Derendering

[Bumpsy]

why can't we do it like on other viewers??

Edited May 29, 2019 by Bumpsy
There! And now that I've said it more quietly, we don't use caps to make anything more loud but for emphasis! There is a resident who is making some of my land useless and devalued because of rezzing BIG&UGLY megaprims next to it...

[Fritigern Gothly]

Because you're not using the other viewers!

[Selene Gregoire]

Because Linden Lab. They're too cheap and lazy to get the code from the FS team and add it to the LL viewer. Funny thing is, it wouldn't cost LL a dime because the viewer is open source. Anything that goes into the FS viewer has to be approved by LL first but that doesn't mean LL will add the feature to the LL viewer. About the only time they do is when it's a security issue, like with RedZone.

[ChinRey]

2 hours ago, Selene Gregoire said:

Because Linden Lab. They're too cheap and lazy to get the code from the FS team and add it to the LL viewer.

As Selene said, LL can incorporate any code they like from any TPV into their viewer - that's why they made the viewer open source in the first place - but this is something they once decided they didn't want. You could try open a feature request on the JIRA. There is a slight chance they'll accept it this timebut even if they do, it usually takes months, even years, before something like this is implemented.

I think I understand why they didn't want it, it's probably because of the "shared experience" idea (for newcomers: that's an old slogan LL pulls out every now and then).

[Selene Gregoire]

19 minutes ago, ChinRey said:

I think I understand why they didn't want it, it's probably because of the "shared experience" idea

That is precisely their reasoning. Although how they figure it affects anyone else is mind boggling since derendering is client side only and anyone else that hasn't derendered can still see whatever it may be. In other words, derender does not have any affect or effect on the "shared experience". 

Figure that one out and let the rest of us know.

[Anna Nova]

4 hours ago, Bumpsy said:

WHY CAN'T WE DO IT LIKE ON OTHER VIEWERS??

And while we are about it...  WHY DO PEOPLE HAVE TO SHOUT!  (in their 1st post)

[Wulfie Reanimator]

1 hour ago, Selene Gregoire said:

That is precisely their reasoning. Although how they figure it affects anyone else is mind boggling since derendering is client side only and anyone else that hasn't derendered can still see whatever it may be. In other words, derender does not have any affect or effect on the "shared experience". 

Figure that one out and let the rest of us know.

That's the whole thing -- it's client-side and falls into the nebulous "affects the way users view and interact with the world" category. Things like RLV, colored viewer tags, Windlights, multiple attachments on the same slot, end-to-end IM encryption (probably), Black Dragon's animation poser and more accurate complexity calculation.. all have been or still are against the "shared experience." I have no trouble imagining users being able to remove objects from their version of the world, which will inevitably change the way they interact with it. (This should be very obvious devil's advocate stuff, I don't agree with the decision but it is consistent with their other decisions.)

Edit; To quote the policy exactly (bold for emphasis):

Quote

2. Prohibited Features and Functionality
[...]
k. You must not provide any feature that alters the shared experience of the virtual world in any way not provided by or accessible to users of the latest released Linden Lab viewer.

Edit 2: And to add to this, this policy is just for them to cover their bases. I haven't heard of Linden Lab actually banning any viewer as a whole from connecting to Second Life, though I think @NiranV Dean's viewer was off the TPV list for a while. (It is back now, with a warning about "misleading" Complexity.)

Edited May 29, 2019 by Wulfie Reanimator

[Selene Gregoire]

53 minutes ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

That's the whole thing -- it's client-side and falls into the nebulous "affects the way users view and interact with the world" category. Things like RLV, colored viewer tags, Windlights, multiple attachments on the same slot, end-to-end IM encryption (probably), Black Dragon's animation poser and more accurate complexity calculation.. all have been or still are against the "shared experience." I have no trouble imagining users being able to remove objects from their version of the world, which will inevitably change the way they interact with it. (This should be very obvious devil's advocate stuff, I don't agree with the decision but it is consistent with their other decisions.)

Edit; To quote the policy exactly (bold for emphasis):

Edit 2: And to add to this, this policy is just for them to cover their bases. I haven't heard of Linden Lab actually banning any viewer as a whole from connecting to Second Life, though I think @NiranV Dean's viewer was off the TPV list for a while. (It is back now, with a warning about "misleading" Complexity.)

I am fully aware of the TPV policy as I had to be to as a member of the FS support team for over 5 years. The TPV policy doesn't change reality. What I see on my screen does not affect you or anyone else. LL does like using the "shared experience" as an excuse for not doing things they know they could and should do. It's a load of crock. You know it. I know it.  And they know it. But they will never have the balls to admit it.

[Wulfie Reanimator]

55 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

It's a load of crock.

I don't think it is, in principle.

I don't want (and I think this is the big picture that LL is trying to avoid) is a world where we have viewers with a very different set of features, causing creators to make items based on the features of the specific TPVs and adding "You need X feature/viewer(s) to use this" to their product descriptions, as people do/did with RLV and mesh.

Imagine if, say, Black Dragon implemented real-time mirrors and custom skeletons for avatars. These are features some people REALLY want, and would drive them to start using Black Dragon. A lot of people would see these people as "broken" (disruptively so, improperly rendered mesh causes a lot of visual problems and bad performance) or just couldn't see what others were seeing. It would be confusing and annoying, and they'd be forced to move to a different viewer to get away from the problems.

But what if there was another set of features on a yet another viewer that didn't have mirrors or custom skeletons? Now users are forced to switch between viewers constantly, or just pick the one they prefer and deal with the issues whenever they come up. This should obviously not be something we want to end up in, and that's why protecting the "shared experience" is a good thing -- in principle. (And before you say "then those viewers should work together to share those features," the world obviously isn't that ideal. Even right now we have at least 3 viewers that don't share their main features that users on this forum cite as reasons for using those viewers specifically. Black Dragon's poser and graphical fidelity, Singularity's (which DIDN'T HAVE BENTO) inventory features, and Firestorm's feature bloat.)

Away from the devil's advocate speech again, common sense must also prevail. The specific feature of being able to derender objects in-world is a truly useful feature. While we might be able to jellydoll really render-heavy avatars, we can't do the same to that 500K - 1000K+ tri-count (I've really seen these, more often than should be legal.) rezzed mesh object.

There is a line that is useful to have, but derendering should not be that line.

Edited May 29, 2019 by Wulfie Reanimator

[ChinRey]

3 hours ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

I don't agree with the decision but it is consistent with their other decisions.

I kind'a both agree and disagree with the shared experience concept. It does make sense in many ways but there are lots of disadvantages too.

What I find hard to accept is that LL is not consistent. There are some clear cases of course but there are also lots of examples of them implementing and even instigating features that have far more effect on shared experience than others they have rejected.

[Selene Gregoire]

 

7 hours ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

I don't think it is, in principle.

I don't want (and I think this is the big picture that LL is trying to avoid) is a world where we have viewers with a very different set of features, causing creators to make items based on the features of the specific TPVs and adding "You need X feature/viewer(s) to use this" to their product descriptions, as people do/did with RLV and mesh.

Imagine if, say, Black Dragon implemented real-time mirrors and custom skeletons for avatars. These are features some people REALLY want, and would drive them to start using Black Dragon. A lot of people would see these people as "broken" (disruptively so, improperly rendered mesh causes a lot of visual problems and bad performance) or just couldn't see what others were seeing. It would be confusing and annoying, and they'd be forced to move to a different viewer to get away from the problems.

But what if there was another set of features on a yet another viewer that didn't have mirrors or custom skeletons? Now users are forced to switch between viewers constantly, or just pick the one they prefer and deal with the issues whenever they come up. This should obviously not be something we want to end up in, and that's why protecting the "shared experience" is a good thing -- in principle. (And before you say "then those viewers should work together to share those features," the world obviously isn't that ideal. Even right now we have at least 3 viewers that don't share their main features that users on this forum cite as reasons for using those viewers specifically. Black Dragon's poser and graphical fidelity, Singularity's (which DIDN'T HAVE BENTO) inventory features, and Firestorm's feature bloat.)

Away from the devil's advocate speech again, common sense must also prevail. The specific feature of being able to derender objects in-world is a truly useful feature. While we might be able to jellydoll really render-heavy avatars, we can't do the same to that 500K - 1000K+ tri-count (I've really seen these, more often than should be legal.) rezzed mesh object.

There is a line that is useful to have, but derendering should not be that line.

What part of 

Quote

I am fully aware of the TPV policy as I had to be to as a member of the FS support team for over 5 years.

did you not understand? 

I've heard this same argument or variation thereof for 15 YEARS. It was bull then and it is bull now. That will not change. And I damn sure don't need you to lecture me on it. *plonk*

 

Edited May 29, 2019 by Selene Gregoire

[NiranV Dean]

10 hours ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

I don't think it is, in principle.

I don't want (and I think this is the big picture that LL is trying to avoid) is a world where we have viewers with a very different set of features, causing creators to make items based on the features of the specific TPVs and adding "You need X feature/viewer(s) to use this" to their product descriptions, as people do/did with RLV and mesh.

Imagine if, say, Black Dragon implemented real-time mirrors and custom skeletons for avatars. These are features some people REALLY want, and would drive them to start using Black Dragon. A lot of people would see these people as "broken" (disruptively so, improperly rendered mesh causes a lot of visual problems and bad performance) or just couldn't see what others were seeing. It would be confusing and annoying, and they'd be forced to move to a different viewer to get away from the problems.

But what if there was another set of features on a yet another viewer that didn't have mirrors or custom skeletons? Now users are forced to switch between viewers constantly, or just pick the one they prefer and deal with the issues whenever they come up. This should obviously not be something we want to end up in, and that's why protecting the "shared experience" is a good thing -- in principle. (And before you say "then those viewers should work together to share those features," the world obviously isn't that ideal. Even right now we have at least 3 viewers that don't share their main features that users on this forum cite as reasons for using those viewers specifically. Black Dragon's poser and graphical fidelity, Singularity's (which DIDN'T HAVE BENTO) inventory features, and Firestorm's feature bloat.)

Away from the devil's advocate speech again, common sense must also prevail. The specific feature of being able to derender objects in-world is a truly useful feature. While we might be able to jellydoll really render-heavy avatars, we can't do the same to that 500K - 1000K+ tri-count (I've really seen these, more often than should be legal.) rezzed mesh object.

There is a line that is useful to have, but derendering should not be that line.

Niran explanation mode engaged:

- We are already in a state where people use Viewers for certain features.

- Singularity does have Bento in its latest versions

- Derender is only technically against the shared experience clause and as LL put it (i confronted Oz with exactly that) its okay because its mostly a security feature, otherwise it would probably be blocked.

- Singularity is not being used for its inventory features, that's Catznip. Singu is used for performance and old UI or as better FS alternative.

- My Viewer was never gone from the TPV list. The warning LL put up on the TPV list is purely that, a warning that it may cause inconveniences, such as you getting banned from regions for too high complexity (the scripts read your viewer reported complexity). 

- The reason LL doesn't take Derender is the same as with any other feature, they don't take things, they want them to be offered to them, preferably as fully compatible pre-made patch they just need to import. They are not lazy just too busy with many other things.

Edited May 29, 2019 by NiranV Dean