wordy script menu options

In the Tools menu there are some wordy options that could be optimized a bit:

1. Recompile Scripts in Selection -> Recompile Selected Scripts (saves 5 characters)
   
2. Reset Scripts in Selection -> Reset Selected Scripts (saves 5 characters)
   
3. Set Scripts to Running in Selection -> Run Selected Scripts (saves 15 characters)
   
4. Set Scripts to Not Running in Selection -> Stop Selected Scripts (saves 19 characters) or Stop Running Selected Scripts (saves 10 characters)
   

Why not a sub menu named "Scripts in Selection..." with entries "Start", "Stop", "Reset", "Recompile". With some very obsure hotkeys.

"Selected Script(s)..." would be a shorter name.

But you're not selecting scripts, you're selecting prims and link sets, and acting on the scripts inside them...

"Selection Scripts" then--geez. I JUST WANT THE DAMN THING SHORTENED SO IT DOESN'T WIDEN THE MENU ANY MORE THAN IT HAS TO AND BE TOTALLY CONFUSING AS TO WHAT THE HELL IT IS BEING SELECTED.

But not accurate. The operation aplies to all scripts in the selected object. You can't select one script in an object and reset it through that interface.

I'm just trying to point out to you that your ideas may not be perfect. I see lots of threads you start all over the forums in which you come in screaming mad, unable to understand why SL isn't this way. You don't seem to be willing to accept that maybe your ideas are not perfect, and that maybe you're one of only a few people that want them.

Hence what the DISCUSSION forums are for, Lex, to flesh out ideas. Yes, I'm usually frustrated that a feature that once worked fine is now broken or otherwise screwed up so as to limit my creativity even more. I went through this in Active Worlds and it SERIOUSLY pissed me off! So now I just vent ASAP to get my feelings out there and known (since telepathy just doesn't seem to work with most people--especially developers!). I just want options, Lex. I don't like being limited. I want to create. Limits limit creativity. JUST SAY NO TO LIMITS!

Anyway, here's what I do:

1. I propose an idea (or expand on an existing one by someone else).
   
2. The idea is discussed, refined, picked apart, chewed on for a while, and spit out--improved.
   
3. A Feature Vote submission is, er, submitted (this may happen before the initial discussion).
   
4. I add the improvement to my SL webpage (which has lots of other ones--take a look!).
   
5. I bitch and moan to SL (hi, Torley!) to get it implemented (I live near LL so maybe I could pay them a visit to persuade them--kidding! But, I'd like to visit LL someday...<twitch>--kidding! I'll give them all hugs--really! Well, maybe handshakes at first.)
   
6. The idea is implemented, we're all happy, world peace is achieved, and no one is left to go hungry--yay!
   

Seriously, though, SL needs direction. Developers choosing what they work on is fine to a certain extent, but without an overall vision, SL is just like a leaf in the wind, developing aimlessly here and there (or catering to big-money investors--i.e. Wells Fargo) who don't have a clue how SL should be developing--just because someone has money doesn't mean they have vision! This is what happened to AW and look where it is: barely in existance yet, oddly, still in business--go figure.

I already have a vision for SL (and AW) explained here (though it's still mostly AW-specific but I'll update it for SL eventually). No, it may not be your vision, or LL's, or your grandma's--but it's MY vision and I'm open to discussion on it.

"Selection Scripts" is vague, "Scripts In Selection..." While marjonaly longer it is still shorter then "Save object back to object contents"

Ok I'm reading though your thoughts from your website to which i will respond:

1. Gaming
   1. SL doesn't have these problems, SL also isn't a public traded company.
      
   
   
2. Holodeck
   1. LL currently makes money renting land to users. How would this fit the holodeck modle?
      
   2. A holodeck spoils any 3d world in the sence that it no longer is bound by any rules of space. A nightclub can take up the space of a small box. How can you explore an area if you have no idea where the holodecks are? Hidden spaces complicate exploring, people are lazy, people don't like to jump though hoops, having all of space on one plane simplifies everything.
      
   
   
3. World Editor
   1. Not much to be gained from creating an offline editor. Complicates asset permissions exponentialy.
      
   
   
4. Immersive Technology - sensor suits and force feedback
   1. LL was intending to allow for SL interaction but quickly discovered such technology is heavily patented.
      
   
   

Huh? That menu option isn't even being discussed.

Yes, SL has more gaming features (inventory, jumping--which AW now has) but its vehicles still suck compared to games like Grand Theft Auto 3+. SL 1.9's vehicle known issues prove that, what with them flying apart when crossing sims, lagging, etc. SL has a LONG way to go before it can truly compete with 3D multiplayer games in terms of vehicles.

That's the problem: SL should be more open-source or, at the very least, let anyone run a sim server outside Linden Lab. LL claims to want to EVENTUALLY open-source SL (at least the sim server or whatever), but not until 2010 from what I've read. That's just silly and open-source competitors are already springing up all around SL. LL might want to think about not being so greedy and getting back to its original vision/mission as being an open-ended/-sourced environment...

The Croquet Project looks more like a holodeck but I'm not specifically referring to virtual discontinuous spaces like that. I just mean being able to create and edit things at will inside a virtual environment. There's a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode where Geordi, Worf, and other crew members are having alien abduction nightmares. They use the holodeck to recreate the room they are taken into, getting fairly specific about how certain things like the chair, knife/blade/scissors, etc look/sound like. That level of interactive editing is, ultimately, what I'm getting at. However, to bring it to 21st century terms, see below about integrated modelling.

Nowhere did I state an OFFLINE editor (but I would still like to bring offline-created models INTO the online world). See integrated modelling for more info about what I mean.

[/list]That was just a quick throw-out but I think a neural interface would be a better choice anyway.

Thanks for your comments. As I wrote before, the page is AW-specific but can include SL as well--I need to update it to apply to virtual environments in general, obviously. However, the AW improvements page, while SL having a lot of it (which I find is interesting since the page was created in 1999...), SL still could use some of its improvements (which I will be transferring/updating to my SL page--probably getting its own "improvements" page eventually).

I believe he meant his choice of wording for the sub menu wouldn't widen it any further than that menu already does..

Ah, OK. Well, other menu options could be shortened and have submenus applied to them too...

We already had our Parametrics Debate, so lets not repeat that. I only brought up offline editing because it's really the only area left since we have an inworld object editor (but what we really need is an image editor and animation editor).

Neural interfaces are a good 10 years off if not 20 minimum. Neural interfacing directly with the brain so far has had mixed results. Currently an experimental treatment option for the blind; which sometimes sends the patient into sesiurs from brain overload. The next closest stimulates the nerve in the ear for those who have gone def. The biggest problem they have been having ironicly is thier smallest; They have trouble getting the electrodes close enough together.

Yes, and I still disagree with you and Chris on MANY points. I just got tired of editing that stupid page. A Wiki page does NOT make a good discussion forum!

For those curious about the parametric debate, it's here but, please, reply in the forums...

No need for an image editor since there are so many 3rd-party ones (Paint Shop Pro, Photoshop, etc).

I'm thinking nanite-level electrodes, then, perhaps. Anyway, a neural interface is still too sci-fi for me right now anyway. Virtual environments have enough trouble with NON-neural interfaces!

I guess I was just reacting to the huge amount of capital letters you directed my way. I was also reacting to the fact that I've seen 5-10 threads recently written by you in which you start off not proposing an idea, but ranting and raving and belittling the lindens for not having already done it your way. Remember, they're human, they can only work so fast, and they don't always think of the things you do! I'm pretty sure that belittling them into doing your feature is almost never the way to go about things.

Look at it from the end-user's perspective, Lex. This isn't the first time LL has changed something in the user interface for the worse. Granted, this thread isn't a very good example of that (I'm responding specifically to your comments about my OTHER threads), but it is another example of a rushed implementation. I feel as if LL is belittling us and making us feel like stupid little end-users who need to have cutsey-fluffy interface tricks (with the inventory, specifically, but the IM window's tear-off feature is poorly implemented too). I'd rather have actual BUGS be fixed then all this crap added which slows the interface and makes it even MORE annoying to use. If they're going to change how the interface works (i.e. make it slower), LL should make it optional (at least with a settings.ini tweak or something). See my SL page for info about the recent interface changes (and other things) and what specific problems I have with them.

Oh and I use capitalization for emphasis, not shouting, so sorry if it bothers you. Too many years in newsgroups, I guess. I also use it as sarcasm when there's no punctuation.

Typo:

It does:

As for your notes on peducing polys, instead of a merge, I think that we need a "weld." That would make it so that the edges of polygons are lined up and the interior polys removed. It isn't the same as a boolean addition of primitives (which, btw, is very laggy even in 3D Studio--too many and you can actually crash it). Problems arise when trying to cut out the polys inside curved objects. :-\

Thanks for mentioning the typo! As for IM flashing, the current IM tab flashes only if it's in the background. Same with SL's taskbar button. I reworded it:

new message indicators: The current IM session's tab and SL's taskbar button will only flash if the current IM session's tab is in the background. New IM sessions will flash the new IM session's tab and SL taskbar button (if SL is minimized or in the background--but new chat messages give no indication). New IMs in the current IM session's tab should optionally flash its tab and SL's taskbar button when SL is minimized or in the background. New chat history messages should optionally flash SL's taskbar icon when SL is minimized or in the background.

Merge/weld--same diff. Never liked boolean operations; gimme direct access to, and full control over, verts/polys and boolean ops are irrelevant and unnecessary.

I agree. It just is an added complication that merge/weld needs very specific circumstances to work. Unless we want it to draw new edges, creating new polys inbetween, but that would defeat the purpose wouldn't it?

With 2 cubes situated 0.001m apart the system would see this and flag "not touching" and proceed to draw 4 rectangular sides around the empty space we are trying to delete. In removing 4 polys we created 8 with a net gain of 4.

This is bound to happen.

If we dictate that the verticies to be welded must reside in the same space, then you encounter problems trying to weld a sphere with just about anything.

Introduce prim side snapping to connect prims flush and have the covered/hidden polygons removed. If, say, a cube's 1m-long side joints with another cube's 2m-long side, the 2m side's polygons get clipped/reduced to 1m to fill the open space. The 1m side's polygons are clipped, too, of course. If either cube is rotated out of alignment, both sides unclip.

Granted, this gets harder for curved "sides" so perhaps this polygon clipping should only occur on flat sides/ends. This also gets more wasteful if, say, a 1mx1m side is within the edges of a 2mx2m side. If a hole is created in the 2mx2m side, the edges around the 1mx1m side create 8 polygons instead of only the initial 2. In this case, the sides should remain covered.

Obviously, it makes sense to only apply planar side polygon reduction (PSPR) to a side that touches at least 3 edges of another side--at least for cubes anyway. Only applying to equal-length/width flat sides would be better than nothing (and probably the easiest to implement). But, really, auto-polygon removal is fine but I'd still like an option to specifically remove a side from being rendered at all.