Thank you - the comments are very interesting and while I was aware of the security concerns, I didn't realise that was a big part of the hold up. I assumed security issues would be the equivalent of walking across a border.
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Diva Canto <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm sure vehicle border crossings are important for some situations. > > For me, they got a lot less important now that OpenSim supports > variable-sized regions. There are also alternatives (co-simulation) to > moving vehicles along very large areas that are able to avoid crossing > borders altogether, therefore avoiding the "bumps" on borders and the extra > load that moving vehicles and crossing borders entail. These 2 things > (varregions and co-simulation) don't exist in SL, but they're superior in > some respects, because they avoid crossing borders altogether; it's much > smoother, keeps the load down, and avoids running into security issues. > > Here's a video showing a large-scale traffic co-simulation: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=291yE_9eefU#t=4m02s > Co-simulation means that one simulator has part of the objects, in this > case the vehicles, and the other simulators have the rest of the scene > objects. The vehicles never cross borders, even though they move along very > large distances (in this case, 3km x 1.5km). > I talked about how to do this at OSCC'13. > > This is not to say that I don't support adding proper vehicle border > crossing support to OpenSim, if someone cares to do it. +1! > But I would never trade the borderless way of moving vehicles for the SL's > way of moving vehicles, so vehicle border crossings has been very low > priority for me, personally. One of the perks of reimplementing the > server-side is that we can do things that can't be done in SL! > > > > On 6/16/2014 7:10 AM, Frank Nichols wrote: > > 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 > [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
