Jump to content

Galathir Darkstone

Resident
  • Posts

    213
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

3 Neutral
  1. Thanks, KT and Nova. Both of those are approaches I hadn't considered... and pretty that's pretty much exactly what I hoped for posting here! Time to go poke around and see if I can trim some fat off a script =)
  2. In the huds I make, I make liberal use the llDetectedTouchST() function. In general, I then check to see if that touch happened within the area of a button on the HUD texture. I'm curious to see if there is a way to write that function that uses less overhead. I'm almost certain one or more of you will have a better way to do it, given all the smarts I see in this forum. So... Here is an example of how I use in the touch_start() event: if (isVectorInArea(<0.01, 0.19, 0.00>,vTouchedAt,<0.03, 0.14, 0.00>)){llSetLinkColor(iMemory1,vRGBActive,0);} //save1 And here's my function: integer isVectorInArea(vector UL, vector test, vector LR){ if (((test.x >= UL.x && test.x <= LR.x)||(test.x >= LR.x && test.x <= UL.x)) && ((test.y <= UL.y && test.y >= LR.y)||(test.y <= LR.y && test.y >= UL.y)) ){return TRUE;} else {return FALSE;} } Note I prefer to not have to figure out ahead of time if the X an Y in one vector are smaller than the X an Y in the second vector.. .because sometimes a face might be rotated on the prim or mesh, making the 0,0 coordinate in somewhere other than the lower left corner Anyway... if anyone has a more concise way to accomplish the same thing, I'd appreciate the feedback/suggestion. Thanks.
  3. It is intensely frustrating to see a market change of this magnitude and not hear anything about it from the Lindens. In the past, they has expressed that their target valuation for the Linden was 250L/USD. I was also under the impression that LL stabilized the Exchange Rate. That certainly no longer seems to be the case. I'll admit that I was in a bit of a panicked fluster over the whole deal, since I earn my income in LL (which allows me to stay home and care for my Disabled wife), but after digging around for a few hours, I gather that something similar happened back in 2006 (which was the year before I started SL). Also, it looks like some of the savvier brains that watch this kind of thing predicted this kind of market change when the Buy Down offer was made last month.So just maybe this isn't a reason to immitate Chicken Little. But that doesn't make it any less frustrating in the short term, when income is reduced by some 6% in a few weeks to circumstances completely beyond our control. Nor does it make it any less scary while the value of the L$ continues to drop... while LL says absolutely nothing. I'm still trying to decide if what concerns me the most is that a few days ago when the weakest open sell order was for 257L/USD, there was roughly 160 Million L$ worth of open sell orders for over 250L/USD (i.e. 251L or more per USD)... and that today when the weakest open sell order is at 265L/USD, there is still roughly 160 Million L$ worth of open sell orders for over 250L/USD. Does that show returning stability? Or does that show that much of the same currency is still crawling down in value as folks try to sell it? Sure would be nice if LL would at least comment. Maybe tell us about volumes of L$ moving... and give us some kind of picture about this being a big sell off period... or larger volume orders due to the fee changes... or something. (editing for crappy spelling... I need more caffiene)
  4. This cintinued drop IS certainly alarming. But not as alarming as any response from LL about this "fluctuation." In the past, LL has beena stabilizing force, keeping changes in the valuation of the Linden relatively constant in the short term, even if it did change over time. The strength of the L$ vs USD has weakened more in the last 2 weeks than it has the entire time I've been in SL (since 2007). a ~6% DROP in value in such a short time should be addressed by LL.
  5. Overall, I like the changes being made to item association for the SLMP. But let's not kid ourselves, this is NOT Viewer Management. This is ONLY about item association. I was -very- disappointed when I realized that description fields, documents, and images would all still be "Managed" exactly the same way they have been for some time now. WIll item association be easier? Especially when it comes to changing it? Yes. Bravo for that. Qualified by the issues on the Jira, of course, most notable to my mind (right now) being that items are moved into the VMM folder instead of copied... with no notification, I might add... and then are simply vanished from creation if you happen to delete them while they are there. That certainly doesn't seem consistent with other inventory behavior. If VMM folders are "In inventory" then deleted items should go to the Trash. If they are are not "In inventory" then we should be prompted (with a toggle to turn it off) to warn us they are being moved. Or better yet... they should be Copied, with a prompt to move if Copy perms are lacking. Additionally, I wanted to say bravo for the work at more open communication, and having some half donzen Lindens at the meeting. It reminded me of days gone by, when the Lab really seemed interested in the community it serviced. I hope that is a sign of continued positives on that front. I do hope that LL will take other input as seriously as they seem to be taking that of 3PV developers.
  6. I'm going to go ahead and necro post here because this little tip from Drongle is -extremely- useful. I only wish I had found it before I started removing edge loops from my current project early on. Dissolve is the way to go... and is -certainly- and excellent reason for bumping to 2.63! (I was already on 2.62, but went ahead and dove into the 2.64 test build purely to get access to Dissolve. My oh my what headaches this would have save me as I uvmapped the early parts of this project!) Thanks, Drongle!
  7. In all seriousness and with no malice or disrespect intended, your opening line highlights the reason you don't understand the "Why?" -> "I have no knowledge of the actual process of making mesh clothing" There is no mechanic in place for the body shape deformations to be copied from the avatar to the rigged mesh. Hence the need for Qarl's deformer... or something similar (for any interested, you might want to have a look at this thread on SL Universe: http://www.sluniverse.com/php/vb/content-creation/73983-alternative-mesh-deformer.html ). The short answer is that it is possible to have software automatically adjust the rigged mesh, but necessary elements aren't in place yet, and even when they are, there will be limitations in how well the rigged mesh will adjust depending on how different the rigged mesh is contructed compared to how the SL Avatar is constructed. This is a fundmental limitation when dealing with digital objects that have very finite vertices, vs the real life comparison, where human bodies and fabric have many, many, many more 'vertices.' Not to mention fabric in RL clothing can slip on a human body, while rigged mesh certainly cannot on an SL avatar... it really only stretches based on bone weighting.
  8. Sounds like the simplest solution here (assuming the planet is just a sphere) is to just rotate the linkset the direction you want the moon to orbit in, using whatever method you want, then just use a smooth scrolling texture animation on the planet to make it look like it's rotating in the opposite direction. You could do the whole deal with like 2 function calls and negligable server lag that way.
  9. I'm going to have to throw in a big thank you for mentioning this function, Nexii! I don't know if you helped the OP, but this was a very timely reminder for me You rock! edit: because I'm a dork and used the OPs name in my thank you that was meant for Nexii
  10. Ela, I'm going to start off by saying that I've grown to expect this kind of arrogant reply to you, even when you're wrong. So, in the vein of "Why don't you try yourself both ways and see how memory usage differs? I'm not gonna run tests for you," I'm going to suggest "Why don't you read and comprehend an entire post before offering a snappy retort that was uncalled for." In general, when someone asks a pool of people with knowledge to share some of that knowledge, they assume someone already knows the answer. I didn't expect anyone to "run tests for me." Thank you, however, for actually answering part of the question after being a smart alec about it. Next time 'll be sure to add a qualification to my query to avoid any confusion: "This is not a request for Ela Talaj to run tests for me."
  11. Thanks, Peter. I appreciate the reply. You seem to be of the same mind I am on the whole thing, and more than anything I suppose I was looking for a second programmer's opinion on things. it's much appreciated. In this case, the other work I've done cleaning up the code is making memory a non-issue, so I suspect I'm planning on dropping a function in for exactly the reason you cited: it's far easier to make single changes than multiples.
  12. Greetings, folks. Quick memory question: If I have repeated calls (a dozen or more) in a script to make a link message like this: llMessageLinked(LINK_THIS, LINK_SECURE_MENU_REQUEST, SCRIPT_IDENTIFIER+menuParams, id);where the only variables are menuParams & id, is there anything to ge gained or lost memory-wise by setting up a function like requestMenu(string menuParams, key id){ llMessageLinked(LINK_THIS, LINK_SECURE_MENU_REQUEST, SCRIPT_IDENTIFIER+menuParams, id); } and calling that instead? It would make the code easier to read in the event handlers (most of these calls would be made as a result of incoming link message events), but since I still have to pass the 2 variables, I would guess that I'd actually be using slightly more memory by using a function. I'm on a bit of a bent cleaning up my code and making more of an effort to meet some kind of standards *rolls eyes at self*. So even considering the (lack of) memory issue, Would you consider it a better or worse move to use the function? Thanks, in advance, for entertaining my silly question.
  13. Pardon my misinterpretation of the documentation. What Marcus said is correct. At the time I posted, I was fairly livid with frustration, since it appeared -NONE- of my listings were going to auto-update. Some did, eventually. That said, I still think the 100 item limit is incredibly foolish to have in place during this process... ESPECIALLY with the delay in listings updating... ESPECIALLY while SLMP performance is so... "below par" (nominates that quote for understatement of the year).
  14. So... I open up my Magic Box and start dragging the contents into my Merchant Outbox. Everything seems fine, until I hit that Send to Marketplace button... and -some- of the folders disappear. Upon investigating, even though the popup said "All folders sent successfully" turns out they weren't. So I click it again... THEN get the error message with the Check Log link and find this 100 unassociated item limit. Fan. Tas. Tic. I'm just going to go on record here and say that this limit is a major hassle for me in this migration. Because I've regularly updated my items and changed the listings manually (and/or because my listings' titles are not the same as the item inventory name), every single Item I send up via the Merchant's Outbox winds up unassociated... which means I have to piecemeal this whole cursed process: Send some up... change listing associations (by hand. What FUN!)... back into SL to send more up... rinse and repeat. All I can say at this point is I am darned HAPPY I haven't bothered to get all of my store items listed on the MP before now.
×
×
  • Create New...