While its true that Fusion is not yet to the point of Worldgroups as far as functionality, it more than adequately handles the needs of a BBS front end for a TWGS, and then some. It is also still being developed and is free. Add to that the native comfort a true techie finds in running an app on a Linux box, as opposed to windows, and its quite a nice solution. It is true, there is no "admin module" so for the computer illiterate, it is not the BBS of choice just yet. But if you are interested in running a stable BBS front end, that has a future, Fusion is it.

"Jedi do not concern me" -The Sith

quote:
Yeah, I use Synchronet. I've had zero problems running it through Synchronet as a door (besides a little slowdown when more than 7 people are on at one time, but that's due to my slow 100mhz comp with only 32megs of RAM). TWGS is fine if you don't know how to run a BBS, and you don't have the time to learn, and you've got 45 dollars you'd like to throw away on a shell.


I think if you'd look close enough you'd find a big difference between the people that are running the door version and those who are running TWGS. The door version is usually found on BBS's that are catering specifically to Trade Wars players. Sysops who are catering to Trade Wars players specifically generally run TWGS.

Why? Because under heavy load, despite the system that's running the TWGS, it will outperform the door version every time. And serious TW players and sysops are very performance oriented. There are players out there who won't even think about playing on a BBS or server if their ping time isn't under 100 ms. That's how picky they are. A 1/10th of a second system lag (very common under v3 door with even one or two nodes running) is enough to keep many a player away.

quote:
Also, if I wanted to, I could make my whole BBS revolve around trade wars - once the user logs in, all they have to do is press T to enter Trade Wars, and if I was that big a TW fan, I could have made it so that it looks just like TWGS with about 3 minutes of working on the menus.


There are many boards that do just this... and they still use TWGS.

quote:
So, if you meet the following requirements, I guess you should get TWGS:

* You can't run bigbang.exe and/or tedit.exe without the TWGS buttons to guide you


This has never been a problem for me. And I'm hoping it doesn't become one as I head into my golden years.

quote:
* You want multiple games on the same server but don't know how to make your computer copy things (dang those pesky computer commands)


Why would I want to copy files when I can just create a new game under TWGS (a game that will perform better than the door version and aside from the data files won't take up any more room on my hard drive, not to mention that will take less time to set up from start to finish?)

quote:
* Editing text files is one of those things you never got around to learning


Now this is one of those things I truly hate...

quote:
* Unzipping files and then running an executable (a BBS server) is far too much of a hassle


Setting up a board is easy. Giving it a life of its own is a different story.

quote:
* You have a money tree in your backyard


TWGS is reasonably priced for what it provides. Personally, I think its underpriced. Again, it expands the basic functionality of doors by (soon) offering the JumpGate portal. It's also actively developed, which the door version is not. What you have, is what you get when it comes to the door version. There are no future plans for the door version, but there are plans being discussed for Trade Wars v4 (for TWGS).

quote:
Those of you who don't meet the above requirements might want to consider a BBS system instead. You can easily replicate the TWGS look for your players if you so desire, and you can use that $45 to buy some food, or maybe some BBS games for your new BBS system.


I meet all those requirements. I've run Wildcat 4, Wildcat/WINServer 5, MBBS 6.25, Worldgroups 3.x, Synchronet, Spitfire, Searchlight and PowerBBS. Granted, many of these have been while handling product support for TWGS or the door version of Trade Wars, but in the end, the door version never comes close to being able to compare to TWGS, either in performance or features.

quote:
I've never seen a BBS that screwed up a Trade Wars game, seeing as Trade Wars is a BBS game to start with.


Trade Wars was a BBS game to start with. That's no longer the case. In fact, I'd hazard a guess and say that Trade Wars for BBSs is merely an afterthought these days... it's only through features such as RLOGIN connections, ducttape, etc., that TWGS can successfully run through a BBS.

I run TWGS on my board for all v3 games. Plus have v1 and v2 door versions available, plus a unregistered copy of Outpost Trader and Star Traders. One of these days I'll get Sherrick and Morris' TW2 knock off up and running too, but I've only got the OS/2 version so that'll have to wait.

Of all the work I've done with Trade Wars in the last year and a half, particularly for my own BBS, I feel totally confident in saying that TWGS is far superior to the door version in every way, shape and form.

Lisa M. Wilson
aka Rave

quote:
While its true that Fusion is not yet to the point of Worldgroups as far as functionality, it more than adequately handles the needs of a BBS front end for a TWGS, and then some. It is also still being developed and is free. Add to that the native comfort a true techie finds in running an app on a Linux box, as opposed to windows, and its quite a nice solution. It is true, there is no "admin module" so for the computer illiterate, it is not the BBS of choice just yet. But if you are interested in running a stable BBS front end, that has a future, Fusion is it.


Bulletin Board Systems do not have a future. Integrated server packages might, which is what "old-school" BBSes were developing into before a majority of the developers decided to take the first train out of Dodge.

Despite the age of WorldGroups (much of the code is original from its DOS MBBS days) it's still a halfway decent seller for NetVillage/WorldgroupWare because it is and integrated server package.

Same with Wildcat/NetServer 5, once developed by Mustang Softare, now owned by the one-man show calling itself Santronics. Santronics has done a good job of not only keeping NetServer alive, but has continued to actively develop it. And it still sells, but most customers aren't looking to set up a BBS per se... they're looking for an integrated server package that works off the shelf with no need to modify code.

That's what I look for in a BBS package. Being able to run a Telnet/ANSI connection off of it is a secondary concern. Being able to handle web-based forums, pop/smtp email services, listservers, file libraries via FTP, etc., are my primary considerations. Anything else is just icing on the cake. Worldgroups, Wildcat/NetServer and Synchronet are the only packages I know of at this time that are capable of doing so. Regardless of how reliable or open source Fusion is, it's no competition for the "big three".

Lisa M. Wilson
aka Rave

quote:
quote:
I dunno if its even available, but PheonixBBS is the only one I've

That would be Naz' BBS package, right?


Yeh that's right. Not sure what OS it runs on.

quote:

I think it's either OS/2 or *nix based. If it's OS/2 based, I'd definitely be "keen" on giving it a spin.

quote:
Yeh that's right. Not sure what OS it runs on.


Then its either *nix or OS/2 based.

Lisa M. Wilson
aka Rave

A couple points, I have all kinds of crazy idea for what a BBS might be adapted for in teh future. I doubt I have time to actually code even a fraction of it, but that won't stop me from making Fusion the best Darn text game and BBS style application out there . Now, as for Naz's PhoenixBBS, it kicks major Butt as well, it runs on Linux, least he runs it on that, not sure if its compiled for other Unices. And it works off a MySQL backend, so its extremely scaleable...

Col Sanders

"Jedi do not concern me" -The Sith

quote:
A couple points, I have all kinds of crazy idea for what a BBS might be adapted for in teh future. I doubt I have time to actually code even a fraction of it...


If I had an open source project I doubt I'd have the time of day to actually spend coding it either...

Uh, can someone explain to me why people feel the urge to spend so much time, effort and knowledge writing free software? That just makes no sense to me.

I know I wouldn't and don't spend my time and effort on any kind of software that won't at least pay for the development time, any initial investment in source plus all related expenses. (And all such things are quite expensive in my case, since I'm not a programmer and thus have to contract out a majority of all software coding.)

As for BBSes, there is only one place left for them to go (with any that are still alive having to play catch up with the "big three"), and that's integrated server packages. In which case you can't really call them BBSes in the first place.

As for open source software, I don't have any respect for such programs, whether it's Apache or Linux or any of a thousand other such open source packages... it's silly to design a commercial grade application and then distribute it freely and make the source available...

Down with open source, long live Micro$uck EULAs!

(As much as I despise MS, at least they're making a profit..)

Lisa M. Wilson
aka Rave

quote:
lol. I didn't even think of that option... isn't the most "recent" tw door version quite a bit behind the twgs version, and therefore so full of bugs its not funny?
quote:
Yea but GenmaC isnt saying use a TWGS .. he's saying use a non TWGS server ..



Nod ..
and he "feels" that TWGS means "login screen"
I dont think he's looking at the whole idea of what TWGS is and WHAT it does ... Granted "SOME" things are alot easier to do by just telnetting into a BBS to setup/change 1 game .. but also going by what he wants .. External Ferrengi/Aliens would not be able to run, If the BBS is down then extern doesnt run, and a host of other problems .. PLUS who wants to learn a BBS front end just to put up a TWGS game server .. Granted that most TWGS ops have had dealings with BBS packages in the past.. but is there a need to have a bbs package + fossil drivers (in some systems) + tw2002 (door)



<<Doctor Who>>

Well, I like Trade Wars and all, but I don't really think TWGS is what you could call an "integrated server application", by a long shot. All it does is make TW multi-threaded and make some easy buttons for people to push instead of typing things, which is all fine and good, but it's far too expensive. For $45 you can get the latest full blown 3d space sim.

And yes, BBSes are legacy, and so are text based games. I code MUDs and run a BBS purely as a hobby, which makes me very, very disinclined to shell out half a C-note for something that doesn't really do anything special (ping times can be reduced with a fast computer and a good connnection).

Yes, of course, I could get the crack and run TWGS (it takes about 3 seconds to find, anyone interested need only use google, or any of the popular crack sites), but it just doesn't make sense to run a whole server for just one BBS game.

I can understand trying to make money (I'm currently developing software that I hope to sell), but BBSing is purely a hobby - trying to turn it into a cash cow is ridiculous (as is obvious by the prices posted by EIS).

quote:
I code MUDs and run a BBS purely as a hobby, which makes me very, very disinclined to shell out half a C-note for something that doesn't really do anything special (ping times can be reduced with a fast computer and a good connnection).

...it just doesn't make sense to run a whole server for just one BBS game.


Interesting the way you put all this. It costs much more than "half a C-note" to get a fast computer to overcome the high ping times associated with a BBS front end. With TWGS I can dust off that P200 that's been sitting in my closet for years and have no notable problems running a dozen nodes or more.

Strange, seems the "overpriced" TWGS is a more efficient use of my money to me...

Or you could use a pentium 100mhz like I do, run 15+ different BBS games, 9 different message nets, and still keep ping times good (at least for the first 6 or 7 players...after that, since I only have 32megs of RAM, it starts slowing down).

quote:
Or you could use a pentium 100mhz like I do, run 15+ different BBS games, 9 different message nets, and still keep ping times good (at least for the first 6 or 7 players...after that, since I only have 32megs of RAM, it starts slowing down).


P100? I can bring the system to a standstill with a single node running down an overclocked buydown script. But that's really the difference between people who are registering TWGS. For the most part, they intend to put up a fast server that will handle a dozen or more simultaneous connections under heavy load. (Which no matter what your connection type/ping time might be, the door version is not capable of pulling off reliably.)

As it's also not being actively developed any more (only supported), it's way behind the times in regards to gameplay bugs and whatnot. I can't think of any serious TW players that would consider playing the door version, just as there are few players who would still play the MBBS HVS version of Trade Wars despite the fact that that's the version many players learned to play on.

But, as I think I said in a previous post, I guess it depends on what kind and how many TW players you have/expect on your system whether the door version will work best for you.

Lisa M. Wilson
aka Rave

quote:
Or you could use a pentium 100mhz like I do, run 15+ different BBS games, 9 different message nets, and still keep ping times good (at least for the first 6 or 7 players...after that, since I only have 32megs of RAM, it starts slowing down).




I think you should look up the user "dhunt" (if you are not him)
you 2 guys can make a GREAT pair ..



<<Doctor Who>>

quote:
quote:
Or you could use a pentium 100mhz like I do, run 15+ different BBS games, 9 different message nets, and still keep ping times good (at least for the first 6 or 7 players...after that, since I only have 32megs of RAM, it starts slowing down).




I think you should look up the user "dhunt" (if you are not him)
you 2 guys can make a GREAT pair ..

>


I was thinking the same thing

quote:
Feh. Don't see why they charge for TWGS - it's just a Visual Basic shell for a slightly modified v3.09.

Maybe I'll grab the TW2002 v2 source and see what I can do with it ;p


Topic has long since died, but I thought I take a moment to correct GenmaC's misconception. TWGS is not written in Visual Basic. It doesn't even feature any of the usual telltale signs of a VB-based application (ridiculous file size, immense resource hogging and slow as a snail response times).

Lisa M. Wilson
aka Rave