Why is Flying so difficult in Second Life

[Istelathis]

13 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said:

If you can name a topic, there's been at least one example of it here on the forums where the flames have burned bright and high.

True, but the ones I listed tend to be the ones which generate a lot of controversy.  Security orb discussion on the forums rarely go without much arguing, and people who are not familiar with the forums are likely to get bombarded if they create a topic on it.  I kind of feel bad for them, they don't know what they are getting themselves into.  Unfortunately, I think it is likely to just push them away from participating on the forums at all, and well I mean it is not the end of the world but we end up with less voices with interesting perspectives and views as a result.

Not much we can do about it though, it is just the nature of socializing and the way forums have been forever. Having a literal sticky is laughable though, I was kidding around so I don't think anyone would actually read it.  I opted instead to just tell them a few of the touchy subjects, so that they can get a feel for the forum if they decide to stick around and hopefully they will.

[Gabriele Graves]

On the subject of the spurious interpretation of LL policies for mainland regarding orbs.  LL wouldn't need to put anything there to give them an "out" for implementing later, they would just change the policy once they decided to do something about it just as they do with any other area of the ToS whenever they need to.

[Marigold Devin]

On 2/9/2024 at 6:32 PM, Impresario Beaumont said:

I've taken up flying in Second Life and find it a wonderful way of exploring the SL world. It is quite enjoyable when one restrict one's area of interest to Bellisseria and doesn't descend below 100m above ground. At that height one appears to avoid ban lines and since one travels at 15m/sec (or thereabout), one has no problem with surveillance orbs that allow incursions of 15 secs or less.

Flying across  other mainland continents is quite another matter. It appears that even at 400m above ground, SL's property rights fanatics on as little as 1024 parcels have the ability to send you back to your home parcel if one of your wings as much as touches their sovereign land. Is there no way to avoid this fate? Are there no SL TOS provisions that prevent unreasonable ejections?

 

I know it's not the answer you will be wanting to hear, but you just have to embrace rather than fight this "quirk" of Second Life. We are lucky to be able to fly over people's privately-owned land at all, especially as everyone who owns or rents land is allowed to build up to 4000m. The best you can do  - and this is quite a lot of fun really - is make a note of where there are security orbs and ban lines and navigate the next journey around them. Think of it more like a maze than being just sky. 

I have in the past managed some decent flying time with friends in small aircrafts, but I know they have made many a failed journey prior to that.

And remember, one person's unreasonable ejection is another's unreasonable invasion of their Second Life home area!

The creator of Linden Lab would somehow like us all to live in harmony.

Edited February 10 by Marigold Devin

[animats]

Kelly Shergood has a map of known hostile security orbs. Pilots make a flight plan using known waypoints on the map, bypassing orbs, and follow it carefully. Some aircraft have flight management systems that will help follow a flight plan. Shergood has been a pilot in RL, and this roughly follows real world aviation procedures.

[Theresa Tennyson]

33 minutes ago, animats said:

Kelly Shergood has a map of known hostile security orbs. Pilots make a flight plan using known waypoints on the map, bypassing orbs, and follow it carefully. Some aircraft have flight management systems that will help follow a flight plan. Shergood has been a pilot in RL, and this roughly follows real world aviation procedures.

That map is exactly what has led a number of pilots to hit a specific zero-second teleport-home orb. The orb still isn't on the map.

[Lewis Luminos]

12 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Yes there is - the TOS specifically incorporates the "Second Life Mainland Policies" document, which allows Linden Lab to regulate/restrict content/scripts.

https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Mainland_policies

To answer the automatic replies that will be generated by this, I'm not saying that they do or will. However, they can.

I'm unable to find a reference to security orbs in that document. Can you help me find it?

[Theresa Tennyson]

1 minute ago, Lewis Luminos said:

I'm unable to find a reference to security orbs in that document. Can you help me find it?

I misread your post, thinking that it meant you were saying that TOS couldn't regulate security orbs.

[Lewis Luminos]

4 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

I misread your post, thinking that it meant you were saying that TOS couldn't regulate security orbs.

No; my point is that LL has already decided that use of security orbs on mainland, even zero-second ones, is acceptable.

But, it's still possible to avoid flying into them if you make use of protected land.

[Zalificent Corvinus]

5 hours ago, animats said:

Kelly Shergood has a map of known hostile security orbs. Pilots make a flight plan using known waypoints on the map, bypassing orbs, and follow it carefully. Some aircraft have flight management systems that will help follow a flight plan. Shergood has been a pilot in RL, and this roughly follows real world aviation procedures.

You really need to STOP recommending that utterly worthless map.

It's several years out of date, and is directly responsible for sending more than 30 vehicular habitual repeat offending criminal trespasser fanatics straight  into my security orbs kill zone ( and through my living room ). It doesn't show known orbs, it's failed to include mine for several years, despite one of it's suggested routes passing right through my living room, and every sucker who follows that route getting punted and banned.

 

Now however, I have the new orb designed by @Gabriele Graves which pre-emptively bans all potential trespassers as soon as they enter the region, presenting them with a 5km high tower of ban-line. Based on the observed level of intellect amongst the habitual home invaders, that 5km high ban-line tower MIGHT be enough to teach them to learn to steer AROUND property where they are unwanted, unneeded, uninvited, unauthorised, and unwelcome.

 

Edited February 11 by Zalificent Corvinus
Pesky auto correct name tag insertion failure

[Gabriele Graves]

Thanks for the shout-out

Edited February 11 by Gabriele Graves

[Theresa Tennyson]

43 minutes ago, Lewis Luminos said:

No; my point is that LL has already decided that use of security orbs on mainland, even zero-second ones, is acceptable.

But, it's still possible to avoid flying into them if you make use of protected land.

I'm unable to find where Linden Lab says that zero-second orbs are acceptable. Can you help me find it?

[Rowan Amore]

Nor can we find where it says the are specifically NOT allowed.  Lots of SHOULD but again (and again and again) no MUST.

While some think that is an insignificant difference, if it were than LL would simply change it to MUST.  Which, they haven't done.

[Zalificent Corvinus]

12 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Nor can we find where it says the are specifically NOT allowed

Pretty sure I mentioned in the LAST TWO "Insane habitual trespassers vs Home Owners" threads, that certain posters on their side have a LIMITED pool of tired old guaranteed-to-be-shot-down-in-flames arguments that they scroll through.

Next up should either be "wai u no hav 64 m x 64 m warnin signs" or "I dun haz airfield neer mah RL house", or possibly "I haz no reedin da webpage i linkz bout what r crimunil trespisssin".

 

Maybe we should just cut n paste the links to the savage put-downs from those threads in here, and save every body aa lot of typing.

Oh wait, you already did that and they didn't notice.

 

[Theresa Tennyson]

44 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

Pretty sure I mentioned in the LAST TWO "Insane habitual trespassers vs Home Owners" threads, that certain posters on their side have a LIMITED pool of tired old guaranteed-to-be-shot-down-in-flames arguments that they scroll through.

Next up should either be "wai u no hav 64 m x 64 m warnin signs" or "I dun haz airfield neer mah RL house", or possibly "I haz no reedin da webpage i linkz bout what r crimunil trespisssin".

 

Maybe we should just cut n paste the links to the savage put-downs from those threads in here, and save every body aa lot of typing.

Oh wait, you already did that and they didn't notice.

 

Yes, "their side" does that. Like when I not only cut-and-pasted, but predicted what the reply would be, which actually came true in the next post?

[diamond Marchant]

Just to add to what others have said about flying in Second Live, many aviators (including myself), consider SL aviation to be a game which involves NAVIGATION. This means flying over protected water/land and navigating around known obstacles (e.g. quick orbs, banlines). When we find new obstacles, we assimilate that knowledge and it adds to our perfection. We make charts. Resistance is futile.

We LIKE mainland just the way it is. Today on the Skyward Flying Club group flight, we flew around Corsica. I heard no reports of problem banlines or orbs. But I did hear complaints about bad region crossings. I personally saw quite a few ghosts on region borders (aircraft that appear motionless but are not actually there). Would be nice to get some remedy for those kind of things.

[Gabriele Graves]

3 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Yes, "their side" does that. Like when I not only cut-and-pasted, but predicted what the reply would be, which actually came true in the next post?

Not a very impressive prediction though in reality.  I "predicted" someone would come and assert this again given the topic.  Oh, look I wasn't disappointed.  What?  No, I didn't need to post about my "prediction" as if it was anything insightful.  When someone gives a contentious often repeated viewpoint, it generally will not go unchallenged.  Not rocket science really.

Edited February 11 by Gabriele Graves

[Lewis Luminos]

On 2/11/2024 at 1:47 AM, Theresa Tennyson said:

I'm unable to find where Linden Lab says that zero-second orbs are acceptable. Can you help me find it?

No terms and  conditions for any company will list the entirety of what's acceptable. Only what's not acceptable. Find me where it says its okay to wear a yellow shirt? Where it says it's okay to swim in shark-infested water? Where it says it's okay to do the Chicken Dance in public?

The Bellisseria covenant specifically states that zero second orbs are not permitted in Bellisseria. If they were not permitted in mainland, it would say so, somewhewre. But it doesn't.  Individual land-owners are free to make their own decision on the matter.

[Katherine Heartsong]

On 2/9/2024 at 9:43 PM, Istelathis said:

There are a few of them on the forums ... avatar gender ...

I feel (anecdotally) that this one is at least getting better?

I'm not running into anywhere as much in-world griefing this past year (are men reading my profile finally?), and I haven't seen it flame up too much here on the forums.

Is it getting to the point that most guys (or, ahem, male avatars) in world are finally not naive enough to believe that behind every lovely woman in SL in an actual female? Porbably not, but one can hope.

Now for the OP, yes, this topic really gets a reaction since the spectrum of opinion runs from "You're flying, sure, fly right on through" to the "Put a millimetre of your vehicle anywhere on my property, heck even breath onto my parcel, and I have the right to boot you!" This is why I sail and not fly, and my parcels are always on very sailable and protected waters.

PS. I have hours in Cessna 152s and 172s, btw, but lapsed for decades.

Edited February 28 by Katherine Heartsong

[BilliJo Aldrin]

On 2/10/2024 at 3:45 PM, Gabriele Graves said:

On the subject of the spurious interpretation of LL policies for mainland regarding orbs.  LL wouldn't need to put anything there to give them an "out" for implementing later, they would just change the policy once they decided to do something about it just as they do with any other area of the ToS whenever they need to.

If LL wants to change the rules, they will change the rules. If they don't, it's because they are perfectly ok with the way things are

[BilliJo Aldrin]

On 2/28/2024 at 2:32 AM, Lewis Luminos said:

No terms and  conditions for any company will list the entirety of what's acceptable. Only what's not acceptable. Find me where it says its okay to wear a yellow shirt? Where it says it's okay to swim in shark-infested water? Where it says it's okay to do the Chicken Dance in public?

The Bellisseria covenant specifically states that zero second orbs are not permitted in Bellisseria. If they were not permitted in mainland, it would say so, somewhewre. But it doesn't.  Individual land-owners are free to make their own decision on the matter.

I've gotten trashed before for saying this, but what is NOT banned is permitted.

*runs off to buy more micro parcels*