I guess no one cares about region border crossings ...
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Frank Nichols <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
