[Opensim-dev] Region Crossing State

Mon Jun 16 14:10:25 UTC 2014

I guess no one cares about region border crossings ...

On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Frank Nichols <j.frank.nichols at gmail.com>
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 <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/20140616/29f3764b/attachment.html>