Cobalt Neutra Posted April 6, 2011 Posted April 6, 2011 Is the code that lets users create prims larger than ten meters so deeply tied to mesh, that it would be impossible to just let us have 64m prims on the main grid, right now?Why are we having to wait for that? I mean, ok - mesh isn't finished. There's still a lot of work to do on it, I get that. I'm not talking about mesh. I'm talking about the stopper that locks prims at ten meters. It doesn't seem like it would be that hard to change the setting from 10 to 64, and be done with it.
Peewee Musytari Posted April 6, 2011 Posted April 6, 2011 Thats not really a question suited to the Answers section, we are just resident to resident support. I would suggest you post as a discussion on the Forums
Cobalt Neutra Posted April 6, 2011 Author Posted April 6, 2011 I thought these were the forums. It says "Forums > Content Creation > Mesh" on my screen.
Shockwave Yareach Posted April 6, 2011 Posted April 6, 2011 The limit used to be in the viewer, but I do not know if that's still the case. That was what enabled folks to create Megaprims in the first place -- TPV with the limit code commented out. Today, the server checks sizes when an entry is made, thus existing prims are not check on rezzing or moving. The change of the upper limit to 64m is coming. But it is not yet out. It has been seen deployed in Blue Steel a few weeks ago so it is apparently still in work with some bugs to be ironed out. While it should be simple to just change the MAXDIM constant in all the server code, this has to go hand in hand with a new "encroachment" check that won't allow you to have a prim so that ANY part of it intrudes on a neighbor's parcel. This new encroachment test seems to be what's holding up the 64m maximum show rather than Mesh. There appears to be a problem with it working under a certain condition, presumably corners overlapping when you rotate blocks. I'm not certain how their code does the check, but for blocks I would do a test for all eight corners and if all eight were not in the same parcel, the change is canceled. It's a problem with the new Encroachment code that's at issue with the 64m limit change; not mesh.
Nalates Urriah Posted April 6, 2011 Posted April 6, 2011 You are right, you are in the forum. The best place for your question is probably the Beta Server Group. Viewers are already able to handle prims larger than 10m. The size limit is enforced by the server. See: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Server_Beta_User_Group
Cobalt Neutra Posted April 6, 2011 Author Posted April 6, 2011 Ok, so there is something more that needs fixing, than just telling the server to allow the larger size prims.Thankye.
Qwalyphi Korpov Posted April 6, 2011 Posted April 6, 2011 The resident who provided the previous content, if any, has replaced it with this generic statement.
Opensource Obscure Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 Qwalyphi Korpov wrote: I don't think encroachment is the hold up. There are plenty of megaprims around that have the same impact newly created ones would. Unless they're going to ignore encroachment by the old megaprims. LOL - dat would be crazy. I think it is, or at least it is one of the holdups. Anyway, as far as I know, Linden Lab won't up prim size limit to 64 meters until encroachment is working. That may be because -even after Meshes will be released- old megaprims will still be "unsupported content". Instead, prims over 10m will be officially supported. It seems reasonable to me that in a controversy between users, "unsupported content" can just be blown away - no big deal - while for "officially supported content", LL has to provide appropriate tools. Andrew Linden works on this issue and you may find more precise details asking him at Simulator User Groups:https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Simulator_User_Group
Qwalyphi Korpov Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 The resident who provided the previous content, if any, has replaced it with this generic statement.
Yeso Kidd Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 Qwalyphi Korpov wrote: hmmmm... I suppose anything is possible. Still, no one has pointed to anything said by the lindens tying 64 meters to encroachment changes (they need add functions for new encroachemnt control options, not change them to support 64 meters) And they are supporting 64 meter prims in the mesh beta. So - If someone has more than a rumor and can point to where a Linden says 64 meter prims are held up until the encroachment options project goes live - point away. I agree with you that LL should turn on 64m prims as soon as possible. There would be no difference that what we have today with all the mega prims that are use on the grid.
Indio Quinnell Posted April 10, 2011 Posted April 10, 2011 One wonders how this "encroachment" check is going to deal with prims that have been cut with the "path cut" and "slice" parameters. Is it going to take these parameters into account and only check the prim's cut dimensions, or is it just going to do a simple(minded) check of the prim's basic XYZ dimensions from center? I know a lot of megaprim builds (including a couple of mine) where technically, one or more of the prims "overhangs" a neighboring parcel, but since the prim is cut the prim doesn't (or isn't supposed to) have any existence outside of the owner's parcel. Seems to me this could become a huge problem, especially for older builds which used the 1st generation of megaprims where just about all of the different shapes and sizes were derived by slicing and dicing a limited number of cubes. (For example, a 32x32x1m plate in those old megaprim kits is actually a 64x64x64m cube that's been path-cut and sliced to the desired size and shape.)
Qwalyphi Korpov Posted April 10, 2011 Posted April 10, 2011 The resident who provided the previous content, if any, has replaced it with this generic statement.
Rhiannon Shadowcry Posted August 23, 2011 Posted August 23, 2011 UPDATE for anyone that may be following still: 64 m prims are here as of this morning....
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now