Jump to content

Why are the next prims going to be 64x64x64 meters?


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3734 days.

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

Recommended Posts

Ok so they are going let us use bigger prims, in stead of 10x10x10 we will now be allowed to make 64x64x64 meter prims, or there abouts.

Hurrah, fantastic, let's get rif of all those old megaprims... well almost all of them...

Why 64?

Why not 100?

Why not 1000?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a compromise.

There was a lot of back and forth over this single issue by the Mesh beta testers. Powers within SL wanted to keep it 10m forever. Others wanted sim-sized prims (256) or larger. What we got instead, was a prim large enough to tile a whole sim, with only 16 prims. But a prim that can only overhang 32m into a neighboring sim (unless linked to another prim but that's besides the point).

Why 64 and not 60 or 65? Because the minimum parcel "block" is 4m x 4m. So having a maximum dimension that was a "power of 2" (4, 8 16, 32, 64, 128, 256) was a good and logical thing.. something that people have been complaining about at least since 2006 when I joined SL. (why limit us to 10 and not 8 or 12 or 16 when our land is always in multiples of 4?).

Now we get 64. And 64 is the minimum draw distance. And 64 is a good and responsible size. Not so large that you can rez it and not be able to see it cause your draw distance is too low. Not so large that a griefer or a noob can disrupt a whole sim just by rezzing one. and still large enough to create really beautiful sky domes, and very useable platforms, and really dramatically reduce the number of prims used in roads, sidewalks, and buildings.

64m is really just about perfect.

And presumably, old megaprims >64 will continue to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has some thing to do with computers being set up to read bits in those numbers faster 16, 32, 64, 128, 512, 1024, the same reason they recommend pictures being set at those numbers as well for upload. Also prims larger than 64x64 take longer to load but if we need bigger thank goodness we still have the megas. I have a race track in a 100x100x100 sphere and anything smaller just wouldn't cut it... I guess we can't say it is 100 meters squared if it is a sphere right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

draw distance and an even division of region size seem to be the main reasons that particular number was chosen, at least from the few conversations people have had with LL about it that I've managed to read.

as for why bigger at all? to support some of the purchasable content models that already exist (and the fact that we've been screaming at LL for years to give us better now that they know the engine can handle it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Jo Yardley wrote:

Ok so they are going let us use bigger prims, in stead of 10x10x10 we will now be allowed to make 64x64x64 meter prims, or there abouts.

Hurrah, fantastic, let's get rif of all those old megaprims... well almost all of them...

Why 64?

Why not 100?

Why not 1000?

it will be great when LL finally implement this, it will legitimise megas, in the past i have walked away from land renters because of this silly myth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a few of those myths aren't so mythical, but they are mostly based on the original megas which had such limited ranges that they were forced to be chopped up in unusual ways that could have some annoying side effects if people didn't pay attention; for instance cuts that faced traffic areas causing physics problems under the previous havoc version.

most of those problems were removed when the wider selection of megas became available, and almost eliminated entirely when the new physics engine went online. Unfortunately some people are resistant to changing their views, and hold onto information that is no longer valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Void Singer wrote:

a few of those myths aren't so mythical, but they are mostly based on the original megas which had such limited ranges that they were forced to be chopped up in unusual ways that could have some annoying side effects if people didn't pay attention; for instance cuts that faced traffic areas causing physics problems under the previous havoc version.

most of those problems were removed when the wider selection of megas became available, and almost eliminated entirely when the new physics engine went online. Unfortunately some people are resistant to changing their views, and hold onto information that is no longer valid.

myths in other words. i was using gene replacements megas over 4 years ago

badly used standard prims can cause as many problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but not at the same scale. my point was some of those "myths" were fairly accurate at one point... but peoples knowledge of them didn't keep up with the changes that made them less applicable. They're still true to some extent, A massively sliced mega can still caused physics issues... it's just that now, we don't need to chop megas up like that because there are more various sizes, and the physics engine behaves better with them even when they are sliced a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still remember when that "window of opportunity" appeared and many us went rushing around making as many megas as we could.

When the window closed then came the frustration.  Why on earth didn't I make that 43.7x16.2x0.02 prim - :matte-motes-tongue:

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Jo Yardley wrote:

Ok so they are going let us use bigger prims, in stead of 10x10x10 we will now be allowed to make 64x64x64 meter prims, or there abouts.

Hurrah, fantastic, let's get rif of all those old megaprims... well almost all of them...

Why 64?

Why not 100?

Why not 1000?

Why not 29, or 18?

:matte-motes-delicious:

I think it has to do with linkability rules and distances.

But if you're seriously interested in knowing the answer I think you should ask Andrew Linden, during one of his 2 weekly inworld meetings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3734 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...