HTTP, NNTP, SMTP, etc modules rely on. For some reason, the problem doesn't carry over to any modules other than RLOGIN.

If you have access to the source code for the entire WG package, I'd suggest taking the Telnet application and modifying it just enough to automatically send the user's name after initiating the telnet connection.

In essence, instead of the user typing his/her username at the TWGS menu, as soon as the Telnet module sees the connection message, it would send the player's User-ID along with a LF/CR.

Lisa M. Cutler
aka Rave
EIS Product Support

quote:
quote:
ya, I am one of the few people who have a code license for my worldgroup bbs sytem, I know a lot of C and I can't find whats wrong with the rlogin moduals, do you know anyone who would want to take a crack at fixing this with me?


I've discussed this with JP several times. The RLOGIN problems in Worldgroups stem from the TCP/IP module that the RLOGIN, Telnet, HTTP, NNTP, SMTP, etc modules rely on. For some reason, the problem doesn't carry over to any modules other than RLOGIN.

If you have access to the source code for the entire WG package, I'd suggest taking the Telnet application and modifying it just enough to automatically send the user's name after initiating the telnet connection.

In essence, instead of the user typing his/her username at the TWGS menu, as soon as the Telnet module sees the connection message, it would send the player's User-ID along with a LF/CR.

Lisa M. Cutler
aka Rave
EIS Product Support


according to the programmers notes, that is just what they did,
it says the modual was based on the telnet modual. so I guess
I have to study the code and try to figure out whats not happening,
it works from one machine to another, but not from the same machine,
i.e. I can't rlogin out to the TWGS server on the same machine. do
you C? i.e. if I gave you the rlogin code, could you see the error?
I can't find it. I have done everything but go thru it line by line.
maybe if I compile a debug version I can try to trap it's functioning,
maybe get it to write everything out to a text file or something.

Corey+

quote:
according to the programmers notes, that is just what they did,
it says the modual was based on the telnet modual. so I guess
I have to study the code and try to figure out whats not happening,
it works from one machine to another, but not from the same machine,
i.e. I can't rlogin out to the TWGS server on the same machine. do
you C? i.e. if I gave you the rlogin code, could you see the error?
I can't find it. I have done everything but go thru it line by line.
maybe if I compile a debug version I can try to trap it's functioning,
maybe get it to write everything out to a text file or something.

This is a different problem from the one that I've encountered. This is WG 3.20? I haven't seen this happen before. I've successfully run TWGS via RLOGIN on the same machine as the WG system (RLOGIN to 127.0.0.1, set TWGS up for RLOGIN port 513, and set it's IP address to 127.0.0.1).

In my case, the only serious problem occurred after a user disconnected (unexpected disconnect) while connected to the TWGS. Worldgroup's RLOGIN module wouldn't reset for five minutes, and until it did no one could connect to TWGS on any node. There was a while where we weren't sure if this was a TWGS or WG issue, but after stringing together two WG systems (initiating RLOGIN outbound from #1 to RLOGIN inbound to #2) and the same problem appeared, it was pretty obvious it's a problem with either the RLOGIN module itself or the underlying TCP/IP system.

Can you connect to TWGS on the same machine with Worldgroup's telnet?

Lisa M. Cutler
aka Rave
EIS Product Support

quote:
quote:
according to the programmers notes, that is just what they did,
it says the modual was based on the telnet modual. so I guess
I have to study the code and try to figure out whats not happening,
it works from one machine to another, but not from the same machine,
i.e. I can't rlogin out to the TWGS server on the same machine. do
you C? i.e. if I gave you the rlogin code, could you see the error?
I can't find it. I have done everything but go thru it line by line.
maybe if I compile a debug version I can try to trap it's functioning,
maybe get it to write everything out to a text file or something.

This is a different problem from the one that I've encountered. This is WG 3.20? I haven't seen this happen before. I've successfully run TWGS via RLOGIN on the same machine as the WG system (RLOGIN to 127.0.0.1, set TWGS up for RLOGIN port 513, and set it's IP address to 127.0.0.1).

In my case, the only serious problem occurred after a user disconnected (unexpected disconnect) while connected to the TWGS. Worldgroup's RLOGIN module wouldn't reset for five minutes, and until it did no one could connect to TWGS on any node. There was a while where we weren't sure if this was a TWGS or WG issue, but after stringing together two WG systems (initiating RLOGIN outbound from #1 to RLOGIN inbound to #2) and the same problem appeared, it was pretty obvious it's a problem with either the RLOGIN module itself or the underlying TCP/IP system.

Can you connect to TWGS on the same machine with Worldgroup's telnet?

Lisa M. Cutler
aka Rave
EIS Product Support


yep, 3.2 nt on win2000,
neither telnet or rlogin will work thru worldgroup.

Corey, mine runs fine using the WG Rlogin, and I have had it working on both Hub and Hub Too. The only difference in your setup and mine is the OS. I am on NT Workstation. Mine runs beautifully with very few problems. I have 6 games running currently. The only thing I have any issues with is limiting the logons to one IP, because I am passing them from the WG server. Outside of that, it was much much much easier than MajorMud ever was to configure and install. I fought with mine forever until I realized I was making it way too hard - the help files have everything you need.

Hehehe.. the lockout part is annoying, but you get used to it. It does appear to be part of the WG platform, Rave.

Pagan
Death Dealers/FarNorth Raiders
Can you come out and play?
Stardock Omega
hubtoo.com or 198.31.27.43

quote:
Corey, mine runs fine using the WG Rlogin, and I have had it working on both Hub and Hub Too. The only difference in your setup and mine is the OS. I am on NT Workstation. Mine runs beautifully with very few problems. I have 6 games running currently. The only thing I have any issues with is limiting the logons to one IP, because I am passing them from the WG server. Outside of that, it was much much much easier than MajorMud ever was to configure and install. I fought with mine forever until I realized I was making it way too hard - the help files have everything you need.


Try using Control 2.0 for Worldgroups. It's no good for real-time dupecatching, but it works better than nothing. I was working on a front end based on Control that provided real-time dupecatching via both MAC and IP addressing (paged console, automatic account lockout (suspend) with kill (delete) options. It wasn't very stable--it had a lot of crashing issues--and I eventually just shut down my Worldgroups system anyways, so I never finished it. One of these days, if I ever find the time, I might resurrect it long enough to make it at least stable.

Lisa M. Cutler
aka Rave
EIS Product Support

Smile.. I have had more problems with Control than I care to deal with. I had it installed on the same WG server that our TWGS is now on, and removed it almost immediately.

I was so amazed at how easy it was - our original system was still set for Vircom's RLogin. All I had to do was just give it the loopback address and it works. Love the product.. very few problems at all.

Of all the BBS programs out there, does TWGS have a favorite that it likes to run on?

Pyewacket/Pagan
Death Dealers/FarNorth Raiders
Stardock Omega
hubtoo.com or 198.31.27.43

quote:


Of all the BBS programs out there, does TWGS have a favorite that it likes to run on?



TWGS doesn't "like" any BBS package, its designed to run as a stand alone package, although as you know it is able to run on a number of different BBS packages, it's not really designed to as such.

There is a pretty good debate from players, sysops who run BBS front ends and sysops who don't, that having TWGS on a BBS front end causes problems such as increased latency, packet loss, helper and script incompatibility and some other less damaging issues.

Most BBS sysops swear this is a figment of the player's and the non-bbs sysop's imagination, that there is no noticeable difference between a stand alone TWGS and a BBS front end and that there is no downside to running a BBS front end.

I guess i myself am included in the mass hallucination because I believe that BBS front ends cause more problems then they are worth from a Trade Wars playing stand point. It's kind of like running the air conditioner on you car, some people swear that the performance and fuel economy isn't noticeable effected by having it on in today's vehicles, I say hogwash its an extra drain on the system that would be better utilized if not for running the AC. Now I know it's nice to have AC on a 90 degree day, and you would probably glady sacrifice a performance or fuel economy loss for comfort, but on a 65 degree day the AC is not necessary.

BBS's have become like AC on a 65 degree day as far as Trade Wars is concerned, there is absolutely no reason to add the extra drain of a BBS front end to TWGS... This of course is just an opinion





Rick Mead
Project Manager teamEIS

quote:BBS's have become like AC on a 65 degree day as far as Trade Wars is concerned, there is absolutely no reason to add the extra drain of a BBS front end to TWGS... This of course is just an opinion



There are (in my opinion) only three reasons why someone would want to have a BBS front-end. 1) To host other Doors. Why bother, TW is the only one that is worth anything. 2) To support a files database. With simtel and cdrom.com and a slew of other massively huge file databses out there, why bother. 3) To host a messaging system. Not a bad idea, I wish TWGS had a message forum area built in. (quietly begs)



---telnet to tribeam.kicks-ass.net and give my computer something to do!

There are actually a couple of other reasons not to run the TWGS solo. I was just about to split my TWGS off of my WG server, but have decided to leave it there. The inconvenience of the 7 minutes of cleanup time and the 5 minute lockout if someone hangs is far outweighed by the tracking that the BBS adds.

For example... I have a game running right now called Kill the Sysop. This is a prize game, where the one who finds the Sysop's lair not only wins the game but also wins a $25 gift certificate. I have a daily time limit of 6 hours on that game. To keep people honest, all of the accounts that have access to the TWGS have a daily maximum limit of 10 hours. The WG BBS controls that, and disconnects them when their 10 hours is up. No such thing as lurking at a menu, as I have seen done on other time limit games. In addition, I am able to see logon and logoffs, and run an IP check from the WG side to control dupes. I know that the logs for the TWGS do record IP logons, but... they are not visible to anyone, even the Sysop account. With my setup, I would have to use VNC to access the TWGS to check the logs. (Server is on a co-located OC12 connection about 10 miles from my lair.) I hate using VNC... slow, causes errors, and really makes me feel dirty.

If you can show me how to do the same functions with the TWGS, I will be happy to split them apart. The WG server is running very lean, with no email, chat, files, or other foo-foo stuff to slow it down. MajorMud there is small - only about 20 accounts. I have not yet noticed any compromise in the performance. I am running 6 games at this time, with a 7th due to start in about 2 weeks. And yes, everyone has noticed an improved performance on the newer server - lot less junk on it (lean, new build for the WG server), Athlon processor, and less traffic.

Dupes are the second area that TWGS seems to not handle well. When the WG accounts are created, some information is collected. It always amazes me that people tend to use the same passwords, or same syntax when they create dupes... always a tip off to check IP addresses of both accounts. WG logs every single logon, with name and IP. I know TWGS does, too, but it only notes the name, and records no other info.

If the players were honest - ie, not trying to cheat the time limits for the sake of a win and not trying to dupe - I would probably go ahead and split them. Sadly, though, I have already seen enough of it to remain convinced that we have to be saddled with the WorldGroup anchor. I hate it.. I really do, but what other viable choices do I really have here?

I am more than willing to listen and learn here...

Pyewacket/Pagan
Death Dealers/FarNorth Raiders
Stardock Omega
hubtoo.com or 198.31.27.43