Hey Boroondas, indeed-- to an extend it would allow for equivalent manipulations of attachments if you'd have:
Chest1 Chest2 Chest3 Chest4 Chest5 Chest6 Chest7 Chest8 etc attachment points, instead of Chest + 32bit mask. But indeed, the former would be equivalent only with the latter if the latter was restricted to having a single bit set in the mask; which would void the need of a mask altogether (you could just use a number). What I want to make possible is "automatic" removal of attachments when the user wants that. You cannot in advance think of when a user wants that because the possibilities are endless. Hence, we need a system that allows as much as possible. An example would be: I can have the following attachments on my 'chest': * A tickler (invisible object that makes me laugh when clicked) * A colar (extension of my coat). * A necklace * A hoodie (extension of my shirt) * A titler (displays a text above my head) * A hugger (could be attached elsewhere, of course) * A second necklace (really, a 'military nametag' type of thing). Most of those should NOT remove any of the others, but now I find that the colar 'sticks' through the hoodie, so I (the user) decides that if the hoodie is attached, the colar has to go. However, I have another shirt with a different colar, and that colar is not sticking through the hoodie, so I don't want to replace that colar when the hoodie is attached. However, if I change shirts than I want one colar to replace the other. This would be possible when using a bitmask, not when using just a heap of attachment points. On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Boroondas Gupte<[email protected]> wrote: > Aleric Inglewood schrieb: >> I think that each attachment should have a bit mask for >> community assignable categories >> > If I'm not mistaken, the modified XML is equivalent to the bit mask > solution. You don't have multiple attachments per attachment points but > rather more attachment points, some of which happen to have the same > position* as already existing ones. So there's a bijective mapping from > (attachment position, set mask bit)-pairs to attachment point IDs from > the modified XML. What's missing is only the naming of the categories > and a GUI that represents the bit mask rather than giving different > names to different IDs. > > * by 'position' I mean the origin of the attachment points' local > coordinate system, not the attachments' position within that coordinate > system. > > > Of course, implementing it in the bit mask way would make it easy to add > fancy extensions, like e.g. attachments that have more then one bit set. > (A cyber armor glove with integrated ray gun might replace both other > gloves and swords when worn.) Then again, when the bit mask > implementation is chosen, the attachment-manipulating LSL functions > should probably reflect that too, by a different function signature. > > Boroondas > _______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/SLDev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
