Madelaine McMasters

Hi JuC, LL just finished some unscheduled maintenance... https://status.secondlifegrid.net Try logging in again. And make a habit of checking that link when you're having issues.

Pussycat Catnap wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Sassy Romano wrote: Everything that should have been done from the very beginning. I hope it works better than SSA because for me, i'm still unimpressed the performance reduction that I get, plus instead of Project Interesting, how about Project Please Can We Have Mesh Clothes That Deform Yet? I just tried it on my Mac. Advanced lighting can't be enabled. Oops. I suppose a pre-windlight viewer would be faster... I spent a few minutes with it again. I can't enable anything past "Basic Shaders". When I configure Firestorm about the same way, the "Interesting" viewer does produce slightly higher frame rates. It's not an exhaustive comparison, but with Advanced Lighting unavailable, I've no interesting in "Interesting".

https://status.secondlifegrid.net There is unscheduled maintenance underway. When weird stuff like this happens, it's a good idea to check that status page.

Nuhai Ling wrote: Neat pic, makes me feel like part of the universe! But um... which dot in particular? ;-)

Ain't nature grand, Dil? And from that li'l blue dot, we can now see this... http://www.nbcnews.com/science/outburst-lights-comet-ison-its-now-visible-naked-eye-2D11591258

I'm on a Mac, Sassy. My Activity Monitor shows 17 threads running, though I can't tell whether they're distributed across multiple cores. My Mac generally won't spin up additional cores unless the OS calculates that'll result in improved performance, as it must shut down Turbo clocking when all four cores are active. I just loaded the "Project Interesting" viewer, which won't do advanced lighthing, even though it's using at least 50% more compute power than the old viewer to do exactly the same thing. I did see the CPU meter spike over 100% for the first time in my years of watching SL activity, so Dres' claim that SL can now run on multiple cores may be evidenced in this new viewer. Although it's also possible that a process can go over 100% if only two cores are active and Turbo is on. @Monty, Advance lighting doesn't work on the Mac version of the Project Interesting Viewer.

Sassy Romano wrote: Everything that should have been done from the very beginning. I hope it works better than SSA because for me, i'm still unimpressed the performance reduction that I get, plus instead of Project Interesting, how about Project Please Can We Have Mesh Clothes That Deform Yet? I just tried it on my Mac. Advanced lighting can't be enabled.

The original... The most famous... The most dancin'... The most swingin' (and the ending presages SL ;-)... The most cute...

Good morning, Hippie, Val and the rest of you Kids!!! I got my hair done for the weekend, what do you think?...

Dresden Ceriano wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: SL will use only one CPU core I was under the impression that this, while once so, is no longer the case... when you have multithreading enabled (which is enabled by default with ALM turned on). ..Dres I have ALM enabled on my Mac and don't see my SL CPU usage exceed 100%, which would be two threads on one CPU, although there's no way to know if the 100% I see is split across two CPUs. I have a quad core machine and I've seen my video editing software wind up all four cores, but never SL. I just visited a moderately populated sim and watched my CPU usage run around 60% with a peak at 95%. I'll defer to you on this Dres, as I haven't followed discussions of mullti-threading. Do you (or anyone else? Feel free to join in!) have a performance meter of some kind that can show you CPU usage when you're running SL? I don't know how PC tools would show that, but on a Mac, the meter indicates 100% as being the equivalent of one CPU core, so my Mac's total CPU usage across all processes would never exceed 400%. It would be nice if the tool could show which threads are running on which cores, so there'd be proof that SL was running across multiple CPUs. If SL can now work across multiple cores, the question becomes one of balancing the number of cores it can keep busy against the speed penalty of purchasing four cores on the same budget as two. At the same price, two core machines offer higher clock speeds than four.

Olá cydovysky, Será que você olha em sua pasta "itens recebidos"? Será que você procurar seu inventário por nome para a coisa que você comprou? Se você não recebê-lo, eo criador não responder à sua IM, não há nada que alguém possa fazer. Estamos apenas moradores, como você, e não pode ajudar. Linden Labs não se envolve em assuntos como este. Did you look in your "Received Items" folder? Did you search your Inventory by name for the thing you purchased? If you did not receive it, and the creator does not answer your IM, there is nothing anyone can do. We are just residents, like you, and cannot help. Linden Labs does not get involved in matters such as this.

You might get better bang for your buck from a PC with a faster dual core CPU, rather than the slower quad core unit in your spec list. SL will use only one CPU core, and unless you plan to run several other applications at the same time, the remaining three cores are not likely to have much to do. A dual core processor at the same price might have a faster core clock speed and deliver better performance on the core that's running SL. I also notice that the CPU in your candidate PC is designed for a notebook, which makes me wonder if the power supply in that box won't be too small to handle an eventual upgrade to a whizzy graphics card. And I further wonder if the case will be large enough to accomodate a full size, fat graphics card. Can you provide more information?

Hi Roman, Clearing your cache would actually cause things to rez more slowly as, after you re-log, your viewer will be loading everything anew while you try to rez things. Could you come back and edit your question (via "Options" over there on the right) to give more information? Did anything else change around the time you noticed this increased lag. Are you noticing slow rezzing, or a long delay before the object you try to rez suddenly appears?

Hippie Bowman wrote: Yes Val! Hippie phones UPS and tells the clerk his preference. Tall friendly and hetro! Peace! Here's my preference. It's November and I'm in Wisconsin, tell them to remind her to wear a parka... Hi, Kids!!!

steph Arnott wrote: LOL, I was raised up on a farm, my father teach me all that at 10 as well as gas cutting and stripping an engine down. Woo hoo, Steph! When I'm frustrated, I go out to the barn, fire up the tractor, drive into the woods, push stuff around with the front end loader, then return to the barn and weld back on whatever broke off while I wasn't paying attention. I saved the crankshaft from the first car I ever bought, which lasted 17 years. I tore it apart with the help of the neighbor kid, so he could see all the bits. I needed his muscle, he needed my experience. I plan to make it into a table lamp... after I make the table. ;-)

Hi PeachPie, I'm not sure what you're trying to do, it would be helpful if you returned to edit your question (via "Options" over there on the right) to give more information. That said, I'll guess you are trying to launch the SL Viewer by clicking on a web Second Life URL (SLURL) in Safari. There may have been a problem during installation of the viewer that caused it not to tell your Mac that Safari should handle SLURLs by launching the viewer and passing it the map coordinates. To log into SL, find the viewer application (in your Applications Folder) and double click it to launch. I don't know offhand how tell Safari how to do the right thing when seeing a SLURL. I'll put that on my "to-learn" list. Until then, launch the SL Viewer directly. To make that easier to do from now on, drag the SecondLife Viewer application to your dock. Good luck!

Hi Roan, This sounds like viewer's long standing "interest list" problem, but with a twist. Usually, the invisible bit vanishes for only one person, not everybody. As you've figured out, right clicking where the missing thing should be makes it visible. This problem seems to be getting worse for me as well, and I don't think there's anything to be done about it. Sometimes going into and out of wireframe mode brings everything back. Ctrl+Shift+R does that. I'm still curious about this problem causing bits of you to go unseen by multiple people. My understanding of the "interest list" is that each viewer maintains its own internal list of things it should render because they're in your field of view. There's a long standing problem with maintenance of that list, but that should affect each viewer individually. Good luck!

Steph, given that you are learning a third language by reading instructions written in a second, I'm impressed. Thank you for joining the rest of us girls to show (once again, as Peter reminds us) that we can do more than cook and sew. After you've tackled programming, I suggest you try arc welding. It's fun, it's practical, and it's all sparkly! ;-)

Hey Haeyou, Sometimes, if you resize the viewer window, things end up right at the edge. Get your viewer into full-screen mode, or make it as big as possible, then carefully look around the edge for any hint of the appearance window. It's possible that the window is hiding behind toolbar buttons, try right-clicking on any toolbar button and selecting "icon only" view to make the buttons smaller. The window may then peek out beyond the row of buttons. If you still can't find the window, try dragging the buttons to another edge of the viewer window. Good luck!

I agree, Yingzi. While LSL might not be the starter language for learning to program, I can't imagine a more alluring environment to program in than Second Life. If you want to animate a thing in RL, you're looking at a significant and expensive undertaking in robotics. Here, you can find a quiet corner of SL with build/script permissions and start writing, with no worries of bruising, burning or cutting yourself, or damaging your sofa. And you can share your successes with others at the click of a button. But, as with building a robot, you must be aware of more than just a programming language to make things go. Steph, part of the difficulty you, I and many others have with scripting here is that we're dealing with more than just a language. LSL is an interface to a complex underlying computer simulation, operated on shared hardware with both servers and viewers hopefully cooperating to make it all happen. We eventually have to understand numerous mechanisms at work under the hood to make them do what we want without degrading the experience for others. And understanding that requires leaning not only how to program, but how the servers and viewers work together, and how resources like time, memory and bandwidth are used throughout the system. So you're dealing not only with the art vs. logic of programming, but the art vs. logic of resource allocation in a complex system. If SL is your introduction to computers, it's a doozy. But ain't it fun?

Hi Galaxar, It sounds like your friend's computer is up to the task, so it may be her connection that's getting in the way. Has her recent difficulty coincided with a change in her computer setup, other than your experiment with gestures? If she's on wi-fi, advise her to try a wired connection to her network if possible, or to relocate closer to the router. Here's a link with suggestions for checking/improving the quality of an SL connection... http://blog.nalates.net/2011/10/26/troubleshoot-your-sl-connection/ If you have more information to provide, edit your question via "Options" over there on the right. This will keep our answers all in one place and prevent other people's questions from being pushed off the front page. ETA: I found a thread dealing with large scale gesture problems (though not quite like you've described)... ETA2: I think Rolig has your answer! http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Technical/Broken-links-Gestures-help/qaq-p/2060377 Good luck!

Hi Holsetea, Many have asked this question and I'm going to point you to a few threads containing answers provided by others... http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Linden-Dollars-L/how-do-I-earn-money/qaq-p/2080543 http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Linden-Dollars-L/how-do-i-get-a-job-to-earn-linden/qaq-p/1448139 Good luck!

Rolig Loon wrote: It was a wonderfully easy language to work in, and remarkably transportable. Madelaine McMasters wrote: Fortran (FORmula TRANslator) is (I believe) a nasty computer programming language originally designed for scientific number crunching. I think we've found our battleground, Rolig! ;-)

Fortran (FORmula TRANslator) is (I believe) a nasty computer programming language originally designed for scientific number crunching. I took a course (Compiler Design) intended to teach me how to write a program ( a compiler) that could take a human readable program and convert it into the machine instructions (or something close) that a computer could directly understand. This requires "lexical analysis"... tearing a sentence apart to find the nouns and verbs (the variables and operators) to get at the underlying meaning. There may be no worse computer language for doing this than Fortran, even the latest and greatest version at the time, Fortran 88 (which became a standard in 1988). Because I am fundamentally lazy, generally oppositional, and wary of authority, I refused to use that wretched language to write anything, much less something that wasn't at all like scientific number crunching. My decision was correct. Nobody else in the class got anything to work at all. But they got better grades because they failed "by the book". So, while there might be a right way, and a wrong way to write a program, I don't think you'll ever get any two people to agree on which is which. While they are disagreeing, why not do what you want? ;-)

I got a "D" in my compiler design class because, rather than write a Fortran compiler in Fortran 88 (apparently the only language the professor knew), I wrote an assembler in MATLAB (I needed one for the processor I'd designed in an FPGA). Like some other interpreters, MATLAB can execute variables. So it's possible to co-opt the interpreter's lexical analysis, which I did. Nobody else in the class got anything working, beyond perhaps locating operators and operands. I could have used YACC (Yet Another Compiler Compiler) to do the job as well. Why do unnecessary work? I took my "D" to the engineering school dean and exchanged it for a "B" and a promise to behave, which I kept by leaving school to work full time. Having been bit by the bug of code that can execute variables, I took the next step to writing code that could write variables that were then executed. I thought I'd invented something new, only to discover that self-modifying code had been around forever. I did eventually author digital signal processing routines that ran in slow Flash memory to generate algorithms that ran in fast RAM. if you want to obfuscate code, there's no better way than to not write it until you run it.