Diva, I am very interested in co-simulation solution. Personally, I am totally not interested in any solution that results in a bump. I think the users should not be away of the organization of regions/sims as that is a technical implementation detail and not a function of the emersion I as a grid operator am trying to implement. Hence, bumps are not desirable. If I can achieve bumpless movement (walking and riding) anywhere within my grid - that is the solution I am interested in. Speaking without knowing anything about co-simulation, my first concern would be that the average grid operator may find it more technical/complex to setup than simply resizing a bunch of regions and laying "track" across them all. But, that is probably not fair to co-simulation, I will google your co-simulation and do some research - thank you very much.
Since you are reading this :) have you given any thought to vehicles being able to do HG transfers? On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Diva Canto <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think security has been holding this up. Security is an issue in > OSGrid, only, but there are ways of mitigating it. The major hold up is > that it's not trivial to do the handover of these objects, and no one with > enough technical skills to do it has had enough motivation to do it in > core. I tend do to this kind of stuff (moving things around servers), but, > as you can see below, I don't have any motivation to do it, because I > believe that border crossings SL-style are an inferior solution to the > problem of moving vehicles within large areas. Instead of following that > solution, I invested my time in figuring out how to do co-simulation in > order to avoid borders in the first place. > > This is my perspective on the issue. I can't speak for others. > > > On 6/16/2014 9:45 AM, Frank Nichols wrote: > > 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! >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
