[Opensim-dev] OpenSim's direction after Linden cutting support, and the possibility of an official OpenSim viewer

Wed Dec 12 06:52:21 UTC 2012

Lainaus "Adams, Robert" <robert.adams at intel.com>:
> Maybe a way of attacking the problem is to separate the parts and  
> not think about building one behemoth application that does  
> everything.

Just for info that much of what you describe is what we have done and  
are doing withing realXtend. Yes, the rumors of the death of reX are  
very much exaggerated :)

We are more alive than ever before I think actually, quite many  
substantial projects coming next year etc (at least >1Me in public  
projects even), it just doesn't show to the Opensim community nor  
worlds.

Also an Android build of Tundra has been made now and is in testing,  
and there's good progress with websocket+webgl client side now again  
as well.

> Some projects (like Radegast or Lumiya) have made interesting  
> progress on a viewer. Maybe content creation can be handled with  
> Blender plugins? Maybe the chat/voice client could be one of the  
> gaming services? Maybe the social connection/interaction framework  
> could be Facebook (OK. No one would ever choose Facebook but any  
> service is possible).

realXtend is largely about plugging in and using together a set of  
existing open source products: On the creation side most of the focus  
is on Blender authoring and export -- even live sync has been  
experimented. For voice there is Mumble. Chat with XMPP (now a XMPP  
module is included in the new Tundra 2.4 series).

Adminotech's Meshmoon hosting integrates with Facebook and Google, and  
whatever needed, authentication.

Focus has largely been on making a modular framework where integrating  
different optional things is nice. Different services can then  
configure the world setups to their needs.

For example I tested ages ago using Simiangrid for authentication with  
Tundra servers and it was easy and straightforward.

> Then, of course, there is the problem of the client/server protocol.  
> LLLP (my term for "Linden Lab Legacy Protocol") grew organically and  
> had different problems to solve (remember the days when SL worked  
> over dialup modems?). An organized, partition-able protocol would go  
> a long way toward making new clients (mobile or continuously  
> connected or ...) and servers (distributed or dynamically  
> reconfigurable or ...) possible. It's just a new OpenSimulator  
> region module to talk a new language.

This also touches what we've made in the Tundra effort, dropped LLLP  
(I usually call it LLUDP :) and use an extensible minimal protocol for  
the scene-entity sync reusing a generic network lib (kNet, similar to  
enet).

If I'd need to do Opensim server connectivity support for Tundra  
client's today, would seriously consider writing exactly what you  
suggest: a server side Opensim module for the new protocol, in this  
case Tundra over kNet.

To summarize, I'd say that in realXtend we've somewhat successfully  
created a new platform from scratch, addressing the problems  
encountered with SLViewer, LLUDP and Opensim (hardcoded scene  
structure/data). So is perhaps interesting to look for folks who think  
of such efforts around Opensimulator.

But for people who are happily using the SL content & functionality  
models as is, rely on efficient prim rendering and using Opensim for  
chat and groups and everything, certainly just using and maintaining /  
devving a SLViewer & LLUDP etc. based thing is what works.

> Anyway, just throwing that out there.

.. and here just reacting with our basic view, willing to discuss more  
if there is interest.

> -- ra

~Toni

> From: opensim-dev-bounces at lists.berlios.de  
> [mailto:opensim-dev-bounces at lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Mircea  
> Kitsune
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 5:00 PM
> To: opensim-dev mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] OpenSim's direction after Linden cutting  
> support, and the possibility of an official OpenSim viewer
>
> Ironically, Firestorm is one of the viewers I like least. It's  
> actually starting to worry me how it's monopolizing all third-party  
> viewers and being the only v3 fork getting any attention at this  
> day. Earlier I read that the admin of the Teapot viewer isn't  
> updating Teapot any more because he's now working for Firestorm  
> too... ugh >_< I do appreciate their team's effort of course, but I  
> don't like that it's becoming the only alternative, and I'm not sure  
> what else to find and use that I'm comfortable with.
>
> But like I explained in the first email, I believe the SL code base  
> is the only path we've got rather than a dead end. SL's system  
> (which OpenSim primarily went with during those years) is a very  
> complex thing. Implementing all of its features from scratch in a  
> good and consistent way would be an effort so big there will likely  
> never be anyone doing it when SL is already there. There was an  
> original viewer once which could render avatars, terrain and  
> objects, but that was about it.
>
> The list of features and details is too big. The building tools with  
> grid snapping, arrows to drag / rotate objects, texture position  
> editing, etc. The avatar customization menu, where you customize  
> worn shapes / skins / alpha masks / clothing. Avatar physics, such  
> as clothing fluttering in the wind. The terrain editor with the  
> raise / lower / flatten / smooth tools. The IM / chat / groups  
> systems with all their sub-features. Voice chat support. Sculpt  
> primitives and mesh rendering. Ability to play media on a prim and  
> use HTML pages on object surfaces. The windlight sky and environment  
> (which can also be set as a parcel property). Particles, sounds,  
> spinning objects (llTargetOmega) and the many things you do with LSL  
> scripts. Post-processing with bloom, depth of field, bump-mapping,  
> etc.
>
> All this and more would take beyond a decade to re-create from  
> scratch, and I couldn't imagine a new viewer ever doing them all as  
> well as Second Life. If anyone would ever get that done from zero as  
> part of a FOSS viewer, I will consider them a scientist that  
> deserves a job at NASA :) I'm actually surprised even LL did so much  
> in just 8 years, but what was achieved is really impressive. Overall  
> I just don't think it's a possible goal, and at the same time I  
> don't believe OpenSim can expect other dev teams to maintain them a  
> SL viewer (just what I think). With Firestorm taking up everything,  
> I'm already having a hard time finding a viewer good for me to use,  
> and I'd like to know what can be expected in the recent future.
> ________________________________
> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:20:15 -0800
> From: javajoint at gmail.com<mailto:javajoint at gmail.com>
> To: rigun at rigutech.nl<mailto:rigun at rigutech.nl>;  
> opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de<mailto:opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de>
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] OpenSim's direction after Linden cutting  
> support, and the possibility of an official OpenSim viewer
>
> Hmm, it's been Over Two Years since I wrote this on my old blog:
> http://www.daniel.org/blog/2010/09/19/in-unity-a-way-forward/
>
> I wonder what the state of the art is for any viewers based on  
> Unity, WebGL, or something else?
>
> The LL code base is an evolutionary dead end.  Firestorm does a  
> great job of making the best of it, and it deserves to be the #1  
> viewer.  Ongoing Kudos to the FS team!  Having said that, no TPV (or  
> LL) viewer is going to catch up to what is possible on a better  
> foundation.
>
> It would be great to see two things happen:
> 1)  TPV effort consolidate *even more* around Firestorm.. make it be  
> the one thing that can tide everyone over until there is a non  
> LL-codebase viewer.
> 2) see a good pioneering effort based on Unity, WebGL, or something else
>
> As far as I know, we're not close to the capabilities I was writing  
> about two years ago.  It's a pretty good bet that the gulf between  
> the LL codebase and what could be done in Unity is even wider now.
>
> Daniel
> http://daniel,org/cafebucky
>
> _______________________________________________ Opensim-dev mailing  
> list  
> Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de<mailto:Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de>  
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>