Lets try to work out a solution for the Security Scripts Issue

Let me begin by stating that this thread is NOT intended to start yet another snipe fest and argument channel about security scripts. It IS an honest attempt on my part to clearly define the problem and work out a compromise that most can live with. The end result being a concise plan that we can approach LL with for possible implementation.

The first thing that has to be done however is clearly defining the problem. From reading numberous threads on the matter the following is the problem as I see it.

1. Air Transport creators and enthusiasts are very upset because of security scripts in their flight path causing them to be ejected from their aircraft (of whatever form plane animal vegetable ).

2. Landowners for whatever reason desire controled access to their personal space.

3. The Linden given tools are inadequate to the task of controlling access. Easily circumvented or simply do not cover a build.

If anyone has something to add to this definition of the problem please feel free to post it.

The above conditions in the definition raise some additional questions in my mind.

as to #1
What exactly is the typical flight altitude range of an aircraft?

as to #2 and #3
Would people that use skybox w/security be willing to build on the ground if the Linden Given security tools were up to the task?

What would be required in a security tool set to make them up to the task? I am asking for a thought out answer here not a knee jerk gimme reaction.

Lets get talking folks and actively working for a solution.

EDIT: This post belongs as #2 in the thread. Unfortunately, it was a victim of the time-vortex this morning

Ultimately - I believe that the long-term solution to issues with Security Scripts is a promised improvement to the mainland land-parcel tools.

Proposition 244 revolved around this, and was approved last year. The last linden comment on it from a Town Hall in December stated that these tools would be available the first quarter of 2006.

Granted, 1Q '06 is almost over

Ok - wth just happened? My reply to Dark's original post just got thrown to the top

test - 12:02 PM EST

Obligitory bump because of the Time-Fubar

Note: The first couple posts are completely out of order. Darkness was first, I replied after.

Carry on

Tips Hat
TY Travis a gentleman as always.

No adjustments need to be made. There are safe-fly areas and LL has given us the right to restrict our airspace under that height if we so desire. Nothing needs to be worked out as there is plenty of space for you to fly without taking away our build height. if we don't need to build at 500 m, you don't need to fly at 500 m.

Jonas I would appreciate it if you would state specifically what height range these safe fly areas are at. Being a motorcyclist not a flyer I honestly do not know. A link to statement by LL on the matter would also be appreciated.

I honestly am trying to gather all relevant information here in this thread. This I think is important info that needs to be defined and backed up by official statement.

I rather like Foolish Frost's take on it actually. A standardized timer on warning policy by LL as to security scripts used above 80 meters or so. Becuase regardless of plot size the reach of these security scripts is only about 96 meters and a say, 30 second warning prior to activation should be more than adequate to clear that range (one could walk that distance in thirty seconds, much less fly vehicle or no).

But then that's my personal view, being a vehicle maker I see both sides and understand that a balance between privacy/security and free travel needs to be struck.

Though I have not tested the thoery myself (been busy on sl lately amid all the downs the last 2 days) it was stated at 768 m (build limit) + the meters scan range, which I believe is 90 m. Given that I have, with psyke argonaught engine powered wings reached 5 km with no sign of stopping (and now use azflight so could go faster), that leaves -alot- of free fly space without hitting anything.

Just because I like nice numbers lets call it 100m. Is there a reason an aircraft would need to fly below 100m in traversing a plot?

if not then a warning of any kind is moot. If the vehicle does not enter the 100m no fly zone it is left unmolested.

100 meters is low for some builders. Some of us enjoy skyboxes some 500 m high.

The security should extend all the way up to safely cover our build, in my opinion.

I understand you want to sightsee while you fly, but others don't want people over their property. thats the reason the script protect the -total- build height..not just the first 100 meters.

Personally until I can get enough land to build an airstrip (which would be public space, ground and air), if I had a security script I'd want to keep others scripts from running on my land. This prevents autorezzing, nukes, weapons, and would stop flight too. Then there would be the no flight statment. But hey.. at least you're not getting ejected or teleported home right? and you can use edit to move your plane back outside the area to go around.

With regards to the flight ceiling, here's my understanding by vehicle type (oldbies and tekkie wiki scripterati should correct and expand upon this):

Airplanes in the conventional sit-upon-vehicle sense have a maximum altitude of 4096 m. If I understand it correctly, this ceiling was imposed to make it harder for us to lose small, physics-enabled objects that would eventually pile up and lag their servers.

Vehitars using flight boost can get well above this limit-- threads here on the forums have avatars boosted up into the thousands of kilometers. On the other hand, vehitars aren't very satisfying to pilot.

Nonphysical movers like large multiobject warships use llSetPos() to move and are thus limited to the same 768m ceiling that conventional builds are. This is the most vulnerable vehicle type as regards those blasted security scripts, since they cannot by limitation of function move out of security script range. These are also the most rare vehicle type (in my limited experience) given sim-border delinking issues.

HTH!

I have been hit by security scripts at all manner of heights from 100M to 600M. The other day my Sikorsky jet heli ( not a gunship by any means )was knocked out of the sky at 650m by a secutiy script coming from skypad at 600m and for the record most of us fly for fun not to get from point A to point B, thats what p2p teleport is for. That said we want to be able to fly low enough to enjoy the scenery. I dont want to land on your damn land or even on your build I just want to be able to fly over it and around it and enjoy the beauty you have added to the landscape. With all the noise we have heard about p2p killing the beauty of exploration in Sl those of us who fly the skys in our Heli's jets prop planes or even space craft should be encouraged not shot out of sky

Well the need for a warning would be due to the fact we can and do build well above one hundred meters. Hence the need and the current policy of some form of warning required before ejection/tp home.

All thats really needed for sky builds which utilize security scripts, a standardized time to leave said secruity script's 96 meter sphere of influence (its ability to detect an agent).

As for why there is a need or desire to fly below the 100 meter mark or a 'no fly zone' I view that as an entirely seperate issue. There are many reasons to fly at that level, not the least of which is watching the country side go by and admiring various builds in passing. 80 meters would allow that with a decent draw distance, whereas a 100 meter or high limit would force one into the clouds obsurcing the view.

To recap, my personal view is there doesnt need to be a 'no fly zone' of anything higher than the current 40 meters above a parcel that ban lines allow. But I would like to see a limitation in the form of a LL sanctioned policy as to a warning then set time to activation of security scripts in use above 80 meters.

Just my perspective.

Just a thought on a compromise here.

What about the following

0-100m above actual land surface security (ie eject and tp home) are legal without warning.

101-500m
warning required on security (what that warning is we can hash out)

above 500m
no security

There are those that don't want you flying over their land. As they pay the land tier they have the option of keeping you off of it within their build range. Since they pay the tier for the land, their desire comes first. Their right to keep you off comes before youre claimed right to fly through.

My land is set to no ban, and with no script. My doors are open. Anything I want to keep out of general view, I have made myself a special spot for. You can't steal my stuff on SL, so Im'm not worried about that.. leave things on my yard to annoy me and you will find yourself banned though.

Like it or not, I'm not sure if I'm the rule, or the exception. Either way the 'rights' of the people paying for that particular patch of land come before your desire to fly through.

There should be no comprimise, Linden Labs has made it clear that the way it is set up is they way it was intended. I for one will support no comprimise.

Ideally... I'd really rather see a warning issued and a time to activation on _all_ automated security scripts, regardless of altitude. Manaually activated security scripts no warning thats fine but any script just mindlessly scaning and the tp/ejecting without warning regardless of altiude I dont think is warranted or needed (particularlly on the ground where ban lines do work in their limited 40 meter up fashion.

And Jonas? Please, that isnt helpful to discourse, uncompromising, inflexible stances and viewing an issue that isnt black or white as such doesnt help. Compromise and change is a corner stone of SL's growth. I'm sure we can work something out for everyone's benifit.

in my own experience the 40m ban lines do NOT work. I have had a mountain top home that those same ban lines only protected 2 m of because of the land height.

the problem with warning time at ground level is simply that many people simply do not want others on their property period. With a warning time these others would still gain access. Property owners are given a universal ban in the 40 m bars they will want the same in a script.

I am trying very hard to find a realistic balance between everyones "I want x and will not bend on it"

Depends on the aircraft, but unless you're dogfighting or racing or flying waypoints ... there's usually no point in flying out of sight of the ground for long. So, depending on draw distance (which depends on video card performance) that could be anything from 100M AGL to 500M AGL, or 100M to 800M absolute. It's pretty much all in the building zone, anyway, for sport flying.

On my Mehve (a flying wing you stand on) or in an ultralight I'll fly lower, maybe 50M AGL for stretches, and in empty sims it's fun trying to fly nap-of-the-land. We're talking 2M AGL. You can't do that at very many meters per second, of course.

I don't usually have problems with red bars, because they top off at 40M AGL, and low altitude security scripts are usually associated with buildings so if you run afoul of them you've already hit something.

I still think that making an explicit private space that can only be accessed by the landowner or through a landowner-controlled script is the best Linden-programmed solution. The easiest thing for the Lindens to implement might be to have a parcel-shaped "construct" that can be accessed by teleporting to (say) -768 meters.

Say, in a script owned by the landowner or an officer of the landholding group, you'd call:

vector here = llGetPos();
here.z = -768;
llSetPos(here);

Moves from positive Z negative Z in such scripts would work in a single call, not through 10m jumps, so the move to to <x,y,-768> would happen in one step.

Once down there, -768 is the ground, and you're in a fullbright white room the size of your parcel. Bring plenty of prims.

Oh, and you don't even get a green dot while you're down there.

I go with what LL has given us. if they choose to lower our build height, I will work on getting it put back at the level it was at.

if people desire to teleport eveyone who steps within their build area home, then they have the right to do that. Be it a 10 second warning or 30 second. There is no comprimising that everyone will agree to, which is the reason I will not support it.

There will be no universal comprimise, there never can be. The issue -is- black and white is the problem that you don't see. there is land people pay tier for, they have complete control over that parcel and it sbuild area, up to its ceiling. Thats as black and white as it gets.

You're being silly. Nobodys saying "don't build at 500m", or 300m, or 700m, they're saying "the sky is shared space, be considerate with your security scripts".

I mean... I've got builds at 500m and 760m. The one at 500m is an airport.

The people who pay tier have every right to restrict access to their airspace. They paid for the parcel and it s buildspace..they can dow ith it as they wish within the TOS. To try to insist they let you fly through isn't being very considerate on the parts of those wanting the access. Both sides havea 'right' to enjoy SL and the scenery. The land tier payer's right trumps others on his buildspace, including air. Don't ask them to give up their rights unless you are willing to let them build on your land to make up the difference..even if its just air. let them build their skybox on your land and use your space and prims. Then you can fly through their land.

Jonas nowhere in the compromise did I suggest resticting building. 0-100 m parcel owners have total and absolute control. 101-500 Parcel owners use security with warning. FLyers assume the risk. over 500m no security parcel owners assume the risk.

But builds can and will exist up to the build limit

I go with what LL has given us. They limit unboosted flight to 200 meters, and limit security bars at 40m, therefore they force people to be flying between 40 and 200 meters. In addition, they have given out their own jet-packs, and tell users of jet-packs to be considerate of occupied skyboxes... that means they're expecting that people will be flying in the building zone.

Everything over 40m is shared space and people who are not actually inside obvious enclosures must not be assumed to be trespassers. If they raise the height of their own security code, then that expectation should change, but right now that is what LL has given us.

Everything over 40m is by default and by Linden Labs' own active encouragement a shared space, and compromise is not merely an option.