On Wed, 4 Feb 2015 03:50:08 +0100, Carlo Wood wrote:
> However,
> sometimes I wonder why you aren't being smarter than this :p
Probably because I'm more stubborn than I am smart... :-P
I don't give-up easily when I know "my way" is "the right way" to
achieve a given result.
> Linden Lab ('s internal coders) hadn't even LOOKED at our
> contributions and EVERYTHING we did had been /dev/null-ed and
> not used in their next release. I didn't reconfirmation: I left.
Yes, it is exactly what I meant by "waste of resources" in my last
message... It saddens me to no end when I see talented programmers
giving up on SL because of LL's stance... The first one, of fond
memories, was Nicholaz Beresford... It was before Oz' era too.
> At the time I was enthusiastic about working on an opensource
> viewer (even though that meant given my private info, which I
> agree is rather silly and annoying; and I understand why you
> refuse that)... That was before Oz .../...
> Bottom line is. Linden Lab only uses and likes "invented here".
> The don't listen to others, nor are they interested in what
> others have to say.
Yes, it has been a constant in LL's stance, and Oz is therefore not the
(only) one to blame. LL's policy towards Open Source is simply
inadequate and harmful... for themselves !
It is obvious and perfectly normal that LL must have the last word and
make the final decision on SL's working and features. However, it is a
pure waste of grey matter resources to dismiss or ignore proposals and
just oppose a "the factors .../... are quite complicated" as an excuse
for it, not even caring to discuss the matter, and first starting to
expose their constraints and what complication(s) they encounter. We
(the Open Source developers) may surprise them and come up with a
solution they didn't think about... That's the whole point of
collaborative work !
> .../... Trying to communicate with Linden Lab is a waste of your time.
This is alas all too often true. However, sometimes, communication works
(see the AO example I cited yesterday in my last message on this list).
Thing is, I cannot infer from the various communication experiences with
them a way to make sure my next proposal will be taken into account in
a constructive fashion by LL... Their reactions to proposals are at best
described as chaotic !
> Stop Wasting Your Time. Just let them kill SL in peace.
It's not a total waste (the waste only happens when trying to
communicate with LL and they don't listen/care).
I like SL a lot. I love programming. It's fun as far as I am concerned.
I also like challenges and I like to use my brain to solve problems.
This said, should I get tired of it all and stop having fun in SL
(because I'm a roleplayer too, and enjoy roleplaying in SL), then I'll
definitely give up.
Also, I took the "Your World, Your Imagination" motto to the letter,
and Lindens should perhaps be reminded that motto from time to times...
> PS Needless to say that I completely agree with the technical point you
> have been making. But it's not just the hover height that is
> problematic lol. The whole animation (format) is useless.
The format lacks a single parameter: what bone (or more likely joint)
shall stay in contact with the "ground" when a given "standing" (i.e.
when the avatar is root and not "seated" on a prim) animation is played.
We could call this parameter the "contact bone/joint".
For a kneeling anim, it would be the knee joint, for a laying anim,
it could be the shoulder joints or the spine bone, for a standing
anim, the feet, etc...
This could be one of the improvements in SL 2 (it's too late for SL 1)
*if* LL already thought about it, or *if* they read this message...
> .../...
> The main problem with both is that it only works for a static pose,
> not for an animation where the knees are bend and stretched again,
> like in certain dance animations, or in animation where someone goes
> from standing up to a (ground) sitting pose for example.
You are perfectly right... and the height adjustment indeed can't
suffice in the case of complex animations. One of the solutions (for
SL 2), still retaining the "contact bone/joint" idea I described above
would be to allow this reference to be changed on a per-frame basis.
Note that the server-side "contact bone/joint" implementation would
be quite complex and involve a much "smarter" physics engine or a
much more complete description/implementation of an "avatar" in that
engine (instead of dealing with a bounding box and its center
position, the physics engine would have to deal with every avatar's
bones/joints).
Regards,
Henri.
_______________________________________________
Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev
Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
