Lucia Nightfire commented at 2014-04-09T03:49:18Z, updated at 2014-04-09T04:03:07Z

Related to 3 out of the 10 requested settings in https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/BUG-3854

Also see http://jira.phoenixviewer.com/browse/FIRE-2325

I would love to see this option as well.
I would like to see it have some flexibility as well.
Like "Render objects on other parcels" or "Render objects only on same owner parcels" as well as "Render objects in adjacent regions." options.

Hugsy Penguin commented at 2014-04-09T05:47:52Z

I like land owners having check box for turning off objects on other parcels as is described here. So, voted and watched.

However, if that happens, then I want the option to override that locally. I don't want to be flying/boating and have a bunch of objects disappear and reappear because I cut across somebody's parcel using this option.

Kyrah Abattoir commented at 2014-04-09T11:59:23Z

This sounds more like a viewer setting than something that should be at the parcel level.

Trinity Dejavu commented at 2014-04-09T13:36:53Z

Doing this region side would have several distinct advantages. There would be no need to send data to the user that they didn't need to see. This reduces load on LL and the client and saves bandwidth.

Parcel level controls would be needed as not all builds or locations are contained on a single parcel of land.

Lorek Eusebio commented at 2014-04-09T15:31:54Z

Doesn't draw distance have a similar effect to this? Even if it does, this feature is obviously way better than messing around with draw distances all the time since parcels can come in a variety of sizes! I can only see everyone benefiting from this feature.

Gibson Firehawk commented at 2014-04-09T18:02:52Z, updated at 2014-04-09T18:10:01Z

I think this is a great idea. Eyesores and theme ruining objects owned by neighbors is all too common and this would be a great way to get rid of that for visitors to the land. A way for the user to override it would be important though if they choose to do so.

VileBastard commented at 2014-04-10T00:07:57Z

There is allot of places in SL I will simply not go to or leave because there is too much stuff loading, or it takes to long to load.

Bare Rose mall is one of those places I can't stand despite having a great selection of cheap goods. Its a great place with awesome looking stuff that's so cheap. But.. Bare Rose have such a huge selection that was built up even before marketplace was up and running, to put it all on market place is unprofitable and impossible for them.. Because of this, I have to wait for what might actually be.. 10000 boxes to rez there textures, I basically have to go through a wait to shop ritual of, go to the mall, hit the fly button, and fly off to the center of the men's section, and then go and wait for half a hour while the section finishes rezzing before I can do any shopping.

Being able to partition off areas and Render only objects in one section would mean that Bare Rose could block off the men's section from the women's section from the boots section, and so forth. It means I would be able to to my particular section find what I want to buy several times faster since only the thing that I might buy would show up, I be able to better make a selection or selections faster since only what I might be interested in would show up.

Kosmos Asturias commented at 2014-04-10T02:02:09Z

Sounds like a nice feature to add. But yeah,there would need to be a client side override option. Maybe more than just a yes/no rendering option. Possbily some sort of stock generic rendering option to replace the surrounding prims?

VileBastard commented at 2014-04-10T04:27:46Z

Actually I do not think there needs to be a client side override. You rent land and let people come on it. You are paying for them to be able to come in to you sim.. you should get to decide what they can see, and when on your sim.

Besides Having a client override might spoil it for you, or gives them a unfair advantage. You can't do anything with a sim if someone can easy bypass all your work with a override.

Kyrah Abattoir commented at 2014-04-10T11:48:27Z

This would push SL even more into the realm of "my private 3D chatroom" than remaining the shared experience that made it what it is today (imVU anyone?). SL should stay as far away from this as possible.

alexios.donardson commented at 2014-04-10T13:07:58Z

then what is the point of SL if a manager or parcel owners hide everything outside of it.

Penny Patton commented at 2014-04-10T14:58:14Z, updated at 2014-04-10T14:58:32Z

@Kyrah and Alexios

By this logic, LL should close down all non-mainland regions immediately and ban the use of both skyboxes and walls. Are you saying there's no point to SL unless everyone is forced into the mainland? I know there are people who really feel that way, but it doesn't make sense from either a social or a technical standpoint.

alexios.donardson commented at 2014-04-10T17:45:46Z

I mean there is no point to hide objects outside of your parcel or your sim.
the beauty of SL is to see everything around you. :)

Ceera Murakami commented at 2014-04-10T19:13:02Z

Would love to see this as a parcel setting! Great for Linden Homes and Skyboxes, to improve performance.

Kyrah Abattoir commented at 2014-04-10T23:39:11Z

@Penny everyone seems to buy private islands for this very reason, so what would motivate Linden Labs to offer something similar for just any parcel really?

Penny Patton commented at 2014-04-10T23:55:06Z, updated at 2014-04-10T23:56:44Z

@Kyrah
Do I really need to explain why someone who only wants $4.00USD a month worth of land is unlikely to shell out $75-300 a month?

A company which deliberately sabotages their lower end offerings is only going to lose. Any uptick in sales of their higher end offerings (which is extremely unlikely) will not even come close to offsetting the lost revenue they could be getting by providing decent low end offerings.

Kyrah Abattoir commented at 2014-04-11T00:10:05Z

Penny i perfectly understand, but to me the idea of private regions (and that vision only engage me) was to offer a more controlled experience for specific themed areas or group efforts (you used to be able to hide every other regions not part of the same estate, including the mainland), i feel that they where supposed to be an exception.

I don't think regions where priced to attract single individuals either.

Trinity Dejavu commented at 2014-04-11T11:20:49Z, updated at 2014-04-11T11:21:31Z

Some people want a private 3D chat room experience in SL.

Parcel privacy already allows them to do exactly this.

This is about removing unnecessary objects from their experience, and improving the performance of SL for people who otherwise would only be able to run IMVU.

There are also other use cases if this is implemented the same way as parcel privacy.

• A landing point or lobby that didn't allow players to cam the entire build without bothering to enter.
• Richer smaller locations that would not be burdened by the rest of the region.
• Better gaming opportunities that didn't require the players to disable several rendering modes to keep the frame rate (as is common now).
• Engaging experiences that force the user to actually traverse them by not revealing the end till you get to it.

Nomeda Coage commented at 2014-04-11T11:52:30Z

@Kyrah and Alexious

I don't consider SL to be a social experience of seeing everything everyone has built. As a roleplayer, I play exclusively in private parcels with nothing adjoining. This means that no roleplay sims can be made on the mainland. This ability would allow more roleplay sims without that problem.

Kyrah Abattoir commented at 2014-04-11T14:08:06Z

Yes but your views of the mainland may or may not be shared by linden labs. Ever wondered why private regions cost more than their mainland equivalent? It's not the same product or targeting the same demographics. As for the performance argument, The biggest offender in term of performances has always been avatars, not buildings.

Penny Patton commented at 2014-04-11T15:05:55Z

@Kyrah

If Linden Lab holds irrational views which are negatively impacting their ability to grow their business, they ought to reconsider those views. However, until a Linden comments that this is the case there's no purpose served in putting words in their mouths.

Regarding performance, just because avatars have an impact on performance does not mean that the environment does not. Being able to derender surrounding parcel content will, in many cases, result in a very big performance boost. That is the fact of the matter. That LL could do more to curb excessive avatar rendering impact does not change this fact in any way.

Kyrah Abattoir commented at 2014-04-12T08:43:29Z, updated at 2014-04-12T08:44:27Z

@Penny this isn't really the place for a discussion tho.

Ren Toxx commented at 2014-04-13T14:48:18Z

@Kyrah

“ [...] the biggest offender in terms of performance has always been avatars, not buildings”

Server-side performance, perhaps, but certainly not graphics performance. Buildings and surroundings freely adorned with all kinds of meshes, sculpts, particles, flexible objects, animated textures, glows, etc., take a heavy toll even on quite powerful computers... which not all users have, and I can easily imagine many of them might like the possibility to retreat to a skybox or aerial platform to perform more fluidly many of the activities that, strangely, some people insist on deeming “unsocial” (even if they're actually what most of us have done, or do on a regular basis, such as changing clothes, opening boxes or building).

It seems to me it might be useful to remind that, as rather clearly described, this proposal would be impemented as an option, for each parcel's owner to use if he wants to, and perhaps even with a client-side override, so that everyone gets to choose depending on their own needs & preferences. If someone wants to always see other parcels because that's how they prefer their SL experience to be, fine... but why would anyone want to negate the ability for others to have a different experience, is quite beyond me.

Alexa Linden commented at 2014-04-23T18:32:59Z

Thank you for your suggestion.