Profaitchikenz Haiku

This (thread) is beginning to remind me of the scene in Monty Python's Meaning of Life film when the boardroom presentation on why people don't wear hats or have souls has just reached the point that "People have short attention spans and are easily distracted", and all of a sudden they all turn to gape at the large building floating past their windows.

Ok, having gone and read the bug report (duh, should have done that sooner), I realise I've misunderstood the issues. If the idea is that a landowner can teleport anybody on their land to anywhere else on their land, it makes sense to me. The permission popups are annoying in this case (and useless when somebody has TP-ed in and is bobbing up and down a metre above the ground still chatting in IMs to somebody else, oblivious to the popups, and not clicking on or colliding with anything to initiate the action ). I see it as a valid action given LL implements a "landowner makes their own rules and can implement them" approach. The one grey area is where the person is TP-ed into a cage or trap, which is ( I think still?) a violation of the ToS. In that case it's up to the objector to actually object. I think it must be limited to a destination in the same region, for both implementation issues and also to avoid confusion in those who have been TP-ed. I can see it being useful not only for maintaining control over staged events where you don't want plonkers dropping out of the sky into the action, but also it would be a better way of enforcing the private-property rule by simply moving the trespasser back outside. In such cases I do think an explanatory message is required, which could be an optional argument to the function, such as llTeleportAgent(outsideTheHouse, "I'm sorry but that is private"); I'll vote for it (or, given the topical situation, I'll not vote against it).

I can't see any option other than home. Let's assume that region A has an agreement with region B that any people unwelcome in region A can be TP-ed to region B. But after a change of ownership, Region B decides not to have unwanted visitors and puts up the dreaded "you have entered private property" orb. So the people lobbed out of A then get bounced out of B, and usually end up at home anyway. Home (or the nearest safe hub if home is unavailable) is the only destination you can be certain will a) be there and b) accept them gracefully.

SL is a closed-environment, unlike all the other social media, it therefore doesn't pose the same risk of being used as a platform to spread hate world-wide.

I love this encapsulation.

Store the last UUID for which you sent the message (start with an empty list, let's call it "seen" for now). When the sensor detects "numFound" objects named "Hellsent Horse Bundle" within range, check each detected UUID against the list of UUIDs already sent using llListFindList(seen, [llDetectedKey(loop-counter)] ) which will return > -1 if it's in the list. (loopCounter runs from 0 to num_found - 1); If it isn't in the list, it's new; Add the UUID to the list, send the message that "Hellsent Horse Bundle" has been spotted. The next time the sensor triggers and detects objects within range, it will check each detected UUID against the list of sent UUIDs and not inform you for each UUID that it finds is already in the list. At intervals of perhaps a month, you'll probably want to empty the list of UUIDs to avoid running out of memory. ETA I can't add a code block to a post I've already created? How much worse can things get? sensor (integer num_found) { integer ii; for( ii = 0; ii < num_found; ii++) { if( llListFindList(seen, [llDetectedKey(ii)]) == -1) // add the key to seen, send the IM, else do nowt } }

Molly's answer makes sense to me (and explains the odd figures I've seen in the build floater for years but just accepted), but when you say "my axis is not changing, it's static within 0 - 360) all I can assume is that you want the Y-axis of the child prim to alter it's value according to how the root prim rotation has changed, i.e to perform as a gyroscope might do and attempt to resist turning forces. Is there any way you could make a test harness with only two prims involved to demonstrate this problem such that others can try to replicate it? I still don't really understand what it is you're trying to do, let alone how this problem is actually affecting things.

Sherlock Holmes springs to mind as a cape-wearer. (If fictional people count as role-models).

Now that the OP has given more details of their problem the biggest issue I can see is that llSensor can only detect up to 16 objects, so if these little critturs breed like the proverbial then the fibonacci sequence is going to pass 16 in next to no time. That said, from practical experience when I had an island and a friend had Meeroos up on one of the platforms, they were quite restrained and I don't think ever exceeded a dozen in number. One option is to have an object that tracks any breedables about to give birth, or in the case of Meeroos, stays close to a nest. ETA Just thinking about it, this is a perfect case for llGetParcelPrimCount, you only need to start the sensing action when the prim count increases, at which point you could have a series of prims using llSensor to take a census within their radius and report what they find to a central script, which does the filtering to weed out uuids it has already been advised of and concentrate on the newcomers.

Maintain a list of objects detected. On each detection (llSensor, rezzed object phoning home, etc) check the name against the list of previous detections. If new, add it and inform, otherwise skip quietly by. You will have to use the name and not the detected key, because the key will be unique for each instance inworld, but the name will not. In case you're also going to see objects of the same name coming from other people that you wish to ignore, check the object owner as well.

A thought here based on something I did that whilst not similar, has a concept you could adapt. Spread your answers through extra scripts: they communicate through link messages, each script has a number it recognises as "mine" When you want a random question/answer, generate a single random number in the range 1 to (number of store scripts) message that particular script (Message has the number set to specified script) The receiving script generate a random number between 0 and number of stored answers and spits out the reply

I find making the immediate vicinity around me a designated foul-language area helps relieve some of the frustrations. There were some other ongoing issues that might have clouded the view so I think we're best keeping a watching brief on this and if it persists, somehow bringing it to the attention of the Server User Group meeting.

I think the issue here is that the region isn't shown as offline, so filing a ticket as it being offline isn't really appropriate. According to the map the region is online. Also, the two recent incidents that stuck on my mind both seemed to be resolved within about 30-40 minutes. Both were private islands, so it is possible somebody filed a ticket and got the issue resolved, but it's also possible this is the result of a private region being restarted by an estate manager and the message being given out isn't totally appropriate? The key observation that is leading me to this is that on both instances, when I looked at the map there were no green dots showing. Sadly, when today's region finally became accessible and I got there, the person whom I asked "have they just restarted this region" was a bot, so I didn't get any answer.

Nope. I'm going by an old coding standard I worked to on one of my earliest projects, which was that when specifying floats as literals you should indicate how many places of precision you wanted to see to the right of the decimal point. It's possible they were over-prescriptive, it's too late now to go and ask them. Do bear in mind I began coding before some of these standards became commonplace But it does make sense to me. If somebody says 9.5 I understand them to mean "I'm Ok with what you give me so long as it round to 9.5", so if it's a piece of wood they've asked for I'll cut it so that it's 9.45 to 9.55. But if they say 9.50 I'll cut it so it's 9.405 to 9.505. And now I suspect you'll want to query the value of the kerf

@VK, after a quick play in a sandbox, I think I see your problem, it is where you are looking for negative angles: you test for a negative value that is NOT -180 and act accordingly, but then the other if---else clauses handle everything EXCEPT -180, so you need to add a clause to explicitly handle -180. (Which if I understand what you are trying to do requires you to invert it) I made the alterations that I suggested above and dropped the integer comparisons as well. eg return_value = 0.0 && value = 0.0, but this is rather sloppy coding, you should ideally test for llFAbs(return_value) <= 0.001 or some similar tolerance figure

I understand, sometimes I don't even understand myself. Seriously though, in that piece of code, check against 360.0 (not 360) and use >= so that if the Y value is >= 360.000 you subtract 360.000 from it and revert to 0.0. The reason for specifying .000 is an old one and possibly modern compilers do things better now, but it is to remind yourself (and other coders if you're on a team) what degree of floating point precision you wish. If you say a number is 360.0 then it could be anywhere in the range 359.95999 to 360.049999, both are the extents of a range that rounds to 360.0. If you say 360.00 then you are specifying a tighter range, 359.995999 to 360.004999, and so on.

So what happens when you have a value between 360.0001 and 360.99999 ? (If you are going to feed integer values to things that use floats be prepared to suffer the default rounding, which might not be at all what you believe it will be) Animat's advice to use quaternions is the best one, but if you must use Euler there's no reason why you can't, with a bit of extra coding.

How bizarre. I just logged in again to check and raise a support ticket, and the region was now there and could be TP-ed to. Furthermore it had a bot there that was now visible as a green dot on the map that wasn't showing before. Are we perhaps seeing the message when the region is being restarted, instead of whatever we used to see when we tried to TP to an offline region?

There goes my reason for living...

I think I'll pay a visit to the Server User Group meeting (if it's still going on) and ask them there. If it's indeed an issue that needs support to assist, then I think there should be a category for it.

Does anybody know what this is about? I've now seen it two days in succession for different LMs. In each case the region showed up on the map so it wasn't a case of the region being offline. What do we do about it? Can you raise a support ticket for "Region offline" when apparently it isn't?

Agreed, it's often the one they have "approved", and I recently found that after a Windows 10 update that broke the graphics driver (code 43) I was not allowed to re-install the known working driver from CD to the C drive, I had to fiddle it by choosing a different disk and then pointing the Device manager "update driver" to this new location.

Confirmed it also occurs when using "Take Copy", but the item is actually added to inventory, so that at least is a fake message. Seen in Singularity 8382 and the latest Official Viewer 551711 on mainland with server 553685 I was going to go to one of the sandboxes and try it there, only it struck me that Auto-return might be even worse. Maybe the Grid-poking-bot stuck the poking stick in the wrong hole?

I can understand why the previous thread was locked, (although I think it was a slight over-reaction), as it risked becoming a blame-game. We do need a thread where we can share and discuss in-world problems, because raising support tickets doesn't allow for exchanging views and possible workarounds. Generally this holiday break I saw fewer TP problems than I usually expect, but, a region I pop in and out of suddenly threw up the "Teleport Failed, routed to wrong region" error which then seemed to cure itself after a few hours, and another piece of mainland I often visit stopped accepting TPs, although it still showed on the map. Compared to the previous Christmas Season it was remarkably trouble-free (just my opinion). Perhaps what is needed somewhere in SL is an equivalent to the Japanese management straw-dummies where disgruntled employees can take out their pent-up frustrations? Is this the cue for a "Punch Linden" ?

Bah, Roxy beat me to it. Must spend more time reading and curb my instant "respond-to-this" instinct.