Re: [Opensim-dev] Direction of Opensim and its relationship with viewers
@ Frank Nichols: Hypergrid is an example of the improvements Opensim has over the Linden servers, which IMO are very welcome and great. It doesn't interfere with clients and anyone can use it. Again, the only changes I'd fear are those that would introduce incompatibilities with the viewers used commonly by people. So far none of the things that happened in Opensim were such so it's good. I'll use my example of prim draw types again: Let's consider that a special viewer adds a new shape called spiral, allowing primitives to have the shape of a spring. If Opensim was to recognize and store the spiral type, people with this viewer would be able to use it in-world for building. However, people without this viewer would see either a box or nothing rendering, because they don't recognize the spiral prim shape. In this circumstance, OS can either support it at the cost of broken visuals for some viewers, or follow what I called the SL limitations. Obviously it would be nice if a way to get around such things existed. @ Dahlia Trimble: Using Opensim to make a MMO grid would be nice and perfectly fine. But IMO it should be done using server features that work with any program connecting. For example, NPC support is possible because the server can simulate bots as normal avatars without the clients even knowing, so no per-viewer changes are needed nor does anyone have problems interacting with them based on their viewer. BTW: NPC support is something I'm waiting to see getting better and more frequently used, it would be awesome to interact with them on various sims and occasions. As for a client protocol other than Linden's, I would worry it could add more than necessary. But if it's a flexible protocol and doesn't require Opensim to manually support multiple specific programs, I don't consider it a bad thing. Guess sometimes I'm too worried about everything being perfect and in place, so I give more attention to things like this and how they could affect the future. From: j.frank.nich...@gmail.com Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 20:56:45 -0500 To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Direction of Opensim and its relationship with viewers Well, I for one hope you are wrong, and that the core dev’s never place any limit on the direction that OS can go. SL is OLD technology, there are many new ideas coming out everyday. One of the advantages of having an open source implimentataion is that if the implimentation is designed correctly it can be extended into directions that SL would never be able to follow - for example Hypergrid. Frank Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 18:04:12 -0800 From: dahliatrim...@gmail.com To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Direction of Opensim and its relationship with viewers So are you saying if someone wanted to use OpenSimulator as a server for a MMO-like game and they used a custom client with a custom protocol that was not compatable with SL viewers, it should not be allowed? Given that it's open source and MIT licensed, it's highly unlikely anything could be done to stop such from happening. That wiki page is incomplete in that it does not mention IClientAPI, which is the interface in OpenSimulator *specifically designed for implementing new protocols* and is what the LL protocol uses to interface with the simulation. ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] Direction of Opensim and its relationship with viewers
I remember at least one non-SL viewer written from scratch (forgot its name though). Last time I tested it years ago, it was only able to render terrain and prims against a black background, while I think used a Quake 1 model for avatars. I believe non-SL viewers deserve the appreciation any program does, as well as Opensim keeping them compatible if they have the same basic functionality as the SL viewer. All I'm saying is, such viewers will 99.9% likely never have someone motivated enough to develop them anywhere near SL quality. And even if that happened, they probably wouldn't turn out that different, since the base mechanics and features would have to be the same. So it's unlikely they'll have a bright future, which is why I'm hoping they won't become a focus for Opensim. I'd also be worried if OS would ever had to dedicate itself to multiple programs, and supporting the changes each unique viewer might add if others aren't going to add it too. I'll probably look at that video a bit later... missed watching Opensim meetings like in the old days. As for the relationship part, I meant Opensim not being directly involved with any of the viewer code using it (as far as I know). Although it's comforting to know the Firestorm team is decided to make sure FS works well in Opensim, it's still a different team and a different application. It doesn't solve the situation of a server (Opensim) without any clients of its own. It's not that hard to find your own viewer of course, but it tends to give the feeling that things aren't that stable and in harmony, and if something happens to one side the other might not be there to help. And yeah, don't get me started on Linden lol. From: cinder.rox...@phoenixviewer.com To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 14:11:42 -0700 Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Direction of Opensim and its relationship with viewers On 9 Nov 2013, at 13:38, Taoki wrote: Non-SL based viewers *do* exist though. A lot of these questions were addressed in the OSCC Viewers and OpenSimulator Panel this year http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/38459235 Not sure what you mean by colder relationship with viewers? As the OpenSim compatibility developer for Firestorm, I've never felt that way. Whenever I've had a question, many people have been welcoming and willing to help. As far as development for platforms go, Linden Lab has been far more cold, secretive, and outright aggressive towards third party viewers than the OpenSim Core team. Kind regards, -- Cinder ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] Direction of Opensim and its relationship with viewers
That's part of the point I'm trying to make, though I might be expressing myself poorly. Any viewer for Opensim would be a SL clone more or less. Because if multiple people using multiple viewers are on the same sim, they all need to be able to see the same things and interact the same way (without eg: a viewer seeing a box and another seeing a sphere). Therefore any non-SL viewer would have to implement exactly the same things SL has: An avatar you can move around as (which must have the same armature and body customization settings as SL viewer), the ability to build primitives (which must have the same shapes and features as SL viewer), a sky (which must have the same options as windlight), a terrain editor (which must work with the same heightmap terrain), etc. As long as this is the case, there shouldn't even be a difference as far as Opensim is concerned. My worry was that there might be plans to divide Opensim between multiple technologies and client - server architectures, and Second Life viewer might then become a secondary matter. Then again this is unlikely, since like I said viewer specific changes in the server would mean some avatars could only see or use some things, which would likely be deemed as unacceptable in the default Opensim code. Still, this mean Opensim must be a server for the SL technology, whether it's for use with a Linden viewer fork or a viewer someone created on their own. Being a general use platform conflicts with this limitation, which is why I was a little confused as to what Opensim's official stance toward viewers is. From: j.frank.nich...@gmail.com Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 16:41:10 -0500 To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Direction of Opensim and its relationship with viewers I am not sure what this is all about - there are many mistakes/misunderstandings? 1. There are several TPV’s that work with both SL and OS despite SL’s attempts to prevent it. 2. There are several viewers specifically written for OS that do not share code base with the SL viewers. 3. OS core developers have stated on many occasions that they want an open platform that people can package and do things other than SL look a likes. The goal is for a generic 3d world (VR) server, not a Sl clone. Although most people currently use it as an SL clone, nothing prevents you me or anyone from using out for our own VR design. Frank ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] Direction of Opensim and its relationship with viewers
I decided to google parts of my questions earlier. Although I hate asking something publicly to later answer myself, I think I am a bit more clear after the info I found as well as the replies here. First of all, something I forgot to clarify: I wouldn't expect or want Opensim to be a perfect replication of the SL server. On the contrary... Opensim has the ability to fix things Linden never will in their server software and add new features, which it should totally use. But IMO only for changes that are compatible with all viewers, and don't introduce new protocols for all sorts of software, which was the concern some of my questions started from. Part of that was clarified by this page: http://opensimulator.org/wiki/Communication_Protocols It describes how communication with viewers works, and how I assume it plans to stay. The interface (which that page names the Linden Lab viewer protocol) is one thing I wondering about, and if it's a fixed interface that doesn't need to be maintained for various viewers. Of course there's more than just the protocol, such as being limited to the prim and avatar shapes viewers can recognize. For this reason, I assume prim types like cube, sphere, torus will have to stay hard coded in Opensim and follow what Linden has. These sort of things are usually was I unclear about. I also found a pretty insightful article which deserves a read: http://arianeb.wordpress.com/2010/04/25/why-open-sim-is-the-future-metaverse-and-why-it-is-not-the-present/ It helps better understand Opensim's purpose as a system for 3D internet. It adds sense as to why non-SL viewers might have an use too, although I stick to my belief about them being unneeded and wasted energy to make (unless it's to enable SL on another platform, like Lumiya for Android). ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] OpenSim's direction after Linden cutting support, and the possibility of an official OpenSim viewer
@ robert.adams: I wouldn't want to see such a thing happening (a viewer split into multiple applications). Using multiple programs for each task would probably ruin the entire purpose of virtual worlds and the best feature of SL... which is being able to build, explore, chat, and do everything from the world. There's already enough need of external editors to make content in SL... like Photoshop / GIMP for textures, Audition / Audacity for sounds, Blender / 3DsMax for meshes, etc (unless you find them on the internet). I hope that doesn't change personally... a segmented viewer would be nice to see for curiosity, but I hope it wouldn't become an OpenSim default. @ t...@playsign.net: It's nice to hear that RealXtend is still alive! I haven't checked it out for a while, but last time I did things were pretty awesome. Main issue for me is that the RealXtend viewer was based on a very old viewer 1 fork (compared to this day), and I couldn't imagine using anything SL without the v3 features. I might try it out again if the viewer could be re-based on viewer 3 and have its GUI, the post-processing and visual effects, HTML on prim surfaces, etc. I assume RealXtend has its own mesh support system still so it might not port the one Linden added. Even if not though, it's a good project and I wish you luck as always :) From: robert.ad...@intel.com To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 02:03:46 + Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] OpenSim's direction after Linden cutting support, and the possibility of an official OpenSim viewer The SL viewer model is an all in one application – viewer, editor, chat client, connection manager, … Maybe a way of attacking the problem is to separate the parts and not think about building one behemoth application that does everything. 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). 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. Anyway, just throwing that out there. -- ra Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 08:52:21 +0200 From: t...@playsign.net To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] OpenSim's direction after Linden cutting support, and the possibility of an official OpenSim viewer 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. ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] OpenSim's direction after Linden cutting support, and the possibility of an official OpenSim viewer
@ jamesh: I'm using the Teapot viewer as well, since it appears to be the only good alternative for me. I don't like Firestorm because it's extremely bloated with all sorts of things and also very laggy and slow. The official SL viewer was usually my choice for OpenSim too... since it's clean, simple, and well optimized. I fully support the idea of Teapot being the base for an official OpenSim viewer, IMO that would be a great choice. @ wade.schuette: I remember reading that article some time ago, and I agree with it. It also offers a good example of what I'm talking about regarding client + server features; Let's say OpenSim will finally support regions larger than 256 x 256 meters (I believe mega regions aren't exactly that). In order for the SL viewer to recognize whole regions of bigger sizes, changes need to be done to it. With the current way, the OpenSim devs have to go knocking at the doors of the Firestorm team, the Teapot team, the Imprudence team, etc. and tell them Hey, we just implemented support for regions larger than 256 x 256, when you have free time take a look at our code and if you can figure it out add support to your viewer for this feature. It just wouldn't work out IMO. @ rigun: OpenSim always seemed like a very complex code to me. I think the developers who created it are very experienced, so someone to at least maintain an OpenSim viewer should be easy to find. The main worries would be to include new features and bug fixes from the SL viewer which would still be compatible, and code new OpenSim specific features in the viewer (eg: OSSL function highlighting in the script editor window). But again I'm not someone who can know best, so this is just what I assume. Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 20:08:02 -0500 From: jam...@bluewallgroup.com To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] OpenSim's direction after Linden cutting support, and the possibility of an official OpenSim viewer I have built the Teapot viewer and dabble with it on occasion. While it is not an official viewer, it is very solid and a good place to implement things that might find their way into other viewers over time. I think Armin has been busy with viewer development for the MOSES project, but when this split happened, he was slated to develop the OpenSim FS viewer and said that if things were developed in Teapot, he could possibly work them through the FS QA process. ~BlueWall ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:58:33 -0800 From: wade.schue...@gmail.com To: ri...@rigutech.nl; opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] OpenSim's direction after Linden cutting support, and the possibility of an official OpenSim viewer http://www.hypergridbusiness.com/2012/08/linden-lab-cuts-viewer-link-to-opensim/ is a pretty good answer. Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 01:06:20 +0100 From: ri...@rigutech.nl To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] OpenSim's direction after Linden cutting support, and the possibility of an official OpenSim viewer Not sure, but maby good to have this topic on osgrid forum to ? The biggest problem with makeing own viewer. There are not enough devs with the right skills. Thats the biggest problem. the amount of people that want and can spend time for a special opensim viewer. ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] OpenSim's direction after Linden cutting support, and the possibility of an official OpenSim viewer
I noticed most users prefer Firestorm and it's considered the best third-party viewer at this day. Although it's a thing of personal preference, I am a bit worried that Firestorm gets all the attention, since I'm not seeing any of the other viewers getting mentioned much since Firestorm is there. Like I said I don't like it because it's very bloated and slow... the ideal viewer for me is one just like the official SL client but with a grid manager, build / upload limits removed, and new features added. As far as I know the Second Life viewer is GPL licensed, so distributing it should be possible like any other GPL software. Excluding the Havoc library which supposedly caused OpenSim support to go away. Changes unrelated to the Havoc lib should always be GPL too, so if LL adds something that OpenSim viewer can integrate it should be ok. OpenSim is MIT licensed if I remember right, but there's nothing wrong with distributing a MIT code and a GPL one under the same name and website. Building a viewer from scratch is something I don't believe will happen or needs to happen. It would be an enormous amount of work, only to achieve something very similar to what's already there. The SL viewer just needs work in places where Linden didn't give it much attention, but is well optimized in many areas. Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 15:55:28 +0100 From: garmin.kawagui...@magalaxie.com To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] OpenSim's direction after Linden cutting support, and the possibility of an official OpenSim viewer I much prefer using Firestorm for OpenSim since developers have clearly separated Opensim version from the SL one. Firestorm 431 31155 version is very powerful and there are of course some lacks. But Firestorm developers are very responsive and they opened a section OpenSim in their Jira (successfully tested). On the other hand, we can always think that people who have made a server would be best placed to make a viewer. Except that this would lead to a paradoxical situation where OpenSim developers ask Linden Lab permission to use sources V2/3/4, keeping in mind that the issue of licenses would remain the same that with the SL viewer and the viewer FireStorm. As for building a viewer from scratch, as did our realXtend friends it's difficult to gather enough people and get results in a significant delay. GCI ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
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: javajo...@gmail.com To: ri...@rigutech.nl; opensim-dev@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. Danielhttp://daniel,org/cafebucky ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] What server side changes will be needed for SL Viewer 2.x?
Just tried the 2.0 client yesterday (main grid) and was wondering the same thing as soon as I seen it. Hope OpenSim will be compatible with it soon, and that this won't be a lot of work for the devs. Once all risks (such as the inventory deletion issue) are out of the way, I would love to test it more in-depth, and report any bugs or help in any way again. Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:32:51 -0800 From: javajo...@gmail.com To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: [Opensim-dev] What server side changes will be needed for SL Viewer 2.x? I'm sure some of you have checked out the SL Viewer 2 beta by now ;) The Media On A Prim functionality is fantastic.. As an experiment, I tried logging into ReactionGrid with the new viewer. I got as far as seeing myself hover, and it hung, Not bad, I wasn't even expecting to get that far. Anyone have a feel as to what would need to change on the server side to allow logins from SL Viewer 2 / SnowGlobe 2 variants? My hunch is that it would be months down the road. The holy grail, of course, would be OpenSim + Media On A Prim. Just wondering how much is different on the server side to support the new functionality. Daniel -- Daniel Smith - Sonoma County, California http://daniel.org/resume _ Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] personal plea on patents
Although I don't know all the details on how this works, I know patents are horrible thing that should not exist, and people use them in ways that should never be allowed. I dearly hope Opensim will never have to face such dangers, and that it will always stay clear of these things. I guess hoping is the best we can do, if nothing can be done to actively secure it. Anyway Diva, that's a very nice and correct post, and hopefully people will listen do that. But imho, as long as any company has a possibility to harm Opensim, the project is unsafe. I wonder if the laws allow code owners to forbid anyone from placing patents on anything. After all, the code belongs to the devs, and no one should be able to invade it and put rules on Opensim without their permission. Of course other libs it uses aren't the case, if I am correct. Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:15:05 -0800 From: d...@metaverseink.com To: opensim-us...@lists.berlios.de; opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: [Opensim-dev] personal plea on patents In the light of recent events, I want to make this plea explicit and widely distributed: http://www.metaverseink.com/blog/?p=30 No need to panic, the project is not in danger. But it became clear to me that we need to raise awareness of this issue, so that people in this community stop and think before they file patents to please investors and managers. ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev _ Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
[Opensim-dev] Simpler configuration files
This is a topic I wanted to bring up for a while, which I think is an important part of Opensim that may need to be tweaked. In my opinion Opensims configuration files are too many and too complex, and this makes it difficult to maintain your settings especially for newer users. There's too many ini files the owner needs to edit, as well as opensim.ini being too large and a lot of work being needed to keep your changes between opensim.ini.example updates. I think the issue has worsened since the config-include folder system, which spreads a part of the configuration to even more files. The settings a user must tweak in order to run Opensim are currently split between three locations: opensim.ini, Regions\myRegion.xml and config-include\*.ini. Imo this is rather difficult to maintain, and I would suggest simplifying the configuration if possible to have it use less files spread to fewer places and without the user having to follow a big file to make changes. I thought about a way to do it and this would be my idea: config-include would be removed and opensim.ini.example become opensim.ini containing all settings again. However the user would not have to modify anything in opensim.ini, and instead write new settings to a new .ini file (eg: mycfg.ini) which is loaded after opensim.ini and overwrites its settings. Any setting from opensim.ini that the user would want to change he would copy to mycfg.ini with the new value. For instance, if the user would only want to enable gridmode = false (for the sake of example) instead of editing it from opensim.ini they would go to the empty mycfg.ini and add the lines [Startup] | gridmode = true. The order of .ini files to be loaded could be specified in a separate ini file, which would list opensim.ini first and mycfg.ini second. This would allow the user to keep an updated opensim.ini with all default settings, without having to manually copy everything when updating from the example file. Also they wouldn't have to chase so many lines to find an important setting they wish to tweak, but tweak it from their own little list of settings. There could even be default templates, such as standalone.ini and grid.ini. When the user wants to connect to osgrid, they just select the grid.ini template and change the network settings there, then mycfg.ini would only include sim properties like physics settings. I think a single folder with all .inis would be the best way to go. Just my idea of it... I know the current config-include system is somehow similar to this, but all of the main settings are still tweaked from opensim.ini copied from opensim.ini.example and the configuration is spread between opensim.ini and the files in config-include instead of being in one place. I'd like to hear more opinions on this, and how and if the configuration of Opensim could be simplified. What do you think? _ Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. Check it out! http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_explore_012009___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] SL settings folder has been deleted
I don't think Opensim would have had how to have done this. Maybe it was some error in the SL client or something else that deleted it. Did you uninstall a Release Candidate or First Look viewer as well? In the past I had issues where uninstalling RC or FirstLook also removed my SL settings. From: nomi...@hotmail.com To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:37:16 + Subject: [Opensim-dev] SL settings folder has been deleted Trying unsuccessfully a freshly compiled version of OpenSim for a few days, I decided to try the binaries version. I installed it as indicated, as standalone. It worked well, but it deleted completely my Application data Second Life folder content. My settings plus a few years of logs I had there, keeping mainly logs of my scripters groups in SL. Plus discussions I had with people I hire... plus.. plus... Gee... how can this be? Did it ever happen to anybody else? _ More than messages–check out the rest of the Windows Live™. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] Mesh to primitive converter
Yes, that's exactly what I had in mind. I didn't know such a converter already existed when I started this topic though... I was thinking of it as an addon for Opensim where the user could go to the console, type the name of the model in a command line and have the region calculate the polys and faces, creating a linkset of boxes positioned accordingly. If such a script already exists maybe it could be made into an Opensim module someday, if its author would allow and it would be a useful feature to have. Just random thoughts... the initial idea I had for some time was seeing mesh-detailed objects and meshes in the classic Opensim / SL and with the LL viewer, which I thought would be a great possibility after visiting ReX. Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:57:25 +0900 From: nlin.mess...@gmail.com To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Mesh to primitive converter I'm not sure if this is the tool you're referring to, but something similar is illustrated by this LSL script: http://www.lslwiki.net/lslwiki/wakka.php?wakka=LibraryPolygonFormer. (Example screenshot http://www.sipuli.net/~joonas/Uploadit/Muut/modelrezzer_snapshot4JPG.JPG) -nlin _ More than messages–check out the rest of the Windows Live™. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] Older region databases incompatible with the latest SVN
It's good to know I'm not alone with this somehow. This probably only happens with certain databases... maybe the issue is that the version migration tool expects every UUID to contain the 4 dashes too and considers UUIDs which don't have the - - - - symbols placed in them corrupted (as it says in the error message)? Also does restoring an old OAR archive if nothing else can be done fix the problem, or are previous OARs considered corrupt as well? Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 05:17:39 -0800 From: d...@metaverseink.com To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Older region databases incompatible with the latest SVN Yes, I've seen this too. In fact, one of our regions in OSGrid is still suffering from it. I'm not sure where the bug is, except that it happened around the 3rd week of January. We've been able to get around it by removing the local OpenSim.db, and loading all the objects from backups we had (in xml or oar format, not sure which). _ News, entertainment and everything you care about at Live.com. Get it now! http://www.live.com/getstarted.aspx___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] Regions larger then 256x256
I too had this wish for Opensim, but gave up on it understanding it would be too difficult to implement and would hold too many issues. Sure, region *x* arrangements are possible and commonly used, but it does cause more complexity that way and moving all of them together or tweaking each individually could be a bit harder. My idea back then was being allowed to create regions in powers of 2 (eg: 256x256 as now, then 128x128 smaller or larger 512x512). First thing which wouldn't work here however would be positioning them correctly over certain X and Y coordinates in order to fit smaller sims around larger ones, which would end up causing grid coordinates such as 1000.5, 1001.25. Second, I don't think the client actually supports simulators larger then 256 x 256 so the client would probably need modifying as well to do that. Third, exporting and importing settings and stuff (such as terrain or .oar archives) between different sizes of simulators could be problematic and buggy. And fourth, larger single sims could possibly cause performance issues even with computers in our days. If some of these issues didn't exist though this might be doable and could be fun. Anyway the best practical way at the moment are region groups of 2x2 or 3x3 or how many you wish for having a larger square, which isn't that bad in the end. From: adama...@hotmail.com To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 07:46:04 -0300 Subject: [Opensim-dev] Regions larger then 256x256 Like there are the problem of performance when we have more than 15/20 avatares inside one sim , I believe that is important to have regions smaller than 256x256. By example, a mini-region having 32x32. Using grid and a server for each of 64 glued mini-regions we can have a superpopulated area of 256x256 running well. Americo check out the rest of the Windows Live™. More than mail–Windows Live™ goes way beyond your inbox. More than messages _ Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live Spaces. It's easy! http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=createwx_url=/friends.aspxmkt=en-us___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] anon logins
It's perfectly ok cfk, that's not what I meant and such a thing doesn't matter to me at all. Many likely had the same ideas and thoughts on this whoever brought the topic up first. What matters is the decision we take on how to implement such a system the right way :) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 10:30:52 -0800 From: c...@pacbell.net To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] anon logins Mircea: My apologies if your ideas were not credited properly. As I recall, you and others have suggested guest logins and I just thought this morning was a good time to open the discussion a little bit on our OS2B. Charles Many of us see things the same way Paul. Anon logins would allow Opensim to be used just like the web where you can type an URL and be there. Put in my previous example, like IRC or forums where guests can enter, listen/read and talk/post where they're allowed to but need to register in order to setup avatars, signatures, upload files, have sticky voice / op status... Especially considering that there are some viewers now which can run from web pages, one would just open their web browser, type out the URL and be on OSGrid! In our case guests would not be able to have persistent inventory, friend lists, profiles, etc. because of technical limits, since anon logins would be temporary like unregistered IRC nicknames so storing anything for them would lead to issues and conflicts as well as keep gigantic storage for nicknames which may never be used again. Being allowed to build or run scripts should be an option of the sim owner in opensim.ini, who could choose if to allow guests to build there or not. Sim owners should also be allowed to specify if guests can enter their sim (in case the grid allows guests too of course) so owners could make their regions off limit to guests if they wish. Another factor I highlighted in the previous discussion is how guest logins could increase user count on grids and therefore Opensim usage and popularity. Many SL users are still not interested in Opensim a lot, and when they see they have to register to enter places like OSGrid some say Nah, I don't need to waste my time with another account just to see how an Opensim grid looks like. Guest logins on popular OS grids would make it much easier for people to enter just to visit or chat, and convince some to join while others who don't care to register could just hang out as guests for as much as they want. OSGrid still suffers from a very low number of users and high number of sims, and guest logins might help improve that and we could see +80 users logged in on a daily basis again. Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:50:33 -0500 From: fishw...@cise.ufl.edu To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] anon logins People do a lot of web-browsing and perhaps anon accounts will help better integrate opensim with the web. Consider the following: 1. Someone is browsing the web for a topic such as red wine 2. They get to various wine distributor and vineyard web pages 3. They find out that one of the vineyards has a hot link to a 3D space 4. They click on it and find themselves in the opensim world for the vineyard We need to find ways of making it easier, and more transparent, to go between #2 and #4. It may be that a stepping-stone is required such as Xenki, which is browser embedded (before launching a full-blown viewer). Anon accounts may help because it is similar to unrestricted web browsing. And, these accounts may ease the transition between #2 and #4, and thus grow the metaverse. -p _ Show them the way! Add maps and directions to your party invites. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/events.aspx___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
