Cain Maven

I got a little closer: it happens when keyframed motion is used to move the mesh object. SL then decides that the linkset really needs to be all convex hulls, so it makes the parts behave as if they were. Of course, the object property is still Prim, and trying to use llSetLinkPrimitiveParamsFast() to force it to Prim does nothing. As far as I can tell, a manual edit -- even without making any changes whatseover -- is the only way to cure this particular ill. A fun time was had by all.

I've just run into a weird issue. Mesh objects with a Physics Shape Type of Prim revert to Convex Hull when rezzed. As soon as you right-click > Edit > close edit window, it corrects itself. When rendering physics metadata, everything looks correct but the behavior is wrong. It doesn't seem to affect all objects, and may only affect child objects in a linkset. Has anyone seen this issue?

Sorry about the extremely late response. I know that used to be the case but these days I'm not so sure -- it seems you can almost set your watch by some of the bots that swing by my regions.

A good first step, but as others have noted this will not affect non-registered bots, including copybots. Can we have a discussion on how to try to make a dent in that issue? I'm not downplaying the issue of bots in general, but I do believe copybots have a fairly large economic impact that has gone unaddressed for a very long time. Perhaps LL could invite a group of creators to listen to concerns and ideas?

Thanks -- I'll ask the fine people over at Support what they have to say for themselves. This is way too convoluted

Unfortunately, deeding is not an option...

Thanks to all who replied. For some reason the second TP approach doesn't seem to work. The first TP takes the user to the Landing Point; trying a second TP straight away results in the error message "Teleport failed. Could not teleport closer to destination." Walking a few meters and then trying the second TP moves the user back to the Landing Point. I tested with an alt, and it was wearing the group tag during testing. The "Ignore landing point" Parcel Power is enabled.

Hi, everyone, I'm trying to accomplish the following: 1) Force all visitors to my region to arrive at the Landing Point. This applies even if they use old landmarks that point to a different location in the region. But: 2) Make exceptions for a small group of people, so that they can teleport directly to any point in the region via landmarks. To this end, I have set a landing point and set the Teleport Routing option to "Landing Point". That obviously solves 1) above, but I just can't figure out how to accomplish 2). The region/parcel is set (not deeded) to a group, so I hoped that the "Ignore landing point" Parcel Power would do the trick -- but it doesn't and I have yet to figure out what that option actually does. I know that direct teleport to arbitrary locations works for the region owner and any Estate Managers, but those are not options in this case. Is there a way of achieving this? TIA, Cain

Exactly. Thank you

And what might those "new product offerings" be?

This is neither surprising nor unfair, as European users well know. It does, however, perhaps represent a step backwards for the efforts to reduce the role of land cost in the SL economy. Hopefully, the Lab will match this with mitigating steps; if not, we may see some real inflation in SL.

That sums it up perfectly. Thank you.

Guys, can we just move on? This is page 37 now of this thread. It's done. It's over. Let's live with it.

I recognize that this will affect some creators -- and the timeline may be on the short side. But overall, I think this is a good call. Well done, LL.

After careful consideration, I have decided not to freak out just yet. Yes, news like this is always unsettling. The History of Mergers and Acquisitions is a thick volume full of tragic tales -- and this could of course turn into one of them. Yet, this feels a little different. Waterfield seems to favor long term ownership over hit-and-run leveraged buyouts. That could turn out not to be true, but what are the assets that that could potentially be stripped and sold? A bunch of "previously owned" servers in a colo somewhere. A ton of user created content, the vast majority of which is not usable outside Second Life. A fine selection of Linden Bears. So why on earth would you buy Linden Research, Inc? I can see at least two reasons: Tilia is a unique business with considerable potential. It's also much less valuable without Second Life as its flagship customer, which is good news for SL. I've lost count of the number of times I've heard that "the future of work has changed" since the start of the pandemic. So I would not be very surprised to learn that LL is working on providing turnkey solutions for virtual office and meeting spaces for businesses. Mr. Altberg even alluded to this possibility during his talk at SL17B. Only time will tell. Everything may still go to hell in a hand basket, but based on what little we know so far, this could have been a lot worse.

Yeah, maybe it could go on their profile 🙂

A feature that makes disclosure of the name change history optional would appear to meet that standard.

I'm as strong an advocate for privacy as anyone -- I just don't see how this is sensitive information. If someone uses a display name you can still see their user name, and that doesn't seem to be an issue? But ok. How about a feature that allows users to decide if their name change history is public?

Sure, I have already written a script to check previous names vs. current ones. But I still think this might be fertile ground for confusion in many cases. Why do you feel that name change history is sensitive and should be protected?

I really think there should be an option for viewing a user's name change history. Without it, I suspect there will be a lot of unnecessary confusion. Merchants may have a harder time providing customer support, for example. And why wouldn't you have that option? It's not like name changes are deep and dark secrets, is it now?

I think the plan is to make Premium (and the upcoming Premium Plus) more attractive. Again, the idea is to reduce the dependency on tier and hopefully be able to lower the cost for residents in the future.

I think it's another attempt to slowly shift the SL economy away from being so dependent on tier revenue. A number of other recent changes have had the same goal: increased checkout fees, increased Marketplace commissions, etc. If the long term effect of all these changes is that land becomes affordable to more residents, I think it's a Good Thing.

That is so true! SL has a steep learning curve, and merchants end up doing a lot of explaining of the basics -- something that really should be a Lab job. But if we decline to help customers with these basics, we are told we provide poor customer support

I really hope so too, but I'm not optimistic. They'd have to find an alternate source for the roughly $ 1.5 million that this fee increase represents. (2.5% of $60 mill.) Currently, they don't have many options except Marketplace and Premium subscriptions -- unless they get creative...

So I guess speaking up does matter sometimes. The Lab has decided not to cut the group count for Basic memberships after all