Secondlife declining player base

[animats]

For comparison. "Valley" in Unreal's "Ultra" mode. 11 FPS.

This is the Unreal benchmark from five years ago. Now this looks better than SL. You'll need Sansar-level hardware to get this quality at a reasonable frame rate.

[ChinRey]

17 minutes ago, Phorumities said:

Very pretty, but so what? 

I can watch travel videos that look better than that

Yes but you can't move freely around in the video the way you can in the Valley Benchmark or in SL. That's the whole point of a virtual reality compared to prerecorded videos of course.

(Edit: Oh, I think see where the misunderstanding is. This is a demo video, not the actual program. Valley Benchmark's movement controls are rather rudimentary - after all it is intended as a test program for gpu performance, not as a ""game" or anything like that - but yes, you can walk around and explore the whole landscape if you like.)

 

17 minutes ago, animats said:

"Valley" demo on Low Quality. 20 FPS on a NVidia GT 640.  No shadows. Comparable to "High" in SL, but not "Ultra". If I run Valley in "High" (which I will post later; I've hit picture upload quota) I only get 13 FPS.

That's interesting. It's actually lower than what my little Radeon R7 240 can manage. I was running it with DirectX 11 though. Did you use OpenGL? If so, that would explain it.

 

17 minutes ago, animats said:

This demo assumes you have programmable shader hardware - OpenGL 3.2 or above. SL doesn't yet require that.

SL supports OpenGL 4.2

 

17 minutes ago, animats said:

Chin is right that Unreal Engine can look much better than SL, but the hardware spec to get that is higher.

Yes, and that's one reason why I used Unigine as an example, not UE4. However, the main reason was that I didn't want to compare engines this time, only show an example of what can be done with procedural objects and that is exactly what the Valley Benchmark was all about.

Edited August 3, 2018 by ChinRey

[Phorumities]

1 minute ago, ChinRey said:

Yes but you can't move freely around in the video the way you can in the Valley Benchmark or in SL. That's the whole point of a virtual reality compared to prerecorded videos of course.

 

As I've said before if I want RL quality, I'll go wander around in RL for a bit.

I had an argument with a friend last year when he said if he couldn't see the total eclipse of the sun in RL he'd love to watch a virtual reality simulation of it. I told him, if you didn't see it in RL you saw nothing.

Wandering around looking at pretty scenes in a virtual world is nothing compared to wandering around in reality.

Will life-like virtual realities eventually become a substitute for actually going out in the real world at all?

Noooo its too hot and windy and tiring walking around outside, I'l just wander around a virtual reality simulation instead.

[Coffee Pancake]

4 hours ago, Phorumities said:

As I've said before if I want RL quality, I'll go wander around in RL for a bit.

You're missing the point, spectacularly. 

[Luna Bliss]

 

[ChinRey]

I forgot one point animats had. I think I better make a new psot for ti rather than edit my first reply even more:

2 hours ago, animats said:

 

Lack of modern LOD tools is SL's biggest visual quality problem. Distant objects look bad, disappear, or overload the viewer.

 

You're absolutely right of course and that's another reason why we need more procedural based objects. It's fairly easy for a computer to generate good LoD models for those. It's easy enough it can be done in real time and they can be optimized for any distance and object size. With polylist based objects, you are stuck with pre-generated fixed models that will never be as efficient.

[ChinRey]

34 minutes ago, Phorumities said:

As I've said before if I want RL quality, I'll go wander around in RL for a bit.

Me too.

As CoffeDujour said, you missed the point but that's ok because you made another very good one: We don't really need that kind of detailed renders in a virtual reality, it can even be counter-productive.

But remember, this was about lowering the hardware requirements, not increasing the visual quality. That's what we need procedural obejcts for, not to make scenes as complex as the Valley Benchmark but to make scenes as complex as SL's at a much lower cost so they become accessable to more people.

The early LL developers were very conscious about this. If you read the two Avi Bar-Zeev articles I linked to, you'll see he explains in quite some details how they thought (and in case you missed the point, Bar-Zeev was one of the early LL developers and he was the one who developed the prim system and wrote the original code for it). Back then it was necessary to make SL work at all. Today it is necessary if we want to broaden SL's potential userbase.

We don't want to go all the way back to the old prim system of course, even Bar-Zeev himself says it was unnecessarily nerfred. Nor do we want the advanced methods Unigine uses - that is, Sansar desperately needs it but for Second Lfie is overkill. What we need, is something inbetween and there are lots of possibilities there.

[clivesteel]

47 minutes ago, ChinRey said:

 you missed the point but that's ok because you made another very good one: We don't really need that kind of detailed renders in a virtual reality

And yet you (and other posters) have done their damndest to run players who use 'undetailed' system avatars off the grid, in your mesh-induced trip?

(nods to Ebbe Linden over a trench of slaughtered 'noob corpses': "I lurve the smell of hypocrisy in the morning!!")

[Tari Landar]

2 hours ago, CoffeeDujour said:

You're missing the point, spectacularly. 

How can someone else be missing the point, simply because they don't *agree with your stance on your specifically chosen point? That doesn't make a lick of sense.

I'm actually kinda with phorumites on this one. If I want more realism, I'll go to rl. I don't come to sl for realism, at least, not the kind you're peddling. Whether it's what YOU come to sl for, or not, means not even the smallest iota to me. Good for you..I suppose. And good for those with the pipe dream that sl can be, was ever intended to be, or ever will be, closer to realism. You keep that dream alive.  I'll just sit back here grateful that folks, with all sorts of varying equipment, can still enjoy sl, or at least parts of it, and hope that those of you pressing for better, for more, for "realism", don't win out eventually forcing those lower end systems to no longer work. Because THAT would be *****ty, if you ask me. I don't even have a lower end anything on my system, but I'd feel dreadful for those that have middle of the ground and less if someday this push for realism(which again, I *never* foresee happening, btw) had a negative affect on them.

Sure it's fantastic to have pipe dreams, dreams in general most of the time. It's even pretty neat to think about the things that can be done in a virtual world like sl when we push that realism boundary. But, have folks *really* thought about the impact their desires might have on others? No? Didn't think so.

I love sl, I love exploring in sl, I love some of the realism sl has no, I love being able to see what people can do with what we have, I love seeing how far we've come as a platform.....But if I want amazing realism, I will still go to rl to find that, not look to a virtual world, experience, platform, whatever you want to call it. This is coming from someone that has a very difficult time even seeing the realism that rl has, mind you, so I don't take a bit of it for granted. When you look  up into a tree outside, do you see its leaves, its branches, the bark? I don't. No matter what you put, from a graphic point of view, into a virtual platform it will NEVER match that realism, never. Expecting it to, is pretty stupid. Even if it were possible, *I* still couldn't enjoy it...so why would I even want it?  Save the "you missed the point", for someone that actually agrees your point has more merit than anyone else's point. I'm not that person, and will never be that person. 

Realism is great, it can be fantastic, I don't personally think we need a ***** ton more of it in sl, because it is the very lack of realism that allows me to see more, do more, participate in more, here in sl, and on similar platforms/in similar environments. Push the realism line too far, and it is entirely likely that I, and many others, for a varied number of reasons, will no longer be able to enjoy sl. Does that sound fiscally smart from LL's pov to you? Does it sound even remotely fair to the participants of the platform/environment? Nope. Not when remaining at a state where we don't push that line too much allows MORE of us to enjoy sl, not less. 

Or perhaps I just like to look at things from other than my own perspective or ideals...and many others don't seem to give two *****s about what or who is on the other side of that argument. 

Edited August 3, 2018 by Tari Landar

[ChinRey]

1 hour ago, clivesteel said:

And yet you (and other posters) have done their damndest to run players who use 'undetailed' system avatars off the grid, in your mesh-induced trip?

Me?

On 2.8.2018 at 6:56 PM, ChinRey said:

I do believe it's possible to create a virtual world with a broader appeal but it would have to be so radically different from SL ( and in the opposite direction of where Sansar seems to be heading), it would be easier and better for everybody to leave SL as it is and build a new one from scratch somewhere else. One of the great things about virtual space is that you never have to tear down a charming old neighborhood to make room for a new one.

I'm afraid that is my answer. It's gone too far and there's no turning back.

But I don't make fitted mesh or other wearable meshes at all and I'm careful not to use any of that when I know it may cause problems for other people around me.

I do build with prims whenever I can and when I make meshes, I make them as simple and computer friendly as possible. And the result? Nobody buys. Content that isn't actually used anywhere in SL isn't doing anybody any good and what the market wants, is highly detailed mesh models with highly detailed high resolution textures - the kind of things that look great on their own but are murder for any complex dynamic virtual environment. There's nothing we can do about that without loosing much of SL's existing userbase and it's not nearly enough in itself to improve recruitment. This is just one of the many things that need to be drastically changed before SL stands even a chance of attracting and keeping a significant number of newcomers.

Also, remember that much of this is brand new insight. Nobody told us any of this. I spent five years figuring out how to make the most efficient mesh possible in SL, believing that was the solution. Five years doing countless tests, studying the little relevant documentation there is and exhanging info with the few others who cared. I dare say nobody has come further than me in this. But the inherent problems with mesh didn't really become apparent before I stumbled across Bar-Zeev's blog. That's where I found the final pieces of the puzzle and they are rather complex ones so they didn't fall into places right away. I doubt anybody else on the forums or current Lindens had even heard of Avi Bar-Zeev before I started plugging his blog here. He didn't stay here for very long and like so many of the other real creators of Second Life, he doesn't seem to have left the Lab on very good terms so both he and LL spent years trying to suppress the memory of each other.

Edited August 3, 2018 by ChinRey

[ChinRey]

16 minutes ago, Tari Landar said:

How can someone else be missing the point, simply because they don't *agree with your stance on your specifically chosen point? That doesn't make a lick of sense.

Ummm... Coffe DuJour was right, Tari. Phorumites did miss my point. It's my fault though. I got a bit too carried away with examples so what I was actually trying to illustrate got a bit lost.

I'm glad I did though because it brought up another very significant question: how much detail is actually needed? More specifically to this thread: how much detail is needed to impress a newcomer enough they want to stay and explore more?

But it's 1:30 AM where I live and this is a really complex question so I suppose I better leave it to others to discuss for now.

[Penny Patton]

It's also worth pointing out that "SL should look more realistic" is not an argument anyone is making.

Some of us are saying that SL runs extremely poorly for the graphics it presents and we've explained why it's an obstacle when it comes to retaining new users. In addition we've pointed out how it could be fixed without taking away any of what makes SL great.

Reducing hardware requirements while simultaneously improving how good SL can look on the hardware you have now will not push anyone out of SL.

[Tari Landar]

4 minutes ago, ChinRey said:

Ummm... Coffe DuJour was right, Tari. Phorumites did miss my point. It's my fault though. I got a bit too carried away with examples so what I was actually trying to illustrate got a bit lost.

I'm glad I did though because it brought up another very significant question: how much detail is actually needed? More specifically to this thread: how much detail is needed to impress a newcomer enough they want to stay and explore more?

But it's 1:30 AM where I live and this is a really complex question so I suppose I better leave it to others to discuss for now.

We can just agree to disagree on "points missed", because I don't think anyone else gets to determine that when the point gets lost in our own ramblings (I ramble, I do it all the time, I can't argue with others that they've missed my point, when my point wasn't crystal clear in the first place, lol)

Honestly, while I don't agree with everything phormuites says, does, whatever...on these forums, I liken it to someone being irritated at another person,because they annoy them so frequently that they simply refuse to see any merit whatsoever in anything that person has to say again. Otherwise why not have more to say other than "you've missed the point spectacularly" and point out HOW the point was missed, or why you feel that way? A bit more of a jab than an actual part of a discussion to not do so, if you ask me...not that anyone did, lol.   There's a couple people here that do that to me, make me not want to see merit in anything they have to say, becuase they've annoyed the living daylights out of me enough. The difference is, I CAN actually ignore that little voice telling me not to ever find merit in anything they have to say, no matter how much they annoy m, and if I ever get to the point that I can't-I'd block them entirely, so I wouldn't be tempted to simply spit snark back out at them whenever the occasion arose lol  

That rambling over..we likely also disagree on the level of realism, or detail truly needed to keep a newcomer. When you introduce realism to something like sl, you take the good with the bad, and for some folks, there can be a massive amount of bad. I would think(and having worked on projects, including a long term one that is still in the works atm like sl, I'm going to suggest that I have experience in this field beyond what sl is capable of at present time-and this is where my opinion comes from, primarily) that limiting complexities is an important key step in user growth and retention. In fact, I go as far as saying, I know it is. this is a huge part of "where do we limit our realism integration" comes into play.How complex is it going to be for a new user? How much help are we going to give a new user? Where do we draw the line and realism and begin to suggest that should someone seek out more, or better, realism, they seek out another method by which to obtain it?  

Could sl be graphically better, hell even functionally? Of course it could, and still can. But have most people that made such suggestions actually considered the ramifications of such? Not just on themselves, or even users as a whole(though this is uber important), but also from a production and maintenance perspective too? I'm not sure most people screaming "I WANT THE REALZ" actually have. Yes there are products, there are methods, there are loads of ways realism can be introduced to a platform, an environment like sl. But at what cost? When does it stop being about gaining and retaining new users, and simply exist to appease the few(and I'm sorry to say this, but yes those that want ultra realism in sl likely are the minority, as most are quite comfy with sl as long as it does what they need it to, when they need it to, lol)?  Al valid questions, imo, and probably bets left to discuss another day, for another platform...because sl can never actually BE what people are pressing for in the realism department. It truly is a pipe dream that, at this stage, will never see the light of day in sl. I, for one, am grateful that it won't...not because I think the rest of folks, the ones that want ultra realism should be screwed over, but because I'm standing firmly on my fence and I can see the numbers that would be negatively impacted are far greater than the numbers that would be positively impacted.  If I had to lean on one side of the fence...it would be their side. 

[Tari Landar]

7 minutes ago, Penny Patton said:

It's also worth pointing out that "SL should look more realistic" is not an argument anyone is making.

Some of us are saying that SL runs extremely poorly for the graphics it presents and we've explained why it's an obstacle when it comes to retaining new users. In addition we've pointed out how it could be fixed without taking away any of what makes SL great.

Reducing hardware requirements while simultaneously improving how good SL can look on the hardware you have now will not push anyone out of SL.

Yes but that also takes on the assumption that LL can, and will, actually DO that....and most of us are probably smart enough to realize they can't, or won't anyway.Hardware requirements haven't "dropped" or been lowered, in ages. When they have been altered, they've increased. This is a pattern with LL, with SL, and one that can't be ignored during these kinds of discussions. Now, could someone ELSE do it, for some OTHER platform? Oh hell yeah they could. But not LL, and not for sl, without it negatively impacting more people than it would positively impact. 

[Ashlyn Voir]

I don’t even think it’s just about wanting realism more than actual functionality without having to break your wallet for a 3,000 dollar PC. :\ Sometimes going to sims with other avatars is an absolute pain because of all the lag. It can often make the game unplayable. Even lowering settings or taking off certain items isn’t all that helpful. Considering other games don’t seem to have nearly as much of an issue unlike SL, that’s saying something. 

[Tari Landar]

8 minutes ago, Ashlyn Voir said:

I don’t even think it’s just about wanting realism more than actual functionality without having to break your wallet for a 3,000 dollar PC. :\ Sometimes going to sims with other avatars is an absolute pain because of all the lag. It can often make the game unplayable. Even lowering settings or taking off certain items isn’t all that helpful. Considering other games don’t seem to have nearly as much of an issue unlike SL, that’s saying something. 

It's never a good idea to compare sl to "other games"-even from a basic point of view, functionality is just not similar enough. End users might think it is, which is why they tend to compare them, but it's not. Sl is rather unique in how and why it functions, even if it's outdated(and it is, but making it not so would be problematic in more ways than it wouldn't). The comparison to other, even slightly similar, platforms, games, environments...is an unfair comparison when the differences outnumber similarities by a great deal. 

Though I'm certain everyone wishes sl performed better in a multitude of ways, expecting such at this juncture-and using other products as a way to measure that expectation-is only going to lead to disappointment, lol.. Basically, what works for them, can't and doesn't work for sl, as it stands right now. That's the unpopular, but very real, truth of it all. 

[DeeFlowerMe]

1 hour ago, Tari Landar said:

 using other products as a way to measure that expectation

Yes. I use them. Even did some simple tricks in the U engine in re vehicles that I learned here. Was not difficult (is reference to another A post not bothering to find; we sold a few but killed it to go dancing - and not talk to anyone because we can).

All I can say is despite certain gloom merchants this is still alive and kicking.

@Luna Bliss worst version ever and heard a few.

 

[animats]

Back to Chin's interest in better landscaping. That's probably not what's causing SL to lose users, but it may be what causes some abandoned land to stay abandoned.

Umbridge, Corsica. Abandoned land. Looking out with a draw distance of 1 kilometer. This is what some mainland regions look like once you get away from the roads. One sim out there is privately owned and has some vacant skyboxes; most are just empty. Who'd buy one of those empty sims now and be surrounded by what looks like a former strip mine?

Now this is the use case for procedural vegetation. If abandoned land  had good-looking grass, trees, or forest, the real estate would have more value. Something to suggest to LL, once the new windlight system is deployed and stable, as the next environmental improvement.

SL has a vegetation system. You're looking at it. It's very basic. There are different ground  textures for various altitudes. There's Linden grass and Linden trees, all pre-mesh. That subsystem could use an update.

[Coffee Pancake]

LL really should be claiming whole regions like this and rubber stamping ready made single region communities on them in the same vein as Horizons, Sherm etc etc. Move all those folks from the Linden homes ghetto back to the mainland and delete those regions.

[Tari Landar]

I've been, and I know I'm not alone, trying to get LL to do "something" with abandoned land for years (not all of which are they, seemingly, interested in making available to users...though that may be changing with some of these new changes they're implementing..maybe they'll make MORE available so less sits empty...maybe? Pipe dream probably, lol), so that abandoned land doesn't look so...blah, and fugly, lol.

I mean I know we discussed this in another thread, somewhere, and LL would never simply allow residents to design something so that the land doesn't look so ugly-and I get why they never would(though I still think they should rethink that idea, they're not interested, so I gave up that venture)-but really there is literally nothing that prevents LL themselves from doing something halfway decent with the way the land looks. 

I run into spaces just like your picture all the time when I'm out wandering the grid, which I do way more often than I should. I don't think LL has any good reason or excuse for letting that land sit there all fugly-at least I've never seen any in all these years.It would require seconds, at most(provided designs were done beforehand-simple enough to do) to go in and pretty the place up a bit. I do hope the new changes(to land auctions, I mean) might make a difference, but I'm not convinced they'll make that large of a difference. I still think we're going to have to deal with a lot of fugly abandoned, empty land. I wonder if LL realizes that traveling the grid, which can be loads of fun, is a huge turnoff for a lot of people when they run into land like this, or that it's a huge turnoff for people looking to *buy land too(as much so as living next to someone else that fuglies up the land, anyway, lol)? 

Oh and yes, LL plantage and greenery needs a lot of updating too, it has for a long time though, so I'm not sure that'll happen either, rofl. 

[Chic Aeon]

7 hours ago, Phorumities said:

I had an argument with a friend last year when he said if he couldn't see the total eclipse of the sun in RL he'd love to watch a virtual reality simulation of it. I told him, if you didn't see it in RL you saw nothing.

I was lucky enough to be in the DIRECT path of the eclipse and while there was a show going on in the sky, the most dramatic thing for me was how the light changed in high contrast before the eclipse and the rainbow colors low on the horizon (mostly magenta) in a circle glow of 360 degrees during totality. 

I think that with scripting and the new EEP it might be able to get something very close. And I also think it would be quite impressive. 

Being there of course was better :D. 

[Penny Patton]

5 hours ago, Tari Landar said:

Yes but that also takes on the assumption that LL can, and will, actually DO that....

That's kind of besides the point, isn't it? We're just pointing out what LL needs to do if they want to turn around SL's decline. Whether or not they do doesn't change the fact that they should.

And while talking about what LL should do, I always like to take the opportunity to share what content creators and other SL users can do right now to improve their SL experience, and clear up a lot of the misinformation out there.

4 hours ago, Tari Landar said:

It's never a good idea to compare sl to "other games"-even from a basic point of view, functionality is just not similar enough. End users might think it is, which is why they tend to compare them, but it's not. Sl is rather unique in how and why it functions

Such as this right here, SL is more similar to regular videogames than you might think. It uses the same hardware, the same techniques, and the same methods of rendering what you see on your screen. The problems that plague SL, as far as much of the lag, framerate issues, and other performance problems, stem from the very same issues that videogame developers have dealt with for decades. Most of the same basic tricks and techniques that videogame artists use to optimize their content in videogames can and does work in Second Life. Which is why I can use a 7-8 year old computer and still get 30-60FPS practically lag free and with all graphics features enabled, in those sims that employ such optimization techniques and by derendering avatars which are exceptionally resource intensive. It doesn't matter what kind of hardware you have, you could be experiencing much better performance.

 In terms of usability and interactivity, videogames employ features that LL could implement in Second Life if they wanted to. Again, whether or not they choose to is besides the point, which is that they can, and if they did then it would help SL draw in new users and hold on to those it has.

[Penny Patton]

2 hours ago, animats said:

Back to Chin's interest in better landscaping. That's probably not what's causing SL to lose users, but it may be what causes some abandoned land to stay abandoned.

I don't think that causes land to remain abandoned. And while I wouldn't say it actively pushes people out of SL, it's more a symptom of broader problems.

1 hour ago, CoffeeDujour said:

LL really should be claiming whole regions like this and rubber stamping ready made single region communities on them in the same vein as Horizons, Sherm etc etc. Move all those folks from the Linden homes ghetto back to the mainland and delete those regions.

I keep arguing that LL needs to figure out how to make it easier and more convenient for landowners to relocate. Make it relatively easy and painless to up and move to another part of the grid. It's a pretty safe bet that the first thing that would happen is a whole lot of people would relocate to do one of two things;

1. Move closer to their friends, instantly creating a mainland community that would encourage more of their friends to join in. Snowballing into even larger communities, active communities of like-minded individuals practically overnight.
2. Spread out, easing the burden on some crowded sims as people relocate to sims full of abandoned land.

I'm not saying it would be one or the other, I predict both would happen. There's all kinds of people in SL, some want to be in communities, some want a quiet place of their own, making it easy to relocate would make it easier for everyone to enjoy SL as they see fit.

 And to ties this into what you're suggestion, it would make it easy for people who own a Linden Home to transition to the mainland. 

[animats]

9 minutes ago, Penny Patton said:

SL is more similar to regular videogames than you might think. It uses the same hardware, the same techniques, and the same methods of rendering what you see on your screen. The problems that plague SL, as far as much of the lag, framerate issues, and other performance problems, stem from the very same issues that videogame developers have dealt with for decades. Most of the same basic tricks and techniques that videogame artists use to optimize their content in videogames can and does work in Second Life.

That's exactly the point. There are game developers on here who know this. People who have some understanding of the heavy machinery behind the scenes don't see performance improvement as impossible. Expensive, yes. Impossible, no.

Big modern MMOs with building are getting awfully close to what SL does. They're almost always faster. SL performs poorly against modern MMOs, and that, like it or not, is the level of performance new users expect.

SL has a huge library of assets which are not optimized for performance. Nobody is going to recreate most of the content in SL.  There's thousands of years of model creation in the world. That's why I keep talking about automated tools to deal with existing assets. Mesh reducers. Impostor generators. Smarter level of detail algorithms. Large impostors for parcels and sims. Existing games use all those tools.

There's a lot of headroom to work on this. SL is so awful at distant objects that almost any off the shelf level of detail technique will help. That's why I've been working on some schemes for an in-world demo of object impostors. I've posted on this before. Good mesh reduction is hard, but impostor generation isn't. It's basically taking pictures of the high-res model from many angles and arranging to display the right flat picture on a prim facing the camera. I have a demo rig in-world for taking the pictures with precision. 

Essentially all big-scene 3D games do this. SL needs to catch up.

[Coffee Pancake]

13 minutes ago, animats said:

That's exactly the point. There are game developers on here who know this. People who have some understanding of the heavy machinery behind the scenes don't see performance improvement as impossible. Expensive, yes. Impossible, no.

Big modern MMOs with building are getting awfully close to what SL does. They're almost always faster. SL performs poorly against modern MMOs, and that, like it or not, is the level of performance new users expect.....

SL does have some heavy assets, but it's worth restating that this isn't the sole cause of SL performance woes. If you stuck SL assets and avatars, 1024 textures and all into a game engine you would get double the frame rate.

You wouldn't be able to rez a prim and then edit it. So it wouldn't be SL.

The SL overhead needs to be taken into account, even if you ripped game assets and upload them to SL (no one would do that, no, never) you wont get anything like the performance of the game engine they originally appeared in.

54 minutes ago, Penny Patton said:

I keep arguing that LL needs to figure out how to make it easier and more convenient for landowners to relocate. Make it relatively easy and painless to up and move to another part of the grid.

A straight owned land for abandoned land swap program would be awesome, even without the transplanting existing builds. It's never going to happen because we have private land ownership.