Ok, the title was more to provoke people who are fans of other clients in here (Tintin etc.) but I was dorking around with zMUD today and it truly is a marvel of software engineering. My hat's off to Zugg!
Now I'm a real llama when it comes to client scripting, etc. I mean I can make aliases, variables and the most complex thing I've ever come up with was a cool autorescue trigger that keyed off the "T: Turg TC: excellent" part of Sojourn's display prompt.
However, in bringing myself back up to speed with zMUD (at least my old level of proficiency) I have learned tons of new features.
Cool feature #1: You can capture any line of text you want (tells, gsays, whatever) to a file which you can keep open in a seperate window. I didn't know this! I do now!
Cool feature #2: You can create buttons right there on your zMUD windows. You can make them toggles! Again, I didn't know this I do now!
Cool feature #3: You can create "guages" or status bars as zMUD likes to call them. Basically, if you're savvy enough, you can make little health bars that show how many hps/mv/mana/etc. that update every time the prompt pops up. Awesome!
Cool feature #4: Ok I can go on and on, but I want to go back and learn how to do all this stuff and figure out more stuff. But the zMUD automapper just plain owns. Never seen that before zMUD though I imagine newer clients like this Rasputin or TinyFuge or whatever they're called has them.
Well, I've told you mine, now what are y'all's favorite nifty little gadget from zMUD? Or a different client for that matter. I'm all about extras these days.
le jaeb
[This message has been edited by Faerwynd (edited 02-14-2001).]
zMUD is the best I've ever had
Zmud is one hell of a client.
the only problem is the speed. which basically ends up at microsoft jack asses!
I'm one of thoose assholes using microsoft, still cursing it and them.
Anyways, as far as i know TF does not have the automapper. TF is fast though. Some says it doesn't make a difference. And i wouldn't know since i havn't tried TF that much. But Klurg ( rl buddy) been converting to linux now and used TF a lot lately. He says he notice a difference, that TF runs more smooth.
Zmud sends packets of text back and forth, while TF sends single strings.. That makes zmud run a little more hmmm what do u say. It goes fast when the packet arrives but is still while it's waiting hehe .. allmost as lag.
the only problem is the speed. which basically ends up at microsoft jack asses!
I'm one of thoose assholes using microsoft, still cursing it and them.
Anyways, as far as i know TF does not have the automapper. TF is fast though. Some says it doesn't make a difference. And i wouldn't know since i havn't tried TF that much. But Klurg ( rl buddy) been converting to linux now and used TF a lot lately. He says he notice a difference, that TF runs more smooth.
Zmud sends packets of text back and forth, while TF sends single strings.. That makes zmud run a little more hmmm what do u say. It goes fast when the packet arrives but is still while it's waiting hehe .. allmost as lag.
Never noticed any lag with zMUD.
Hmm.
Net lag? Isn't everyone broadband these days anyways?
CPU lag? Doesn't everyone have at least a P2 450 these days? Their dirt cheap.
Ok I'm sure some people are still on their old Cyrix 166MHz's but I can't remember even a smidgeon of slowness on my 486 50MHz at 28.8 so where's all this "zMUD is slow" stuff coming from?
Hmm.
Net lag? Isn't everyone broadband these days anyways?
CPU lag? Doesn't everyone have at least a P2 450 these days? Their dirt cheap.
Ok I'm sure some people are still on their old Cyrix 166MHz's but I can't remember even a smidgeon of slowness on my 486 50MHz at 28.8 so where's all this "zMUD is slow" stuff coming from?
I always found TF to be faster, not because of the program, but rather, because of where it sits.
TF, unless your using the WIN32 version, lives on your server running under linux or unix, not on your PC presumably running windows. What this means is, if someone attacks your groups mage, and sends a string of text that triggers your auto-rescue, that string only has to travel to your server, at which point the response gets sent back. On Zmud, or 32 bit TF, it has to travel not only to your server, but then all the way up the connection to your PC before the response is sent. If your on a modem, this is a major difference. If you have cable or dsl I imagine the difference is less noticeable, but still there.
Temp
P.S.-Add to that the considerable speed bonus of linux vs. winX and you only exacerbate the differences.
TF, unless your using the WIN32 version, lives on your server running under linux or unix, not on your PC presumably running windows. What this means is, if someone attacks your groups mage, and sends a string of text that triggers your auto-rescue, that string only has to travel to your server, at which point the response gets sent back. On Zmud, or 32 bit TF, it has to travel not only to your server, but then all the way up the connection to your PC before the response is sent. If your on a modem, this is a major difference. If you have cable or dsl I imagine the difference is less noticeable, but still there.
Temp
P.S.-Add to that the considerable speed bonus of linux vs. winX and you only exacerbate the differences.
Zmud does cache the inbound text before it is displayed. However there is an option under preferences that alows you to tweak the number of lines before refresh:
preferences
-user interface
--Refresh Amount (local)
Check the help section for more details or just play with it like I did until I found what I liked.
as far as number of child windows open and affects on performance, you might want to limit the number of lines buffered for the child windows to something rather small.
I buffer 10K lines on my main window just so i can save the buffer for a log rather than log everything, but I usually limit my capture windows and editor to ~100 lines or so depending on needs.
preferences
-user interface
--Refresh Amount (local)
Check the help section for more details or just play with it like I did until I found what I liked.
as far as number of child windows open and affects on performance, you might want to limit the number of lines buffered for the child windows to something rather small.
I buffer 10K lines on my main window just so i can save the buffer for a log rather than log everything, but I usually limit my capture windows and editor to ~100 lines or so depending on needs.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests