Innula Zenovka

There's a New Products forum over the road at SLU, and doubtless other independent forums have theirs, too. Maybe LL think that's sufficient.

Toysoldier Thor wrote: YUP thanks for the heads up Snickers.... I looked and sure enough a ton of my PRIMS in my inventory - like my selling vendors and countless other prims are set to unknown creator now too! I guess this was the outcome of today's ASSET SERVER snafu. Isnt this marvolous! I dont even know how LL will fix this one! we could open a JIRA but that is like buying a ticket on the titanic with LL - you know the boat wont make it to the other port... most JIRAS just sit idles and not looked at. This will be one of them. Thankfully my sculpty maps - which are textures - do not seem to be buggered up by this screwup. You probably know this, but others might not .. if a prim or object contains anything (e.g. a script or animation) that's not made by the same person who made the prim itself, it's going to show up as "Creator Unknown" when you look at it in your inventory. If you rez it on the ground (or wear it) and then look at it, it should show the creators of the various elements, and if it doesn't, there's something wrong, but while objects are still in your inventory, "Creator Unknown" isn't necessarily anything to worry about (unless you know you made the object and everything in it). Obviously, this can't apply to items other than prim objects, so shapes and scripts and so on should always show a creator.

Deleting them would simply return them to his lost and found folder, same as returning them. And unless he deeded the objects to the land group, I don't see how anyone else could take them. I think the best plan is for the sim owner to contact Concierge live help and ask them to assist. If it's something they can do something about, they're normally pretty good at coming over to the sim to use their God-mode powers.

I remember it being a big problem back in 2008, too. I don't think it's that people hit the ignore button when they tried to buy something from you; more likely they hit it when they wanted to ignore the offer of a LM or notecard from your greeter on entering the shop, thinking that was much the same as declining the offer, without realising the implications of what they were doing, and then, rather later, wondered why your vendors weren't giving them anything. As to why it's no longer a problem, certainly automatically unmuting people you've muted, by accident or design, when you IM them didn't happen until some time in 2008 at the earliest. And I'm wondering if paying the person you've muted has the same effect. Back then, I was a helper in Dari Caldwell's shop, and I do remember we had no end of problems with people who'd muted her by accident because they didn't want a Landmark, and then couldn't get the vendors to give them anything. And for a while, their sending Dari IMs to ask why their purchases hadn''t arrived didn't unmute her. I remember how relieved everyone was when that changed. Maybe it's still happening as much (though I think people are less likely to be confused by "Block" than "Ignore") but you're not noticing it as much because people are automatically unmuting you when they IM you about a failed delivery. ETA: I've just found an old notecard in my inventory about this, dating from 2008 -- in part it says, "Without a doubt, the BIGGEST cause of this problem came from a change to the SL Client sometime in Fall 2007. At that point, a "Mute" button was added to all "give inventory" notices. This happened at the same time that "auto-pop" for notecards was disabled, and texture gives were throttled. The fact that this change was part of a knee-jerk response to a new greifing weapon, helps explain the problem. They didn't consider the social consequences of a Mute button. ----- Inventory offers now came with the triad of buttons: "Accept, Decline, Mute". If you teleported into an area, and were autogiven the rules to a sim, you could now accept the note, decline it, or hit "mute" and the giver would never bother you again. Unfortunately, looking a bit deeper into this.. it turned out that pressing THAT mute button, didn't mute the OBJECT giving the notecard.. it muted the OWNER of that object. Suddenly, because I "muted" the inventory offer of a rules notecard, I had muted the owner of the store or RP sim in question. This situation is made worse, by the fact that the "Mute" button in other languages, says "Ignore"... Accept, Decline, Ignore. " Which would explain why you particularly noticed the problem back in 2008, when it was driving Dari nuts, too.

You might also like to check out the College of Scripting http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Horsa/21/210/85 This doesn't hold classes but does have 8 floors of self-paced tutorials. It also has a very active and helpful in-world group, whom you can ask if you need a hand with anything.

daivedo wrote: I think I can see the difference between Scripting and animation , animation is body movement, and scripting is creating notecards and links. Thanks everyone for the info, it has been very helpful Scripting is, basically, sending instructions to the sim to tell it to do something to an object or an avatar. One of the instructions you can send the sim is "apply this animation to the avatar to make him drink the coffee". You can animate prims by script, but that's completely different -- then you actually have to tell the sim where to move which prim, and which direction to point it it. But playing animations is just saying to the sim "find an animation called such-and-such and send the information it contains to the computers of all the people who can see a particular avatar". Your and my computers then know to make the avatar move in a particular way on our screens. The instructions in the animation about moving people's arms and legs around are contained in the animation -- the sim and the script have no idea what they are.

I don't know if this will help, but Marine Kelley suggests, in her notes to her latest version of RLV, "If invisiprims render black on your screen (no matter whether you have Lighting and Shadows on or off), simply turn the "OctreeAttachmentSizeFactor" down to 1 (it is 4 by default). You can do this in the Advanced > Debug Settings menu."

As the others have said, it's an issue with conflicting animations rather than scripts. Animations all have priorities assigned to them by the person who makes them, so that if you're trying to play several animations at once and there's a conflict between what two of them are supposed to do, SL and your PC know which one to use. SL's built-in animations (which scripts can call by name, without their having to be in the same prim as the script) all have pretty low priorities, and most "drinking scripts" simply call the built-in "sip" animation. So if the sitting animation that's being played wants to put your arms in a different position relative to your torso from the position the sipping animation expects, you'll end up getting coffee all over you. If you are using an animation over-rider that plays its own sit animation when you're sitting, try disabling that feature of it. That can solve a lot of problems.

According to http://lindenlab.com/about/management, LL's General Counsel is Lisa Berry. If your solicitor writes to her, in the first instance, presumably she'll know what to do about it.

Deltango Vale wrote: Don't default SL avatars now have paint-on underwear? My great grandmother used to take a bath in her underwear. Poor old Linden Lab, stuck in the 90s - 1890s. Yes, for some strange reason, North Americans have big hangups about nudity and sex. To be fair, a lot of people new to SL, whatever their cultural background, don't particularly like finding themselves unintentionally nude in public as a result of their attempts to get to the hang of how to change clothes and stuff. Voluntary public nudity is a rather different experience to the involuntary kind, at least to my mind.

Gavin Hird wrote: I am sure you will find a good deal of people who says it shall be unregulated on the one hand and you have the other camp that expects LL to be lawmaker and judge for everything. What would be far more ideal would be resident driven regulation: It could be organized along the lines of residents drawing up a set of community standards and regulations subject to democratic processes. Sims could join a block of standards that then were enforced inside the block. (I don't think it is practical at the parcel level.) The advantage is that you would get a more diversified grid, and people could settle and set up shop inside a regulatory area they felt comfortable with. Linden Lab could get out of the business of micro-managing the grid and only have to satisfy the minimum legal requirements set by the state of CA. User regultated communities also tend to get much less scrutiny and intervention from politicians and legislators. I would be easier to accomodate multiple cultural norms like you always will have in a global audience. Having attended so many Adult Content User Group meetings, do you think that organising residents "to draw up a set of community standards and regulations subject to democratic processes" on Zindra would get very far? It works, to an extent, on private estates, in that you can -- as have I done - flag the place as Adult and then impose your own set of restrictions ("don't do anything that upsets Innula, the tenants or the customers") but I can do that because I pay the tier. But I am trying to imagine getting, let alone maintaining, consensus on Zindra between various factions for very long, and having a really hard time of it.

Scylla Rhiadra wrote: Well, as I said somewhere above in relation to Jig's case, I'm pretty sure that she was not "advertising" her gallery: it really was just a large part of her personal residence -- in a skybox at that point, I think -- that happened to be given over to displaying art. So I'd say that it would not fall into the "commercial" category. I think LL will always try to deal with merchants, in preference to more general consultations with the SL "public," because merchants are considered important stakeholders who contribute to SL's well-being, and because they represent a smaller and more easily define segment of the SL population. It's also an approach that is entirely in accord with LL's largely laissez-faire approach to the SL economy. Actually, having done a bit of research, I think that Jig's problem was that her gallery was on PG land and LL warned her the stuff should be on an M rated sim -- see http://forums-archive.secondlife.com/327/d2/336680/1.html

Scylla Rhiadra wrote: You'll probably remember, back on the RA forum, when Jig's private residence on a Mature sim, which doubled as an art gallery (but which was not advertised) was ARed for "nudity." I've heard of other instances of the same. As I recall, Jig ran into problems precisely because her private residence was also an art gallery (and thus open to the public and not really private) and because the images were photographs of RL models. She thought she was OK because they were images of works by bona fide artists, which had been displayed in RL galleries, but someone at LL didn't agree. This, by the way, is one reason I'm unhappy about any attempt to extend the rating system -- experience shows us that we can't rely on individual Lindens exercising what you and I would regard as common sense in reaching decisions in such matters, any more than we can rely on the automatic word filters in the Marketplace so doing.

Scylla Rhiadra wrote: May I humbly submit that the reason that you find classifications "more trouble than they're worth" is because a) exposure to sex and/or violence happens not to bother you, personally, and b) because it personally inconveniences you, as a business owner. Not everyone shares your feelings or priorities in this regard. And frankly, it's not very helpful to suggest that people just "toughen up" and "put on their big girl panties." Personally, I've been wearing big girl panties for some time, thank you very much: there isn't a heck of a lot in the way of representations of sex and violence in SL that I haven't seen . . . or tried. But it seems to me rather arrogant to dictate to others what they should or shouldn't be able to "handle." Has it, for instance, not occurred to you that for some people images of extreme violence or sexual violence might be triggering? There may be all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with mere "squeamishness" that might dictate why people don't want to be exposed to simulations and images of sexuality and/or violence: religious, moral, personal . . . who are you to say that they should just "suck it up"? How are you suggesting these categories be defined? I'm worried it's going to be more trouble than it's worth because I suspect that anyone providing any sort of BDSM content would need to flag their place as "V" just to avoid any danger of ARs, which would make the categorisation pretty meaningless in that I'd think any sane person wandering round Zindra who happened upon a BDSM establishment would probably feel rather let-down if there weren't whips and chains featuring in the proceedings somewhere. They wouldn't need warning about it. Meanwhile, I would be kept busy seeing off people who were disappointed to find that the establishment wasn't as violent as they would like, and that the classification had perhaps led them to expect. As to your point about, Has it, for instance, not occurred to you that for some people images of extreme violence or sexual violence might be triggering? There may be all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with mere "squeamishness" that might dictate why people don't want to be exposed to simulations and images of sexuality and/or violence: religious, moral, personal . . . who are you to say that they should just "suck it up"? what, in your experience, on earth do people expect to find in somewhere that advertises itself as a BDSM club or shop and what are they doing there in the first place if they find it distressing?

Scylla Rhiadra wrote: 2) One doesn't need to blindly teleport around to bump into violent stuff. I rarely do this, in fact: I wander, physically walking (or sometimes scootering, where possible). Are you suggesting that those who don't wish to be exposed to violent materials should avoid roaming Zindra for fear of running across something they find objectionable? And again I'll ask, because I still have not received an answer: Why is providing people with choice, and with the information necessary to make an informed choice, not a good thing????? I'd also like to know, frankly, why you and other landowners on Zindra really object to classification. Do you feel it stigmatizes or ghettoizes you? What's really behind this opposition to classification. Please don't tell me that it's "too difficult": ratings for movies, video games, zoning laws in RL, and a host of other examples suggest that it's actually quite possible to produce workable ratings. I don't know how it works in Canada, but here in the UK the only information available to me about a movie is the broad rating classification; unless do a bit of research I look it up in imdb or read a review, I've got no way of knowing why it's gained an 18 certificate, for example. I object to further complicating classifications in SL because, in my experience, they're more trouble than they're worth. I'd almost certainly have to flag my shops and sim as V, I guess, because we've got BDSM toys about, and some people may well think that whips and chains fall into the V category, though I don't really think of our shops or my sim as violent places. Nevertheless, I'd thus flag them so I didn't have worry about some busybody ARing me because I hadn't, even though I take the view that anyone seeing that we sell BDSM toys might reasonably expect whips and chains to enter into the proceedings at some point, and then have to waste time chasing off people who want to get more violent than I'm happy with. In general, though, my advice to anyone roaming round Zindra who happens to encounter material with which they are uncomfortable is to do what I do when I find myself in similar circumstances:

There used to be a feature buried away, as I recall, in Advanced>Rendering>Info Displays in 1.23 that caused information about the particle definition for a particle emitter to be displayed in hovertext above the emitter. Is it still there in 2.7n and, if so, where's it got to?

Thanks, everyone. That simplifies things for me considerably.

Pussycat Catnap wrote: Ceka Cianci wrote: well M is still unrestricted for the private resident/home owner so to speak.. But where does it say that? We all assume that, but where does it say it, now? They've expressly denied all of the old conversations that never said it either, but hinted at it. Now, it neither says nor hints at that. Well, I would infer from the fact that something is expressly forbidden, in terms, on G-rated land and not mentioned for any of the others, that the prohibition only applies to G-rated land. Is that less reasonable than suspecting they may mean the prohibition applies elsewhere but just aren't telling us about it? And certainly, if there is such prohibition in force, daily experience tells us it's as unenforced as it is unwritten. Have you ever heard of anyone having a sex bed returned from a private residence on M rated land, or a sim owner being asked to change the rating of his or her sim because the tenants have such items in their private residences? I haven't.

Deltango Vale wrote: "just the land owners with search adds or showing events and stuffs like that to advertise whats on their lands are restricted." ------------------------------------------------- The devil, of course, is in the details. Where does vermilion end and burnt orange begin? How does one subvivide a rainbow? But that's inherent in any system of regulation, surely? There's no particular reason for restricting the speed limit on a particular stretch of road to 30 MPH rather than 31 or 29, though there may well be obvious reasons why it should be "about 30" rather than "about 70". Similarly, while you and I may disagree about whether something is vermilion or burnt orange, we'll have no difficulty in agreeing that it's neither blue nor green.

This came up in the course of a discussion with a customer, and I haven't got the faintest idea what the answer is. If I launch a physical projectile at -- for example -- 45 degrees to the horizontal using llRezAtRoot(), how (if at all) will the parabola it describes differ from the behaviour of a similar projectile in RL? I haven't got wind resistance to worry about in SL, I guess (or have I?) but is there anything else that's going to be markedly different?

Deltango Vale wrote: @ everyone I must admit, I am baffled by people's obsession with sexuality. To understand the absurdity of sexual classifications, imagine the whole rating debate replayed for builds. Let's say, for some bizarre reason, Linden Lab decides to zone SL based of the size, shape and color of houses. One group screams that SL should be partitioned into L (large), M (medium) and S (small) houses. Linden Lab then opens a rip-roaring debate on the definition of a 'large' house as opposed to a 'medium' house. In practice, though, most privately-owned sims do have some sort of building code -- one of the attractions of private sims vs mainland is that, if this is the sort of thing that matters to you, it's usually not too difficult to find somewhere privately-owned where the landowner won't allow anyone to build a great big gothic castle or freebie mega-mall next to your tropical beach-hut. The same goes for dress-codes and conduct generally, and also resource use. Before my business partner and I moved our main store from Zindra to a private island we owned already (we didn't have a problem with Zindra, but someone made us so generous an offer for the land, we decided we couldn't afford not to sell), the sim next door housed a very popular club, which I often attend myself -- when I can get there, that is, because the sim's usually full. If our shop had been on that same sim, rather than next door, we'd have been sunk; no one would ever have been able to get to the shop because the 40 people who can fit on a mainland sim were always over in the one parcel housing the club. And in those circumstances, we'd have had no recourse I can see but to move. It's not a situation any sensible private landowner would have allowed to arise, but I don't really see what assistance LL could offer in such circumstances. LL's problem, it seems to me, is that they're trying to establish rules and policies for continent-wide contiguous areas, and it's a very blunt instrument. I'm coming to the opinion -- and I know this isn't likely to happen, not least because of the uproar there would be about how to dispose of existing Mainland sims and people finding their landlord wasn't LL any more -- that the ideal solution would be for LL to get out of the land business altogether and concentrate on stuff like search, the marketplace and the destination guide.

Dillon Levenque wrote: Innula Zenovka wrote: Dillon Levenque wrote: I was wondering about that and still am. I looked at a piece of land for sale in a G (as in PG) sim and having read the current ratings wasn't sure. Did that mean I couldn't have a sexbed in my house? The owner never answered probably because he or she didn't know either. It says one can not be 'located' without any further descpription. What's not to understand about "sex beds may not be located in G-rated regions"? If your house is located in a G-rated region then it has to follow that anything inside the house is located there, too, doesn't it? It does follow that if I had a house in a G location, "anything inside the house is located there, too.". It just seemed so massively stupid to include objects in private residences within that clause that I questioned it. I've still not heard a definitive answer. Every time Blondin was ever asked about this -- and it did used to come up quite regularly at Adult Content User Group meetings -- the answer was the same; sex beds are OK in M and Adult regions, but not in G-rated ones. I've no reason to think things have changed since he left. I agree it's massively stupid, but so are a lot of things about Maturity ratings. As it happens, I did raise the vagueness of the official pronouncements about what goes and what doesn't go on various regions a couple of weeks back, with Viale Linden, Blondin's successor at the Adult Content Group, and was told to take the matter up with the User Tools Group, since they're responsible for documentation like the Knowledge Base and so on (he's made it clear he's interested in Adult Content rather than maturity ratings in general). I dropped Lexie Linden an email about it and was told that Rand Linden would look into the matter. The next user group meeting is, I think, tomorrow week, the 23rd. I'm going to try to attend that one (I was busy last week) to raise the matter, and maybe you'd like to attend, too. In the meantime, all I know is that every time I've heard a Linden asked about this -- admittedly always Blondin -- over the last couple of years, the answer's been the same -- you can't have sex beds and stuff on G-rated land, indoors or out. Maybe they are changing stuff now that Amanda and Blondin have both left; after all, the broken Age Verification system's been scrapped at last, and, from what Viale's saying, there's plans to give A-rated destinations a higher profile, but I wouldn't rely on that affecting the policy on G-rated areas. Personally, I wouldn't buy residential land on a G-rated sim since there is, at best, a degree of uncertainty about whether "may not be located in G-rated regions" excludes those bits of G-rated regions inside someone's house, while there's no such confusion about anywhere else.

Dillon Levenque wrote: I was wondering about that and still am. I looked at a piece of land for sale in a G (as in PG) sim and having read the current ratings wasn't sure. Did that mean I couldn't have a sexbed in my house? The owner never answered probably because he or she didn't know either. It says one can not be 'located' without any further descpription. What's not to understand about "sex beds may not be located in G-rated regions"? If your house is located in a G-rated region then it has to follow that anything inside the house is located there, too, doesn't it?

I've not heard of any problems with llTextBox, not that that means much. However, when someone describes a situation in which a scripted object they've made works properly for them and not for anyone else, my immediate reaction is to suspect that something got set to respond to llGetOwner() in state_entry and never gets reset. What's the code for presenting the text box you select in the dialog box?

There was some discussion of this bug over in SLU recently.. Apparently the work-round is to import the avatars into DAZ 3 and then export them to DAZ 4 from there, or simply to download the ready-converted ones helpfully posted in that thread.