Vehicles its Official!!

Jokes about some sections aside... this.... just needs to be restated because this is a very good opinion overall.

And, Icon pointed to a couple of good ways to be constructive, my bug reports start with symptoms and repro, if it's quick, I think it's been spotted by others, if it's long, I think it's something worth a moment of extra time for, they don't need 5000 "Fix this" requests, they need facts, admittedly when it's an obvious thing, I'll keep it short, when it's some little thing that you have to do exact steps to reproduce, I'll go through those steps. And detail them.

Also remember that this is an in-house beta, not the polished 1.6 final, there will be bugs because this was made to show the cool new things 1.6 will have, it's not meant to be perfect, it's meant to be a sneak peek, a privilidge, stop treating it like it has to be perfect before it's even finished.

One doesn't complain about a chef who's still mixing the batter that the frosting looks wrong.... do they?

Hootchie hair is the root of all evil, so sayeth Andrew!

<3

IMHO, i think LL are pamming off the sims crossing bug. they know they cannot fix it with the current structure of the game.

i think it is somthing that will only be resolved when the game is remade with Havok 2 or wotever.

im not a comp techy or nething but from my own little world of knowledge (and thats not much) on sim entry/exit, there will be a 0.000000000000001 (insert more 0's if you want) time delay because after all they r just 2 mediums stuck together in which an avatar resides. in this small space of timebetween crossing sims, the game thinks we have 'd/c'ed' or logged out, causing us to stick and vehicle scripts to shut down.

I'm gone

Thank you Andrew at least this coverd and answered my questions in the intial thread topic.

I'm pleased that a "Linden" understood and "Read" my commentary for what it was versus the Hyperbole that others seemed to lean towards.

Thus in closing this thread out for those that think me a Linden BASHER maybe a class in reading comprehension would eleviate that misunderstanding for you.

My first Item was a stament a notification to fellow vehicle scripters that the sim border thing was not fixed and not being addressed at this time with this update.

With Andrews explination it clears up why its not being fixed thus refering back to my sentiment earlier that if we knew we might could help.

Secondly I asked why was the Video put on the forefront of this update when it was claimed to be the fix all of major bugs.

Again Andrew clearly defined why and the premise of the its placement in the Queue as familurization for a new programer.

Ironically which also answerd Kex's question to me as I am sure they had to have a programer work with the Callum for the purpose of getting him acclimated to the code. Thus pointing out where some of those resources went to.

Thirdly in the case of my speculation at no point did I belittle Linden Labs.
But merely posed a question that if one bug was fixed that it may make new implimentation easier as they may not inadvertently make other mistakes that create further bugs.

Although this was not cleared up by Andrew it can still be speculative as programing doesnt always work as planned.

However, I do resent the fact that many failed to truly read the post and understand that it was not about the "Actual" preview but about Focus.

Which looking back I find hillarious that one became so enraged when in all actuality my post was further from the truth than they were eluding to.

For those that told me to "leave" because I was merely dissappointed or flustrated.

Maybe those individuals need to reevaluate and look at what my complaint pulled out productively.

Such as temporary work arounds and a better understanding as to why vehicle crossings are not being fixed at this time.

But I'm not worried that won't change as people are only going to read what they want to and go off on tangents that have no bearing on the topic at hand.

So I bid thee all good day and again thank you Andrew for your explination.

Sincerely, Shadow Weaver.

No Andrew, honestly it does not help. Vehicles are already EXTREMELY limited in prims, and vehichle creators already have to do a big effort to build decentlly looking (translation: sellable) vehicles while still retaining the option of carrying at least a couple of avatars, not to mention making their scripts agyle enough but still having their vehicle controllable despite the lag (and we have to add further code to the scripts to work around SL's bugs, like them getting stuck into the ground or into the asphalt and loosing the physical status when they pass sim borders). Telling us to make them even with fewer scripts and prims does not help. Should we drive on plywood cubes with wheels that don't even turn (turning wheels need their own script, of course)? Maybe should we limit textures too?
At least stop advertising vehicles as one of the main parts of SL like it seems from the front page, because as of now vehicles are extremely neglected server side, despite the fact that the interest from the public DOES exist.
In short, if you don't want to (or can't) allow users to drive 1000 meters in a straight line without suffering horrible lag (wich i didnt experience even in mmorpgs when 100 people crossed server lines at the same time in full fledged field battles, See DAOC) stop boasting about people being able to be "race drivers" or to have fun with vehicles on the front page, because as of now it's impossible, and this dangerousely skims along the limits of the false advertisement.

Highlighting this particular fact to support the case that LL is not spending all their resources on fixing bugs demonstrates that you may be a little too focused on short term improvments.

Bringing in new developers will benefit SL in the long term once they are up to speed. Obviously, it will create a small drain on existing resources in the short term, but I think that is quite a small price to pay for the additional resources it will make available in the future.

Additionally, attacking other people's reading comprehension does nothing to support your points. I'm not sure why you insist on repeating this form of personal attack instead of sticking to the facts you know.

i'd use the heck out of them if they worked better. it's kinda a chicken and egg thing you know? should they not fix them cause not many people use them or do not many people use them because they aren't fixed?

we might have some wrong priorities here. SL has problems for sure but i think this warning applies........

i got that from my Windows license. but it's dead on for SL too. don't expect it to be perfect and don't rely on it for important stuff. it's for having fun and it's hella possible to have fun with it even if there's problems.

no you're not. stop being melodramatic.

thanks for the info Andrew!

Shadow, what the devil is a Misnomer of understanding?

And is the capitalized "M" of significance?

Is that kinda like a Sword of Smiting (+2)? i.e. I was doing well in my war-of-words with Shadow and Maxx, but then he hit me with the Misnomer of Understanding! I was struck speechless, but I hit him back with my Misconception of clarity.

(heheh couldn't resist)

back to your regularly scheduled argument.

oh yeah... i feel your frustration, but I have accepted the fact that SL is a cutting-edge experimental system and there are some bumps that come with it. I also feel that purely from a business perspective, LL has to move the product forward at the same time as fixing older problems. I think you (talking to shadow now) get this too. Software such as this is a balancing game of many conflicting interests. While I don't totally agree with all of your arguments, I'm glad you posted this, and glad Andrew read it and responded coherently.

The really blew it on this update....

I mean they haven't even addressed the ghosting issues...

The vehicle issues are a big problem too...

Are they even trying to fix these bugs? Do they even log developer time for these bugs?

I *know* that ghosting can be worked around (see my post in the wiki)... but it would be a hack. I'm not sure how they will fix boarder crossing problems... that seems to be a failure of the basic archatecture.

If you're going to make grandiose claims about having all the answers and slagging the dev staff, I think a common courtesy would be to link to those answers. I looked through all of the wikis, and didn't see any comments regarding ghosting. If you'd care to either link or post your proposed solution, then we can actually discuss the validity of that solution.

As for border crossings, I think you're spot on. These problems do seem to be inherent in the very design of SL's asset system. They could reduce the frequency of these problems by increasing the size of the sim, but that really only reduces on symptom of what is a problem endemic in the current SL infrastructure: poor data handling. It's a problem which every major project experiences, but it's one which needs to be addressed before SL truly transitions from the Betaverse.

(With all due respect/props/etc to Hiro for the term Betaverse.)

it's there in the feature request wiki...

I called for a "clear ghosts" button.

When you press the button, it will run a script to verify the existance of objects within a radius and attached to your avatar by comparing what is there to what is in the database. Anything that is on screen (within a radius) and not in the database would be removed.

It wouldn't be very laggy... no slower then what it takes to rez the scene to begin with (probably faster), and also because the button would not need to be pressed very often.

as far as attachment ghosting (when things dissappear) it might not be hard to duplicate the effect of attachments returning at the cross of a sim boarder with a button press either.

BUT!!!!! AT THE VERY LEAST...

We should be able to relog, or re rez a scene without having to close secondlife and re open it.

But all these things are hacks and workarounds... as a user they would make me satisfied... but a developer would not find them pretty at all...

I have been in favor of something similar for some time now. Similar to how a web browser has a "Refresh" button, this would serve the purpose of a manual update.

I don't know the mechanics, but I would appreciate the end result.

Your idea is interesting. I'm glad you described it here, because I still can find no reference to it in the various wikis. The only caveat I forsee: the button should be linked to a timer, so that someone cannot maliciously spam the server by repeatedly clicking the button and requesting a full update. Otherwise, I think this is the best solution I've heard yet.

Well technically the root of the ghosting problem is the volatility of UDP packet transfer. They tend to drop, and when you drop an object update that is still sitting in your cache, you get a ghost. (as a rough explanation).

It would be nice to have a "refresh button," and could conceivably be viable if there was a way to check for unique identifiers of object information in the cache. Server-side there are keys... but anyone know if they're persistant to the naming convention of cache files somehow? Maybe in the file-headers?

As for the sim-crossing thing.. that is an extremely complex issue that I wouldn't want to touch with a 10-foot pole. The developers at LL are brave to go near this problem.

Rez'd object information is stored in a RAM-based DB... and when we cross a border, it has to transfer volumes of information over a 100Mbt network connection to the next sim which has to load that object information into it's DB and receive physics data, etc.

Wow.

Poor architecture from the beginning someone was saying... hm. Have you seen the source? Could you write something better? If you can, by all means maybe SL needs a little competition.

For what it's worth though, I think SL has been putting forth a tremendous effort since day 1 -- and while they often don't get it, I think they deserve a big round of applause for what's coming up in 1.6

It's been a long road since 1.1 let alone 1.0.

Hear hear. SL is unlike any other persistent world in the volume of user generated content it has to handle and stream. It's a miracle it works at all, and works so efficiently. Remember, the symptoms we sometimes suffer are a result of the freedoms we're accorded. It's a tradeoff it's clesrly easy to forget.

Kex, I thought about it and have slept since yesterday. I am going to chalk this up to a misunderstanding on your behalf and a self-centric arrogance on mine that I got worked up over your replies yesterday.

Just to clarify from my point of view yesterday I didn’t know the Video developer was new until you brought it up. However as per the reply it did explain to me where resources went that were taken away from bug research.

Andrew handled the situation by explaining why the bug crossing issue cannot be updated currently which was my primary statement that it had not been addressed this go around.

But personally to be honest I think its much more in depth than a simple physics engine. But that’s a discussion for a different post one with much less estrogen and testosterone involved.

However, my notations about people not reading and comprehending yesterday were disingenuous of me to retort to in the manor I did. Was it childish of me to get frustrated and reply as I did, of course it was I would be an idiot to say otherwise?

In the past I have typically kept my perceptions and feelings to myself and tried to be non-confrontational on the forums.

However, between Max's blatant misunderstanding and you tipping off the course of the topic in essence I lost my normal cool and train of thought thus resorting to my follow on replies.

So today Kex I will apologize for my insidious snide commentary towards both you and Max.

Although, I would like to ask in return that neither make assumptions as to my knowledge base of product development, or assumptions about my focus that are speculative.

If you have a question about my visions I am man enough to point it out clearly and concisely as I possibly can.

As an explanation: assumptions on your behalf that I did not understand product development was a label that ate at me. Why? Because that is what I do for a living is Product Development.
Again a topic that need not be discussed further here as it was speculative when broad assumptions were made.

Therefore I offer a truce and apology with the only condition being that assumptions of one another’s thoughts/perceptions and Focus not be attacked.

Additionally if there is a misperception not to openly assume so but question privately and if a true misunderstanding took place continue forward from there with a clearer knowledge.

Now, in reply to your comment about bringing in developers...I do not disagree with you in that respect.

Typically I do not complain or disgorge information unless its factual as other wise it would be a detriment to my charature and ultimately my business.

However, I have offered up an apology if it’s accepted then I graciously thank you.

If its not accepted then I have done my part to clear my conscious for my reprehensible behavior yesterday in assuming some needed reading comprehension lessons.

Sincerely, Shadow