Kyrah Abattoir

I think that's the wrong website @Innula Zenovka.

Privacy?

In your fear mongering attempt, you are describing a future that has already happened with security orbs.

The thing is that just because one might want to move you away from where you currently are on their land doesn't necessarily mean they want you off their property entirely. So what would be this potential for abuse? Demonstrate in what ways it would be objectively worse than being sent home (which can log you out, and revert attachments)?

Most of my tests use an experience too, it's sort of funny and sad to see the amount of people who bump into my experience "gate" realize that it won't open if they don't accept the experience, and rather than take the experience, they rez a cube, sit on it, drag it through the gate... ...and get kicked home. This is *****ty for users but is the only way to handle this case at the moment (I have nowhere to "eject" people, since I own the whole region). Better control would allow us to make things so much better.

But they can, it is called a bot. The scripting toolset shouldn't be gimpled solely to make something "inconvenient" to do because people will do it anyway, it should be designed to minimize the server/sim overhead and be as straightforward as possible to achieve the goal of the scripter. Whether it can be scripted is not relevant as long as it is something a landowner is allowed to do. It not being scriptable is just the system lagging behind. I'll take an extreme example: If i ran a weird themed hangout in SL where avatars with last names go in room A and avatéars without last names go to room B, you would have to either comply, or be removed. What is the difference between someone telling you to do something where you have to comply or be removed, versus the system doing it. You do not get a choice either way.

Pretty weak. Your argument is grounded in appeal to some nebulous "natural rights", mine is factual on the relationship between land owners and their guests, as framed by the existing systems. We already can turn it up to 100, therefore there is no issue in implementing 1 to 99.

I think I already scolded you about this before, but if someone's hardware can't render shadows, it typically also doesn't come with much ram either to store all those extra textures. You keep telling people to trade one for the other when low end hardware can't handle either anyway.

@Aquila KytoriNice example aquila, and much nicer than what I would have said.

https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/BUG-5975 Documented issue I believe?

If you have the source file, the backfaced outline should use the same weighting.

That is ultimately your opinion, nothing more. Then the one concern I might have had is already satisfied. Oh no it is definitely different, but as long as you can freely teleport away, I can't see how this can be abused. I sure would prefer to get teleported back to ground level if I intrude in someone's skybox, instead of being sent home. When you visit someone's land you agree to follow the rules, within the limitations of the SecondLife term of service, if you don't like the rules, or choose to ignore them, you are usually required to go someplace else. The tools are lacking to enforce those rules is not really relevant as long as the landowner can remove you at their discretion. Therefore there is no real downside in providing more tools to mechanically enforce those rules, so long as you always have the ability to refuse them by leaving.

An improvement on llTeleportAgent could be to silently discard a teleport that won't move you more than 1m. (If anything, to avoid people using it as a really bad move2target)

I swear I'm not trying to be obtuse but I don't see how it is "more" inconvenient than being Teleported home. As far as I'm concerned my trip is interrupted in both cases, the only difference is that in your case I have to teleport somewhere else manually. (I'd love a viewer modification that silently teleports me back to the last "safe" parcel i crossed before being teleported home by the way)

I'm not sure I follow what you mean Wulfie, if you can either TP home, to another parcel, or another region... how are you "caught" ?

It could probably be solved by a slight tweak to how teleportagent behaves "intra sim". Where it doesn't "teleport" you,so much as it "moves" you. Then you're not really teleporting at all and there is no risk of getting "caught".

To me, presence on the parcel is already tacite permission, you can already unsit people or send them home, NOT sending them home, to me, is a much better alternative that would help in so many situations that don't warrant a full blown experience, or a full blown eject/tphome. My biggest "game like" case is when someone is bypassing a door by using the "rez->sit->move method". Should an experience really be required to move the person back to the last "room" they were allowed to visit? I suspect the biggest issue is script-side revocation handling. I can't actually recall any script that was designed to handle a run_time_permission call that isn't the result of the script itself requesting permissions. Broken content is bad. But even so, this is just "more" ways scripters would have to fight with the user, and we still, only have 64k.

A note on the light you use for this, might wanna use a parallele light (sun type) rather than a point light. I'll also suggest that you avoid using a 1024x1024 for this and try to use the lowest possible texture resolution that you can get away with, shadows under furnitures are normally very very diffuse and are only there to "anchor" the object to the floor, you don't need much. Also test it over an actual floor and not over plain white since that's not how it will be used in the end. Avoid contributing to the typical SL texture bloat if you can (Sorry for the rant i'm just trying to help, but people who can't run shadows in SL are also unlikely to have a lot of ram either, so trading one for the other just doesnt work)

I mean as a requirement, that's just unnecessary busywork to require a collision when you're already the land and script owner.

And entirely unnecessary.

It's still only dealing with people being allowed/not allowed in the region, it doesn't offer finer control over said avatars.

Avastar skeletons come with sane joint limits by default. It is a good starting point. There is only so much you can do, especially given that SL doesn't preserve joints volume.

Nope, not supported. Suggested as a feature already and denied so far.

What about somewhere else on the parcel? Something infinitely less agravating than being given the boot. I'd be okay with that.

How is "teleport home" a partnership exactly? I keep asking for milder options and people always scream that it will be abused, and as a result teleport home is still the only option and also the nuclear option.