|
|
|
[
Permlink
| « Hide
]
Zephyrin Zabelin added a comment - 18/May/07 08:47 AM
Still not exactly as I would like it. I would like simple whole-parcel privacy (the owner can divide land into parcels can't they?) and I would like the option to allow incoming data or not - I might want to hear a friend saying "please can I come in?" for example, or to be able to look through a window and see if anyone is nearby.
Sure it seems like a great idea... till mid-air collisions increase severalfold as a result of people flying into skyboxes in the volume because they can't see it.
Please consider the side-effects of any improvement and possible ways to avoid or mitigate them if you could, please? ^^; The idea, Patchouli, is that people would avoid flying in this range. If anything it would clear the sky up at the other altitudes, making aviation easier.
The above is just a feature suggestion, devoid of technical details for implementation.
I've described the three distinct approaches to achieving privacy in an article on one of the forum privacy threads: http://forums.secondlife.com/showthread.php?p=1533912#post1533912 The suggestion presented here on this Jira page is just a variant of the Inner Bounding Box concept, and suffers from its many problems of implementation, high complexity, low safety, and a plethora of corner cases. It's far from a good one. If you're looking for a well considered design for privacy, look at the Parcel Basement idea outlined by Argent Stonecutter and fleshed out considerably in the linked article. Not only does it provide visual, sound, and chat privacy, it does so in a manner that requires remarkably little development work (at least an order of magnitude less), which is important given the severe constraints on dev manpower. And very importantly, the physical isolation of basements virtually eliminates all the hard issues that arise when there is continuity between private and public space. It is effectively an implementation of zone instancing, but an extremely lightweight one. Recommended. I'd like to add a couple of comments about the parcel basement solution.
1. Entry to the private space could be implemented several ways. My preference would be to allow a teleport initiated by the parcel owner (or someone in the parcel owning group who has the appropriate right, or a script owned by the owner or appropriate group member) to work for negative offsets. This could be a teleport invitation, a chained move using the "llSetPrimitiveParams" warp-move hack, or the much aticipated llTeleportAgent() call. 2. To avoid problems with scripts running at negative offsets, the following modifications to the LSL runtime could be made: if the prim the script is running in has a z offset of < -512, then local coordinates visible to the script would be offset by 1024 meters, and llRegionCorner() would be offset by a corresponding -1024 meters to leave a correct global coordinate. Re-opened this issue. It is NOT a duplicate of SVC-99, a 3d permission zone can be of any shape, while this privacy pocket implies a restricted height area on a parcel, which would mean it always spans the full dimensions of a parcel. Conceptually and possibly implementation-wise it should therefore be simpler, but less flexible.
It is however a different idea to fix a common problem in a somewhat similar but not entirely duplicate way. Fleshed out parcel basements proposal at SVC-1138
Gigs, I hope you don't mind... I'm changing the proposed height limit to 3128m-4096m (the top 768 meters of the sim) since Havok4 allows building in this range.
[bad math, 4096-768 == 3328, not 3128]
Argent perhaps it might now be better to just add your recommendation as increasing the build height over 4096 meters and making what you recommend as in the region above 4096 meters. I say this because people are already building in these regions of space now. I.e.; add what you recommend as a new feature that does not conflict with what exists in place now.
From Gigs original proposal: "The existing "limit access to this parcel" tools could be used as the ACLs for this.".
In another proposal I suggested a "skybox zone" flag that would control access to this region, which would be a useful option here. In either case... if you don't turn on ACLs, it wouldn't effect your existing build, except that you would no longer be able to see it from the ground. Why would there have to be a set limit for the privacy... why not make it definable in the parcel tools (min level for privacy: xxxxx max level for privacy: xxxxx). I still think in a 3-D world, parcels should be able to be divided in all 3 dimensions.
Because then you wouldn't have a virtual world. You'd have a virtual desert with a bunch of parcels that no one could see or pass through. It would ruin the entire idea of a seamless virtual world.
I would like to see this but with a minor revision: the parcel should not appear blank to the outsider, it should merely look normal, but make camming into the parcel from outside impossible and restrict chat to the parcel (chat inside the parcel cannot go out but chat outside can come in, or possibly be toggled on/off).
Therefore if there is an existing build, it looks normal, but true privacy inside the build is created, or at least as much or as little is revealed according to the parcel owner's preference. @Starfire: the reason for putting the privacy pocket up high in the air is to limit how much this new feature interferes with existing builds.
@Smith: camming control is up to the client. With the open source client privacy that depended on camming control would be pointless. The only way to get privacy is to not send the information to the client in the first place. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
New Feature
Reopened
Critical
Privacy Pocket
