Avoid using resizer script!

Friends don't let friends use the resizer scripts, found in so many products today -- the ones that require a script in every prim. (Not all resizer scripts require this.)

In all honesty, the problem is not with this type of scripts per-se, but the fact that a script has to be in every prim, for products with lots of prims.

I have some hair that I think looks great, but it has over 200 prims, and this script running in every single one of them. All so that the maker could make it no-mod.

Now, no-mod stuff is just as easy to copy with copybot as mod stuff. And a product like this would be very difficult to copy by hand. So, this script's only purpose is to allow the builder to use an unnecessary protection scheme.

And the cost is .7 ms of script time!

I'm told a healthy load for a sim is 8 ms of script time. So, 11 avs wearing my hair uses most of that up.

Folks, really. Get over this laggy product! Makers, don't use it. Customers, don't buy high-prim articles that use it.

Meanwhile, let's lean on LL to implement llGetLinkPrimitiveParams(), which would make it unnecessary to have the script in every prim.

You mean llGetLinkPrimitiveParams() but I'd be interested in seeing if that would actually cut down on script time or not. If you go with how I think they would implement it, then you'd have to run a loop through every prim to get the property of each prim you want and then change it. So really it would come down to what is cheaper, having 200 scripts running, that trigger on a linked message, or have one script that runs a rather large loop, and that is just script time, not even considering memory usage.

I agree with you however llGetLinkPrimitiveParams would be very nice, but I honestly don't see much difference coming into play between with size-changer scripts like this one

Agreed, Lear. People complain vociferously about lag, yet unnecessary things like this detract from everyone's experience and seem to generate few comments.

I don't know why I never thought to ask how the resizing was being done. That's ghastly. I only have a couple of sets of hair that are script-resizable, but next time I'm in I'll see if I can yank the script out of them. I'm not going to change the size of my head, so the script serves no useful purpose after the first fitting.

Every time I've bought a product with resize scripts, I've taken the time to IM the creator and educate them on the problems of using them. And every time I've basically been told they don't care.

The main reason I see people using them is so they can make their item no mod, in the false belief this will stop it from being copied. As a creator I understand and agree people stealing designs is a problem, but I can't help feeling this 'cure' is worse than the disease.

Where as I will buy 10 sets of the Resize system I like, and give them to the creators who make items I like, but not in my size. I think all told I have purchased about 45 sets of the resize system from the one creator who makes the best resize system I have found.

The key is to help educate the end user - make a backup copy of the item, size the item to your size, delete the scripts in that item. If you change size in the future, then load another copy of the storage copy, rinse and repeat.

The problem with saying that the resize scripts are bad on, with no redeeming factor is that while one aspect of them can be bad, they do fill a very usefull purpose. What is needed is better education on how to use, when to use, and when to dump them.

There are rarely any black/white answers, rather lots of rainbow perceptions!

Better the end user should spend time learning basic SL skills (which may be profitable for them at some point) rather than learning this.

Like almost all systems invented ostensibly to save effort on the user's part, these hobble the user.

And for those who aren't inclined to learn to modify linksets - well, they probably won't learn to remove the scripts either.

I would like to see the ability to modify attachments for another user as a default-off-but-can be-set-on right similar to "edit my objects." That would open up a new SL business - hair stylist.

I agree. The average SL user doesn't know how to remove a script, doesn't want to know, and doesn't even read the instruction notecard that comes with a product. Relying on customer education is a losing game. At the very least, there ought to be a way to write a resize script so that it can self-delete after it has been used a certain small number of times, or if it hasn't been used within some period of time after ownership changes.



Now THAT's a great idea.

I have seen a few commercial examples of resize scripts for which the easy option exists to delete them - in fact, all of the no-mod resizeable items that I have bought have them. A little laggishness when one is fitting them to one's feet, then kill all scripts with one command and retake the shoes or whatnot.

To be honest though they are all still an awkward pain and will not save anything from content copyrightbreach.

Yes, I did, and thanks for the correction! I've edited the OP to avoid confusion.

Good point; this would work well for copy/no-xfer items.

Educating the masses is always laudable, but rarely as effective at achieving a goal as setting things up (by the effort of a few) so that when people do the obvious thing, the desired result is obtained. In other words, when possible, it's better to fix the system than to try to get everyone to use a less-than-ideal system more optimally.

In any case, this post is at worst just a rant, and at best an attempt to educate the masses. Other than getting that function implemented, getting the leading resize script makers to use it, and getting the makers to upgrade, there's little that can be done. People buy the products that suit their tates.

Fortunately, if that function is implemented, makers will vastly prefer dropping one script into a root prim, so the rest of the chain of events will happen naturally.

Meanwhile, I'll see if I can select all those prims and delete the script. Or perhaps it has an option to delete, and I didn't notice it!

So, are you really saying that I should accept the idea that I have to search through a 200 prim hair piece and remove all 200 scripts? If so, this is truly madness.

As with so many anti-copy schemes, this stops no one but the legal user to her very great inconvenience, but only slightly inconveniences the thief.

No, I am saying that any of the good resize scripts have a 'delete' button on the menu, and they will autodelete themselves.

The resize script did not start out as a anti-copy scheme, but rather a way to resize items easily.

Script time isn't the issue, script memory is. Script memory usage has exploded since Mono came in, and a sim can easily have as many scripts sitting there in people's scripted hair as in all the rest of the sim together.

And people don't tend to USE the delete option, because they want to keep the ability to resize their hair. It's a sop, not a solution.

again, as I posted in the scripting tip forum on this topic, I think it's a matter of balance on both. Script time or memory, they both effect the sim in one form or another. Memory causing page filing, script time causing the other scripts on the sim to slow as well. There is a downside to both ways of implementation. My point is that novice/non-concerned programmers, will use this without thinking about the effects of either the memory or the script time.

My response to your comment on that thread holds here. People are currently using hundreds of times the total memory and script time that ANY single script using llGetLinkPrimitiveParams would use to emulate the effect. This behavior is both common and widespread. Removing that overhead in future products will have far greater gains than the losses you're foreseeing.

Both time and memory are important. It's unfortunate, but hundreds of scripts with no events consumes script time that's not insignificant. When we get tools for counting the memory, we'll find out more about that!

Rearchitected to use llGetLinkPrimitiveParams(), the time usage will be insignificant since (a) it's rarely used, and (b) LL function delays.

Unfortunately, it'll take quite a bit longer to work. I made a freebie hair to pass out (long ago, before we had so many good free or cheap hairs) that uses llSetLinkPrimitiveParams. It takes several seconds to recolor all the locks. Some folks may find this annoying. However, per-parcel script memory limits will most likely put a stop to the serious overuse of scripts such as 200 scripts for one avatar's hair.


I stand corrected in one regard: my hair *does* have a delete button, which I was happy to use. I should have thought of looking for that first!

So, my title is probably a bit severe. I'd like to change it to "Friends encourage friends to delete resize scripts". I just might start a new thread. From my very unscientific sample, many avatars roam around with 1 ms or more of script time; roughly 1/8 or 1/10 of a healthy sim's allotment (according to LL, and presumably they're leaving room for avatar scripts, so it's not quite as bad as that -- but still bad!)

Even if one deletes sizing scripts there are still many "dos" with color and style change scrripts ;-D

Right, but these scripts don't need to be replicated to every prim. That makes the response faster, but hopefully that's not enough to make the builders take the extra trouble. (If they did take the extra trouble, they'll get hammered when script memory limits kick in!)

I just edit the object and "Set Scripts to Not Running".

I do that to several items i attach when i don't want to keep dealing with certain aspects of them, like getting menu's when i click them.

If you can set the scripts to not running, then you can delete the scripts and add them back again later with llGiveInventory() too. Unfortunately, the majority of objects with resizer scripts in are no mod so the only option is the one-way-trip of pushing the "delete" button.

This used to be possible but was probably seen as a bug rather than a feature. There was no 'right click - edit' on other people's attachments, you had to be in edit mode then click the attachment. If the attachee had granted you modify rights then it worked just as if you were editing your own attachments.

I think it ceased to function late 2006/early 2007...most annoying although I have to admit that being able to edit customer's attachments to get them fitting perfectly would make the life of any attachment creator very ... demanding ^_^

I don't even remember that - thanks for posting.

It seems to me that far too many bullshit scripted items are sold in SL without any thought for their effect on the environment (a bit like RL really). I had planned to use the resizer script from the Wiki by Ezhar Fairlight on a pair of boots I made:

http://www.lslwiki.net/lslwiki/wakka.php?wakka=llSetScale

but only if I could include a delete button to remove the scripts when done. I found a script by Emma Nowhere somewhere on the forums that could do this but I never managed to stitch the lot together.

In the end I decided not to bother selling the item and I don't buy complex products using resize scripts anymore.

I don't understand why creators don't include a delete scripts button. Not everyone would use it but I'm sure that a considerable number would.

Unfortunately, you can't usually tell whether there's a resize/recolor script in an item until after you've bought it. I have some very nice hair that has a resize script in it. It's a pain to dig through every $#&*^% prim to delete the script, but I don't want to wear it now until I've done just that. If I'd known before I paid for it (ages ago), I would have thought twice.