You lost quite all good taste of this feature.... Ppl should be free to add everything in funny/weird way, and creators cannot be limited matching which bit another creator use...
The solution is resident side: outfits folders, may be interesting mark boxes or vendors to create automatically outfit folders maybe Example: -outfit "naked" Hair SHAPE Skin Genitalia -outfit "sport" All above but genitalia Jeans Shirt Shirt collar Necklace Shoes "replace" outfit should revert from to other, without got creators crazy If a vendor or box can be enganced with "outfit" (over buy content and buy copy) ( all this marked with a giant IMHO) -- Sent by iPhone Il giorno 27/ago/2010, alle ore 14:11, Aleric Inglewood <aleric.inglew...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > The following has been proposed before: > > * Add new bits to each object (all existing objects should act as if > all bits are set). > * Give the bits a default meaning (read: human readable word, which > can be different per attachment point), > but allow each user to override those descriptions locally. > * Allow users to change the bits for each of their objects, even no-modify > ones. > * If a user 'wears' (or adds, which becomes redundant) a new > attachment, then remove those attachments that have > one or more of the same bits set. In other words, at any time one > can only have one object attached at a given > position with any given bit set. > > Suppose you think that 8 bits are enough, then the following holds: > > * 11111111 = old 'wear' behavior: replaces everything else. > * 00000000 = 'add' behavior: is added, replaces nothing. > * 00000001 = (for example): assign default meaning 'jacket' for chest > attachments (jacket collars and hoodies). > * 00000010 = (for example): assign default meaning 'shirt' for chest > attachments (shirt collars). > * 00000100 = (for example): assign default meaning 'necklace' for > chest attachments. > and so on. > > This allows users to make groups of attachments that are mutually exclusive, > but having up till 8 classes that can be worn at the same time on the same > attachment point. > > Personally I think that those bits also should be added to normal wearables, > so that it is possible to have attachments being removed when you wear > a new shirt (ie, a shirt without a collar should remove all existing > shirt-collars, > or wearing a penis could automatically remove underwear and pants and > visa versa, Linden shoes could remove prim shoes, etc, all user customizable > for his/her own attachments; the default naming would be just a hint to > make things work reasonable after just having bought it). > > I'm not sure, but I think that having eight classes per attachment points > should be enough, so adding a single byte to every object should be > enough. > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Nyx Linden <n...@lindenlab.com> wrote: >> however, so if you have suggestions for better ways of exposing the >> functionality, please do let us know! > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
