Helium Loon
-
Posts
309 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Knowledge Base
Posts posted by Helium Loon
-
-
Rolig Loon wrote:After all, there are many things to look for besides agents, and there are other uses of sensors too (here, I'm thinking of the common hack of using llSensor Repeat as a spare timer).
True. And I'd never considered using llSensorRepeat() as a spare timer before. That's both sneaky and brilliant. Though I do wonder about how the extra load that would impose.....
-
This is as much a question of Trademark as it is Copyright.
IF you model the object yourself,
AND IF you make it look sufficiently different from the original,
AND IF you do not use the same name,
THEN you could sell it.
If you don't do one or more of those, you will have to either make it so you fall into the 'parody' clause (tricky to prove), or contact the rights holders and get permission. In this case, I believe the current copyright and TM owners of all the various Pokemon characters is still Nintendo. So in this example, you'd have to contact Nintendo USA and ask to obtain the rights to reproduce the Pikachu pokemon character within SL.
-
Ela Talaj wrote:Don't forget that Sensor() results are not returned to user but put on the events queue.
^^^^ THIS.
llGetRegionAgents() is a immediate return function. Sensor() results are a queued event. While the processing you are duplicating in LSL to imitate a sensor using llGetRegionAgents() is much less efficient than the server-side compiled C++ the sensor event filtering is using, the delay inserted by it being a queued event adds a significant delay on any but the most low-load sims.
I think they should just add a filtering parameter or two to llGetRegionAgents() so we can filter based on range and such. Such a filter would work much faster, and reduce overhead in scripts. It would also pretty much make the sensor event a legacy event.....as it would be much easier to just get the agents directly.
-
The are only three real specs to look at for hard drives these days.
Rotation (spindle) speed. Go for 7200 RPM or higher. This directly affects sustained throughput and seek time.
Cache size. This helps reduce redundant reads from the actual platters. Bigger is better.
MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures). As with cache size, the higher the better. Not many manufacturers make/publish this stat obviously, though.
Solid State drives won't have a rotation speed, since they don't have platters. These are obviously better in that regard, but their MTBF can be significantly lower than platters (unless you spend a fortune.)
-
I personally find simple full scripts to be good examples for new scripters. And it isn't like simple landmark givers are that hard to find for free anyway......googling "lsl landmark giver script" returned 3,580,000 results......
[sarcasm]Oh, if we don't provide some full scripts, I suppose we need to delete the LSL Library forum and the archives. Wouldn't want anyone to get something educational for free, would we?[/sarcasm]
-
You can simplify your sensor() method, since you don't need the inner loops......just set the number to be equal to 'detected', since that is the number sensed (up to the max of the event.)
Also, move your llOwnerSay()'s out of the touch event, and into the sensor event. That way you'll get the new values, rather than the ones from the last touch event.
-
1
-
-
Depends on how you want to give them. Here's a simple example:
list inventorylist = [];default{ state_entry() { llSetText("Click to receive landmarks!", <1.0,1.0,1.0>, 1.0); } changed(integer ch) { if(ch & CHANGED_INVENTORY) { integer num = llGetInventoryNumber(INVENTORY_LANDMARK); integer i; inventorylist = []; for(i = 0; i < num; i++) { inventorylist += [ llGetInventoryName(INVENTORY_LANDMARK, i) ]; } } } touch_start(integer num_detected) { llGiveInventoryList(llDetectedKey(0), "LandmarksFromGiver", inventorylist); }}If you wanted to add additional checking for other things, or give other items as well, or give to anyone who entered a certain area.....then you'd have to change the triggering mechanism and use the code in a collision or sensor event or such. Or you could have it give based on recieving text on a channel (which could be specified in the object float text, like "Say "/500 GIVE" to recieve landmarks!") and handle it in a listen event.....
-
1
-
-
This would be better in the scripting forum. Yes, you can alter the script to only give copies out of what you want (though the person could still just 'open' the container and pull out anything that is copy or transfer.)
You'll also want to check the perms of the items INSIDE the object, not the original perms of the object you copied into it.
-
Sorry emmett, but clothing creation requires outside programs.
Standard clothing layers have to be created as textures and then uploaded to SL, then applied to a fresh clothing object. You have to have an external image editor (like Photoshop or Gimp) to make those textures.
Mesh clothing requires a 3D modelling program, as well as an image editor.
-
Looks like ALL of us were typing in our replies at the same time.......Damn, but we're a helpful bunch!
-
If all you want is to have the touch replace the timer functionality, it's pretty easy....
integer numsculpts;integer sculptindex = -1;default{ state_entry() { numsculpts = llGetInventoryNumber(INVENTORY_TEXTURE); } touch_start(integer num_detected) { sculptindex++; if(sculptindex >= numsculpts) { sculptindex = 0; } llSetPrimitiveParams([PRIM_TYPE, PRIM_TYPE_SCULPT, llGetInventoryName(INVENTORY_TEXTURE, sculptindex), PRIM_SCULPT_TYPE_SPHERE]); }}That will do exactly what the timer() event does, except it happens when anyone touches it.
-
1
-
-
Toysoldier Thor wrote:Since the deformer would clearly fall into LL's definition of a new function that impacts a SHARED EXPERIENCE on the grid, it doesnt matter if this new feature was highly demanded by the SL community... it doesnt matter that Qarl's efforts have been Group Funded exclusively by the community with no LL involvement.. Until LL endorses and actually incorporates Qarl's code into their viewer, no other TPV can release this cool Deformer code onto the SL grid.
I don't think the deformer would fall into the category of 'altering the shared experience' restriction on TPVs. Here's Why:
For the deformer to work, it utilizes the shape information passed to the viewer to render the various avatars correctly (since otherwise, the shape would have to be pre-applied and a whole deformed avatar mesh would have to be downloaded for every avatar!). Therefore, everything needed to render all the avatars shape is already available in the viewer. So, a viewer could deform meshes anyway it wants to for rendering without affecting anyone elses experience of the SL environment. Those without the deformer code would continue to see SL as it is today, those with it would see rigged meshes deform to match the shapes of the players wearing them.
Therefore, by Oz's own definitions, this would NOT affect the 'shared' SL environment....only the individual viewers presentation of it to its user. So the deformer project (in this regard) does not fall into the 2.k rule in this way.
But, any server-side alteration required for it to work would HAVE to be implemented by LL. If it requires those, no TPV can implement it without LL providing the server-side changes. So, unless a TPV manages to hack around that limitation and send stuff to OTHER clients and the server which somehow causes them to see deformed rigged meshes where they shouldn't........it won't be excludable on those grounds.
-
Usive wrote:2 words, Custom Scripter.I am currently shopping arround for a texture animation mod and am getting figures from 10k-18k (lindens).Have to face it bud, the scripters are worse then convicts in a shower when you drop the soap when it comes to the inevitable, you just have to let them rob you blind.
Wow. Just....wow.
Professional software engineer, senior level.......earns around $50/hr. Not L$, but actual USD.
So for a job requiring 6 hours of time to do, they would normally earn $300. That's around L$75000.
$10k-$18k for a custom script? Cheap, unless it's very simple scripting the scripter can pump out in a few minutes.
-
Fascinating. I had not kept up with that particular track since the early 90s, so I was unaware of this. However, it actually provides a more compelling element to the proof, since acceleration requires energy to be applied.....and where would the energy come from? Thermodynamics still says that energy has to come from somewhere else, either in the system, or from outside it. And if it is coming from inside it, we've got another violation (creation of energy from nothingness.)
-
Phil Deakins wrote:I'm sorry but the "all possible realities / many worlds" idea is sheer nonsense, so it's pointless discussing anything about it. It's the same as saying that everything we can imagine, and everything we can't imagine, actually exists, and that ends all discussions on the topic, because whatever is suggested is true, however far fetched and unrealistic it is. All you have to do is imagine something, and you're right - somewhere, in some universe, which, of course, definitely affects this universe, and how it came into being, simply because it's a possible reality. It's just nonsense.
Sorry, but simple dismissal isn't a valid argument.
So let's demonstrate some logic that satisfies it.
Is this universe infinite? Based on current measurements, no. It has an expanding edge. What is it expaning out into? Nothingness? But the slowing of the expansion rate indicates either resistance (which would indicate there IS something beyond that edge, retarding it's expansion) or loss of energy in the closed system of this universe.....but where is it escaping to?
Based on all observable evidence, thermodynamics holds true for all closed systems. By your requirements, our universe is definitely a closed system. However, at time t=0, a very large amount of energy suddenly appears. Where did it come from. Even if we decide it's an endlessly cyclical phenomenon (i.e. the big-bang/big-crunch cycles), the energy either comes from a complete 'nothingness' or NULL, if you must, at a time where t < 0, or it comes from outside the system, which means there are other universes.....or the laws of thermodynamics are violated (specifically, the First and Second laws, look them up.) THEREFORE, either 'something' can spontaneously arise from 'nothingness/null', violating causality......OR.....there exists something outside our universe. Pick one, or violate the laws of thermodynamics.
You are stuck in linear time and 4 dimensions, and simply dismiss any concept which goes against your beliefs. Provide some actual logical proofs (based on actual scientific laws and theories) and we can continue.....
-
Ceka Cianci wrote:not every yellow son..only when conditions are perfect and the things are there will it happen again..we don't know how rare or how common it really is..
In a truly infinite (aleph-null or greater infinity here) universe/multiverse, there would be an infinite number of such yellow suns with sufficient conditions to support the development of complex life.
If we are only referring to our universe, which is questionably finite, then that number would rapidly decrease to near zero.
Trans-finite mathematics are such fun. Almost as much fun as non-euclidean geometry......
Time to work out some trans-finite non-euclidean equations and drive myself psychotic......
-
Phil Deakins wrote:But I do limit it to someone or saomething (an event is a something). You've adjusted what I wrote too far the other way
This is where the problem is. Once you assume true non-existence of the universe/multiverse, you've stepped outside of natural laws. Things such as casuality and linear time (which has already be shown not to be) both cease to be applicable.
In other words, once you step outside of any given 'universe,' cause no longer has to preceed effect. And thus 'nothingness' can spontaneously create 'something' with no outside cause. It can simply happen. This was a part of my earlier statements on all possible realities existing, though I didn't go into this particular detail enough.......without our basic rules of reality (which are, inherent to a given universe, and can vary) universes pop into and out of existence constantly. There is no need for ANYTHING to 'cause' it to happen, since causality itself is a function of uni-directional time (which is not necessarily consistent from universe to universe, or even applicable.)
In other words, we can say "There might be a God", but we can't use our universe/reality as proof of it, since while it is required that our universe exist for there to be 'our God' existing, it isn't sufficient to prove his existence.
(edit for typo/clarification)
-
Infinite possibilities would encompass a great deal more than people seem to be able to comprehend. It would indicate there could be multiple realities (and by definition, an infinite amount.)
This gets into the whole question of ordinal and cardinal infinities....but I won't get into that here. Check out the book "Infinity and the Mind" by Rudy Rucker, if you get the chance. It'll explain it better and more completely.....
But, differing realities (of infinite variation) would have different physical laws, rules, and the very nature of them could be wildly contrrary to our own accepted reality. And, since math is based on logic and observation (much like science), the very numbers which would work in one universe would not work in another. And thus all our fancy fractals, and or 'order or chaos' concepts break apart.
As an example, imagine a universe almost exactly like ours, but with only one difference. Entropy is reversed. Things tend to become more ordered naturally in this universe. Can you see just how significant a small change in one rule can violently destroy all the others? Could life (as we understand it) even exist in such a universe? If the variation is truly infinite, there would exist such a universe. There would also exist all possible timelines (n-dimensional time, once again) for every single one of these universes. So all possible outcomes for all possible 'decisions/choices' do, will, and have occured.
So when we talk about multiverse theory, realize that many such universes might exist.....some would be completely static, bereft of anything other than existence......some would be teeming with things and events we cannot even imagine or predict. A infintesimal number of them might be comprehensible to us as 'universes' to us.
Now, as for the fractal mathematics.....remember, all mathematical equations are based off of observations in the real world. Of course, we see fractal patterns throughout nature, that's where we derived the equations from! But, as with most of our equations, they only show the part of the picture we can detect SO FAR. So chaos theory equations, non-repeating decimals, irrational numbers, and much more begin to come into play too. Take a circle, measure the circumfrance and divide that by the diameter......such a simple ratio, but we all know it has a non-repeating decimal value.....so what's the last digit? Maybe one day we WILL find the pattern, but until then, we don't know. Same with the concept of using fractals as a model for too many things.....yes, if you look long enough, you'll find any pattern you are looking for SOMEWHERE in where you are looking. But that's correlation, not causation.....
-
Just had to chime in here on a couple of things.....
Someone mentioned 'infinity'.....but failed to specifiy which kind of infinity, ordinal or cardinal.....
A few mentioned singularities. However, singularities are simply a mathematical expression of Einstein's equations (which are the only reason black holes are theorized to exist. While we have astronomical evidence of super-dense gravitational objects, that does not confirm the existence of black holes. But, even assuming that black holes DO exist, the mathematics, as in so many cases, are descriptions of projected observations.....the reality is that there are always other factors, complexities, and rules in play that turn our simple equations into much MUCH more complex ones.
In other words, a 'singularity' is an impossible object. By definition, it would possess zero volume, yet a positive mass, and infinite density. If you even work out the issues mathematically (as best as our real ordered field of numbers allows) you quickly find that such an object is paradoxical at the very least. Which, scientifically speaking, means it almost certainly has other undetermined factors or complexities in play, which prevent such paradoxical states. Mass may be being shunted into a subspace, a quantum disjunction, or any number of other possibilities (all completely theoretical, due to our inability to test, and thus, not truly scientific.) If any of these are the case, then the object does NOT have a zero volume, but it's presentation in 3 dimensional space might be (which is why Einstein's theories may not be showing it, as they are strictly based in 2 dimensional analysis (specifically, field theory.)
Now, as for the metaphysical questions.....intelligent design? A god/gods? Untestable. And the argument about 'then what created them?' falls apart due to insufficient understanding of n-dimensional time, and the possibility of loops that could circumnavigate the entirey of n-dimensional time (thus being constant throughout time, and having no end or beginning.) N-Dimensional time conveniently avoids the problems of paradox as well as quickly providing useful concepts such as conservation of time and dimensions (i.e., any timestreams/dimensions which are/become identical at any given point will collapse back into a single timestream/dimension). Assuming time is linear, unidirectional and finite is a simplification, which has been shown to have considerable numbers of exceptions.
(ETA) Also, someone mentioned that energy is neither created nor destroyed. Not entirely true. It depends on the closed/open nature of whatever 'system' you are observing (these are the tenents of Thermodynamics), and based on quantum dynamics, energy is not only created AND destroyed, but it frequently happens and unhappens constantly at a very high rate of speed......
Now that that's out of my system.....I think the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe with his noodly appendages. Just as valid and as testable/unprovable as ANY other creation belief......
-
I would say instead that SL is JUST AS populated with wierdos as RL. It's just that they don't bother to hide it as much in SL. Which in some ways is an advantage, as you are more likely to know someone isn't compatible with you much earlier.....
If you want to look for local people for potential dating in RL while in SL, go for it. But as with any online-to-offline situation, be careful and safe. I met my current RL fiance (we've been together in RL now for 4 years) online, and she wasn't local then. So not only CAN it happen, it happens a lot more often than people think. And like most things in life, the 'horror stories' you hear about are 48% exaggeration,47% urban legend, and 5% truth.
-
Yes.
While TargetOmega is client-side animation of the prim, that doesn't mean the server doesn't know about it. It's just that the object itself is not actually rotating on the server.
This means that while ALL the clients that can see the object will see it spin, they will not be in sync.
-
Which viewer are you using, and specifically, which build of it?
The Shining-Fixes build from a few weeks ago had fixes for this. I don't know if those have filtered out into the main viewer, but I know they were included in several other viewers already. Firestorm (which I use) has them included in the 3.3 build.
-
1
-
-
We need more information from you if we are going to help. Please reply with:
1) Laptop/computer model (including OS, CPU, Memory, and Graphics Card.)
2) What happens when you double click the icon? Do you get a window? Do you get a crash report? We need to know what you mean by 'doesn't run'....
3) Post the last 20-30 lines of the log flie that Nata directed you to look at.
-
Your posted code clearly shows the rez target as
llGetPos() + <0,-12,-2>
which has a distance from the rezzer of |<0,12,2>| or ~12.17m.....which is more than 10m.
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Creating Mesh of Copyrighted Characters
in Mesh
Posted
Not replying to anyone, just to the whole thread....
Good grief, any opposing viewpoints get absurd when you take them to the extremes. The problem today isn't whether copyright is good or bad. It has elements of both, like almost ALL legislation. The problem is whether or not it has (and is) been/being taken too far.
Like any legislation, enforcement, penalties, and scope can be blown way out of proportion. This HAS happened with copyright law. We can see it in the news feeds. Legislation was bought by corporations, and now they have the legal means to extort money. Arguing with this is useless, it's a simple and demonstrated fact.
Copyright (at one time) was useful, and actually helped the markets thrive, since it provided a reasonable period of protection to the original creator. Now, thanks to holding companies and IP hoarders, they've managed to get the durations extended to ludicrous time spans. Now it isn't about protecting the rights of the creators, but to milk every last cent of profit they can from owning such rights.
Trademarks were similar. They provided a legal way for a company to prevent others from intentionally trying to capitalize on brand confusion. But now it can be used much more heavy-handedly......not as bad as copyright can, but give the mega-corporations time, and they'll bribe legislation through for it as well.
The problem isn't copyright. It's allowing legislation to be driven by graft and greed, and allowing contributions and kickbacks to politicians by non-individuals in obscene amounts. Corporations don't want people actually thinking about these laws.....they hire big PR to figure out sound-bites and slogans that are catchy to keep people from thinking and analyzing what's really happening and simply remember (and believe) the slogans.
As for whether or not disobeying unconscionable laws is 'wrong'.....if nobody did, we'd still be white/colored segregated here in the US. We'd have even a larger fascist state, and women wouldn't have the vote either. Something to think about.