Wulfie Reanimator

Technically/realistically speaking, no sim can override SL's TOS. However, assault / harassment isn't really a thing if it's something that's being actively participated in by everybody involved. (Eg. You type "combat" into seach, go to a military sim, and start flailing a gun around. You can't then start filing Abuse Reports about anybody that shoots you repeatedly. Especially because dying sends your avatar home, and if your home is in the combat sim, you're implicitly actively participating in it.)

You can certainly wear all your old system layers, including system clothing layers, and have them show up on your mesh avatar. That's how it works and it's a personal choice. But, all of the mesh avatars I'm aware of have distinctly pronounced nips/vag, so those would stay very noticeable "under" your system layers. It'd make for a very convincing naked full-body-paint look. But again, see: https://community.secondlife.com/knowledgebase/english/bakes-on-mesh-r1512/ http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Release_Notes/Second_Life_Project_BakesOnMesh/5.1.3.513936 At no point in that project page are the "old/legacy system layers or content" mentioned as a benefit or as of importance. Also, no, you cannot "map the SL UV to another UV." (Okay you kinda can, but more on that..) The mesh is what contains the UV (or "texture layout") information and it's practically impossible to get the UV mapping exactly matched on two different mesh models. You can get close by having your model overlap another in Blender, then "transferring UV maps," but this is only an approximation because it compares the closest points of the model, even if they are far apart from each other, which causes unavoidable alignment/stretching issues that get worse the more different the two models are.

I believe the primary benefit of BOM is the reduction in texture usage for avatars, leading into better viewer performance. As others and myself have pointed out, old textures don't really work for current mesh avatars because the UV layout is not exactly the same, which shows up as misaligned nails, nips, and seams. Old textures are also 512x512, not the new maximum of 1024x1024. Being able to wear your old system layers is a side-effect seen as a benefit, but it was not the primary intention.

Yes. With emails enabled, the messaging system will send the messages before they are forgotten. This way the messages are stored in your email instead of the messaging system (thus costing nothing to LL). This is why I'm hoping the new Premium tier will split the current Premium perks rather than adding too many more things on top (and being even more expensive). Ideally, you would get to choose any number of all of the features you want and after you've picked past a certain point, the tier/price goes up.

What you call "an offline IM" and what LL refers to as "offline IM cap" are two distinctly separate things that are easy to define. The limit change, which is what prompted the question in this thread, was about the number of messages stored for later delivery. Not IM-to-Email.

I don't feel like the other responses are explicit enough about what "Offline IMs" actually are, so here: If somebody sends you an IM while you are offline, the messaging system "remembers" it until you do log in, and then all of those saved messages are delivered to you again. If you've reached your Offline IM cap, any further IMs will not be stored and you'll never receive them.

I believe nothing will happen to the Experience or the scripts running on that Experience. You just won't be able to compile new (or recompile old scripts) for the Experience. I don't know if Experience can be transferred (doubt it), or if you can compile scripts for it with another Premium (but it would make sense if you could).

Actually, moving an avatar can be done from an attachment, and it has to be done with respect to physics specifically. http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/LlMoveToTarget When a script in an attachment uses that function, the avatar will be moved in a straight line towards the target position. Generally speaking, the avatar will be blocked by solid objects and would get stuck on a wall if it was in the way. This answer is probably not useful for @Jeremy Aie though, unless he knows how to write a script. If he wants to try, there's a scripting forum here with lots of helpful people.

Two important things to note: Only a sith deals in absolutes. Second Life is a luxury. If living paycheck-to-paycheck is your reality, paying for Premium on SL should not even be a consideration.

You're being hysterical, in both senses of the word.

Maybe not, but it has almost covered the cost of Premium up until this price increase. A year of Premium was $72, while 53 weeks of L$300 is L$15900 or $63, +$7 (1024sqm) free tier, and the other perks.

I don't think you can call it "bait and switch" when you pay X for Y, and get exactly Y. The fact that the price has changed after you've paid, but you don't have to pay for the difference or lose anything, you haven't been baited into anything. It's like saying "the grocery store raised the price on this [delicious food item] I bought last week, what a scam!!" Especially when considering how LL is giving people the option to extend their current Premium with the old rate even after the new rate has been announced seems pretty anti-bait-and-switch.

I've edited the main post to further clarify. They're doing the sensible thing and actually dealing with the issue rather than regressing basic accounts.

Thank you, @Linden Lab. Edit: This is the actual Featured News post announcing the new decision:

@Sunbleached That's good to hear, but what was the change that fixed the issue?

Do you have a link to the JIRA for that, out of curiosity? But I just tested having no transparency and no luck -- first touch after re-attaching is still ignored very often.

I've taken a look at the HUD that was given to me (exact same script as in the OP), and I'm just very confused. So after the HUD has been clicked (received folder, HUD flips around to reveal the close button) and detached, the HUD will sometimes require two clicks instead of one to react and unpack. After only adding a couple llOwnerSay debug messages (one to each event), it happens very rarely, maybe once every 10 times. (Without the debug messages, it happens at the rate of about 30-50%.) When it happens with the debug messages, the touch_start event just never triggers the first time the HUD is attached again after detaching. This doesn't happen during the forced delay from llGiveInventoryList because I wait for the HUD to turn around (after the delay) before detaching it. Edit: I looked at the "Scripts Run %" of the sim I'm in (mainland) and I think this might explain it. It's hovering around 39-51% scripts run. I'm unsure why adding llOwnerSay would make such a big difference, though. Edit 2: I spoke to OP, and the problems occur even in a sim with 100% scripts run.

Send your HUD to me full-perm, I guess. I'll look at it tomorrow. As it stands, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the script you've posted here. Also:

Sorry, I should've addressed you too. Firstly, in the run_time_permissions event, right now you're just starting one animation and then the next. A single script can only hold animation permissions for one avatar at a time, so you'd have to either request permission to animate each avatar on llAvatarOnLinkSitTarget before playing their respective animations, or you'd need a second script to control the other sitter. Secondly, like Innula pointed out, you need to set the sit targets for links 1 and 2, not 0 and 1 as they are technically the same prim. Thirdly, in the changed event, the script is only checking for one avatar to unseat. If there are two avatars sitting on the object, only one of them (the last to sit, I believe) will be detected and unseated.

It's more of a "yes and no." You can have multiple avatars sit on a single prim (try stretching a cube), but you can't have multiple sit-targets for a single prim. That said, you don't need a sit-target to move/rotate an avatar, you can treat the avatar as a regular link in that aspect. The problems arise when the object is a weird shape (or inside another solid object where you'll get the "no room to sit here" error) and you won't be able to sit on the object at all without a sit-target.

Huh. The misconceptions we live with. 😄 Thanks, I read the other half of the wiki and did a little test and you're absolutely correct. I like covering all corner-cases I can think of. If the user rezzes the HUD, I don't want it to start unpacking because someone else clicked on it -- even if that is very unlikely. (Expect the unexpected, always.) To explain the bit of code you showed, it's very deliberate. "If this HUD is attached" Request permission to attach (required for detaching) PERMISSION_ATTACH is auto-granted for attached objects Because this HUD is attached, we're guaranteed to have the permission and don't need to wait for the run_time_permissions event Detach this HUD The HUD is attached from inventory again run_time_permissions event begins to process "if PERMISSION_ATTACH was granted" (true) Attach this HUD to Center An attachment cannot be attached again, the function fails silently I've tested this in-world.

Thank you. Since you're also in the EU, what about your welfare systems? Don't they supplement your income if you make that little? I live off of less than about $600 for essentials (rent/food) per month. One-person apartment. Anything beyond that I save for a bad day. You're right, I don't understand. If you're using SL as your tool to survive, I would imagine you'd start scouting for possible jobs before you're at the very limit of what you can do. Even $60 is a lot, I know because I very often put off buying games because $60 is more than I'll probably get out of it and I don't want to take that risk. So I save that $60 so I can live a little more comfortably and these decisions stack up. Soon I'll find I've saved a lot of money over the month, each month, and I have a healthy buffer between my balance and 0. If I was steadily losing money or hovering near 0, where a $60 monthly loss is putting me into a panic, I would be looking for as many ways as I can to make more than I do now. Sure, the thought of "how high will they go" is scary, but if you take a realistic look at your financial situation right now and determine that you can't take, say, a move from 5 to 7%, I would make preparations now and not wait for it to happen. And if it never happens? At least you have a safety net.

Without knowing your RL situation -- look for another (possibly supplemental) job opportunity. When people say "2.5% is too much or is going to ruin creators!!!" it sounds ridiculous, because it implies a lot of ridiculous things. Do they only care about every cent and not the platform they're on? Are they living on the bleeding edge of their income, struggling every day? Why is SL their only income? Are they unable to find another source of income? While a combination of those things (and others) might apply to some people, I can't imagine it being anywhere as near as big of a majority as people are making it out to be. This is why I'm asking for someone to give some kind of a concrete example. How much are you cashing out? How often? (And most importantly:) How much of a difference does the 2.5% actually make in the total you get into your bank account? I understand these are pretty personal questions, but it's very difficult to relate when all you hear is "the sky is falling, believe me."

I'm trying to understand.

As said in the official news post, no groups will be removed, but you will not be able to join new groups until you are below the new maximum limit.