Jump to content

Talarus Luan

Resident
  • Content Count

    140
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Talarus Luan

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. I've been doing some research for an avatar project and had a question: Project Bento's skeleton added a LOT of bones for making non-human avatars, but there still seems to be a deficiency in it for avatars with long, articulating necks, like dinosaurs and Dragons, being that there is only the single neck bone. What can you all tell me about the parameters of the limitation (or am I wrong about that)? Are there any "proper" (ie, supported) workarounds for it? I am not too crazy about deform anims, especially since I have read that LL fixed the uploads to disallow them as part of the Bento update. Thank you in advance for any info and suggestions!
  2. The Viewer has downloaded and installed this same version 5 times tonight already. I keep crashing after about 30-45 mins of activity, and every second time, it reinstalls.
  3. Getting through the basics: 1) Yes, it is real, at least in theory. I know there are implementations of it, and they still work, because I made a "proof of concept" ages ago. Verified today that it still works. 2) It is nothing to get worked up over. More damage is done from fretting and worrying about it than the tool actually generates. The chances of any resident actually being griefer by this particular tool are quite low. That said, it is against the ToS (Harassment), and can be dealth with via normal channels -- AR, ban, etc. 3) Viewers can NOT "revoke" the perms, since they are stored with script state server-side. Until LL gets around to fixing this in a way which doesn't cause the whole Jenga tower to come crashing down (yeah, they tried.. it was a mess), it's just something we're going to have to live with. That said, it is possible to use a scripted attachment that "blacklists" specific animations, but it has to work via like an AO -- via polling, and isn't terribly efficient. Viewers *can* be programmed to do something similar to tell the simulator to "stop animating me" for specific or all animations. So, the upshot is, yes, it exists, yes it can happen, no, it's not likely to happen to the vast majority of residents, and it isn't worth freaking out over, ruining your SL experience by never trusting any dance ball, hug attachment, or sitting on any (potentially scripted) prim in the entirety of SL. In fact, the whole reason griefers do it is because of people's third-degree reactions to it and things like it. The best policy is just to laugh it off.. AR them, and if you have the ability, ban em from the estate. Remember, griefers are in it for the lulz.. don't give em any and they will get bored and go away. (In fact, I get far more lulz out of them than they can ever hope to get from me )
  4. I was given a new skin by someone, and it works fine on their av in the same sim, but when I put it on, it is 100% transparent. I tried creating a new skin from textures, and the same thing happens. I even tried a new skin with just blank textures, same thing. The other person is using the latest Firestorm viewer. Is 3.6.1 borked with skins? Rolig/Lindal: Not that I am aware of. The av uses the human base shape with some prim parts. The existing skin works fine, I can even put it back on and it shows up afterwards. However, any skin I make myself from two textures (top/bottom, not head), or one that is made for me, shows up as 100% transparent. It also shows up as transparent to my friend who is using Firestorm. However, she can wear the same skin on the same avatar, and it shows up just fine, both to me and to her. There is occasionally some kind of band that appears around the waist, but it goes away when I zoom the camera in. Marigold: I presume you mean Develop->Avatar->Character Tests->Test Male, correct? I did that, and now I am 100% invisible. No skin I wear shows up, though I do see the default male hair for a second when I change skins. ETA: The av does use a partial alpha layer to remove the feet/hands/head/hair because it uses prim claws/digitigrade legs/head, but the rest of the skin layer shows through just fine. Even still, going back to Character Test wearing nothing turns me completely invisible. ETA2: If I remove the alpha layer mentioned above, even the original skin goes transparent. I think I am getting more confused by the minute. Shouldn't removing an alpha layer let MORE of the skin show through, not less? O.o Also, copying the existing working skin, wearing it (the copy works), then editing it and changing either of the top/bottom textures, causes the entire skin to go transparent.. ANSWER: After I bug-reported this problem, Whirly Fizzle responded and pointed out that running SL on a secondary monitor causes this problem. I moved SL to my primary monitor, wore the skin, rebaked, and it finally appeared. So, this is a workaround for anyone having this problem and is running SL on a secondary monitor.
  5. Any proposed solution to respect this BAD policy change overlooks the fact that there is a LOT of content out there to which there will be no updates, and no way for the users to fix when it is broken. No, I think the entire policy needs to be reconsidered. It is FAR too late to try to put the genie back into the bottle.
  6. Note that sim restarts can cause translation (movement, not rotation) to stop functioning. So, if you have any persistent objects using this function, sim restarts (for any reason, including sim software rollouts) can break it. This issue is being investigated atm. https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SVC-7556
  7. Setekh Ichtama wrote: Complaining won't do anything so just accept the changes and move forward until they ban Phoenix or make it so inoperable that it's really not worth using, which is likely the desired intention and you really can't blame them, it's their show afterall, not yours. The adfarmers said the same exact thing. "Complaining won't do anything...". Well, guess what? THEY WERE WRONG. Now, I will grant you that, in the majority of cases, you're right; however, there IS value in at least attempting to elicit change for the better because, sometimes, it DOES work. Also, I think you're kinda defecating on the concept of "Your World, Your Imagination", but that just puts you in good company with LL.
  8. Faye Feldragonne wrote: Hasn't anyone listened to the recording by Linden Oz about these changes? I have the link but not sure they will allow it posted here. Yes, I listened to it last night. If anything, it reinforces what I said above and will say below.
  9. I posted my take on it in the JIRA, but here it is for more angst and hand-wringing in a different venue: Here's the way I see it. True online status has been discernible since, well, pretty much the Beginning of Time. The limitations on who could see it were added to the viewer at some point, but it has ALWAYS been known that it is not absolute. Anyone who wants to know that you're online could simply rez an object with a script which queried your true online status and they could find out. This isn't something that has "recently happened", either. It's been this way for years; ostensibly, for ever. Arguably, hundreds of thousands to millions of items have been intentionally designed to depend on this functionality, for whatever reason. That said, LL has tried for a long time to put in a "privacy control" that limits the dissemination of this information. Obviously, it has been a dismal failure. Beyond that, everyone and their housecat knows that, if you want people to not know you are online, you create an alt account and then DON'T TELL ANYONE YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW THAT IT IS YOU. If someone finds out, then it is because you told them. Period. This method works very well for most people (who can keep a secret, anyway), and works better than any technological solution, primarily because it is not a technological problem, but a social one. The issue really boils down to this question: Is true online status really a privacy/rights issue? i.e., is it something which deserves the level of protection for a "right to privacy"? My argument? No. There is nothing about knowing that you are online which violates your privacy rights. I still don't know any more about you than I did before. I can't do anything more to you than I can if I don't know your true online status. I don't know any more about your whereabouts, what you are doing, whom you are doing it with, RL OR SL. There is no veil of secrecy being lifted. It therefore comes down to a policy decision between whether to finally go the last mile and make online presence information fungible by treating it as a "privacy issue", or simply accepting that it is not a privacy issue and stop trying to pretend that it is by forcing through a change which will break a very large segment of content which has come to depend on that functional interpretation. If LL continues down this path, one of the side-effects of this change will be that things like Multigadgets and Mystitools (hell, even viewers) will be augmented with scanners that will upload the presence information to a third-party server where it can be publicly queried, almost completely negating it. My suggestion? Stop pretending that online status is covered under "privacy rights" and stop trying to control it. It is unnecessary, futile, and a complete and utter waste of LL resources to find a byzantine way to implement it that doesn't break a potentially huge amount of content that has been designed FOR YEARS to take advantage of it, for better or worse. Accept that the so-called "privacy controls" for it are irrevocably broken, and just remove them from the viewer and the backend entirely.
  10. Not at all, you can use one of the methods listed above to iterate through the links and then check if the name returned is equal to your specific names, and then do those functions on that link.
  11. Venus Petrov wrote: LL Community Management is interested in attracting new residents by pushing content out to FB. I understand this for without new residents (particularly PAYING ones), SL's might not survive. However, if one takes the long view and is successful at pulling new residents into SL, who will be left to answer questions, mentor, lend a hand? Oh, there will always be someone(s) to fill the void (no pun intended); and they will get burned / burned-out and leave, too. One would think that this would be a death-spiral cycle, but it never turns out to be one. The company never learns, and people keep feeding them quarters so they don't have to. That doesn't and shouldn't diminish Void's efforts, both prior to and as of her departure. It's just the nature of boundless, unconcerned optimism.
  12. Rufus Darkfold wrote: Given that the purpose of this forum is to discuss scripting and to help each other with scripting questions, it is unfortunate and rather baffling that LL seems to have run off its most knowledgable and helpful contributor. She wasn't the first in that category, and she suuurre won't be the last, which I think is the greater point she is exemplifying by her leaving.
  13. Yeah, I could have told ya what the ultimate outcome of this would be. :-/ Stellar winds to your back, Void. Perhaps you can sing to me sometime.
  14. Ahh.. well, this is the wrong place to have a discussion on that. Sorry to see her leave the forums, but I completely understand her feelings on the matter, having long abandoned them myself for similar and different reasons. Anyway, I don't think she's leaving SL completely, at least I hope not.
  15. I think she is messing with us again. She BETTER be messing with us again. <.<
×
×
  • Create New...