[Opensim-dev] Region Crossing State

[Frank Nichols]

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 <mike at kayaker.net> 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
>> Opensim-dev at opensimulator.org
>> http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> Opensim-dev at opensimulator.org
> http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://opensimulator.org/pipermail/opensim-dev/attachments/20140615/d6bd29b8/attachment.html>