A Suggestion on Improving Mainland

[Nukasa22]

The main point I find missing from this thread is the business side argument. It was said not long ago that SL has the money to invest, but it needs to be shown that it's gonna result in profit. And that is just difficult to show in this case. I mean, yes, there are so many pretty parcels in SL that are integrated rather than isolated from their surroundings. They're not there because there's a skybox next to them on the ground, but despite a skybox next to them on the ground. Giving all these people the choice between current non covenant mainland and a very simple covenant based mainland with less unprotected to-be-abandoned space, I have a feeling what even most of these people would be choosing. The customer base for a mainland 2.0 is huge. But would it actually attract new people who currently don't own land? I'm not even sure about that. So where is the money gonna come from? I feel like a new mainland can't just be about a new covenant, there'd need to be more that actually attracts new land owners.

[Mar Scarmon]

On 6/11/2023 at 3:07 PM, animats said:

The view from the vista point at the top of Mt. Campion in Heterocera.

After you climb the mountain, you finally reach the vista point, and this is what you see.

We need an incentive to get people to move their sky junk to above 2000 meters, the Bellesaria limit. Users doing this derive no benefit from being that low. Sky junk can blight parcels for a long way.

SL has some magnificent vistas. Climb the clacks tower in New Babbage and turn your view distance all the way up. Visit Mt. Campion. View the mountains of the Snowlands from a distance. It's a big world.

(One of the things I'm trying to do in Sharpview is support much longer range vistas, using standard game technologies. I want users to see far into the distance, like most AAA title games. I've posted on this before, with screenshots from GTA V and discussions of how this is done. But who wants to look at kilometers of sky junk?)

Even above 1000 meters would be a huge improvement; I don't think anyone keeps their draw distance that high.  What is frustrating is that so much of the sky crap appears totally unused and abandoned, even put there by mistake.  Another solution would be to set physics so that anything under 1000 meters fell to the ground if left in the sky more than an hour, let people live in their own junk.

[Ineffable Mote]

19 minutes ago, Nukasa22 said:

The customer base for a mainland 2.0 is huge.

Sansar wasn't that many yesterdays ago, the customer base a lot closer to nothing than huge. Any notions of approaching a viable Second Life 2.0 *anything* are dead and gone, wishful thinkings like what's being pushed here are all hype and no substance. Says more about the ppl pushing them than anything else, honestly. 

[Gabriele Graves]

If LL has an appetite for change on Mainland, what I would like to see them do is to decide what is/isn't of historical importance in the Linden owned public areas from before mesh, then copy the important historical stuff away to a preserve where no land is resident owned and finally then re-model those Linden public areas to a more modern standard using mesh.

Edited June 12, 2023 by Gabriele Graves

[diamond Marchant]

2 hours ago, Nukasa22 said:

The main point I find missing from this thread is the business side argument.

Correct. I have pretty much accepted that when the lights go off, Mainland will  be as it is now. My hope is that this (entire) forum will be available to the next generation of virtual world designers (or bots) so that they mightl learn from our mistakes.

[Rufferta]

Ways to Improve Second Life: GET THE PERVS OUT OF THE INFOHUBS AND PUT SOME INFORMATION THERE!

Sorry, I'm still upset -

PERVS: I thought I'd find out what information was at the Infohubs so I visited eight of them*. At the first one I ran into a large group of nude people who were apparently soliciting. I made two abuse reports - one was for ***** and one was for 'obscene' name, but I could have made dozens if my stomach had been up to it.  Curiously, some of the folks I saw at the first Infohub showed up at the third place I visited, which makes me think they change locations frequently. Now, most of the info hubs I visited were perv-free, but the ones that weren't were not anywhere you would want to send a newb. 

INFO: The best of them had the four standard "Info" signs -

1. Gaming/Glytch/Cornfield/Horizons/Paleo Quest/Linden Realms - gave landmarks

2. Portal Park/Mole Town - landmarks

3. Sign Up for Premium - link to information

4. Social Island/Learning Island - no landmarks - Links to a good web article about "The Basics", A link to a good video by Strawberry, and a link to an outdated video about "Getting a Home in Second Life" showing all the fun you could have in your First Generation Premium Home (think Meadowbrook).. 

The worst of them had little signage, signage that didn't work, signs with links to the "Linden Blog", or links to Torley videos.

I realize that a lot of these Infohubs are privately sponsored with the expectation that the residents who run them will keep them up to date, but I also know that some of these sponsors are no longer active in Second Life.

What I would like to see added at the InfoHubs: Landmarks to places like NCI, Happy Hippo, Builder's Brewery, Ivory Tower, etc. More information about how to find a place to live.

I have to say that the BelliHub is an excellent example of what other Infohubs should be.

End of rant. 

*Violet/Castle Valeria/Bear Dream/Hyannisport/DeGrand/Braunworth/Helfell/Temple of Isis.

 

Edited June 13, 2023 by Rufferta

[animats]

On 6/9/2023 at 9:15 PM, Aethelwine said:

One specific example of somewhere really sad that could perhaps do with some love is Frostar, on the east edge of Gaeta iV.

... Maybe the library palm trees can be universally replaced with something that has a lod factor that works beyond 2

I've been working on trees in Sharpview. Here's that area in Sharpview.

Palm trees in the distance. Sharpview rendering of Frostar. These are all impostor trees, two flat pictures 90 degrees apart.

Legacy trees in Second Life have two forms. One is just a flat picture impostor, which you're seeing above. The other is generated procedurally using an L-system. They don't match well for some tree types. Pines and oaks match reasonably well, but palms need an overhaul. It looks like the texture for the leaves doesn't belong to the palm trees. It looks much like the leaf image used for pines, but with the branch structure for a palm.

Built-in trees are very old, and predate materials. So trunk bark has no depth, leaves have no shine, and the place where the two planes of the impostor cross is visible because the impostor doesn't have normals. If trees had materials they'd look much better, both at distance and in close up. It would probably be better to switch to the impostors at about 10 meters, and never generate lower procedural LODs at all.

Anyway, that's why the trees in Frostar look so bad. It's a bug in the tree data.

[SarahKB7 Koskinen]

On 6/12/2023 at 11:07 PM, Gabriele Graves said:

If LL has an appetite for change on Mainland, what I would like to see them do is to decide what is/isn't of historical importance in the Linden owned public areas from before mesh, then copy the important historical stuff away to a preserve where no land is resident owned and finally then re-model those Linden public areas to a more modern standard using mesh.

I completely disagree.

A historic object will lose some or all of its historic value and sense of grandure if moved to a different location. The location gives a historic object a deeper context of where, why and how it was built. For example, Stonehenge.

Imagine if Stonehenge was moved away from Salisbury Plain and placed elsewhere amongst other well-known objects. Imagine Stonehenge not on Salisbury Plain, but in Greenwich Park in Greater London!

Without doubt, moving Stonehenge to Greenwich Park would make it far more popular and more easily accessible to international tourism. But doing so would devalue Stonehenge and turn it from a national and regional historic monument into yet another casual Greater London day-tripper/tourist "selfie" box-ticking list activity/attraction, conveniently within easy walking/waddling distance of a McDonalds or a Pret A Manger...

Edited June 14, 2023 by SarahKB7 Koskinen

[Gabriele Graves]

42 minutes ago, SarahKB7 Koskinen said:

I completely disagree.

A historic object will lose some or all of its historic value and the historic object's sense of grandure if moved to a different location. The location gives a historic object a deeper context of where, why and how it was built.

Imagine if Stonehenge were moved from Salisbury Plain and placed somewhere else amongst other well known objects. For example, to Greenwich Park in London.  Yes, that move might make Stonehenge more accessible to international tourism, but doing so would devalue Stonehenge and turn it from historic object into yet another casual day-tripper tourist "selfie" box ticking activity which is within walking distance of a McDonalds or a Pret A Manger...

Don't worry, I don't think it is very likely but serves to show that:

1. There is never going to be consensus view of what should be done if anything and yet we all have a stake there, some more than others.

2. There are many things that could be changed or "improved" on but it doesn't mean that they should.

[ZigZag007]

Ok your all saying how to tidy up mainland and some good suggestions but it's 'Your world. Your imagination.'. So look outside the box for a moment at the problems you face when owning mainland. You buy your land nice view no bad builds great ok you go buy a house the fun starts rezz said house looks great but don't fit your on a hill so you rezz a prim or large rock to place your house on yes looks great nice view puts a few trees looking good. but not from outside looking in. now the war of the walls starts and we have mainland.  How do you fix this you cant its in the hands of the land owners ok linden can improve roads and so on but the wall war continues. but it's 'my land . MY imagination . then we have  Bellisseria linden homes with a "convert" a beautiful well made continents. but you get i want more the i want i want more land my imagination. ok mainland 2 with a convert. who is going to keep a eye on things ???? it will never work MY imagination . so my idea is this a restricted mainland 2 with good land textures the terraforming is done in such a way you have flat land to place a home but nice hills and mountains on linden land .. YOU cant terraform its restricted .. prims cant go above a size there restricted .. sky is restricted under certain height for building well a few good restricted moves ok i cant but no one can im sure all this can be done using software well a idea think on it . but above all enjoy your sl 

[Love Zhaoying]

1 hour ago, SarahKB7 Koskinen said:

I completely disagree.

A historic object will lose some or all of its historic value and the historic object's sense of grandure if moved to a different location. The location gives a historic object a deeper context of where, why and how it was built.

Imagine if Stonehenge were moved from Salisbury Plain and placed somewhere else amongst other well known objects. For example, to Greenwich Park in London.  Yes, that move might make Stonehenge more accessible to international tourism, but doing so would devalue Stonehenge and turn it from historic object into yet another casual day-tripper tourist "selfie" box ticking activity which is within walking distance of a McDonalds or a Pret A Manger...

This is an interesting point of view, and has given me a lot to think about.

Thank you for your insight, as always!

 

[Love Zhaoying]

29 minutes ago, ZigZag007 said:

Ok your all saying how to tidy up mainland and some good suggestions but it's 'Your world. Your imagination.'. So look outside the box for a moment at the problems you face when owning mainland. You buy your land nice view no bad builds great ok you go buy a house the fun starts rezz said house looks great but don't fit your on a hill so you rezz a prim or large rock to place your house on yes looks great nice view puts a few trees looking good. but not from outside looking in. now the war of the walls starts and we have mainland.  How do you fix this you cant its in the hands of the land owners ok linden can improve roads and so on but the wall war continues. but it's 'my land . MY imagination . then we have  Bellisseria linden homes with a "convert" a beautiful well made continents. but you get i want more the i want i want more land my imagination. ok mainland 2 with a convert. who is going to keep a eye on things ???? it will never work MY imagination . so my idea is this a restricted mainland 2 with good land textures the terraforming is done in such a way you have flat land to place a home but nice hills and mountains on linden land .. YOU cant terraform its restricted .. prims cant go above a size there restricted .. sky is restricted under certain height for building well a few good restricted moves ok i cant but no one can im sure all this can be done using software well a idea think on it . but above all enjoy your sl 

I think with experience, some people avoid the "war of the walls" by purchasing Mainland parcels that have "protected land" sides - either water or Linden Roads on one or more sides.  Nobody can block the view from those sides.   Sorry if this does not seem very helpful on the surface as it does not apply to users without "protected land" sides.

One other way of looking at it is, everyone "can" put a Skybox above their land in such a way as to not see any neighboring skyboxes.  It is a sad fact that many (if not most) users rely on Skyboxes because of the "spoiled view" issues.

 

Edited June 13, 2023 by Love Zhaoying
rely, not reply

[ZigZag007]

2 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I think with experience, some people avoid the "war of the walls" by purchasing Mainland parcels that have "protected land" sides - either water or Linden Roads on one or more sides.  Nobody can block the view from those sides.   Sorry if this does not seem very helpful on the surface as it does not apply to users without "protected land" sides.

One other way of looking at it is, everyone "can" put a Skybox above their land in such a way as to not see any neighboring skyboxes.  It is a sad fact that many (if not most) users reply on Skyboxes because of the "spoiled view" issues.

 

I buy and sell a lot of land on mainland and come across a lot of mainland problems the skybox is just one you can ask but you cant tell anyone to do anything so if .. sky is restricted under certain height for building well this would put a end to it .. the view yes protected land .. but they sell for silly money and just sit there with a large for sale sign on full bright .. a few here just want a nice home but there own imagination .. 

 

[Rowan Amore]

Equating anything built in SL to Stonehenge is disingenuous to say the least.  Only a small percentage of people even know about any historic builds in SL while a vast majority have heard of Stonehenge.

I'd compare builds in SL to the London Bridge.  It's historical value has changed since we purchased it for the US but after 50 years, people still come to see it because of what it was and how we acquired it. 

Moving 'historic' builds and including a plaque (notecard) of the significance of that build, would be more than enough for most people.  

[SarahKB7 Koskinen]

2 hours ago, Rowan Amore said:

I'd compare builds in SL to the London Bridge.  It's historical value has changed since we purchased it for the US but after 50 years, people still come to see it because of what it was and how we acquired it.

That particular bridge was officially called "New London Bridge" (1831-1967) and is not the same bridge as the more famous 622 year-old "London Bridge" (1209-1831) which inspired the nursery rhyme song.

In 1967, New London Bridge was determined to be unsuitable for modern road traffic and was replaced in 1973 by a very boring plain-looking concrete bridge simply called "London Bridge".

New London Bridge's stonework was disassembled and shipped across the Atlantic and was partially re-erected as outer stone cladding on top of a custom-made concrete and steel frame that spanned an artificial lake in Arizona.

That boring-looking 1973 London Bridge still stands and is so inconspicuous, that tourists think that the much grander looking Tower Bridge (1894-present) downstream to the east of it must be "London Bridge" instead! Which it isn't!

The bridge in Arizona is not "London Bridge", it's just a modern concrete and steel structure covered with a veneer of the stonework of the 1831 New London Bridge.

Fake!

Edited June 13, 2023 by SarahKB7 Koskinen

[Love Zhaoying]

21 minutes ago, SarahKB7 Koskinen said:

That particular bridge was officially called "New London Bridge" (1831-1967) and is not the same bridge as the more famous 622 year-old "London Bridge" (1209-1831) which inspired the nursery rhyme song.

In 1967, New London Bridge was determined to be unsuitable for modern road traffic and was replaced in 1973 by a very boring plain-looking concrete bridge simply called "London Bridge".

That boring-looking 1973 London Bridge still stands and is so inconspicuous, that tourists think that the much grander looking Tower Bridge (1894-present) downstream to the east of it must be "London Bridge" instead! Which it isn't!

Meanwhile, New London Bridge's stonework was disassembled and shipped across the Atlantic and was partially re-erected as outer stone cladding on top of a custom-made steel frame that spanned an artificial lake in Arizona.

The bridge in Arizona is not "London Bridge", it's just a modern steel structure covered with some of the stonework of the 1831 New London Bridge.

Fake!

This is a very interesting observation!  

I can see a "Second Life" equivalent:  If a "historical" structure in Second Life were not just moved, but was also converted from Prim to Mesh.

Thanks for your post!

 

[Qie Niangao]

4 hours ago, SarahKB7 Koskinen said:

A historic object will lose some or all of its historic value and the historic object's sense of grandure if moved to a different location. The location gives a historic object a deeper context of where, why and how it was built. For example, Stonehenge.

I don't disagree, but many of the historic builds in SL, despite being in the same location as when they were built, have long been surrounded by content that's nothing like their original settings. I'm not sure they're better off where they are, or if a more suitable place might be found for them now.

Take for example an Eric Linden telehub transplanted to http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Mimas/89/144/69 and surrounded by mostly contemporaneous content. (It somehow acquired a Zindra-era wind turbine, so it's not "museum" original, but fine.) It feels pretty good there, and reminiscent of an era slightly before my time. Here's a quick clumsy snapshot:

Granted, it would be more historic in its original setting, but its original setting almost surely doesn't exist anymore.

And to be honest, I can't think of anything that would better fit this scene: does this funky Sansara topography really lack for mesh? Are we sure that's really what it needs now?

[Rowan Amore]

1 hour ago, SarahKB7 Koskinen said:

That particular bridge was officially called "New London Bridge" (1831-1967) and is not the same bridge as the more famous 622 year-old "London Bridge" (1209-1831) which inspired the nursery rhyme song.

In 1967, New London Bridge was determined to be unsuitable for modern road traffic and was replaced in 1973 by a very boring plain-looking concrete bridge simply called "London Bridge".

That boring-looking 1973 London Bridge still stands and is so inconspicuous, that tourists think that the much grander looking Tower Bridge (1894-present) downstream to the east of it must be "London Bridge" instead! Which it isn't!

Meanwhile, New London Bridge's stonework was disassembled and shipped across the Atlantic and was partially re-erected as outer stone cladding on top of a custom-made concrete and steel frame that spanned an artificial lake in Arizona.

The bridge in Arizona is not "London Bridge", it's just a modern structure covered with some of the stonework of the 1831 New London Bridge.

Fake!

You missed the point entirely as I'm aware of the history of that bridge and how it was reconstructed here.  People STILL go to see it because of what it was just as people would go to see historical structures in SL no matter where they are as few people would know or care WHERE it was originally.

I haven't been myself but I'm sure your bridge in Arizona has a lovely placard describing how it arrived here.  People still go.

If anything, LL should dedicate a specific region for these 'historic' builds.

 

[ZigZag007]

Quartz Mole had mentioned in another thread that if anyone had suggestions on how to improve mainland, start a topic. Here ok ok ok lets keep it to the thread or this will cut off as well 

[Sparkle Bunny]

We're talking about the best way to preserve existing infrastructure, whether that's to keep it in its original location even though the surrounding builds may now make it look weird and outdated, or to move it somewhere else (like the SS Galaxy) that looks a bit more like its original context. That's absolutely on topic with any discussion on how to improve mainland.

(You're going to need a few more than three posts before you can get away with roleplaying as a moderator, btw.)

[ZigZag007]

ok this is why i dont post ill not again like all you lot here one big click bye bye all good luck 

 

[Persephone Emerald]

17 minutes ago, Sparkle Bunny said:

We're talking about the best way to preserve existing infrastructure, whether that's to keep it in its original location even though the surrounding builds may now make it look weird and outdated, or to move it somewhere else (like the SS Galaxy) that looks a bit more like its original context. That's absolutely on topic with any discussion on how to improve mainland.

(You're going to need a few more than three posts before you can get away with roleplaying as a moderator, btw.)

2 minutes ago, ZigZag007 said:

ok this is why i dont post ill not again like all you lot here one big click bye bye all good luck 

@Sparkle Bunny, I agree that discussing the possibility of moving historical builds that are currently on mainland is on topic. 

There's no need to rudely gatekeep what others can post though, no matter if they have 1 prior post or 1000+.

[Sparkle Bunny]

5 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

There's no need to rudely gatekeep what others can post though, no matter if they have 1 prior post or 1000+.

True, which is why I called them on their attempt to do it If they hadn't been trolling, they wouldn't have flounced.

Edited June 13, 2023 by Sparkle Bunny

[Love Zhaoying]

Idea: 

Existing Mainland may be "a lost cause".  Too many "legacy users", can't be contacted or bothered to change anything even if the rules change or if a covenant were put in place.

We probably need *NEW* Mainland *WITH* a *NEW* Covenant.  Similar to the Bellisaurius covenants but allowing "commerce", etc.  NOT LINDEN HOMES, but "true Mainland".

I did bring something up similar in a different thread.  The difference is, having *NEW* Mainland makes it easier to impose a Covenant, without trying to do so "retroactively" for existing users.

 

[Love Zhaoying]

4 hours ago, ZigZag007 said:

I buy and sell a lot of land on mainland and come across a lot of mainland problems the skybox is just one you can ask but you cant tell anyone to do anything so if .. sky is restricted under certain height for building well this would put a end to it .. the view yes protected land .. but they sell for silly money and just sit there with a large for sale sign on full bright .. a few here just want a nice home but there own imagination .. 

 

I totally agree, there's an example of a *NEW* Covenant that may work just fine with any *NEW* Mainland.