llTeleportAgent

/139/50/92803/1.html


Wow, this is really disappointing. I'm guessing people didn't bother clammoring for it because they trusted that LL was working on it. They virtually said it barely missed getting included in 1.8.

But if you need a thread to gage interest, here it is.

Post here if you think, like me, that llTeleportAgent should be a priority.

First Posted December 12th: /3/4c/76965/1.html

yea, it should.

llTeleportAgent would have made my just-released long-distance teleporter redundant, but when I saw it was missing I released it as open source to tide people over.

llTeleportAgent scripts could work like smarter landmarks.

llTeleportAgent HUDs could be used to let you "undo" a teleport or return automatically to a "save point".

llTeleportAgent, properly implemented, would allow for all kinds of wonderful new builds. The ideal feature set would include the ability of a script owned by the land owner or owning group to teleport (at least within the parcel) without requiring a permission dialog.

This would allow you to create a "doorway" in a house that led to another floor, eliminating space taken up with a variety of hard-to-negotiate staircases. You could even teleport to a skybox, letting you fit "interior" rooms into the build. A "cave entrance" leading "underground" could similarly be moved to the sky.

Not to mention the ability to simulate the "tardis effect".

I could go on and on...

The possibilities of llTeleportAgent are incredible. People will use this for things I can't imagine yet, and (as you can tell) I've already imagined an awful lot of possibilities.

I agree!

I want to make a "watermelon gateway" in the style of the Iconians.

More Resis who want this--please do speak up. It does count.

I think landowners should be able to teleport someone with llTeleportAgent to another place within the parcel, without a permission dialog popping up, if it's only within the parcel it doesn't have much griefing potential. A permission dialog all the time would be disruptive for many builds. If the landowner's script tries to teleport someone outside the parcel, a permission dialog should popup though, just not for intraparcel teleportation.

If Im thinking what you're thinking Argent, then WHOA.
I WANT THIS FUNCTION

I can think of ways to implement a system whereby only one permission dialog is required for teleportation within the same simulator (unless PERMISSION_TELEPORT acts like PERMISSION_DEBIT rather then PERMISSION_TRIGGER_ANIMATION - which would would allow whole-grid teleportation with only one permission dialog box).

LL would also need to forego the Teleporting... black screen for a seamless experiance though.
==Chris

<speaks up> I definitely want llTeleportAgent!

I want llTeleportAgent too!!!

I'd always thought that llTeleportAgent() would be introduced along with P2P. The fact that it wasn't is greatly disappointing.

This is an important function, and opens up a ton of creative posibilities (Stargate anyone?)

Please, Linden - make this function a reality sooner rather than later.

I figured it would be an extention of llTeleportAgentHome() since the land owner alreddy has permision to teleport them. Just add where to.

A LLTeleportMe(pos) would also be useful, however it would only work if the destination land owner has set the "landing zone" to "anywhere".

I am extremely disappointed that this has been backburnered. How exactly was scriptable cameras, something I saw no one clamoring for at all, deemed more important to include that llTeleportAgent, which was mentioned in the release notes of 1.8 as forthcoming? I have a project I would really like to implement that requires that functionality. Perhaps I can figure out how to move someone's camera across the freaking grid instead.

I also want llTeleportAgent Now!

Hear, hear. That the camera stuff was introduced while llTeleportAgent languishes far in the future is, as they say, total crap.

Although, to be fair, like HUD attachments, there's a lot of interesting non-obvious uses for the camera control.

I'm still cheesed at no llTeleportAgent, mind.

I think llTeleportAgent and the camera functions are about equally important.

I suppose the most aggravating thing is it doesn't seem like llTeleportAgent should be that hard to implement. I mean, we HAVE point-to-point teleporting to any point you'd like, and methods to handle porting into "unallowed areas". Landing points, disabling p2p on your land entirely, etc, etc.

Seems like you just slap that into LSL, have it bring up a "yes/no" dialog (unless it can be made to not have a dialog in certain obviously user-requested events, such as touch) and you're done. Sure, in actuality there's probably more room for discussion, but it's been more than enough time for that...

1. For a second there I thought I saw one of the messages reference "llTeleportArgent()" and thought "Nooooooo....".

2. Yeh, if the teleport's short it should just freeze the sceen while the teleport happens, like they do when you're taking a snapshot.

I support any upgrade to LSL camera upgrades are good. I have no use for these right now but glad they upgraded and or fixed this.

Now llTelportAgent I DO have a use for right now! I was looking forward to this but I guess I will have to wait. Just hope I do not have to wait for 3 or 4 more upgrades.

I also wonder when we will get upgrades that do benifit avg people in SL. Seems they always upgrade Estate tools but reg land owners do not get much. Oh ya we got arrows and yellow higlihting of find letters in the Invantory. Gee that is real helpfull Thank you so much L Labs for fixing stuff that did not need to be fixed.

I guess all the testing in 1.9 with hinges made them remove this option. (probibly because they could not figure out how to fix the Physicsconnected to non Physical prim problem they tested, I am glad I no longer have anything using them.

I had thought that this was coming soon, which is why I hadn't asked about it.

What's up with the camera control stuff that wasn't mentioned getting implemented, but not something that we were told was coming out? I don't get that.

Come on there's gotta be more who want this! Who else, who else?

Oh all right then, I want llTeleportAgent too.

It's stupid that so many people are using what is basically a hack because there is no proper function to teleport people. Do LL really want to encourage people to use hacks? For that matter, do scripters really want to use them in the knowledge that they might suddenly be broken at any time? I'd rather have a proper function, please.

I've got nothing against the cameras but it would be nice to have actual crunchy functions which enable one to do more stuff or do the same stuff better. There's not actually much you can do with the cameras apart from go "whoa, that looks nice" - okay, that's great, it makes flying and driving around more fun and we're here to have fun, but practically speaking it doesn't open up doors to whole new types of fun.

*waves hands and jumps up and down"
Me too! llTeleportAgent is one of those functions many scripters have been waiting forever for..

Please include it soon, along with all those other mouth watering features like browser on a prim and such.

Yes, I want to play with it too.

TeleportAgent, preferably without having to say yes/no each time ("Yes I trust this landowner to teleport me".

Camera stuff vs llTeleportAgent - different people working on different things. Presumably LL coders are not that as interchangeable a resource.

YES! Please! And preferably with only one permission check. I'm very disappointed TeleportAgent still doesn't exist.

You die and llTeleportAgent(x,y,z) to a graveyard!

How is this not soooooo KOOL!

I seen this in the roll out plan for 1.8... stop chaning minds!

I want I want I want (does that count as 3 votes?)

x