Vehicles its Official!!

Yeah, so I guess it just backs up my point, right? This is PREVIEW, not PRODUCTION. Hence my irritation. If things that should be resolved here end up in production (which doesn't mean - magically fixing vehicles, that is a 'big picture' kind of refactoring), then bitch away to your hearts content.

I think what these trial runs mean is, that LL listened, and are trying to gather more input than a two day preview and release ala v1.5.

Unfortunately this is a Misnomer of understanding. Yes it redirects however those redirects take up minimal time slices of the CPU's processing power on the server you still have to attain the multitude of other task that same server is doing at one time. Enough of those redirects within the confines of one "SIM" can hamper quality of effect of the sim. Additionally each Prim is a seperately handled redirect thus 400 prims in one parcel could mean 400 miliseconds oftime from the cpu processing speed.



Read some of Moopf statments and he is definately correct that we were promised this was the be all fix all old bugs update. For those of us that have been around a while we expected more not less on that aspect. We are talking almost 7 months time that a multitude of serious issues were suppose to be addressed and many of those were set aside for new features that could have been implimented with such versions that will impliment Havok 2. Unfortunately by the time Havok 2 is in place Havok will be replaced with Light Speed 1.




I work in a level of techinal support that if "BUGS" are not addressed 3 things will happen.

A) somebody might loose their life
B) Customers will not buy due to poor quality
C) Customerservice is Paramount and not paying attention to A and B will create C the lack of the company providing the product in the first place due to either lawsuits from loss of life or lack of sales due to poor quality.

So your right in the aspect that they cannot fix "Every" technical Issue out there but they can focus on the prominent ones that create Client and Server side Issues and do it in a timely manor. 9 months/1year/18months in that regard is unacceptable.

Communication is paramount in an environment such as Second Life. These forums are a significant tool in which to utilize to do that but when its dismissed and overlooked of course you are going to have people complaining and thus seeking answers at the same time.

Anyway I digress

Shadow

Reitsuki and Moopf, until history repeats itself again as you're predicting it will, it's up to you whether you plan to catalyze change constructively or through negativity.

I know bugs can be frustrating, but we could debate what will happen in the future based on past experiences all day, but that time would probably be better spent doing whatever creative work you do in world (or in RL), or if you have time to spare, help make it easier for LL to isolate these bugs by coming up with a reliably repeatable series of steps which allows them to reproduce the error. In my experience, most of the time spent fixing bugs is consumed in the process of trying to reproduce them.

Keep in mind too, LL has to balance your wishes for bug-free software with the wishes of those who keep clamoring for LL to release a new version to the main grid 'now now now'.

The quick release of 1.5 was definitely a horrible mistake, but how long do you think LL should wait to release? All software has bugs, so what threshold would be acceptable, and would you be willing to wait the time it takes to have that degree of stability delivered?

What if it took two years for a complete rewrite to fix some of these bugs, would you patiently stand by or would you become dissatisfied with a lack of new features (and the loss of new residents) during that time?

And how do you know they're not working on these bugs? Perhaps these *are* problems which require long term rewriting which affects much of the code. It is my understanding that the next few major releases include significant underlying structural changes to the fundamental subsystems in the software. So perhaps they *are* fixing the major bugs that frustrate you, but it is taking more than one version to do it.

It would not be like charging money for security fixes.

Many SL features not used by huge proportions of users: it is a very diverse userbase and what some people consider to be vitally necessary doesn't matter at all to other users, or is only of limited importance.

Furthermore, LL is a small company, working on a vastly multifaceted piece of software (that many want to be even more multifaceted). They have limited resources, which can only be directed at so many things at once. If people don't want to pay more (or work to get LL more revenue somehow, such as with more users through improved in-world content), fine, but then they have to deal with being patient for the limited resources to be directed toward their particular favorite aspects of the software.

What if that is how long it takes to fix this problem? What if the problem is so fundamentally rooted in the code, that it requires basically a complete rewrite of some very complex code, consisting of "9 months/1year/18month" of development?

If this is true, then according to you it is "unacceptable". What would you do?

How do we know they are not working on them...well pretty obvious when it comes from the horses mouth so to speak.

Shadow

I'd be interested in hearing an exact or accurately paraphrased sample of what was said, as perhaps it's possible what was said was not as exclusive of the scenario I proposed as I'm getting from your vague references.

This is exactly why I haven't upgraded to a premium account. I refuse to spend money on something that is broken and is not being fixed.

Run, do not walk, away from every online game/environment/pecan pie ever made.

You'll be happier.

Kinda hard to fix in the first place when your told directly that it was not being focused on at this time...Imagine how long it would take if it was focused on?

Oh and the unacceptable comment is primarly in reference to being told that its not being worked on.

After 18 months of asking about it begging and or squealing and being told "oh we arent working on it but hey we have "STREAMING VIDEO" ", wow, nice, pretty, thank you for more lag now what about the other stuff.

Kex from your comments you are coming across as though you think some of us are niave in the aspect of software developement.

Which for several of us is further from the truth but I wont get into that here.

Point is simply this we ask for certain fixes we get half of those aka the inventory good lord knows I am finally happy they got that one up.

But on the flip side should have been there in the first place with a maintainable inventory. Hindsight 20/20 I guess.

However, Client Crash Issues, Video card Crash issues and many others were not addressed and in some cases told "oh we arent working on those this go around."

Severly disallusioned ...maybe but at the same time due to updates and "Progress" several of my friends and companions can barely log in now.

Like I mentioned earlier, maybe if we knew we could help. Some have even suggested focus groups that would help eleviate the stress on LL this was even mentioned back prior to 1.2.

Kex you have been around to know I dont belly ach much unless its important and to me this gloss over of bug fixes from the past is important especially now when 1.6 was touted to be the bug squasher.

Shadow.

In as far as the Vehicle thing Kex it was asked of Philip prior to your arrival on Cienna's land last night.

Philip stated it was not fixed this time and was not focused on. I was the one that asked him This was in open chat in Preview after I had finished testing flying from sim to sim and crashing a couple of times crossing sim borders at specific speeds.

Additionally other topics were discussed in the myrade of conversations at the time and again noted not addressed.

AMEN. You night want to include all programs/hardware drivers/operating systems in that list. We have bugs in the software that I tech support for that have been around for *years*. People still buy the software, use it, and are quite happy with it. AS far as I know, no one has been killed by our software....or from Second Life, for that matter.

Fixes will happen. They may not happen as quickly as we want, because developers have to prioritize. The Lindens may very well have misspoken when they said they'd have all bugs worked out before the new version. I find that statement to be a bit unrealistic, actually. What they most likely meant was that 1.5 would be relatively stable before they moved to 1.6...which it is.

If there's anything I've learned in supporting software...it's that paitence is a virtue. Cause impaitence is certainly a vice.

Without an exact quote or accurate paraphrasing, I can just as easily assume that "not focusing" on the specific issue is due to *focusing* on the more underlying issues right now of which the issue you are upset about is a dependency.

It is my understanding that the person working on the video code is a relatively new developer at LL and was given this task as a way of breaking him or her in. If this is the case, then the argument that (s)he should be working on sim-crossing code is not valid. Additionally, you're assuming someone who has skill with 3d engine code will also be skilled in the physics and network code which is involved in the sim-crossing bugs.

If this inventory had been in SL in the beginning, then other compromises would have had to be made. Development resources are not infinite.

I often get disillusioned as well. The quick cure for this is to look at the competition.

Okay, yeah, new features are nice and all, but I still get the sinking "tottering house of cards" feeling that SL is a ton of features on a shaky codebase.

Why can't we drive around the world with vehicles? Seriously, we can't. Have you used a vehicle in the last 3 versions? It's jarring, impossible, and annoying.

Why do I get disconnected when flying to a busy Sim and have to relog?

Why does my client bomb out without an error after going to 3 or 4 sims?

Why are people's inventories getting corrupted, losing thousands of dollars of data?

Most importantly, why ARENT THESE SHOWSTOPPING BUGS FIXED?

Streaming video? Great. Can't wait to crash faster with 50 porn videos being sent to my computer at once.

I mean yeah, I'm happy that we get more features that we've requested, but come on, some of these bugs that people have are really, REALLY, bad. Like, "SL fucking sucks because of this" bad.

They need to be fixed.

LF

I totally concede that vehicles aren't behaving well. Its something that is known. What I won't presume to know is how deep that behavior reaches into the codebase. I don't know what kind of refactoring would be necessary, or what problems would have to be solved to make the issue disappear. So, given that it *may* be something that is intractable for a given amount of time, (yes even months) doesn't it stand to reason that other things may get fixed in the interim, and even new things added?

We'll see where this all goes, but I'm pretty sure they know vehicle performance can be improved. In fact, one of the NEW FEATURES for vehicles prevents them from slamming into the ground, if used correctly. At least its a step forward, don't you think?

Oh yes, one of the /undocumented/ ones... None of the ones in the release notes do.

I accept that its probably a lot of work to sort out vehicles. But with each version, that excuse wears more thin. If its so firking hard to fix, start working on it NOW, then maybe in 2, 3 updates you will have it fixed, instead of "Well, its too much work to do now, so we'll hold it off for a few more updates", which is what it seems to be.

This Kex is where your missing the point. I only mentioned Vehicle sim Crosings as being a noted Bug that was not being fixed. Additionaly being noted that it was directly said by the CEO.

I at no point eluded to the fact that the Video programer had the skills or the capability to fix that particular issue this is where your misguided in your reading of my statments.

I cannot spell this out in any cleaner clearer english than saying my question was about Focus.

Again, I am not niave in software product developement. I know the "Video" programer cannot fix "Physics" programing.
However, the "Video" programer can address "Video Card Issues" "Video Client Crashes" and all other assorted topics that relate to "VIDEO" problems in second life.

The point of the whole topic question and thread is why focus on aspects that will lead to further complicate previous "KNOW" bugs when those "BUGS" have not been addressed and summarly dismissed for a "NEW" look.

Never mind it does no good to mention anything if people are not going to take the time to read.

Have a Nice day

Shadow

Even admitting (and its untrue at least judging for the very good sales of my Supra) that very few person use vehicles, they should at least stop advertizing them in the main page if their behavior is so hectic and they intend not to offer any support for them. If you look at the main page and know nothing about SL you can easily think that vehicles are one of SL's main features.

But if (s)he's new, (s)he's probably not going to be very good at fixing bugs in a complex system which (s)he is unfamiliar with. You keep telling me you are not naive in software development, but you're overlooking some rather fundamental realities of the practice. You don't hire someone new and have them go straight into bugfixing your core code.

Which specific aspects do you think are being focused on which could further complicate known bugs? Which bugs will they complicate? I'll admit there are probably a few situations where this is true, but I'd like to know which ones specifically you are concerned about, as I'd like to explore the possibility that their implementation may be more beneficial than harmful in the big picture.

I hope that wasn't directed at me, as I have read everything you have said, and an ad hominem does no good to strengthen your argument. However, if you're just tired of debating, or are frustrated that not everyone agrees with you, then a more constructive and less loaded approach could have been made to communicate your desire to discontinue this discussion.

Choosing between working on bug fixes or features is a balancing act, and is made complicated by group dynamics. For instance, when LL brings a new developer into the fold we may not assign that developer to the task of killing bugs -- they are unfamiliar with the buggy code and fixing other developer's bugs is not necessarily the most fun introductory job. Instead we often give the develope a project that has been on the wish list for a while, is relatively fun, introduces them to the code in a less painful way, and is related to that developer's interests/expertise.

Such is the case with the Quicktime rendering feature. When we hired Callum Linden we felt that video/flash/html rendereing were projects well suited to his experience.

Incidentally, this was also the case with the new VEHICLE_LINEAR_MOTOR_OFFSET feature. It was actually implemented by a new developer on contract.

In the case of old vehicles and region crossings bugs. Indeed some of them have been superceded by bugs that were deemed to have higher priority, however there is another ingredient in the decision soup -- the risks of opening new bugs in an attempt at fixing others. The Havok-2 port has been postponed for this reason, as well as some phys-engine cleanup work that I was trying to get into 1.6. As it is, I'm sitting on some 90% completed changes what will make the Havok-2 port easier, and will help region crossings to some degree. I hope to be able to backport this work into 1.6.x, however it will have to be tested quite a bit before we're sure its ready.

Finally, there are several region crossing and vehicle bugs and this workaround will not solve all of them, but I will mention it anyway:

For best results for crossing region boundaries with vehicles... remove all unecessary attachments (especially hoochie hair and heavy scripts), cross the boundary in the clear (not near buildings or other content), and use vehicles with fewer prims/scripts.

I hope that helps.

Ahh, that's a good point. Better coordination between what is promoted on the web site, and what is focused on in development, would be nice.

I used There for a few days while waiting for a video card that supported SL, and it has at least decent vehicle support. (In fact, it seemed like most There events were focused on vehicles and racing.) When I got into SL, therefore, vehicles were one of the first things I tried out. But I quickly came to see them as almost a beta feature, lowered my expectations about them, and have since focused on other aspects of the world.

I'd use vehicles some if they had better support -- I'm sure a lot of other people would too -- but it's not the highest on my list of priorities. It would be very interesting to see a comprehensive survey (not just a forum poll) of what people use, or would want to use, in SL.

EDIT: had to add this:



HTML rendering? That's #1 on my priority list.

There has a completely different architecture.
It's essentially a giant flash app that runs entirely on your client.
It does not have realistic physics or collision detection.
It's like... 1980s vehicle technology.
The stuff that makes all of SL possible is precisely what castrates vehicle development.
Meaning, a distributed, server-centric, streaming paradigm where an unreliable network is in the critical path of anything important.
If you want to blame someone for SL's unreliability, blame the little warez kiddies, hackers and spammers for flooding the internet with useless traffic. Without them, SL would be a lot smoother.

If one is only disappointed and let down by SL and it's development -- leave and find something else.

If you want to add an opinion -- do it constructively by getting your hands and knees dirty and hunt down bugs. All I've done in pre-preview has been mainly sitting around and doing something over and over to see if I could get a repro recipie for a bug that was mentioned.

You can also be constructive in the way you add your opinion if you're not able to bug-hunt. Submit bug reports or wait for a feature-feedback venue to open up.

Being derisive and making assumptions about a company and people you don't even know is ungrateful, I'm sorry to say. The people at LL don't go to work and just listen to their mp3 playlist and surf pr0n all day. They work just as hard at their jobs as anyone else.

I would definitely be upset if people started speculating about assumptions over my blood, sweat, and tears.

If I had a daughter and she said "OMFG, Daddy, I want to marry Maxx."

I'd say, "That sounds cool, sweetie. "

Sounds like a good Idea. Been fun. Been real. But not real fun