|
|
|
I think you don't understand what this means. The way I would put it...it would be like "folding space". It would be basically a bridge between two points in Second Life. The advantage to this is that you would see no loading screen, and could be useful for things you wouldn't want to see a loading screen (ie. stargate or transport rings).
Another advantate to this would be the ability to send objects through the Stargate. MALPs, UAVs etc
Another use can be special effects. Many games use portals to link doors to in-door spaces that are located somewhere else entirely. This is also used for rendering a scene on a window to replace the real view on the outside.
Another fun use would be to make a Tardis-like structure - one that is bigger on the inside then the outside. (Doors being simply a portal linking to another location that is bigger then the visible exterior at the place of departure) Right, and a griefers' paradise, as you get locked in an endless loop you can't escape from being transported around the grid and auto sent on to the next point...
The minute someone says the words, "griefer's paradise", my ears perk up, and if it is truly a legitimate claim that it could be so... I absolutely vote FOR the feature as something which should seriously be given time to. Perhaps the suggested methodology is inefficient or too nonstandard in syntax... but anything which can be a 'griefer's paradise' means MORE FREEDOM to be creative in SL and that's ALWAYS GOOD.
By the way, 'Griefers', are a completely separate issue. Thus, I suggest in the future, when speaking about 'really outrageously great!' feature additions, ...that the words, "Greifer's Paradise", be used to tag them, sort of like the 'Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval'. lol The griefing issue would be simple enough to solve by making sure when a portal is placed it MUST be a set distance from any other portal (a one-time check on object place/move, so no serious load issues - much like prim-size limits are now enforced server-side). On the vertical plane at least 10m; no regards for horizontal - this would stop eternal-fall setup as well. Then an AV has time to stop and go elsewhere, either by turning aside, or by doing a regular TP - would also force a time limit on how fast portals can activate simply because it takes time to move between them.
As for making passages with no exits and a portal at each end, well, I can think of some intersting maze-type games... I would rather have a custom object defined for this than parcel-level controls. ABOVE READ:
on the HORIZONTAL plane, 10m; no regards for vertical axis. my head hurts %-\ This proposal seems to me to be mainly a mathematical/ideological abstraction, which I know is very dearly beloved to some virtual world geeks.
Basically, they want the world to be a kind of folding dorm, to be able to walk in and out of everybody's rooms. They seem to loathe the metaphor for geographical contiguousness borrowed from the "meat-world," although it has served mankind for the millenia, and works great in SL, and is celebrated by millions. What I don't understand about this concept is why the mere seconds delay involved in the metaphor of the black space, the progressive white land, and the whooshy Star Trek sound isn't good enough for 'portaling". I mean, it's a telePORT, not a PORTal, but it works fast, and during that time of teleportation, you can, as it were, cleanse the palette from your one location, and contemplate your next location. I've seen some builders make teleporters that work on one sim that give that sense of games pretty well, like the old Time Tunnel TV series or Star Trek, which is what I guess they're after here. Basically, I vote no, because: o potential for grief-looping newbs very big For better or worse, you don't get to vote "no" on proposals.
I don't think this particular design is particularly practical, in particular the graphical ability to render the far side of the portal would require multiple rendering passes on the client, and that's unlikely to be accepted... especially given that the lindens have rejected mirrors (introduced briefly in FL 57575). But the social issues could easily be resolved by the existing permissions structures: you simply wouldn't be able to create a gateway to a location you couldn't teleport to. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
New Feature
Open
Normal
Proposed Feature: Per-Parcel "Portals"
llTeleportAgent would be a much more elegant solution to this problem. So I wholly disagree with your proposal