That's a great idea, Tigro!
I think I'll bring it up in the context of realXtend's Naali + Opensim some
time. They might well be interested in accelerating static content, and
since Naali is evolving so rapidly and is highly modular, it might not be
terribly hard to do.
PS. The AW Groupies meeti
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
i'll take the opportunity to promote a somewhat related feature
suggestions i've posted on pjira:
http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/VWR-13942 - Optimize non-dynamic
content on sims
On 2/3/2010 22:05, Argent Stonecutter wrote:
> On 2010-03-02, at 18:4
Argent Stonecutter wrote:
> On 2010-03-02, at 18:49, Dzonatas Sol wrote:
>> Let's add "burning man" event... so that is how many more sims!
>
> When I had a build in Burning Life, I was updating it all the way
> through the show, and I saw several people around me doing the same.
>
> That's just h
On 2010-03-02, at 18:49, Dzonatas Sol wrote:
> Let's add "burning man" event... so that is how many more sims!
When I had a build in Burning Life, I was updating it all the way
through the show, and I saw several people around me doing the same.
That's just how SL gets used, in practice. If you
Argent Stonecutter wrote:
>
>> If someone is scheduled to appear in a sim a week from now, then it
>> doesn�t matter if it takes 1 to 6 days to download, cache, and rez a
>> prim locally on the 7th day of the scheduled meeting.
>
> Given the way SL works, and the way people use it, this is an
>
On 2010-03-02, at 13:25, Dzonatas Sol wrote:
> Argent Stonecutter wrote:
>> On 2010-03-01, at 20:38, Dzonatas Sol wrote:
>>> Being able to distribute physic data about objects in a passive
>>> manner has nothing to do with being able to network chat itself in
>>> a non-passive manner.
>> Oh, O
Argent Stonecutter wrote:
> On 2010-03-01, at 20:38, Dzonatas Sol wrote:
>> Being able to distribute physic data about objects in a passive
>> manner has nothing to do with being able to network chat itself in a
>> non-passive manner.
>
> Oh, OK, so you're just talking about it taking days to rez
On 2010-03-01, at 20:38, Dzonatas Sol wrote:
> Being able to distribute physic data about objects in a passive
> manner has nothing to do with being able to network chat itself in a
> non-passive manner.
Oh, OK, so you're just talking about it taking days to rez a prim?
___
Being able to distribute physic data about objects in a passive manner
has nothing to do with being able to network chat itself in a
non-passive manner.
Argent Stonecutter wrote:
> If you don't mind days round trip for each line of chat.
>
> On 2010-02-28, at 14:05, Dzonatas Sol wrote:
>
>
>>
We DO use Second Life chat, afterall...
Argent Stonecutter wrote:
> If you don't mind days round trip for each line of chat.
>
> On 2010-02-28, at 14:05, Dzonatas Sol wrote:
>
>
>> This is perfect then...
>>
>>
[...]
___
Policies and (un)subscri
If you don't mind days round trip for each line of chat.
On 2010-02-28, at 14:05, Dzonatas Sol wrote:
> This is perfect then...
>
> If you are scheduled to meet in a sim later in the week, then why
> worry if all the static objects take a day to download from that sim
> through archaic usenet
This is perfect then...
If you are scheduled to meet in a sim later in the week, then why worry
if all the static objects take a day to download from that sim through
archaic usenet means. You would already have all the object information
needed for physics and to render in a local storage.
By
On 2010-02-25, at 15:12, Dzonatas Sol wrote:
> [Usenet] worked. It is still free and open.
It used to be. It's getting harder and harder to get feeds these days.
Everyone just reads through Google Groups rather than trying to find
someone with a feed. SL and OpenSim started with the equivalent
Lawson English wrote:
> Dzonatas Sol wrote:
>
>> Given this setup. It would look like this:
>>
>> [ viewer <-> opensim ] <-> [ opensim <-> viewer ]
>>
>> That's peer to peer.
>>
>>
>
> Another variation of peer to peer is:
>
> [ viewer ] <=> server <=> [ viewer ]
> ...\..
Dzonatas Sol wrote:
> Given this setup. It would look like this:
>
> [ viewer <-> opensim ] <-> [ opensim <-> viewer ]
>
> That's peer to peer.
>
Another variation of peer to peer is:
[ viewer ] <=> server <=> [ viewer ]
...\.../
\./
.<==
I had this question but didn't see a response to it at all: "So, are
they saying they don't want physics prediction? "
To me, a direct protocol, with a TLD, like "opens.im" , would help
enable physics prediction where two or more simulator share the same
dataset for a single region. There are e
If there is no need for a grid server, then there would be no need for a
TOS that would try to control a TPV.
I see the issue of opensim that wants to say "can only connect client to
a grid server as supported by opensim" no different than Linden Lab's
new TOS in attempts to control TPVs.
If w
Given this setup. It would look like this:
[ viewer <-> opensim ] <-> [ opensim <-> viewer ]
That's peer to peer.
Let's say somebody wants to setup a 3D website inside one. They don't
want to go through ICANN because it's "virtual" just like "virtual
linden" currency.
They want "http://media.
I have been experimenting with combining and/or offloading physics
simulations on physics capable clients (not LL based) with OpenSim, but
nothing has been released as open source as of yet. It's not clear to me how
a new TLD would affect this though, or why it might be required.
-Dahlia
(Core)
O
I thought this was quite of interest for viewer developers that might
ever be interested to attach a simulator to their viewer in order to
dispel latency.
--- snip ---
If one opensim box connects to another opensim box, that is,
technically, peer to peer.
So, are you saying an opensim box c
20 matches
Mail list logo
