Mesh Deformer 0.3 code available

Update: Sometimes working on multiple posts to your blog isn’t a good idea. Between drafting and pushing this one, Qarl updated his code, as Cinders points out. Sorry Qarl! Correct link is here

Slightly later than he’d hoped, but keeping to his promise, Qarl has released version 0.3 of the Mesh deformer, stating:

Quick announcement – I’m releasing version 0.3 of the deformer code. Primary changes: 1) should now apply cleanly to recent linden viewer code, 2) deformation tables are computed in the background on another thread, so no frame stalls.

There appear to be a couple of elements missing from the patch – as spotted by Henri Beauchamp in a comment following Qarl’s post, so developers may want to hold-off grabbing the code for a bit.

I’ll be watching the various Viewer blogs for updates to see when the patch is incorporated. It’s likely to make an appearance in the likes of Cool VL and Dolphin very rapidly, providing the code is stable. Niran V Dean is planning to make a Full release of Niran’s Viewer 1.33 in the next couple of days, so this might also see the code included – we’ll have to wait and see.

Linden Lab had a Development Viewer in the offing for the deformer. This actually dates back to January, but didn’t get any further than an optional development Viewer due to assorted issues. Marine Kelley, who uses the V.3.2 reported that she’d removed the deformer from her last release due to crash issues, which may be related to reasons why LL never moved the code further along their Development cycle. However, as Qarl appears to have specifically addressed some (or all) of the issues, we may yet see the deformer appearing in something like an official Project Viewer sooner rather than later.

20 thoughts on “Mesh Deformer 0.3 code available

    1. Ta, have updated

      This is the problem when I’m trying to play catch-up on outstanding posts and get fresh posts from FF2012 out instead of working on them one-at-a-time! 🙂

      Like

      1. Well, you updated it faster than any newspaper could. 🙂 It was only fixed in the last two hours.

        Like

        1. Yeah, but I did mean to check back with his blog before hitting the publish button … and didn’t. My bad.

          Like

    1. As Qarl is working directly with the lab, not developing it as a rouge feature for a third party viewer, the tpv policy isn’t really relevant at this point. Once it has been released, it will more than likely be “accessible to users of the latest released Linden Lab viewer”.

      Like

    2. When the new TPV rules were announced it was very clearly not given any kind of stated free pass (despite attempts to clarity) and while there is no official yes/no word, it was highlighted as a shared experience as it’s an all or nothing feature.

      We were expected to infer that as it wasn’t stated as something that could be grandfathered and it would be a shared experience, TPV developers should be quite capable of working out what they should be doing with this code. (as in removing it promptly and waiting till it has been released by the Lab)

      Like

      1. I agree that the deformer didn’t get a clean pass per se – as is the case with client-side Windlight (at least until parcel Windlight appears in the official Viewer). However, Oz has stated that LL are not opposed to code appearing in TPVs as long as it can be shown that it is for experimental purposes, rather than becoming a staple part of a Viewer’s staple functional offering.

        As there is a requirement for people to test the tool and identify issues with it as has been happening with many noting “crump” issues (such as Nalates Urriah and Darien Caldwell to name but two people who have blogged on the issue), then it is probably fair to say that there is a valid case for some TPVs to make the code available, if only for it to be more thoroughly tested.

        Although one could argue that this should only be the case up to the point where LL do release a Project Viewer containing the code…

        Like

        1. Without wishing to get too political, that smacks of the previous Labour government in the UK – granting themselves huge blanket wooly-worded powers and then saying “don’t worry, we won’t use them. Trust us; it’s ok”.
          Linden Lab have done something similar by effectively stifling all innovation in TPVs and then apparently saying that they’ll be lenient for testing purposes. It’s not really a firm foundation on which to build your house (metaphorically speaking).

          Like

          1. There are some rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty; but I think that on the whole, LL is trying to be fair in matters. The testing allowance is valid. Although as with all things, the proof of the situation will come should it ever really be put to the test.

            Like

        2. The majority of issues are down to it requiring meshes to be created to a singular specific base shape. Make your mesh to a different base and it doesn’t stand much chance of deforming without some glitch. Almost all existing meshes are made to a different base shape.

          It really needs to be stressed – The singular base shape is female.

          To quote qarl “there’s been a proposal to allow for alternate base shapes – a male base, and possibly multiple sizes for both male and female. sadly this work was not scheduled in the original bid, so it’s unclear how it will be funded.”

          So not only does all mesh clothing have to be refitted and re-uploaded (read repurchased by the end users), it also sucks to be a guy.

          A test build of a TPV with such a feature that is released to a limited audience, and putting the same in a TPV’s main public release are two very different things. We certainly wouldn’t feel comfortable putting this in the next Catznip and for similar reasons we don’t include other items currently in code review.

          Like

          1. Yep. there has been a lot of debate and discussion on the Ruth aspect from the start; the avatar “standard sizing” has already been kicked-off (see the last article on the deformer for a link to the latest round of debate on that subject). Darien and others did further work on issues using the initial TPV releases of the deformer.

            I agree that ideally a test viewer and a full release should be treated as different things; that said, several of the TPVs that have included the code have also withdrawn it as, after testing, it has been shown to have issues over and above those related to mesh. As it standards, and until LL rule otherwise, I’d say it’s pretty much up to the various TPVs as to how they handle the code – as you’ve determined a wise policy for Catznip.

            Like

Comments are closed.