Maybe someone can answer this - I am aware of NPVs but have never used them. I am pretty sure than as of a year ago you could not be seated and do a region border crossing, however a lot of work has gone into OS in that area in the past 6 months and it may be possible now.
Frank On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 1:22 AM, Mike Higgins <[email protected]> wrote: > All very good questions, but there is a fundamental assumption that all > vehicles are physical. > 1. Can non-physical vehicles (NPVs) cross sim borders? > An NPV is a non physical object that uses llSetPos, llSetPrimParams, > llSetLinkPrimParamsFast(LINK_THIS,[PRIM_POSITION....]) or > llSetKeyframedMotion to move across a SIM boundary. > On some grids, NPVs cross SIM borders just like physical vehicles. > 2. Can NPVs cross SIM borders with an avatar sitting on them? > 3. Can NPVs cross SIM borders WITHOUT an avatar sitting on them? (for > example a ferryboat that makes regular runs from one SIM to another, and > keeps making the rounds even when empty). > > > On 6/13/14 10:58 PM, Frank Nichols wrote: > >> OS is now 7 years old and the fundamental feature of crossing from one >> region to another while riding on or in a physical vehicle is not working. >> I, and most of the community, are aware that there are partial >> implementations being worked on, and at least one grid has an >> implementation similar in functionality to SL - but that implementation is >> not yet available to the OpenSim community in general. >> >> Obviously, if it were easy to implement it would be done - it may well be >> impossible to implement... >> >> PVC below stands for physical vehicle crossings between regions with >> avatar(s) riding the vehicle(s). >> >> 1. Is PVC a desirable feature - does the OpenSim community want to be >> able to ride physical vehicles while crossing region borders? With the >> implementation of var-regions, crossings are less of a necessary feature - >> however, a smooth or bump-less crossing combined with variable sized >> regions would give grid designers a lot of flexibility. >> >> 2. What features would be expected of a solution? >> >> a. Bump-less region crossings - ie. unlike SL or other implementations, >> bump-less region crossings would be a desirable feature. I would prefer >> that region crossings be bump-less - this means to me that there is no >> movement shuddering visible while crossing, all scripts transfer their >> running state smoothly, and sounds would continue to play smoothly. A >> person observing their avatar cross from one region to another would not be >> able to see/detect any sign that a crossing has just taken place except a >> script reporting which region it is running in would suddenly begin >> reporting that it is in the destination region. >> >> b. Should PVC be required to work on all physics engines mainly ODE and >> BulletSim at this time. My feeling is that I would be happy if PVC only >> worked on BulletSim. I understand that many people still use/prefer ODE - >> but if PVC only worked on BulletSim (initially) I would feel that would be >> a good step, and then if there is a demand from the community and someone >> available to do the work, it could possibly be ported to ODE. >> >> c. Would it be necessary to be able to cross between regions running >> different physics engines? In other words, would the community expect a >> physical vehicle to be able to cross from a region running ODE into a >> region running BulletSim? >> >> d. Would a “bumpy” crossing between regions running different physics >> engines be acceptable with a smooth crossing only being available if both >> the starting and destination regions were running BulletSim. >> >> e. Would Scripts need to cross smoothly between starting and ending >> regions - or would a script restart/recompile be acceptable? What would be >> acceptable behavior if the configuration of the destination region is >> different than the starting region concerning scripts. I expect the scripts >> to stop running and report an error? >> >> f. Would a physical vehicle size restriction for PVC be acceptable? What >> would be the expected result of a “train” (linked set of “train cars” >> populated with avatars) crossing? Again, I think this should be smooth and >> bump-less assuming the starting region and destination region meet some >> criteria. >> >> g. What would be acceptable behavior if a PVC is attempted between >> regions with differing physical link set limitations - such as number of >> prims, size of physical prims, etc. Would the vehicle be denied access to >> the destination region if it’s construction exceeded destination region >> limits? >> >> g. What is the expected behavior for PVCs concerning permissions of the >> vehicle entering and/or leaving regions.For example, would the vehicle >> flying over a region have the same expectations for access permissions that >> a avatar flying over a restricted parcel would have? >> >> h. What would be the expectations around PVCs and HyperGrid? Would the >> community want/expect a physical vehicle to be able to be ridden to a >> different grid via hyper grid technology. If so, would it be required to >> work in any combinations of hosting hardware (linux, windows, osx, etc)? >> >> i. Should vehicles be able to be ridden while teleporting? Should such >> teleports be able to teleport within a region as well as between two >> regions on the same or different grids? >> >> j. Are there expectations concerning the altitude a PVC can take place? >> Submarines? Aircraft? Sub-terrain Tunnels? >> >> k. Obviously we would all like our favorite client to support the PVC, >> but would humpless HG enabled PVC be acceptable if was initially supported >> by a single popular client? Obviously the implementation would have to be >> OpenSource and licensed according to OS requirements, so other >> clients/viewers would be able to add support at their desecration. >> >> What other features or capabilities would you like to see? Personally, I >> would like to see capabilities beyond what SL supports - what about you? Is >> Sl compatibility a requirement for PVC? OS is 7 years old, I believe it is >> time to look forward to what the community wants, and not continue to just >> “keep up with SL”. Hyper-grid is an excellent example of OS taking the lead >> - maybe it is time for PVC to take the lead also. >> >> Let me be clear I have nothing but admiration for the OS developers. I am >> not complaining about that they have done. I am amazed at the outstanding >> work they have done and the feature set they have provided to us. My >> discussion here, is an attempt to determine if there is a desire for PVC, >> or if the OS community finds the current state of region crossings to be >> acceptable. >> >> Let me also be clear also that I understand the features mentioned above >> may not even be possible - that is not what I am interested in, I want to >> know what would the community want a PVC implementation to look like if >> their dreams could come true. >> >> Thank you. >> >> Frank Nichols >> _______________________________________________ >> Opensim-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Opensim-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev >
_______________________________________________ Opensim-dev mailing list [email protected] http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
