<div dir="ltr">While not on the same topic... Justin, I see that you changed the shorts into ints in the HeightMapTerrainData subclass of TerrainData. This is problematic for several reasons:<div>-- you specified 'int' and not 'int32'. I'm not totally sure about the .NET definition but I'd expect some systems to choose 64 bit ints which would create GIGANTIC terrain arrays.</div>
<div>-- going to 32bit heightmap values is going to create database blobs that are 100s of megabytes for varregions;</div><div>-- if a more flexible internal terrain representation was needed, another sub-class of TerrainData should have been created ("LargeRangeHeightmapTerrainData"). That's why it is subclassable. That would also let it have a special database blob format that could be much smaller than simple integer arrays</div>
<div>-- If you just needed a large range for terrain (you talked about getting to +500 to be SL compatible), the compression factor could have been reduced from 100. Maybe a compression factor of 20 would give enough range for +-500 altitudes.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Anyway, I think the change it ints is a bad idea.<br></div><div><br></div><div>-- ra</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Mister Blue <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:misterblue@misterblue.com" target="_blank">misterblue@misterblue.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">When I built BulletSim, I build for positive only altitudes because I thought that was the rule. The only implementation reason I see for not allowing negative terrain altitudes would be finding all the random places where code makes sign assumptions.<div>
<br></div><div>If negative altitudes are needed, it would not be too hard to make it happen. I can see the geographically oriented people wanting zero to be sea level and allowing land to be above and below that.</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div>
<br></div><div>-- mb</div></font></span></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Cinder Roxley <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cinder.roxley@phoenixviewer.com" target="_blank">cinder.roxley@phoenixviewer.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Given reasonable constraints, I don't see why viewers wouldn't be able to adapt to support variable depth. I'd certainly be willing to write a viewer patch if support cropped up.</div>
<div><div><div class="gmail_extra">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 8:52 AM, David Saunders <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:abitar.com@gmail.com" target="_blank">abitar.com@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">I wounder how hard it would be to modify varasm to allow a start and end to the Z axes so we can stack a deep ocean and a space sim to the normal sim :) <div><br></div><div>But then again would the client handle all these changes? (partly do) </div>
<div><br></div><div>So the solution is to make deep water simulators, But any test this? I never been asked to set up any sims with deep water so I not experience with "outside the box" water :) </div><div><br>
</div><div>I was drawn to opensim with the idea of making "pure" space sims where you can float around in real space but I dug into it and I would have to rewrite so much code to do this and after that would the client handle it? So I stuck with making Moon simulators, Low gravity fixed sky.... This was a long time ago, back in the early days of opensim.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Now times are changing, I think I might dig into doing it again since varasim allow you to make a 4096x4096x4096 regions :) </div><div><br></div></div><div><div><div class="gmail_extra">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 4:18 AM, Ai Austin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ai.ai.austin@gmail.com" target="_blank">ai.ai.austin@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>At 04:09 26/04/2014, drWhiet wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
even boat creators must keep an eye that the engine does not move below -0<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Remember the default water level is +20m (adjustable on a per region basis)... with a "normal" terrain base of 0m.<br>
<br>
Maybe its global warming in the metaverse that raised the sea level :-)<div><div><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
Opensim-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Opensim-dev@opensimulator.org" target="_blank">Opensim-dev@opensimulator.org</a><br>
<a href="http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev" target="_blank">http://opensimulator.org/cgi-<u></u>bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-<u></u>dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Opensim-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Opensim-dev@opensimulator.org" target="_blank">Opensim-dev@opensimulator.org</a><br>
<a href="http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev" target="_blank">http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Opensim-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Opensim-dev@opensimulator.org" target="_blank">Opensim-dev@opensimulator.org</a><br>
<a href="http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev" target="_blank">http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>