llTeleport()

Please post your thoughts on the idea of adding llTeleport(key id, vector simcoords) to LSL provided that it only works within sim boundries and will not port you to any height over land on which you're not allowed.

Shouldn't this be in feature suggestions?

Ehhhhhhhhh, sim boundries only would really suck. A height limit I'd be less against. Idealy I'd like very little limitation other than my idea below.

What I would like llTeleport to be able to do is to teleport you to any location on the grid. Perhaps using grid coordinates. Perhaps also in About Land you could specify if you want users to be able to directly teleport to your land, if they are allowed to, the land would use the "entry point" coordinates we already have in there as a place to put the avatar. If an island is set to be hidden, you obviously couldn't teleport to it.

What would I do with this?
- Create teleport tours.
- Easily get from one of my lands to another.
- "Portals" for games.
- Go to favorite locations fast (WA, friends lands, etc.)

And I agree with Eggy, probably should be in Feature Suggestions.

Moved to Feature Suggestions Forum.

Thank you Eggy and Jeska; I posted it in General as a Second Life related "idea." I'm not to the point of "requesting" it as a new feature or feature revision. That would instantly classify me a newbie hating telehub destroying bastard. But I'm sure you two know best.

I've edited the original post to include an av key in the parameters. It was an oversight that I realized just before my connection dropped offline.

Oz, your suggestions are well taken and would be a better option. However, they'd effectively damage the community by eliminating the need for social focal points as they are currently and effectively provided by telehubs. I'm exploring the idea of supporting a feature for elegant movement around a sim without having to suffer the clunkyness of sit hack, llPushObject() or llMoveToTarget().

I didn't mean to imply a height limit. I meant that the function would fail if the script tried to teleport foo to <a,b,c> if foo was banned from (a,b). In other words, height would be a nonfactor in that decision.

I have a telepathic link to Jeska. I didn't want or need to AR this but it got moved anyway.

I think it is a fine idea, I would like a more powerful command but if the limited to a sim approach is the most one can get then that is better than nothing at all.

http://secondlife.com/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Features
"Script Handled Avatar Teleportation Proposals"
Blue Proposal

1. Description
   1. This is a push/pull method for avatars only. It requires a target prim. It requires the script invoking the teleporting to know the PIN of the teleport target.
   
   
2. Functions
   1. llTeleport(key passenger, key destination, integer pin)
      
   2. llSummon(key passenger)
      
   3. llSetTeleportTarget(vector target)
      
   4. llSetTeleportPIN(integer pin)
      
   5. llRequestTeleportTarget(key destination)
   
   
3. Events
   1. teleport(integer passenger_count)
   
   
4. Land Permissions
   1. Allow Unauthorized Teleport Targets
   
   
5. Script Permissions
   1. PERMISSION_TELEPORT
   
   
6. About:
   1. A teleport to a target that is over Unauthorized property will result in a teleport similar to what happens when an avatar teleports to a location that is not near telehub. A script would need to acquire the PERMISSION_TELEPORT for it to teleport an avatar without the avatar being prompted with a summons to that location. Attachments would be granted PERMISSION_TELEPORT automatically. On arrival at the target, teleport() event would be thrown in the target prim. teleport() uses llDetected* functions. llSummon would work the same way as llTeleport but would be a pull version. llTeleport is a push method.

Green

1. Description
   1. This is a push method for avatars only. It requires a target prim.
   
   
2. Functions
   1. llSummon(key passenger)
      
   2. llSetTeleportTarget(vector target)
   
   
3. Events
   1. teleport(integer passenger_count)
   
   
4. Land Permissions
   1. Allow Unauthorized Teleport Targets
   
   
5. Script Permissions
   1. PERMISSION_TELEPORT
   
   
6. About:
   1. Same as the Blue proposal just for a subset of functions.

Red

1. Description
   1. This is a pull method for avatars only. It requires a target prim. It requires the script invoking the teleporting to know the PIN of the teleport target.
   
   
2. Functions
   1. llTeleport(key passenger, key destination, integer pin)
      
   2. llSetTeleportTarget(vector target)
      
   3. llSetTeleportPIN(integer pin)
      
   4. llRequestTeleportTarget(key destination)
   
   
3. Events
   1. teleport(integer passenger_count)
   
   
4. Land Permissions
   1. Allow Unauthorized Teleport Targets
   
   
5. Script Permissions
   1. PERMISSION_TELEPORT
   
   
6. About:
   1. Same as the Blue proposal just for a subset of functions.

Why don't we just remove the silly restrictions from llSetPos. That way you can detect when someone sits on an object and instantly move them to their destination.

Because the movement of prims across sim boarders are kind of funky at present (or when i last checked). When a prim needs to move from one sim to another first it moves along the x axis, then the y axis.

So if you were moving a prim from Noyo to Brilliant it would first go though Cowell, Abbotts, Cordova, Georgean and finaly into Brilliant. If one of those sims didn't exist the object would go offworld.

Anyway if LL were to do this they would need to redesign how prims move across boarders.

I'm definately not against the idea of having llTeleport() as a sanctioned replacement for the llSitTarget hack. Especially if it abides by the current restrictions.

However, unless I'm misunderstanding what the benefits are - is it really worth spending precious development time on function behavior that we can do already?

If Linden were to work on this instead of better land parcel controls for the mainland, or the ability to appear offline for chat purposes - I'd be pretty bummed out.

I guess if its only 20 minutes of a developer's time, why not. But I'm thinking that if you're including regression testing in that mix - this is no 20-minute implementation.

Sorry to be a wet blanket

It can't be much more complex than merging llTeleportHome() with the parcel access restriction code and the destination calc we use with the sit hack now. All three of those features have been operating seamlessly for months. Granted, if those features are spagettied into spagetti, it'll take decades of development time to implement. Perhaps one of the devs will enlighten us.

I was right about the virus, which means I'm probably right about teleporting.

I'd like to see the llTeleport() command as well. But there's no need to have it too complex, I'd say something like this would do:

llTeleport(string/key sim, vector simPos);

I'm unsure how best to identify sims, but if their names are unique then that would do, then you specify the position within that sim.

I think this function would have to only work for avatars that choose to sit on it, I wouldn't like being teleported randomly (and it would be a malicious action waiting to happen). Or if it is to allow teleportation via any event, then it should ask for permission first, UNLESS the land on which the object is placed is owned by the owner of the object, in which case permission is not required (but the avatar moved would receive a message to say what happened).
In the case of the last part (sim and owner the same), if permission is not acquired then it would only be able to teleport the avatar to the nearest land which is owned by someone besides the object/land owner.

e.g I am on a plot owned by bob, which is neighboured by Martha (in the positive Y direction). Since bob's security script teleports unknown avatars in a direction mainly in the Y plain (e.g to co-ordinates 20,100,20 where bob's land is at 20,50,20) it will place me in Martha's land.
It will only teleport me the full distance if the script asks for permission before-hand and I accept BEFORE it attempts to teleport me.

Telehubs exist for newbies?

I'm probably considered a newbie, and I instantly thought it was silly, annoying, and counter-intuitive to not be able to teleport to the EXACT location I wanted to go (or, at the very least, the exact sim). I mean, if I wanted to spend time in transit, I wouldn't be using teleport.

As soon as I started finding places where I'd collide with unrezzed buildings, instant lag from ugly commercial clutter around hubs, and places located more than one sim away from the hub, I started hating them even more.

I understand some people might want to keep people from teleporting en-masse directly to their land, but beyond that, some of us find those things more of an artificial impediment to getting around than a helpful feature.

PS: Yes, I realize that it's better than not having teleport at all, which I understand used to be the case. And unless you are on a cruise, going across the Atlantic by plane is probably better than by boat. Doesn't mean I wouldn't rather take a suborbital passenger rocket or something than a 747...

(Sorry for the tangent, I'm sure it's been discussed before.)

Talamasca is a last name? I did not know that.

Telehubs exist for two purposes, to centralize business establishments, and to act as gathering places thus providing spacious, pretty, low traffic residential areas three-to-four sims removed. I didn't mean to imply that me being branded a business hating newbie eating telehub destroying monster is at all rational; it's just what happens anytime I bring up a topic or suggest a feature that has anything to do with traveling from one point to another on The Grid All Hail The Central Grid.

Khamon - I know we respectuflly disagree on the issue of P2P - but I've never seen anyone accuse you of being a newbie hater or a monster, nor can I fathom anyone thinking that of you.

While I probably see this issue polar opposite from the way you see it - I think we both hold our firm beliefs because we think its what's best for SL. How anyone could think otherwise of your beliefs here is beyond me.

You're entitled to your opinion, and while some folks may disagree or debate - it shouldn't be anything personal on either end.

Surely scripted teleportation and telehubs are essentially different? While admittedly it would allow 'unofficial' telehubs to be created, these aren't going to accessible from the find menu, and if you want to get to a place you will still have to use this, as it is unlikely that every location in SL will have these unofficial hubs, and even less likely that they will take you to where you want to be, only a handful of places at best.