bug: flex prims don't work when linked

Steps to reproduce the bug: Create 2 or more flex prims and link.

Observed results: Flex effects don't show unless the object is selected, but the prims are invisible outlines and only the root prim shows (but doesn't flex).

Expected results: Linked flex prims should flex correctly.

Here's the weird part... put a non-flex prim in the linkset, anywhere, and it works fine. O.o

And WHAT works fine? I tried making the root non-flex, and another prim non-flex, but it didn't matter; the obect still didn't flex ANY prims. The only difference was the non-flex prim became visible.

Edit: Oh and forget about adding a script to a linked flex object; it only affects the root and causes all other prims to disappear. :/

Edit: Good god...and focusing the cam on linked flex prims causes them to disappear briefly (root causes all other prims in object to). This is probably the same bug that causes prims to briefly light up when selected.

The way I understand it is that flex prims cannot be linked together. Multipule flex prims can be attached to a static prim, though.

OK, apparently, the linking can only occur once or the flex prims ALL stop working (and turn invisible once linked). But then flex prims start flickering like mad (regardless of transparency or shininess). Flex prims need work!

I just can't seem to reproduce this consistently. I know what you are talking about, because it happens to me, and DEFINITELY happens if you only link flex prims... but if you make the root prim a non-flex prim, and the others a flex prim, it seems to work. Some of the time. Oddly enough, when I made my cape (which has 3 flex prims) I didn't encounter this at all, and it was the first object I made... I do have this problem now though occasionally, although it seems terribly inconsistent. Sometimes moving the object fixes it. Sometimes not.

OK, flex prims must be unlinked and relinked to a non-flex prim in order to remain visible. If such a linked object is taken into and rezzed from inventory, the flex prims rez invisible and the object must be unlinked/relinked as above for them to remain visible when linked--annoying!

Hi guys,

No need to freak out. The alt zoom bug should be fixed in the current build and the rest of the problems in the next build. Keep the bug reports coming though, and hopefully all these issues will be ironed out soon.

I was able to link 255 (attached to the av) and have them function, not entirely properly but they worked, occasionaly some would disappear but it worked, even created spiral patterns when I turned around. As one would expect it pretty well borked the framerate.

ps - they were hollow, tapered prisms.

What's the point of not being able to make flex prims physical/non-phantom if they can just be linked to a root prim that is?

The alt-zoom bug isn't fixed completely. I still have linked flex prims disappearing (except the non-flex root) and won't reappear until the whole thing is selected--but, even then, it won't stay visible when deselected; it's very inconsistent. What IS consistent is how to keep it visible: alt-focus cam on object. Once cam focus moves away (like after hitting escape), the flex prims disappear again. If the root is fully-masked-textured (invisible but not via transparency setting), ctrl+alt+t to highlight trasparent prims and then alt-focus cam on the root prim to make the child flex prims visible again. Rinse, lather, repeat...

Do they behave like physical/non-phantom objects when attached, or do they behave like phantom flex prims that just so happen to be attached to a solid object?
I thought that the linked set was supposed to become phantom when you linked in a flex-prim though?

Perhaps he means that the flexiprim's normal position (unflexed) is considered occupied by a physical/non-phantom object?

Flex prim physicality is based on the root prim, but flex prim solidity is as if flexibility was disabled, so a solid flex prim will usually collide out-of-sync with its visible shape. This is why LL should just allow flex prims to be physical/non-phantom anyway since it's not that big a deal when they are.

It does--but not if the root prim is non-phantom and/or physical.