Jessica Lyon

nelikb wrote: For me not working good i still have crash, slow loading, not see peoples,objects and i can't tp. Help me!!!! Nelikb, Our support can help you with the problems that are specific to the Firestorm Viewer however the issues in this thread have been determined not to be firestorm specific. Crashing however is not related to this and Support can very likely help you with that as well as possibly TP issues. Please see http://wiki.phoenixviewer.com/getting_help for the various ways you can contact our support team and make that effort. We'll be happy to help anyway we can. Jess.

nelikb wrote: When will you fix this problem???:matte-motes-frown: Nelikb, currently progressive draw distance works better than the server side interest list fixes, so it is not a problem. However when LL get the interest list improvements in place and if/when it works better than our progressive draw distance then we will disable the work around and use the linden fix. Once LL has the interest list working correctly there will be no need for progressive draw distance and as a side note, if you are on firestorm you can disable it in preferences, however it is off by default so if you've not turned it on you do not have it on.

Andrew Linden wrote: Sorry Jessica, I didn't mean "hack" in any pejorative way. I meant it as a "solution to a problem using unexpected methods or tools" -- I'm definitely not against such "hacks", and I was quite intrigued with this TPV innovation when I heard about it years ago. For some people "hack" has a negative connotation, so perhaps a better word would be "workaround" since the expanding draw distance feature is to reduce a "bug" that is external to the viewer, namely the poor near-to-far sorting by the server. Thank you Andrew, workaround is actually a very good descriptor for it instead of 'feature' really. That's an interesting theory regarding bandwidth. It is very frequent that we have users coming to us for support for various issues and quite often we find they have their bandwidth turned up high. Having users drop their bandwidth down to more reasonable settings like around 500 or sometimes even less clears up a lot of issues. More is not always better but users seem to instinctively feel it is. We default our bandwidth at 500 because of this and teach a class where we cover the negative impacts of higher bandwidth settings. There is some dissention among my team on this topic however, as some of my developers have tried investigating the mysterious world of bandwidth and each come up with different results and theories. Some folks can crank bandwidth all the way up without an issue even on slower network connections while others on high speed networks have to keep it below 500. It was suggested by one of my support people that our progressive draw distance may actually be interfering with your interest list work, or that it would degrade the interest list solutions for Firestorm users. We will be happy to remove progressive draw distance if you get interest list sorting worked out!

Andrew Linden wrote: "Thanks for the info everybody. Firestorm is off the hook -- it has been tested and works for some people, so the source of the problems must lie elsewhere." I would just like to point out that making an assumption that Firestorm is to blame for something because there is a disproportionate amount of reports coming from Firestorm users as opposed to the Linden viewer users or any other viewer is poor practice. Firestorm has a disproportionately larger number of users than any other viewer and generally a large portion of these users are well educated and willing to report bugs because we make a lot of effort to educate, help, interact and generally encourage them to report issues they find. Also, I do not regard the Progressive Draw Distance feature in Firestorm to be a ‘hack’. It fixes the long standing failings of the Linden interest list 'without' side effects or bugs. To date, all efforts to improve the interest list system have always resulted in more problems. I've been around long enough to remember all those efforts. </exit soapbox> My team and our users are more than happy and honored to continue trying to help you (Linden Lab) improve the user experience, truly happy to do it. But I do resent being blamed... Thanks. Jessica Lyon Project Manager The Phoenix Firestorm Project, Inc

I would like to invite you all to participate and attend today's Office Hour where I'll be discussing the policy changes. Please read the blog post on http://phoenixviewer.com for more information. Jessica Lyon Project Manager The Phoenix Viewer Project, Inc

Generally speaking, third party viewers pressure LL into adopting/improving features simply by how popular the features become among the users, (IMHO). Some examples of features that would not exist today if it weren't for TPV's, but which are now in the LL viewer. - Avatar physics (formerly breast physics) - Shared WindLight (Though LL did region WL instead of parcel) - Multi attachments (originally Secondary attachments) - Double click TP - In viewer radar (known as nearby on LL's viewer) - Verticle IM tabs - I can go on.. but it doesn't really need to be said. I suspect with time, this too will eventually be adopted by LL, and I suspect there are some other reasons (unspoken) why LL isn't interested in Qarls patch specifically. I posted my 2 cents on STORM-468, but in case it gets deleted I'll copy/paste it here. "Not specifically trying to stir the bee's nest but I wanted to get a word in on this, and this applies to many other features users have asked for but been denied. In regards to the alignment tool: Most third party viewers have this tool already and while it may not meet "LL standards", people use it... extensively... and they love it... a lot... as it is. It DOES meet your customers standards, isn't that what really matters? Perhaps surprising to some, Users 'are' actually capable of understanding a tools limitations, draw backs and shortcomings. Most are not children, (and those who are..well, most kids are far more advanced than adults when it comes to hardware/software anyways). If people don't want to use the tool they wont, but make it available to those who do. If they want to use the tool given it's limitations they will. The bottom line is.. if your users (customers) want it, and it will improve their experience without taking away from others experiences then it should be made available. This feature in particular takes away nothing from the people who have no use for it, but adds a huge building advantage to those who do. Give your users (customers) the freedom to choose if they use a tool or not. Give your customers the freedom of choice and options within the viewer. This is the fundamental basis that has resulted in the success of third party viewers and is perhaps a lesson that should be learned... yet still hasn't. Thank you Qarl for the alignment tool, Third party viewers and their users love it and appreciate your efforts tremendously. /me gets off her soapbox."