Timothy McGregor

Disagree. I've lived on the Mainland for two years now, on a Linden roadway, and those vehicles are one of the only things that give life to an otherwise dead environment. She should make bunnies and squirrels as well, and birds. Cute flying birds. Well, see, I think flying penises give life to an otherwise dead environment. But if I were to set those off into the wild, such that they indiscriminately flew into people's homes or piled up at sim borders, and generally littered every single sim with crashed inoperative flying penises, I'd be considered a griefer. AnnMarie OToole is a griefer.

Pussycat Catnap wrote: Zaphod Kotobide wrote: In your opinion, they add value. In my opinion, and that of many others, they are a nuisance, an eyesore and a blight on the mainland. Oh and by the way, I was literally run off my land and shoved a sim away by one of them. How? They lack the ability to force you to sell your land and then buy it from you, so they cannot run you off your land. Set an auto-return, and they won't collect there. As for push, just disable push on your land, OR turn off object entry. - These are various setting that are best left off anyway, to prevent griefers from using your land as a staging point. Why should I have to do any of that? I have reasons for not wanting auto return on, and object entry on. My avatar was standing just in front of my land, on Linden roadway, when it was pushed out into the next sim, roughly a full sim distance.I'm not going to change the way I do things to accomodate this garbage. Anyone else who created thousands upon thousands of objects and released them out onto the mainland to run unattended and at such a level of general annoyance to the community would be summarily banned as a griefer. Why does AnnMarie get a pass here? Her vehicles are a nuisance, and she is a griefer, if anyone else is.

Pussycat Catnap wrote: I love these vehicles. They have been great sources of exploring mainland and finding unexpected gems. All one has to do to keep them off one's land is set an autoreturn. Something that should be done anyway, to prevent more intentional sources of mischief. Anyone who claims to have been run off their land by these things is seriously iconoclastic or foolish (or both). They give a lot of addec community value, at nearly no cost. Keep up the good work. In your opinion, they add value. In my opinion, and that of many others, they are a nuisance, an eyesore and a blight on the mainland. Oh and by the way, I was literally run off my land and shoved a sim away by one of them.

So when I went back to the SL viewer after posting that last comment, I found myself quite a distance away from where I had been standing. Well played, AnnMarie. Well played. :manlol:

Must be a lot of sim crossing bugs lately, as these are piling up virtually everwhere. I asked her to come remove a stack of them last night, and she did, except she deliberately LEFT the ice cream truck there. Nuisance: one that is annoying, unpleasant, or obnoxious : pest That includes unattended vehicles that drive daily through my living room.

Looks like I might be able to avoid all of these little quirks by using llSetKeyFramedMotion(). Playing around with that now with promising results.

At no point was I giving ZERO_VECTOR to llSetRot(). As far as I know, that wouldn't even compile. What Rolig pointed out was all correct, but unrelated to my quandary. However, in Catznip R7 Oct 23 2012 19:54:00 (Catznip Release) it stops the rotation but doesn't return the apparent rotation to ZERO_ROTATION. Is that what you're getting? Yes. In the current release of Phoenix. Nudging slightly off zero and then back to zero produces the result I expected from just explicitly calling llSetRot with zero rotation. But it isn't very pretty to watch. In the end, this is really just a moderate aesthetic issue, not a show stopper. I'll play around and see what I can come up with.

Rolig Loon wrote: ZERO_VECTOR is not a rotation. ZERO_ROTATION is, though. ZERO_ROTATION sets the object with its Z-axis vertical and its +X axis aligned with global East. If you are using ZERO_VECTOR in llTargetOmega, then you are turning the spinning off. It has the same effect as setting the gain to zero. All true. But targetomega wants a vector, and indeed all I am aiming to do in that call is stop the spinning.Subsequently, I'd like to figure a way to reconcile its actual rotation between the clients and the region.

That's what I'm seeing. I realize the effect is client side in this case, but still it was throwing me off that even after the rotation stopped, editing the piece showed what it had rotated to at the point I stopped it. Even though in reality it was still on zero. The issue comes in when I stop this thing, and walk across it. There are things linked to it that I'm bumping into when it appears I'm walking through empty space, but in reality there's an object sitting there in its original position. Now that I understand completely what's happening here I'll have to try and figure out an elegant way to deal with that. It doesn't appear that there is much that can be hoped for though since the server has no idea where it is, and it's different on each client. Nudging it as you suggest sure works, but it's not particularly graceful from a visual standpoint.

Interestingly, if I put any rotation other than ZERO_VECTOR in there, it does work. I can turn it any which way except on ZERO.

I didn't think to check with the LL viewer. I'll do that.

Firestorm 4.2.2 (29837)

integer turning; stop() { llTargetOmega(ZERO_VECTOR, 0, 0); turning = FALSE; llSetRot(<0,0,0,1.0>); // This doesn't work. Why? } start() { llTargetOmega(llRot2Up(llGetLocalRot()),0.2, 0.1); turning = TRUE; } default { state_entry() { stop(); } touch_start(integer num) { if (llDetectedKey(0) == llGetOwner()) { if (turning) { stop(); } else { start(); } } } }

So the language they use in their billing period explanation really should be "prior 30 days" and not prior "month", which might suggest calendar month. Thanks Daniel.

Maybe this has been asked a thousand times already, maybe not.. I am trying to understand what the specific billing period for land use fees actually is. My next bill date is October 19 according to my account information. Does this mean that if I sell my mainland properties and reduce my tier accordingly on or before October 18, my next billing cycle will reflect my new tier selection and land holdings? Or is tier billed based on peak land use inside any given month, regardless of the date of billing? Anyone?

8192M2 property for sale in Samoa on the old continent. Frequently trafficked area, near Ross Infohub and just a few minutes walking distance from Waterhead and other historic locations. Over 100 meter stretch of protected roadside-adjacent land gives your business or attraction broad exposure along a well traveled road. L$9,999 or best offer. Must offload by end of day October 18, and I'd really hate to abandon it to the Guv. Visit location for details.

I reckon then that "Live Str.e.a.m" <- remove dots was another one? Can't say that either. Dilbert Dilweg wrote: Cerise Sorbet wrote: It is probably a filter left over from when the TV spammer was pummeling this forum hard. Yes that is pretty much why. Dr Who was one of the spamming titles

Keep in mind that while you can get as creative as you want with representing your RL business in-world, the Marketplace is not as accomodating. Marketplace products and services must be primarily related to Second Life - you cannot sell your real world products and services through the Marketplace.

A good way to do this is to use states. If you can post the script that you have here, it would be much easier to help you with this..

I didn't get the sense that Qie was necessarily defending the vehicles in a broad sense, just responding to the suggestion that they're not helpful in identifying bugs. He correctly pointed out that they are, as any such thing would be that utilizes physics and crosses sims as frequently as these vehicles do. I do not care for them or appreciate them, personally. But I do have to give her credit for keeping meticulous track of their behavior, and the issues they encounter with physics and sim crossings. That data cannot be anything but useful to Linden Lab.

The "goal" was revealed in the original post. Not one of the milestones mentioned was an "improved SL". It was a vanity post, as is her "project". It does nothing to improve Second Life. It does more to irritate residents than much else. You say it's been a long running project. I say it's been a long running nuisance. Knowl Paine wrote: Many of the comments here are accurate descriptions of Resident experiences. I would find great difficulty in attempting to dispute that. I have witnessed progress, and improvement in the automated vehicles. This has been a long running project, and AnneMarie has remained diligent in pursuit of the goal; an improved SL. All of the problems discussed (aside from the ugly garbage truck) would occur if Any vehicle drove by. The reasons "why", are discussed here at the Forum almost weekly. This project can lead to improvements that may benefit all Residents. Fix the roads, not the users

It's certainly a good case for having another look at group permissions, and perhaps adding a bit more granularity to them. Perrie Juran wrote: My apologies.....I did not realize that 'share with group' allowed the edit permissions. Learn something new every day. I hope the person who did this was removed from the group.

The objects at the bazaar are necessarily shared with the group, in order to facilitate management of the location. Why did it take someone else to fix it? Well, it really didn't. I could just as well have taken the initiative and removed the offending scripts from all of the items myself, but that would have been tantamount to cleaning up a crime scene before the cops got there to investigate. Lindens can see things that I can't, and in the end it wouldn't have been very helpful for me to have done so. Perrie Juran wrote: Zaphod Kotobide wrote: Just a general heads-up to everyone who offers free items at Stillman. As I was checking my transaction logs I noted that one of the items I have at the bazaar had its name changed. Upon examination I noted that somebody had added some "vendor" scripts to the item. The scripts were added on September 1. They are no mod and I have no idea what they actually do, but they do request debit permissions when you rez the item, so they could be malicious and potentially drain the accounts of innocent freebie shoppers. The scripts are present in numerous items at the bazaar that have been shared with the group. If you've got free items there, I strongly recommend that you go have a look at them. The name of the script is "Updater Vendor System". It is impossible for me to know what actually is in the script, or who is responsible for them being in the bazaar items, but it appears to have been done on 9/1/2012. I and a couple others have AR'd a couple of the items, but so far I've not seen any action. Meanwhile, people are coming to the bazaar and grabbing stuff, and there's a real potential for them to have Lindens stolen. My bolding above, "As I was checking my transaction logs I noted that one of the items I have at the bazaar had its name changed." I am confused here. Was this an object you own? No one can modify YOUR object unless you granted them edit rights. And why did it take someone else to fix it? WE do know about people rezzing phantom prims in front of vendors to trick people. But you would not be the OWNER and the transaction would not show up in your transaction log unless you happened to purchase from it. IF SOMEONE ACTUALLY ADDED A SCRIPT TO AN OBJECT THAT YOU OWNED, then you need to file a security JIRA detailing the incident. Your post does read like you are talking about one of your own vendors.

And in practical terms, the bazaar being a collaborative effort, it's a necessary evil. Traditionally it has relied on the honesty of those in the group, and there have been very few problems arising out of it. In fact, this is the first issue I'm aware of, at least in the 4 years or so I've been sharing content there. Cerise Sorbet wrote: All along, they have been specifically requesting that people enable "share with group" on donated items. LL's rationale is -- "When you set out your item please tick the box for 'share with group' this allows us to move it if need be without claiming ownership." Naturally, many donors will have done it exactly how LL requested.

Reruns! Dillon Levenque wrote: I'm sure that you can't possibly be old enough to remember that program. Me neither :smileywink: