Marjolaine Seymour

Sorry for the late reply... have to disagree, but yes, there have been plenty over the years. The work-around was that the uppermost part of the high-waist jeans go on a separate part on the shirt-layer. It was iffy back when there was just ONE item possible per layer, but as soon as the multi-items per layer came, it was more or less the norm And.... sadly, making them myself hits a brick wall when it comes to texturing.

Sadly, it appears that creator has left.... hasn't been online for many months. Thanks Sasy - but that is exactly the reason I'm passing over on these

Thank you all.... long quest, and I think there are now none left with reasonable flexibility. There were two near-hits, in particular these but.... the uppermost part is only available on 'undershirt' layer, meaning almost all BoM tops till go OVER the pants, which I (even RL) never do - the other candidate was on tattoo-layer only. Rowan had two additional suggestions, although they were if a bit unusual in design, so I'd probably pass on those.

Thanks.... just as I feared... one of the too low ones... Thanks... first ones looked promising, but a shame creator only made them for the tattoo-layer, so everything else go above them. Sighs... lost opportunity. Thanks Tazzie.... might take up on that soon

I have been searching up and down the MP for BoM/Layer (not Applier/Omega/Mesh) high waist jeans - just plain ones (typically with the upper part on shirt layer) - no rips, or holes. Sounds simple enough, yes? No! Right now I can't find any at all... tons of Mesh ones, but that is not what I am looking for. I had some MP links, but seems they are dead/deactivated/retired (and can't be bothered) now. Anyone with better luck in the searching game? Or know about some in-world store?

No.... it is a lot of objects which for 10+ years have not been shown in red (or blue) hue now all of a sudden do so with the recent viewer-update.

Firestorm Support basically told me "working as designed (by LL)". I presume that is not the way to go if suggesting a new FS 'feature', but even after so many years, I have no idea where to go with such a question . It would help if I had the change-ID of the LL-change that altered the well-established functionality, because then I would quote that.

This is the time where I would have wished I had a contact with some FS developers... since it still works with the old viewers, it is definitely an update which went into the LL base symbolics for the viewer. As such it should in theory be possible for some TPV developers to retrofit the old behavior and add an advanced option to switch between LL default and the retrofitted old version - question is of course how 'messy' the correction was - a TPV dev would assess whether it will become a nightmare to carry forward? And every piece of local code means extra work in the future.

It turned-up when I installed the latest version of Firestorm recently, and it is claimed to be an LL change. With this change an avatar using mesh body/head now becomes blue and red highlighted.. instead of in the past only worn invisible attachments. I can see similar issues with mesh objects and invisible objects linked in my builds. Question is whether all this is 'hard-coded' by LL, or if there are any system parameters which can be altered via advanced or debugging menus? Basically, I'd like to find a way to restore previous functionality, if at all possible.

For ages I have used the 'Highlight Transparency' to help sorting out matters with invisible objects and attachments. In a recent release things seems to have changed so that in certain cases a lot of objects (mesh?) now show up in red or blue when checking-in 'ctrl-alt-T'. In my case the change makes some if my regular work almost impossible... do we know if there are any deep system variables or settings that can be changed to restore the previous functionality?

I can't see any positive side for me in it; I have absolutely no thoughts of downsizing. For managing access, I will need to maintain two set of lists - most of my friends have long run-out of group slots, so using a group is 'out'... and so on. And then the interesting question whether I can balance the prim usage.

Update... I was approached by the requestor yesterday, informing me that LL was not willing to join the two 512 sqm parcels to a 1024 sqm one. And yes, the parcels have a note similar to what Sylvia showed an example of two posts up. I'm inclined to turn-down the request to swap parcels under that new parameter.

Nope.... nothing written anywhere.It is just a case of "that is how things are"

It is the old mainland... West Haven. I presume LL made that decision eons ago when they wanted it to resemble the 'burbs'. That people have built towers and malls later on... errr... different story.

Ah .... sorry for adding confusion... no, parcels are all in the same region/sim. - I have a 1024 sqm parcel, on the south-facing coastline - the requestor is asking me to accept a swap with a parcel also residing on the south-facing coast of the same region. - The requestor's parcel is however made-up of 2 adjacent parcels, each 512 sqm, both in the same region... but both also 'touching' the border to another sim on their 'east' side. I have made it a condition to even consider agreeing to a swap, that requestor convinces LL to join their current two parcels to one 1024 parcel (only LL can do that in this region). However, what I all of sudden got worried about - except the whole issue of 'safely' completing a swap - is... could there be an issue in the fact that the combined parcel will have it's eastern border at the end of the sim... i.e. the border-line is also the sim-border? /Marjo