Love Zhaoying

I like possum when they have those cute little toes, because I am lack-toes intolerant!

Welcome!

Very beautiful! It makes me want to landscape.

Reading this thread, it almost appears to be form of griefing!

Someone needs to tell that professor to stop assigning SL studies, or stop accepting students' choices of SL studies. So we can go back to anonymity.

Tries to imagine eating pizza using a pineapple. I can see why you never do it. I think you have to also have ham, so that way you can hold down the pizza with the pineapple and cut it with the ham.

*sits with Teagan, fingers in ears, going LALALALALALALA*

Sounds like the Sansar flavor of C# will be Classy!

I've got a waterside adult mainland region (no "house" there usually), and a Linden home on the edge of a lakeside park. Which do I 'live' in? Neither, lately. Guess I need to!

I'm confused, I thought this blog was about Second Life?

I am glad to hear the Tower is still there! <3

St. Petersburg. Florida.

I can't wait to try "rage s*x"! I hope it is better than "terror s*x".

In the last season or so of "House, MD" Dr. Gregory House rode a motorcycle with a cane..

Some of us prefer "Youse guys", as in "Heyyyyyy youse guyyyysss!!!" with a Bronx accent.

Clothes are often "One Size Fits All", even if they fit poorly. Unless your avatar is a "tiny" or some type of feral animal, then clothes will fit VERY poorly!

Was thinking the same exact thing.

You're joking, right?

Thanks! I wish the documentation was better. I will give this a try in the "good" and "bad" versions of the script (the one that I got different answers for llGetFreeMemory() after putting code into a new script) and see if I get more consistent results than llGetFreeMemory()!

Just read up on the update. This is interesting. Does SL run "any better" in "game mode" under the Windows 10 Creators update?

Perhaps your avatar is trying to follow your (off-screen) cursor?

Unfortunately, my scripts have diverged too much now for profiling to be useful. (I can try at a later date when I have two compatible revisions to compare.) Can anyone at least answer whether "profiling" includes the memory used by the "code" size plus the allocated memory (for "variables")? If so, it would be useful to me as then I can get an idea of the "code size" of my script. I guess I could figure it out by creating two small scripts that allocate no memory for "variables" but instead just print constant text of various sizes..but that may still only show the size allocated for the text not the code to print it.

That is the mystery I am asking about. Both copies of the script are freshly compiled. Both report different llGetFreeMemory() at the initial state_entry(). Both are IDENTICAL scripts - I just copied the script text into a fresh script and I get radically different results. As mentioned in my response to Anton, I will try script profiling and see if there is a difference. Unfortunately, the script in question is "in-progress" so I will have to finish and completely debug it in order to get the end-to-end behavior before profiling is meaningful compared to the script I am rewriing. Hopefully, even if I cannot see "how much memory is available" reliably, script profiling will give me the closest thing - how much memory I am using. However, I suspect from the documentation that script profiling only gives the "allocated memory" (heap, stack) and not the memory used for the byte code itself.

Good question. I was led to believe that llGetUsedMemory is no better than llGetFreeMemory. I can try the others also and see if results are more consistent. Does llGetSPMaxMemory include the code, or just memory allocated for variables?

I've been recoding an existing script, using initial llGetFreeMemory() on state_entry() as a basic guideline for "how I'm doing" with the coding effort. Now, I realize that llGetFreeMemory() only gives you "Returns the integer of the number of free bytes of memory the script can use.". Here is my mystery: as I got closer to finishing my conversion, the initial free memory was unusually low: 10k compared to the original script's 40k. I tested (in a fresh script) initial memory used by each script for just globals, then functions, then state() code..and saw very little difference. Finally, I copied ALL of the code from the "low memory" script to a fresh script - and initial free memory went from 10k to 52k. All scripts are compiled for Mono. So now I have 2 identical scripts, one that reports 52k initial memory free, and one that reports 10k free. Any ideas on the cause of this? Should I a) ignore llGetFreeMemory() completely, or b) copy all the code to a fresh script when I see this happening? I have a feeling I could reproduce this easily with some other scripts that I have been working on.