Hitomi Tiponi

In his January comment on Last Names Rod stated: Secondly we will be taking steps to remove more places where the dreaded “resident” last name appears inworld. If you have any places where you see it often that we might have missed it would be good to hear. Maybe this has been happening but there are still many places where it does still appear. And with the majority of users not using a Linden Lab viewer it does make you wonder how much control they have over this anyway.

The setting can be easily changed in Preferences->Move & View. Just look for the action against 'single click on land'.

We lost a whole tower, a tower top and a couple of small items on one day a month ago - maybe these paranormal occurences will increase as we approach Halloween, or maybe it is just a bug.

I believe the practical limit is 4. And if a sculptie does not look good at 4 (or even 2 - the 'High' setting for the LL Viewer) I would throw it away.

I appreciate that many have problems running the LL official viewer on older kit after the addition of the mesh rendering stream (unlike LL). The best way to fix this is to upgrade your computer and get the full benefits of mesh, but if anyone has the need for an unblocked version of the viewer (pre 2.8) give me a yell and I will put a version of LL's Second Life dev viewer from that time (which is not currently blocked) somewhere for people to download. Usual provisos about not trusting non-LL hosted downloads apply etc. so you would have to trust me and my reputation, and I won't blame anyone who doesn't.

@Moon - did all the affected regions have part of them in which scripting enabled for everyone?

The current Beta Viewer has problems that is causing an increased crash rate. LL are investigating and will be issuing a replacement soon.

There was almost 3 hours of scheduled maintenance early on Tuesday evening (PST) - see http://status.secondlifegrid.net/2012/09/25/post1771/. Maybe something was changed during that which caused the problems.

It appears that all of the Viewer 2 and Viewer 3 viewers prior to 3.3.0 have been blocked. I appreciate that some of these had the old sidebar structure and are faster on some systems, but they also lack support for mesh and numerous bug fixes (and lack some new bugs too, of course). Did you have a specific reason for using Viewer 2.8, as alternatives may be available?

The following viewers were removed from the list of Active Viewer Releases today: * Second Life Viewer version 3.2.8 (248931) * Second Life Viewer version 3.2.6 (248086) * Second Life Viewer version 3.2.5 (247236) * Second Life Viewer version 3.2.4 (246439) * Second Life Viewer version 3.2.1 (244864) * Second Life Viewer version 3.2.0 (244443) * Second Life Viewer version 3.1.0 (243176) * Second Life Viewer version 3.0.3 (240895) * Second Life Viewer version 3.0.0 (238864) * Second Life Viewer version 2.8.3 (238392) * Second Life Viewer version 2.8.1 (237758) * Second Life Viewer version 2.8.0 (236429) * Second Life Viewer version 2.7.5 (235722) * Second Life Viewer version 2.7.4 (235167) * Second Life Viewer version 2.7.2 (233432) * Second Life Viewer version 2.7.1 (232828) * Second Life Viewer version 2.6.9 (231165)

See http://community.secondlife.com/t5/English-Knowledge-Base/Managing-Private-Regions/ta-p/700115#Section_.10.7

Thanks for that excellent set of FAQs Lorca - will they be added to the SL Wiki? (pretty please :smileyhappy:) One related question that I have been asked is: I have a House/vehicle/other thing with some movable parts but it is 'no mod' - what should I do? I believe the answer is just to leave it as 'movable object' and that there is no, or infinitessimal slowing down of the siim caused by that. It may seem odd to have walls of a building marked as 'movable object' but it seems to work fine.

This was spotted over on SLU - it is an official press release by Linden Lab.

I've just visited a few regions running on the new release - some seem affected and others don't. If you are getting a 'cannot connect' message it may mean the sim you are trying to log in at is offline - choose another one - I always use 'Casablanca' (I can remember the name easily enough) which is working OK at the moment.

This seems an odd one, but as you have a clear error message it should be solvable by LL. I suggest you file a bug report using the new process as described at http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Tools-and-Technology/JIRA-Update-Changes-to-The-Bug-Reporting-Process/ba-p/1660981

I think you are very optimisitic about the speed of a Second Life client running on Android if it was ported. I run Lumiya (which is a cut-down subset of features and rendering) on my quad core Nexus 7 using wi-fi and it is still slow even at minimum draw distance. This will improve over the next few years and then direct streaming over 4G might be a better option getting around most of the problems.

danicah wrote: i thougt i had read somewhere Steam is coming by September 5th... Haha good one... Well, Where is it? I don't know where you saw that - but it was never stated by Linden Lab or any source I have seen. FWIW the viewer that would be used for Steam has still not gone into Beta because of a number of problems preventing the promotion of Viewer 3.4.0, but that may happen in the next week or two. That would be the earliest we should expect a launch on Steam, but as the elements to run fully on Steam are still currently hidden away it may be a bit longer yet. Also a lot will depend on Valve's schedule for introducing non-gaming software onto Steam. Until that happens anything else people say is hot air(containing water vapour):smileyhappy:.

I am told the re-engineering the standard Second Life client for Android would be a major piece of work, as it would mean switching from the standard Intel based software to ARM-based and Second Life uses a lot of specific graphics features that would need working on. The only other one available is, as you have sumised, Lumiya which has a basic (but a lot better than nothing) world view as an option. If you don't want to pay for Lumiya there is another alternative, write one yourself - then maybe you'd understand why the Lumiya developer wanted to reclaim a bit of the time and effort that was spent producing it.

Deltango Vale wrote: Honestly, I get the feeling Linden Lab really hates Second Life. So why not sell it to someone who wants it? They need it to provide an ongoing stream of funding to develop the other projects they are currently working on. We should start to see the results of their labours and our money later this year.

Oskar Linden wrote: The release this week has the fix and is looking good. Tomorrow morning I will suggest creating a separate channel with just that fix in case there are blockers this weekend. __Oskar Thanks Oskar :smileyhappy:

Perrie Juran wrote: Could it be related to Storm? Are they afraid they are going to be overwhelmed with bug reports by people who know something about computing and gaming? When I filed my JIRA regarding my FPS collapsing, it took as I recall over two weeks before it ever got looked at. Can we imagine what it would be like if a hundred people encounter the same bug with an update and all 100 report it!!!! I think you meant 'Steam' - 'Storm' is what there is about this change.:smileyhappy: Intriguingly Rod surfaced to comment on both the SLUniverse forum and the New World Notes blog in the last day - interesting timing. Hopefully he will comment on the reasoning behind why we will no longer be able to view new bugs that are created.

Hopefully someone in LL will see sense. At least keep all reported issues visible - how will we know what is a new bug and what is being worked through without some visibility. No one wants to keep reporting what others have already reported (it's a waste of time for everyone) - or do you like to get hundreds of bug reports for the same thing. Actually that won't happen because with this process I imagine people just won't bother and instead slag off LL to their friends instead. I'm also currently helping a friend with a connection problem by looking at the JIRA current and solved issues, and it has proved useful in that. Helping LL should be a two-way street - now it is one one-way I have to conclude that my input is no longer required.

There are a number of issues with moving objects in Viewer 3.4 that have been observed and LL are attempting to address. If you go to the JIRA and insert 'llSetLinkPrimitiveParamsFast' in the 'Quick search' field at top right (and sort the results on 'Updated') you will find quite a lot have been reported recently. If what you are observing has not already been reported then it would be a good idea to add the issue there.

Oskar Linden wrote: Hitomi Tiponi wrote: I did suggest last week that you should have one RC running just the SVC-8124 fix, unless other fixes have to be applied at the same time. With the user attention this matter is getting it would seem the best approach to make sure there is no other Showstopper bug that gets in the way of it's promotion. Would this be possible? It's a good idea Hitomi and one that we have done before depending on the circumstance. It does however take pre-planning and is harder to do mid-release. The fix would be live right now if it weren't for the blocking issue discovered this weekend and everyone would be happy. To do it now would require us to go back in time. The problem is that the fix needs to be pulled and a special branch made for it which will then go through the entire build/deploy/qa process which takes time. Given that this week had no Monday we lost a lot of the time to set up a special situation like this. We would have had to have started the process last week to get it lined up for a Wednesday release. It's a very complicated set of procedures that each take time. __Oskar Thanks for the reply Oskar. I hope that maybe in future some sort of 'must fix because users are shouting' branch could be set up for similar issues that occur. I actually think your release process works very well (especially remembering how it used to be), but I think this littlle tweak would be useful. :smileyhappy:

I did suggest last week that you should have one RC running just the SVC-8124 fix, unless other fixes have to be applied at the same time. With the user attention this matter is getting it would seem the best approach to make sure there is no other Showstopper bug that gets in the way of it's promotion. Would this be possible?