Jump to content

Lindens, is there a reason why there is no animated particles feature?


Minareth Irata
 Share

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 4168 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

I've been wondering, it seems so normal in other games, even from before 2000, yet Second Life doesn't have it. Linden Labs seems to focus on things like realistic water reflections, real-time shadows, and more of those very modern eye candy effects. Yet something seemingly simple as Animated Particle Textures is not possible in the game... And with Animated Particles I mean not just moving Particles, no, Particles that behave like Animated Textures done by llSetTextureAnim or llSetLinkTextureAnim. But instead of being flat sprites that don't turn towards the Agent's camera, they will like all Particles do.

I say 'seemingly simple' as I know programming can be a pain in the rear and there is of course a fat chance that something may actually have stopped this feature from ever happening, however, this seems not likely.

Also, the request has been made since 2009 or likely even earlier, and there is still an unresolved JIRA for it, namely VWR-8276: https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/VWR-8276

It has over 200 votes, yet it doesn't seem any Linden has even looked at the request, only Sue Linden has touched it, but just for workflow that is, doesn't look like something was actually done. I think I speak for many when I say that we, the Residents, would like to hear more about why this feature is not available yet, if it is possible, et cetera. Especially with these kind of features, that are seemingly simply yet very effective, we Residents love to hear it whether or not Linden Labs will actually DO something with it, or if there is bad news we wanna hear it either, me at least.

Just imagine what this feature could do, explosions and smoke would look much more rich and real for example, 'sprites' as in two flat objects trying to imitate a 3D object, just won't do. They use one or more prims extra, look odd at certain camera angles, it won't work. In case you're still not convinced, I'd recommend checking this little video on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMi8iEXizSg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the looks of things, it's because it's viewed as a 'trivial new feature' that's awaiting review. (^_^)

Post some commentary there, vote for, and add a watch to the request.  Encourage your friends and anyone else who might be interested to do the same.  In spite of how cynical people can be about the Jira, I've seen changes because of it. (^_^)

But it needs scope.  A few comments by core contributors can only achieve so much.  Show the Labbies how many people want something and they may re-consider a priority or two.  Bringing it to the forum will really mostly draw residents, not Labbies.  (^_^)y

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aye, well, more votes from just Residents might work too, if that results in Linden Labs considering it. :)

It's kinda why I also included the YouTube video in my posting, I bet Linden Labs knows very well what Animated Particles are, but will Residents know what they're missing? :smileywink:

I wrote this topic also because of how surprised I am about how quiet this subject has always seem to be. It's just a small thing that can do so much, people want it pretty badly when they hear about it, but yet so little seems to be said and done, it just... Shocks me. :smileyindifferent:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truly.  I have a Jira addressing the fact that Prim Slice is missing from LSL parameters.  The function exists in SL.  But, it's missing from LSL.  So, there are a few tools that simply don't work because of it.  Yet, it just sits there being debated... Even AFTER Labbies have contributed to the topic. (._.)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually since 2007 not has changed inworld, specially build in animations are still the same crappy stuff be had since 2002.

Moreover the experience has gotten worse and worse to a point that i lost my apatite so i hardly login anymore.

But today i reverted back to 1.23.5 simply because it runs silky smooth. And my motivation for SL returned. 

 

Since 2.4 i have given 2.x a chance but it is such a piece a crap that it is really unbelievable SL keeps on going to that direction. In 2.6 now AA isn't working correct anymore for many, Anisotropic on/off makes no difference, and the web based profiles have severe issues regarding saving changes and doesn't work well with IE and Google Chrome, and i don't  want to be forced to use FireFox. 2.4 Was working acceptable untill my fps went bonkers and my screen showing a constant micro stutter which is terribly annoying. At the moment there is nothing i have not tried. Really nothing. And i do not ever want to use a 3rd party viewer.

I don't want to spend 90% of time trouble shooting in the last months to get a smooth experience back.

In 1.23.5 fps is way up in the 40-60, sim crossings go very smooth, and no stuttery experience at all.

Perhaps LL could critically evaluate 2.x against 1.x and perhaps go from there again, including your request ;)

That 2.x junk is sooo junk... pffffff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sure miss the slice parameters in LSL too:smileysad:
Slice was introduced in viewer v1.23.4 for BOX, CYLINDER and PRISM primtypes
Since then a lot of us have begged to get the parameters accessible in LSL:smileytongue:

I can only guess how things are at LL but I can imagine how they could be when you have an never ending TO DO list
"What do I want to do to day?"
"Make the oldest one first? I don't think so, it is difficult and not fun at all"
"I would rather do something fun like introducing display names functions into LSL"
"that is much easier than slice parameters"
"pity it has been done, what else would I like, lets see..."
"what about something completely new with my name on it?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 4168 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...