AngelTheTickleSuccubus

yes. though you brought up an idea that I may steal.I could make some sand and extend it out there for continuity

'alpha sorting' interesting. does it have anything to do with the fact that the origin of the panoramic skybox (the pretty background image) is actually behind the camera, so that the origin of the object of the background is actually closer than the origin of the tree? anyways either way ill give this a try and let you know here shortly

so all objects are mine. what you are seeing is a palmtree where the leaves are not an object but an image with alpha. The background is a panoramic 'skybox' that circles our land and makes it look like there is stuff in the distance. the top has alpha so that it blends with the sky.

actually the blue is just the sky. since we are in a skybox and that goes off of our property.

hello. so I have a bug and was wondering if anyone knows how to fix it. Its pretty obvious what is happening but im not sure how to fix it. the two objects are overlapping in the camera view and its drawing the outer one over the inner one.

im not telling them how to do their job, im pointing out that in business if something keeps popping up or there is a popular demand, there is typically a response from the company to deal with it. That just basic economics, that has nothing to do with development. you didnt ever ask for clarification for anything in a technical way to help lead to a better understanding and solution. for shame as a professional, awesome as a forum lurker!

I work in development. We used Jira. One thing we did is track how many occurances of requests were made. When they started to bubble up in number and we deemed that the feature would be a good idea for the time spent based on all of the usages of that feature, we added the ticket to our current sprint. The 'Horse avatar people" are just another example of how this could be used. Thats more information for the case. Furthermore "its been made a couple times a year" by who? only the people who specifically ask for it? What if more people were made aware of it? and it became more and more of a popular request? lastly, I dont control the thread directly, but by asking people to stay focused on a concept work can actually get done. In many forums, if a post goes off topic they just delete it, to simply allow random crap is just a waste of space and reduction of search efficiency. this thread is all but ruined now though, so whatever.

thats fine, and thank you for the information. However, again, could we stay on topic in this thread? If, as you say, its been made so many times, then clearly its something that people want. However if a Jira ticket is to be made then a good user case needs to be made. This discussion is to build a user case, so please talk about the topic. This thread has gotten so far off track already

the other thread was meant as a technical question about "is it possible with any LSL or other method". This thread is meant to be a discussion about its viability and other aspects that could make it worth a feature request or not. However this would be fire I suppose. but ive never merged a forum post before, so forgive me, but how do I perform these function? With all of that said, could we please stay on topic as much as possible? Simply as the nature of a forum.

Hello. I asked a question in the LSL forum page about if this was possible. You can find that quick post here: I wanted to discuss how useful something like this could be, vs what there is now, what kinds of problems it could cause or exploits it could open up. I wanted to start by throwing out some ideas that I had on its usage. they are simple, and there are ways to do this, but they dont work well and are extremely limited. My idea was couples walking. For example having someone ride on your back or cradle them. Obviously a similar idea can apply but with 18+ styled animations. Another example is that you find a chair and sit in it, but its not for 2 people, but you want to sit with your partner. No problem, attach your object and have your partner sit with you. Then you could use NPose to adjust things as needed. This way you dont need create permissions to put down a vehicle to do this, its calculated into the attachments and complexity of the avatar Thoughts? I think this could be a very useful tool, but I need more to go off of to create a solid Feature Request.

hmm, that interesting. True animations are client side, but they also have no bearing on physics. so animations shouldnt be the reason that an avatars position cant be tracked. but at this point im speculating since I havent played with the code base. Thank you for the information.

this just seems like such a useful tool compared to the 'vehicles' and trying to line up physics by adding more physics. Is this a limitation in the Second life engine? is it possible to request it as a feature?

Hello, I dont know if this is the correct forum for this question. If not please move it to the correct one. I want to 'carry' another avatar. Whether this be in my arms, or on my back should not matter. My thinking was that I could have an object that you can sit on and wear it. Then either the other avatars sits on it, maybe it has a poseball, or perhaps you ask permission to 'grab' them. Or maybe you use rlv to capture them. regardless of how, I was wondering how to go about doing this? or is there a function in LSL that forces an avatar to a particular point (specifically relative to another avatar). From that point, then you could use something like Npose to add a simple pose. I have found other ways that people do this in the marketplace. One is a hug that applies a force to an avatar to keep them close, then just plays a pose. This seems like a flimsy way to do it. I have also seen 'vehicles' but those are, frankly, extremely limited in many many ways. Surly there is a better way than this.

both answers make perfect sense. Thank you for the depth and detail. Also I didnt really understand the implications of "dead avatar", thank you for clarifying in addition to my original question.

Hello! I found a sim with some really cool items. I was drawn there looking for a specific one. However when I went to look up the owner Avatar, their message board was filled with angry caps saying "dont buy" and "they will 'rip you off'". people replied saying that you need to understand what happens when an Avatar goes dead before buying from them. So what is the deal? if you buy from them, do you get the items? where does the L$ go? Why does something like a private region remain up when the Owner Avatar is dead?