Latif Khalifa

Interesting thing about RLV is that it found many non-BDSM roleplay uses. Again I'm most familiar with the accessibility features it provides for the people with impaired vision. There are these in-world RLV scripted devices (made like to look like cute guide dogs), that allow the owner to perform certain functions by using the keyboard. For instance they can drop a set of landmarks into it and then use keyboard commands to tell it to teleport them, like /1 tp home.

There are quite a few examples of RLV being used like that, as generic client scripting interface not related to any particular RP activity in SL.

Joshua Nightshade

Not in the slightest. In fact if anything is misleading it's your statement that two projects that share a number of developers and the same project lead have nothing to do with one another.

Ultimately, if LL employed someone working on Viewer 1 who used customers to DDoS a critic and a number of those people who coded alongside that employee went off to work on Viewer 2, I would have grave concerns about their integrity regardless of whether or not the two viewers share even a line of code. The code isn't the issue, it's the judgement of the people who knew for ages that Fractured was doing something wrong and had a sketchy past and refused to disassociate themselves until after LL got involved. LordGregGreg had some scruples and left on his own before then. Others did not. Others who went on to develop Phoenix and, now, Firestorm.

You can split whatever hairs and perform whatever intellectual gymnastics you want to dismiss this. Like I said before:

Unlike certain TPV developers, I don't demand you pick a specific viewer like a religion. I don't care what you use, I know what I won't.

__________________

Kara Spengler

Until LL defines what "shared experience" means nobody does. It also seems that Oz does not either. So until that uncertainly is resolved anything in a TPV that is not in the official viewer might be fair game. Radar? Area search? Built-in AO? Command-line stuff? RLV? On and on ...

__________________

Hitomi Tiponi

I would generally agree with much of that - but people like their gadgets. the next iPad and iPhone won't be much better or innovative than the last one, but still people will rush out to buy them. For some the experience is what matters, for others having toys to play with improves it for them.

Joshua Nightshade

There's been a number of followup questions and FAQs from the Lindens specifically discussing the policy and they made it expressly clear that functionality contained within the viewer that doesn't affect the grid in ways which break for people not on that viewer are fine. Radar, area search, built-in AO, RLV, on and on.

Hitomi Tiponi

I don't believe I said that - maybe you could quote it for me (and if so I'll be happy to withdraw it). I have said that Firestorm was developed seperately, but I have never said it had nothing to do with Phoenix - just that Phoenix was not the basis for the Firestorm viewer which I stand by.

Joshua Nightshade

You did say

which certainly gives the impression that you think they have nothing to do with each other which I'm sure you would agree is, at best, misleading.

As for how you define basis, your definition is obviously different to mine. I don't care about the code but the people involved in each project. As such you'll note that nowhere did I say nor imply that Phoenix and Firestorm share code. They share devs, which is sufficiently disconcerting to me.

Melissa Yeuxdoux

How does it do that, other than by impeding TPVs rather than doing more to improve the LL viewer?

Joshua Nightshade

I think you only need to look at how mesh adoption was stifled because many content creators hesitated to develop content utilising it, prefering to wait until mesh was in Phoenix, to see that LL holding tighter reigns on TPVs would have made that scenario unlikely to happen.

It didn't happen with sculpts — everyone could see them pretty quickly, and the only time lag was developers needing to learn how to create them.

I just don't get or agree with the logic that LL and TPV developers are or should be on equal footing. They aren't. It's LL's platform and always has been.

Leah Mayo

Out of lazyness, I use an RLV shoe script, which automatically attaches the other shoe and puts on the shoe base and the alpha layer when attached, and removes them when I detach the scripted shoe

I can think of more complicated non-kink uses for RLV, like model-bots at clothing stores, which can change outfits on customer request.

Hm, does Radegast have RLV-functionality?

Latif Khalifa

Emerald and Firestorm are worlds apart. I've often criticized Emerald and then later Phoenix developers about some practices which I considered unethical, or at least not in the spirit of opensource. Phoenix was a great step forward which introduced transparency, development in the open, but still had some annoyances that I have already mentioned earlier in this thread.

Now with Firestorm, the transition is full. The questionable features and development practices were dropped, their copyright and licensing policies are clear. I commend the team for their ability to grow and do the right thing.

Brianna Ort

Yes.

Argent Stonecutter

Regardless, they're all innovations in TPVs, which is teh question you specifically asked and was specifically answered.

There's not much controversy about those clauses, the controversy is about the "shared experience" clause.


Additional attachment points and multiple attachments, which weren't even on LL's radar until Emerald did them.

__________________
Argent Stonecutter -- Skyhook Station -- Coonspiracy Store

"And now I'm going to show you something really cool."


The previous is a cybernetic datum published - in direct contravention of DoD Regulation #229RR3X3 - as being conducive to the physical, psychological and/or social well-being of the population.

miranda

Oh , of course , i understand that some people love them .
i didn t tell that we should delete the "gadgets" .
Some people can think they are useful . I was from them .

But i have changed , maybe because i have done the summary of what concrete benefits they bring and it was poor .
And finnaly, my actual goals in second life have maturred .
So, if for any reason , they become deleted , i won t cry .

Joshua Nightshade

No, the question I specifically asked was ones which would be hurt by the new clause.

Okay, but they're in SL now and — like I also said — these were things people have been asking for for years. Maybe not multiple attachments, but a long time SL meme has been "NECK ATTACHMENTS" from an old thread on the official forums. I don't think innovation is implementing something in ancient JIRA issues.

Argent Stonecutter

Not really. It's based on a different code base, starting with a different version of SL, and doesn't incorporate things like the creepy stalking features in Phoenix. Where it has implemented features introduced in Phoenix it's frequently done it from scratch, as can be shown by the differences in things like viewer tags between Phoenix and Firestorm. Personally, I'd rather they just implemented the same viewer tags in both.

Latif Khalifa

The top 5 most popular viewers on the gird now support mesh. That will not solve problem with mesh adoption for two reasons: for rigged attachments, the lack of mesh deformer which allows clothes to fit to your avatar shape has led to content creators having to shop all sorts of hack and workarounds, like include 4-5 different sizes, having to use alpha wearables, etc. to make clothes appear to fit. Linden Lab refused to implement this feature. It was only when we, the users of Second Life, have crowd funded Qarl to implement the much wanted feature, did LL consider including it in their own viewer. And now that LL is involved it means it will take much longer to get there.

The second reason is Prim Equivalence/Land Impact for mesh when rezzed on the parcels. Linden Lab has set price so high on those that people still prefer to use prims and sculpts as the most affordable way to put content on the parcel.

For these reasons, I don't think mesh will achieve the speed of adoption that sculpts have enjoyed, even now, when support in viewers is near universal.

Melissa Yeuxdoux

But that's not the only way to cause an experience not to be shared. Surely if it's changed from the user's POV it's no longer shared, just as much as if it changes for someone else. If the quoted characterization of the new rules is correct, then why is the mesh deformer code, which only changes what mesh attachments look like to someone with a viewer that has the code and has it activated, problematic under 2k?

Argent Stonecutter

"In all seriousness, can anyone point to anything that a third party viewer developer has created which can be described as "innovative?""

Good lord, why on Earth not?

Joshua Nightshade

How do you define innovation? To me it's coming up with something new. Addressing pre-existing (and longstanding) feature requests is certainly responding to a need that LL has a frighteningly long history of ignoring, but it isn't what I consider an innovation.

ETA, as yet again you've changed the post after the fact, you took the italiacs out of context.

Misty Harley

My take on it is because others will see it the original way not the deformed-now fitting properly way.

example: Mesh too small so person uses specific viewer to alter the appearance with deformer to make it bigger. That altered appearance is only seen by those who have that particicular viewer and the user themselves. Everyone else will see it the original too small size that is on a non-deformer compatible viewer.

It's not user only viewed...it's everyone viewed except not everyone will see it 'fixed'

__________________

Joshua Nightshade

This isn't true, DanielRavenNest has had a longstanding JIRA from the mesh beta asking for a parametric deformer a la what was added to Blue Mars eventually and LL's reply was that they did not have the resources to develop one themselves but if someone else did they would look the code and consider it. So people donated to Qarl's effort and now we have alpha code that LL apparently will be implementing.

It's not like LL had never heard of the concept before Qarl handed them the code. It was LL saying "if someone else does the grunt work we'll consider it" that pushed Maxwell to the crowdsourcing effort.

Argent Stonecutter

You ever read any science fiction?

There's all kinds of nifty new innovative products that people credit for amazing innovation because they're really innovative... hardly anybody goes back and says "that wasn't an innovation, Fred Romancer wrote about it in his groundbreaking novel in 1968". Well not until some bugger tries to patent it.

Imagination is a wonderful thing, it produces endless wishlists and dreams, but until someone actually goes and does the hard work of turning it into a practical solution it's not an "innovation". That's the difference between an inspiration and a product.

eighthdwarf Checchinato

Well… the Firestorm is based on Snowstorm, hence that must be the ominous griefing viewer Joshy has meant...

__________________

Joshua Nightshade

I think there's a difference between creating a tablet computer similar to something that showed up in an episode of Star Trek thirty years ago and looking at a popular JIRA request from last year and saying "I've got some free time, I can do this."