BriannaLovey

lmao true

Machine learning is able to deduce the sex of a person relatively accurately. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949719123000158 This could be used to monitor all IM sessions on SL, and create watchlists for manual review. Additionally, the safety of SL could be increased by mandating real life ID in order to sign up at all, and to subject every male to a psychological test in order to determine predisposition to pedophilia. This would make SL very safe I think. LL should definitely do something like this, and more.

lol maybe. But Sansar rendered at about 4 FPS for me when I tried it, and SL runs at 60 when I lower the graphics settings enough.

And if it didn't work out of the box (I.E. being too performance demanding,) there was nothing that could be done to fix it.

The way I would implement is to automatically set PBR objects as transparent, so that if you suddenly collide with large invisible PBR objects, you will be able to tell that it is there if you enable visibility of transparent objects. But there are better options than this as a feature, as I stated above.

Lets hear them then. Give us a logical reason why someone would want to sell their stuff as "no modify," other than "sell colors separately, and sell fatpack and higher price." That one at least makes sense business-wise.

I will add it to my list of features for future Arkstorm versions 😄 In the meantime, you can use Cool VL Viewer, which allows you to render an approximation of PBR materials as textures while PBR mode is disabled.

Way to totally misinterpret the nature of what I said. Why do I even waste my time here?

That is one thing we will never agree on then. The most widely used proprietary operating system (which has a recent history of not obeying user privacy settings by the way) is introducing a feature that will OCR scan everything you do on your computer and store it in plaintext. The most widely used open-source operating system does not have this massive security vulnerability, because people have always been able to fork it and revert any invasive changes. Centralized control over software may sound nice and convenient at first, but will inevitably result in really bad things happening.

I am mainly referring to software written in real life, but what I said also applies to LSL. Assuming someone isn't monetizing their script, there is no good reason to not make it open-source. "Control" is just an excuse for the creator's self-destructive ego.

Right, I forgot the absolutely stupid practice of controlling how the end user uses your product. I guess I just have trouble comprehending it.

I will be sure to add those if I go that route then. Thanks for the info 😄

It was about me reverse-engineering a texture hud to change the texture on a piece of no-mod clothing via scripts. The real life equivalent would be buying a phone and changing the operating system on it by using an exploit to unlock the bootloader. There is no benefit to keeping your code private, unless 1) You monetize it directly (example: Adobe's entire software suite) 2) It is malware (examples: [redacted]) 3) Your code is messy, and you are embarrassed about it (example: the leaked Windows XP source code.) 4) Your code relies on an exploit that can be patched if made public, in which case it is probably malware anyways. If none of these are true, you are shooting yourself in the foot by keeping your code private.

Who knows. It is fully open source. If you are concerned about me putting backdoors inside it, you are free to look at the code yourself.

I am just going to start blocking gifposters from now on. They are extremely annoying.

Yes, creating a new viewer from scratch is beyond my ability. The 6.6.17 fork is a temporary measure, as 6.6.17 will be too hard to maintain once more new features start appearing. After that, my project will take one of two directions: 1) put the Cool VL Viewer rendering code inside Firestorm 2) Fork Cool VL Viewer, and modify the UI to be more like mainstream viewers. I am currently experimenting with both options; so far, the second has proven to be easier. If people didn't have massive baby duck syndrome about Firestorm's UI, I would just tell them to use Cool VL Viewer. But they do, which is why I started working on this at all.

It is here: https://codeberg.org/arkstormdev/arkstorm-viewer There are no binaries yet. Firestorm's build system automatically attaches metadata about your system to the viewer binaries when you build them, and I am still figuring out how to disable this, as I don't want any part of my identity leaking to people using it. Once I get that sorted out, I will publish builds as soon as possible.

I wasn't talking about the current objects, but about future glTF objects. I have looked at the SL viewer code though, and it seems they plan to (for now at least) use the current mesh format that already exists for glTF scenes.

So either SL dies or it gets morphed into something completely different from what the current users expect from the platform, and dies shortly thereafter. Sounds like a lot of content that people spent tons of money on getting purged forever. Does this make you happy?

That is correct. That doesn't mean there will still be problems with being able to modify them. See...

Hopefully that is the case. What will really matter is whether or not there will be a fully functional menu to edit this new type of object inworld, given the fundamental differences between it and existing objects in SL.

You said texturing, but I am sure you meant to say "applying your own custom glTF-compliant materials created in Substance Painter, a proprietary subscription software that costs $50/month"

And if it doesn't sell well, it will not appear inworld nearly as frequently. The stuff that sells will be the stuff occupying all the sims we visit. It isn't just about our own creativity. At least with mesh we could delink it, recolor it, and do many other things with it. It sounds as if glTF scenes will be completely prefabricated, with no option of modifying them inworld. Sansar didn't go very well, and neither will Sansar 2.0 here.

Maybe that is the wrong word then. I am not sure what to call someone who adores the separation of production and consumption into different castes like this.

Contact me inworld, if possible. I remembered it is more productive to plan amongst ourselves than it is to try to argue with bootlickers.