|
|
|
Well, the basic proposal is just for the existing access controls to be applied over a different height range.
For the enhanced proposal, I agree... the privacy barrier should be two-way. Sounds similar to the "Privacy in a pocket" proposal that got LOTS of votes, and an acknowledgement from the Lindens that it seemed like a reasonable and do-able plan. Unfortunately, it was then ignored totally by Linden Lab developers, who spent their time on other less-desired projects, like Windlight and Dazzle.
I certainly agree that this new proposal would be one of the best alternatives, now that the standard client allows building and access that high. The area generally isn't built up yet, and it is HIGHER than where most people fly their planes. Most flyers want to see the ground going by beneath them. So this would NOT interfere with general aviation. Hmm, I dunno, I think I still preferred the parcel basements idea. I don't really like the idea of having skyboxes encouraged in this way, which is why I still favour proper 3d zones since we shouldn't need separate areas (skyboxes) at all ideally.
This is really isomorphic to parcel basements, as far as the location goes, except it's a bit larger of a range. Whether they're "basements" are at -1024..-512 or "skyboxes" at 3328..4096 is a detail. The only reason for putting them underground in the original proposal was the assumption that the building limits in Havok1 were insuperable.
The question of how the privacy zones are shaped is a separate issue. The alternative proposal to your 3d zones is the "phantom zone" proposal, not parcel basements. SVC-1138 combines the two, I'm trying to avoid doing that here except "as an enhancement". Possibly other restrictions on parcels could also be limited to the protected zone, if this was enabled, so you could have a skybox zone protected from object entry without blocking followers and the like at ground level? Linked to SVC-362.
I preffer the suggestions involving multiple zones of arbitrary dimensions, but I'm voting for this too 'cause it would be better than nothing
Since this is fairly irrelevant unless it involves an island and the island owner (Such as a role play sim) then it makes more sense to define an area by group role access. For instance only members in the appropriate role are allowed to go below 700 meters. I was going to say go below 2000 meters but we can't predict what viewer is in use and not all viewers are up to date. In fact more and more people are reverting to version 1.19 to get away from the texture reload DDOS versions from Linden LAB.
I.e.; the estate manager tool allows you to define an altitude and above or below and what group and role is allowed to pass that line. I'm not sure I understand what you're referring to, Ann with restrictions below some level. I'm at a loss as to what islands and estates even have to do with it. This proposal is about Mainland, about establishing a restricted access zone just below the build ceiling instead of at ground level, the third or fourth in a series of ever more attenuated proposals to grant people on Mainland a fraction of the privacy that estate owners already possess.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
New Feature
Open
Normal
Enable an alternate access controlled "skybox zone" at 3328-4096 meters
I would add that an avatar inside the skybox zone, when enabled, should not receive visual or scripted representation of the areas outside it. While everyone is entitled to their privacy I would not like to see a situation develop where an avatar would be able to be inside a skybox zone and be able to see (by cam or script) their neighbour on any part of their parcel, without the neighbour being aware of it.