Qie Niangao

If you want to be a bit more realistic, clock hands (and gauge needles, etc.) don't actually pivot about their end, exactly, but rather around a point slightly away from the end. That is, a bit of the hand is on the opposite side of the center of the dial from the long part. That's easy to get using "slice" instead of cuts, with a start of maybe 0.45 and an end of 1.0, or something like that. This thread caught my eye because it happens I was just working on a (very strange) clock. In case it's any help, the old telehub builds had a clock with scripts that rotate textures for the hands, but those same time-to-rotation calculations may help with prim hands, too, if necessary. (I ended up doing something completely different, but again, my clock project is very strange.)

Not sure what prompts the doubt about which viewer. What they want you to do is to touch (left click) the object and follow the dialogs from its built-in resize script. It appears you've tried to select it with a right-click and are trying to edit it with the build tool. I don't think that's an option in this case because the object appears to be no-mod, so you'll need to use that resizing script (like it or not).

Orca Flotta wrote: Nvidia = Taiwanese hardware manufacturer of graphic cards That would come as quite a surprise to nVidia's Taiwanese-American CEO, president and co-founder, Jen-Hsun Huang. (Of course, among the many companies that make graphics cards based on nVidia components some are Taiwanese, and I don't know where all nVidia currently has its own chip fabs -- one or more of those may be in Taiwan.) FWIW, Google suggests this eBay offer as a likely candidate for the product here.

Griefer? I dunno. According to that chat log he gave Darling Brody a hard time, which is more like a community service.

LillyBeth Filth wrote: Why don't they keep it simple? 50,000 L$ (Or some other amount that they feel is appropriate) That way, the money can go back into the economy and we ALL benefit. LL will make a 5% back on MP sales which the vast majority of sales are done anyway. EDIT: Or am I being naive? I never was good at maths or economy related things.... lol Would that cause an issue with the worth of the L$? I dunno...shooting from the hip... First off, the 5% Marketplace commission is just laughably low, regardless. It would make sense if there were serious competition, but that's not the case (anymore), so I hope for SL2 they have the good sense to crank that up to at least the industry-standard 30% for app-store like things. But the economics: It's true that pumping L$s into the SL economy stimulates activity, and that's why Premium weekly stipends exist. The thing is, it's a balancing act: as you guessed, if there are extra L$s circulating, they'll lose value, like any RL currency where too much of it has been printed. The reason that doesn't happen with the weekly stipend is that there are a bunch of "sinks" built-in to the economy that remove L$s from circulation (much) faster than they're sourced by stipends. One such sink is upload fees. In fact, the SL economy is balanced such that those sinks are considerably larger than regular sources, so LL sometimes sells L$s on the LindeX when the price of the L$ goes above the target. Hence, giving away L$s would in fact cost LL real money, in the form of lost sales on the LindeX. It's not quite one-to-one. Maybe some of that infusion of excess L$s would be absorbed in real growth to the SL economy. On the other hand, if the infusion were large enough, it would overwhelm the built-in L$ sinks and the L$'s value would decline. (As far as we know, LL never buys on the LindeX to prevent such an event.)

Okay, it's certainly the case that I've tried to use my Experience on parcels before I remembered to enable it for the parcel, so I have no doubt that's how llGetExperienceDetails came to return that code. But that problem has been resolved long ago and everything seems to be working fine, yet I still get that same status code in the details list. Is it supposed to reflect the status of the last Experience-related operation (and thus clear to 0 after success) or is it always the code for the most recent error regardless of when that may have happened? It seems to be behaving a bit like errno but with no way to clear the status.

MBeatrix wrote: Usually you get a "Parcel is full, can not enter parcel" warning. Exactly, Perrie, the same has happened to me too many times. Qie Niangao wrote "once you sit on it the Land Impact doesn't matter anymore. (That is, sat-upon objects do not count against the same 15,000 prim limit per sim, nor parcel limits.)" but my experience tells me something entirely different. Really? I was trying not to complicate things and mention a very old bug that's an exception arising only when crossing a sim boundary directly into a parcel without enough prims. That's supposed to be the only case where the recipient sim will (usually) return the vehicle before it realizes it's a sat-upon vehicle. So if you're seeing that, yeah, sorry; I omitted it on purpose, but that may have been a mistake. If, on the other hand, you're seeing other occasions where sat-upon vehicles are returned (or generate that funky "cannot enter parcel" message) not involving sim crossings, then those may need new jiras. It is definitely not supposed to work that way.

Kelli May wrote: Oh, and of course, it's no-mod so none of this is fixable, and none of the good design components are salvageable for your own build. Probably not what you had in mind, but the thing contains copiable assets in the inventory of its linked components, so I stole some animations, sounds, and particle textures, just in case I ever find a use for them. Otherwise... it's a weird gift, for sure, but it can be rezzed at pretty much any Linden rez zone, and once you sit on it the Land Impact doesn't matter anymore. (That is, sat-upon objects do not count against the same 15,000 prim limit per sim, nor parcel limits.) Also, its sim crossing behaviour doesn't seem worse than other mesh-based physical vehicles I've used. It's true that there's a lot of geometry in that mesh, and some of that must get loaded at sim handoff (so the recipient sim's physics engine knows what to do with the object), but it has very few scripts, and those are the real killers for sim crossings.

If that's true -- and I have no reason to doubt it -- there are some HUD-script-sellers who should be ashamed of themselves. The underlying problem may be that only scammers get into that HUD-selling biz, given that the ultimate resizing script was written by Void Singer (and even it has recently been rendered obsolete when Andrew Linden gave us a built-in solution just as he was leaving for High Fidelity). I really hate "for merchant resale" projects because there's no predicting what all will go wrong when non-scripting creators combine scripts, but otherwise this seems a market in dire need of disruption by free open source software.

gunmaker wrote: perhaps you could direct me to a place they stare at more often? please? Send email from your personal account to soft @ lindenlab.com and include the following keywords: Wilma Steak Knife Amherst zipgun bird dog peapod Wipeout MK-ULTRA

Siemp Bender wrote: If you do not want to buy No Mod Items, you are very limited in using nice builds... That's mostly not correct, and the top-of-the-line creators almost without fail sell only mod-enabled items. And that's especially true of mesh clothing. It's weird that the best creators who had all the most experience with mesh from the times it was in private beta, those creators released their stuff with modify permission. And then something weird happened and the creators who swept in later completely screwed up that market. Maybe they thought that people shouldn't modify weighted mesh because the attached position of it is predetermined, but there are other changes that people want to make. And now, post materials, early no-mod mesh clothes are really dated and obsolete. Short version: You can generally rely on this rule of thumb: if it's no-mod, it's crap.

EDIT: As penance, I went ahead and modified these constants in https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Template:LSL_Constants/Experience_Tools_Errors so they should now correspond to Gypsy's sequence. (Gypsy, sorry, I keep adding tangents onto your threads. :matte-motes-bashful-cute:) Speaking of error codes, llGetExperienceDetails() has been reporting a state of 4 and corresponding state_message of "operation not permitted" ever since somebody said no to it once (or something) despite many intervening successes. Is anything supposed to clear that status back to 0?

Tangentially, I too was playing with teleports and tired of being notified that my object teleported me. Maybe I'm missing it, but I couldn't find a preference to turn off these notifications. Am I the only one who'd use it? (Actually, come to think of it, I was getting pretty annoyed by those notifications in the Cornfield game, but I hate to admit how much I suck at it. :matte-motes-tongue: )

This obsessive preservation of cache is the flip-side of the earlier superstitious obsession of clearing cache at the drop of a hat. If ever one comes across a corrupted cache entry, it is almost certain that there are hundreds of other corrupted entries just waiting to cause mysterious misbehaviour. It's a stinky old cache and it's time to start afresh.

Marishka Ixito wrote: Having read through most posts in the thread, my impression is that many people think LindenLabs will choose an active role when judging what games qualify to be run in a gaming region, and thus kill off those games that are the most popular now because they resemble "gambling" the most, thus creating an opportunity for more truely skill based games to be operated in sl. [...] I agree with most of your analysis: LL doesn't want responsibility for determining whether a game is one of skill or chance. There is, however, a gating decision that Linden Lab cannot leave up to other people's lawyers, and that's whether a thing is even subject to the skill gaming rules at all. They still have to make that determination, so they've not managed to completely shed all liability risk of hosting online gambling. Folks have posed a couple of possibilities that seem like genuine edge cases, and LL would have to judge whether to subject those to "skill gaming" rules. For example, what if all the wagering -- indeed, all the game play, too -- takes place on a website that's only presented on in-world Media On A Prim. Obviously the host of that website is liable in any jurisdiction in which they operate (at least), but what about Linden Lab, for linking to and presenting that site's content (even though, technically, Second Life supplies only the link, not the content)? Another example: what if L$s are paid to gain access to a parcel, not directly into a gaming device on that parcel that sometimes pays out? I think the policy intends to make such an arrangement subject to the skill gaming rules, but might that be a judgment call if the pay-in somehow feels more like a donation than a bet?

Miranda Umino wrote: Has anyone succeded to "create" a script with Experience ? Yeah. You do have to be in the beta group, and the stuff has some glitches still, but I haven't come across anything scary yet. I did get off to a kind of bad start because I was trying on a sim that didn't yet have the Experience tools enabled, but I think they're all updated with the functionality, as of today. Possibly because I was floundering around without success, I kind of misunderstood how the whole thing works at first. I'm not sure if maybe there's a gap in the most basic documentation, or if everybody but me already understood what may be obvious about Experience Permissions: Not only does the participating avatar not need to grant permissions over and over, a single script gets to use permissions granted by all the participating avatars. Hence, objects that used to need slave scripts to hold individual permissions (such as danceballs and other animation servers) now only need the one Experience Permissions script, if the permission-granting avatars are willing to grant the whole Experience set of permissions. Before doing anything requiring any particular avatar's permission, the script must call llRequestExperiencePermissions for that avatar. When that succeeds the experience_permissions() event fires and llGetPermissionsKey() will return that particular avatar's key. The script must do that little ritual to activate an agent's permissions, but it can do it any time and any place after the avatar has agreed to the experience somewhere. It seems to me that some minimal version of this could replace the existing permissions system, lifting the restriction of each script holding permissions from only one agent at a time. Experience permissions come with a lot of other stuff, too, but I'm thinking maybe script permissions in a future SL (hint, hint) might be improved by basing them on a stripped-down Experiences model.

Siemp Bender wrote: Some creators made a "delete script" option in their hud, but some of this scripts still leave some useless scripts in the item. That would be unacceptably sloppy, in my opinion. I might guess, however, that the script successfully deletes itself, which was all it was designed to do, but the object creator cluttered up the contents with other funky scripts, rather than having a competent scripter actually working on the product. Sometimes I really wish there were no script libraries because they delude creators into believing they can buy or use multiple scripts without anybody knowing both the scripts and the product. It may kinda work, but it's never going to be optimal. Just in passing: some of the scripts exist in no-mod items specifically in order to make it possible to deliver the item without modify permission. That is, the creators may have left out the scripts altogether if they were willing to sell a mod-enabled product. There are a very (very) few good reasons for no-mod products, but with only those rare exceptions, it's simply the creator being stupid.

Actually, this may be an opportunity for you to contribute a whole new texture-changing script, now that we have material maps to work with. I'm guessing there really aren't any in the library yet that manage materials because those properties are only recently script-accessible. It's not immediately clear from your post whether you're manipulating normalmaps or specularmaps, in addition to the diffuse texture, but I'd think there'd be use for both.

GTASkinCentral wrote: ... it is for a clothing item's HUD... If you want it to control that clothing item only while it is worn, you can reduce noise to other listeners by using llRegionSayTo() targeting the owner. That way, every script attached to that owner gets the message, and nothing else does. (The listener should still check who is sending the messages it receives, but at least the messages your own script sends will go to only the intended recipient.)

ObviousAltIsObvious wrote: that is interesting, just yesterday Google announced that they are doing the opposite, and dropped their requirement for a "real" name entirely; Yeah, this may prove interesting, long term. Obviously Google+ is never going to be much of a social network in the Friendster / MySpace / Facebook succession, but it has become a set of identity tools woven through Google properties, so this change may matter for some products and services none of us can imagine are on Mountain View drawing boards. (Meanwhile, it's anyone's guess whether Facebook is really targeting nyms for some purpose or just having an accidental enforcement spasm.)

If it's not a skill game, it's already banned as gambling, since 2007. On the other hand, "skill game" is really a term of art, and it seems practically anything can qualify, given the right lawyer and just a modicum of "skill" as window-dressing. Nonetheless, yeah, you'd need to conform to the new skill gaming rules once they're in effect, and that comes with some hefty barriers to entry. (But... greens fees... hmmm.)

Yeah, I know, and it's certainly okay to report them now, but I recommended waiting because it's only a couple weeks away, and in the meantime I'm guessing (and it's just a guess) that Lindens are getting lots and lots of premature "skill game" ARs that they can't act on yet, and it could be frustrating if one's legitimate AR got ignored because of that. FWIW, I spent a while cruising around Zindra and the Atoll today, just checking to see how big a deal this is going to be. It's certainly nothing like the 2007 gambling ban, and I'm sure some of the game owners will tidy-up after themselves when the rule comes in force, but still I expect it will keep a few Lindens busy for a few days.

I realize that you mean games of chance, not those that get the phony "skill game" fig leaf, but still, if I were you I'd wait until the "skill games" rule comes into effect and report stuff then. It's not that far away, and until then one might expect Lindens to be getting a lot of gambling-related ARs for "skill games" that they can't enforce yet.

Drake1 Nightfire wrote: 7 Seas isn't gambling. You pay for a fishing rod and bait. You are not paying to play, you are buying something in SL. It's akin to buying a race car to drive in a race. What you buy is tangible, within the confines of SL. You actually get something, not an entry fee. If you had to pay to enter the fishing derby, that would be gambling. I don't think that distinction actually works. To be honest, I hadn't thought of 7Seas at all when the policy was announced, but in areas that pay out L$s for "fishing contests", those L$1 rods are a problem here because there is no way to play for free, and the objects themselves are quite obviously not sold as mechandise for any other reason than to permit playing the fishing game. All this lawyer hocus-pocus notwithstanding, LL will still have to make decisions about what they consider skill-gaming and therefore subject to the new policy. So it in fact doesn't really matter what we think about this, nor even what it says in the policy -- it's all up to whatever the Lab wants or thinks it can get away with. They may choose to see L$1 fishing rods as "merchandise" instead of "game tokens" even when there's a L$-payout contest, but that's really up to them and what they think they can pull over on the Feds.

That checkbox exists in the Linden viewer, too, but I don't think it's actually what you want here, unless you have enough tier to spare that you can pre-load Group B with enough to cover the land transfer, which I think you'd need to do before the "buy for group" transaction will work. Even if it removed the tier from Group A, I don't think it would know that it needed to first add it to Group B before doing anything else. Maybe, but that level of sophistication is not what I'd expect from the group land tools.