[OpenCollar scripting help?]

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

[Discussion on a change to llTeleportAgent().]

Privacy?

[Discussion on a change to llTeleportAgent().]

14 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said:

That will pretty much put a stop to anyone flying over any land that isn't their own or LL owned.  Good job LL!

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

[Discussion on a change to llTeleportAgent().]

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)?

[Discussion on a change to llTeleportAgent().]

11 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

My stuff should stay in an Experience, and my problem with the user terror induced by the Experience permissions dialog is quite orthogonal to this.

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.

[Discussion on a change to llTeleportAgent().]

9 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

I am aware of avatar freezing.  I don't like it much but the owner has to be present for that, it cannot be scripted - that makes a big difference.  If the land owner could script freezes on an ongoing basis then that would be far worse.

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.

[Discussion on a change to llTeleportAgent().]

1 hour ago, Gabriele Graves said:

This is your opinion as well, nothing more.

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.

[How to achieve very low LI with complex objects?]

On 1/15/2021 at 8:39 PM, Chic Aeon said:

Not an argument but want to make sure that folks using normal map to "replace" topology understand that not everyone SEES materials.   "I" would (and am :D) more in favor of baking the ambient shadows and displacement (if used) into the diffuse texture.   All a choice of course but one folks should think about before deciding on their method.   I have seen some really horrible examples of how bad things can look if people rely on normal maps especially :D.

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.

[Drapes - Tips]

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

[normal map baking for second life]

https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/BUG-5975

Documented issue I believe?

[Cel shading effect + rigging]

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

[Discussion on a change to llTeleportAgent().]

8 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said:

Nothing in either those things suggests that land owner should be able to teleport people anywhere they please at any time when on their land.

It isn't tacit permission.  Nobody can assume permission from others, it must be granted explicitly or it isn't permission regardless of how badly something is desired.

That is ultimately your opinion, nothing more.

  

5 hours ago, Lucia Nightfire said:

llTeleportAgent() and llTeleportAgentGlobalCoords() have a low repeat usage threshold, like a burst of 3 executions in 3 seconds then repeated failure until another 3 seconds of no execution attempts before another tp is allowed. This goes for all same-owner scripts in multiple objects in the region.

Then the one concern I might have had is already satisfied.

  

5 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said:

So you really cannot tell the difference between something that is a single use tool to remove you from the land to asking for the ability to move people all over your land at your whim?  It seems your desire to have a multi-purpose teleport tool that can be easily abused is clouding your thinking.

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.

[Discussion on a change to llTeleportAgent().]

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)

[Discussion on a change to llTeleportAgent().]

6 minutes ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

You fly over the parcel at 4000 meters, or cross a bit of the corner at ground level, and a script teleports you into the lobby of a skybox.

Or a more malicious example:

while (TRUE) { llTeleportAgent(agent, "", trap, ZERO_VECTOR); }

 

 

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)

[Discussion on a change to llTeleportAgent().]

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" ?

[Discussion on a change to llTeleportAgent().]

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".

[Discussion on a change to llTeleportAgent().]

On 1/16/2021 at 12:35 PM, Qie Niangao said:

I'd like to hear from @Kyrah Abattoir whether asking permission was intended as part of using llTeleportAgent in place of llTeleportAgentHome to manage which avatars are on the parcel.

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?

On 1/16/2021 at 9:32 AM, Mollymews said:

am sure Linden have looked into it quite extensively. If was me (and it isn't) then I think it would be some kind of immediate region based thing. Like we could  bring up a viewer system window with a list of the scripts currently on the region that have our permissions and we can select those we suspect and press Revoke

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.

[Floor Shadow]

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)

[Discussion on a change to llTeleportAgent().]

1 minute ago, Mollymews said:

except when wanting to build a portal travel system that acts like a portal system as they are ordinarily expected to work by users. Walk/run/swim/fly into a portal and woosh! 

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

[Discussion on a change to llTeleportAgent().]

10 hours ago, Qie Niangao said:

collisions are pretty easy to arrange,

And entirely unnecessary.

[Discussion on a change to llTeleportAgent().]

3 hours ago, Soupy Nova said:

llManageEstateAcess is a good alternative if you're an EM or EO for the region you manage.

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

[Weight-painting - how finnickity to get?]

22 hours ago, Liramaril said:

I'm weight painting some garments at the moment, and because I'm ***** retentive I'm covering some pretty extreme poses. I just hopped in aditi to do a test, and noticed that my pose adjuster can't actually rotate my characters shoulder all the way... up? Are all SL avatars bone movements locked past a point? So say, your forearm can't bend the wrong way at your elbow? Or do SL avatars bend whichever which way and it was just the hud I was using that was constricted?

 

If you can bend however which way you like, how far do most creators take their mesh in terms of unusual posing etc?

 

Hope this makes sense!

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.

[Vertex painting]

Nope, not supported.

Suggested as a feature already and denied so far.

[Discussion on a change to llTeleportAgent().]

4 hours ago, Profaitchikenz Haiku said:

I can't see any option other than home.

What about somewhere else on the parcel? Something infinitely less agravating than being given the boot.

  

3 hours ago, Mollymews said:

the proposal is that the destination parcel can only be same owner even when on another region.

I'd be okay with that.

[Discussion on a change to llTeleportAgent().]

3 minutes ago, Mollymews said:

SL is built on the concept of user permissions, that there is a partnership between landowners and their visitors and I think we need a really good rationale to do away with this partnership

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.