In January 2019 we visited 2019-XS by zee9. At the time, I noted:
The region has an adult edge to the role-play, and is intended as an extension to her previous (and now departed) build Drune. I’ve not seen that design, but will say that while compact, 2019-XS has a certain ambience that is hard to define, but has seen me make three visits to it in order to fully appreciate the ambience and setting.
Well, we’ve recently had the opportunity to immerse ourselves in Drune design, as zee9 2019-XS has been remodelled into the fourth chapter in the series, Drune IV: Aftermath.
Maintaining much of the look and feel of 2019-XS (and previous Drune builds) in terms of general layout, Drune IV Aftermath presents an environment in which it is clear that, as the region name suggests, some form of cataclysm has befallen the city.
The once pristine roads, neon-lit by business signs, cleaned by robots and home to electric vehicles, now lie broken and slowly being overcome by plant life. Power cables hang and lie in disarray, and the once bright buildings are slowly being overcome by vines and creepers.
Exactly what has come to pass is hard to say: is the disaster man-made or natural? Did the city bring it upon itself, or has some external factor played a role? These are the questions that roll through the mind in exploring the elevated walkways, the roads and the alleyways.
But it is clear that human life has not entirely abandoned the city. Some of the street lights still work, and free-standing floodlights illuminate stairways and other areas, drawing their power from generators that must have some form of fuel supply or means to be recharged, even as more light is shed from many of the windows peppering the tall towers.
More signs of habitation can be found along the shadowed streets, where makeshift stalls have been set-up by people trying to eke out a living. Some of these are lit by neon signs, again suggesting an operating power source, while others rely on lamps suspended from the beams of the elevated road sections.
The lifestyle of those who remain has perhaps taken a turn towards post-apocalyptic hedonism, going by some of the market stalls, while a nightclub similar to that found within 2019-XS appears to still be in use. It sits at street level almost in reflection of another dance space sitting atop the tallest of the city’s towers. Elsewhere, follow the faint sounds of a piano playing and you may eventually be led to the entrance of what might once have been a plush club, but which now sits behind broken doors, squatting in its own gathering mould.
The region used to be open to free-form role-play, and while I’ve no idea if this is still the case but the region certainly still captures elements of a range of sci-fi / cyberpunk films, including the likes of Blade Runner, Neuromancer, and Strange Days and even, despite its presentation of nature victorious, the Fifth Element. And even without the role-play, Drune remains an engaging visit.
Three Questions, an exhibition by Joan Mayflower at her own new gallery space called Joanee’s Gallery, cleverly involves portraits and words in a revealing exhibition.
Set within a floating garden sitting against a backdrop of stars, Three Questions presents a series of eight avatar portraits – presumably of Joan’s friends – but that’s not all, as Joan explains.
The exhibit consists of portraits of Second Life avatars that I have done, accompanied by a set of three questions asked of each portrait subject. The questions/answers note cards are accessible by clicking on each portrait.
– Joan Mayflower, describing Three Questions
This makes Three Questions an intriguing exhibition, bringing together as it does two elements within each picture. On the one hand, Joan’s portraits of the avatars, each one of which has been carefully framed, cropped and presented, offer us insight into the subject of each portrait as an avatar. The answers to the questions, meanwhile – two of which are asked of all eight subjects, while the third varies from subject to subject – offer us insight into the personalities behind the avatars.
Thus, Three Questions engages and informs. Through the images and the answers to the questions, our visual appreciation of the portraits as an expression of the artist’s vision of the avatars she has captured, we’re also given that personal connection with the subjects themselves with a depth that cannot be achieved simply through images.
A small but engaging exhibition that offers good food for thought and engaging images, Three Questions officially opens at 12:00 noon SLT on August 5th, 2019.
Logos representative only and should not be seen as an endorsement / preference / recommendation
Updates for the week ending Sunday, August 4th
This summary is generally published every Monday, and is a list of SL viewer / client releases (official and TPV) made during the previous week. When reading it, please note:
It is based on my Current Viewer Releases Page, a list of all Second Life viewers and clients that are in popular use (and of which I am aware), and which are recognised as adhering to the TPV Policy. This page includes comprehensive links to download pages, blog notes, release notes, etc., as well as links to any / all reviews of specific viewers / clients made within this blog.
By its nature, this summary presented here will always be in arrears, please refer to the Current Viewer Release Page for more up-to-date information.
Note that for purposes of length, TPV test viewers, preview / beta viewers / nightly builds are generally not recorded in these summaries.
Official LL Viewers
Current Release version 6.2.3.527758, formerly the Rainbow RC viewer dated June 5, promoted June 18 – No change.
“Flight”: Christopher C. Kraft Jr. (February 1924 – July 2019), the man who created NASA’s mission control and the role of the flight director. Credit: NASA
During the celebrations marking the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 mission in July, came a note of sadness: the passing of Chris Kraft.
This is a name that may not be familiar to some, but Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., was one of the most influential figures of NASA’s pioneering early years of America’s human space flight, who joined the agency from its forebear, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA).
Born in Virginia in February 1924, to Bavarian immigrants, Kraft began his studies at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) studying aeronautical engineering. During this time he applied to join the US Navy, but was rejected due to an injury to his right hand that occurred during childhood. He graduated in December 1944 with a Bachelor of Science degree.
On graduation, he applied to both the Chance Vought aircraft company and NACA. On arrival at the former on his first day of work, he was told that he could not be hired without his birth certificate, which he had not brought with him. Annoyed, he returned home and accepted the offer from NACA instead.
At NACA he was assigned to the flight research division, working under Robert Gilruth, who was to become his mentor. Most of Kraft’s work was theoretical – although it did lead him to be the original discoverer of wingtip vortices causing the majority of turbulence behind an aircraft. While he enjoyed it, he also found it taxing to the point of considering leaving, when the NACA was subsumed by NASA.
Kraft (l) and mentor Robert Gilruth (r) celebrate the first orbital rendezvous between two crewed vehicles, Gemini 6 and 7, December 1965. Astronaut L. Gordon Cooper Jr stands behind them, centre, with arms folded. Credit: NASA
Gilruth then invited Kraft to join a new project he was heading – the Space Task Group – charged with putting a man in orbit. As a result, Kraft became one of the original thirty-five engineers to be assigned to Project Mercury. In his new role, he was assigned to the flight operations division at NASA, charged with determining how the Mercury missions would be managed and operated from the ground. He was reporting in to Chuck Matthews, who essentially passed off the division’s requirements to Kraft in a throwaway comment:
Chris, you come up with a basic mission plan. You know, the bottom-line stuff on how we fly a man from a launch pad into space and back again. It would be good if you kept him alive.
Kraft realised that just like test pilots, whom he had supported through the X-1 flight programmes, astronauts would need a system of communications and support back on Earth during critical phases of the mission. He also knew they would also require a ground-based tracking system and instrumentation for the telemetry of data from the spacecraft. Through this, he came up with the idea of a single control centre to monitor and operate missions in real-time; a concept never before tried.
I saw a team of highly skilled engineers, each one an expert on a different piece of the Mercury capsule. We’d have a flow of accurate telemetry data so the experts could monitor their systems, see and even predict problems, and pass along instructions to the astronaut.
– Chris Kraft, Flight: My Life in Mission Control, 2001
Within this structure, Kraft particularly identified the need for a single individual who would have overall control and coordination over the flight centre engineers, and make the real-time decisions about the conduct of the mission. He called that role the Flight Director, and nominated himself as the man for the role.
The first iteration of the mission control concept was the Mercury Control Centre at Cape Canaveral. During this time, Kraft continued to define and refine the role of the flight director, gaining the singular title Flight as a mark of respect, although his own stubbornness that could make him something of a controversial figure in the eyes of management – but not enough to prevent him being awarded the NASA Outstanding Leadership Medal on the recommendation of the NASA Administrator, and awarded by President John F. Kennedy.
During Mercury, Kraft selected and trained three engineers to become the first generation of flight directors with him: Glynn Lunney, John Hodge and man who also grew into a legend as he followed Kraft, Gene Kranz. As the more intensive Gemini missions took place, Kraft took on a new role: head of mission operations, but remained entirely hands-on with the flight director programme, continuing to select and train other flight directors and continuing a flight director in his own right.
Kraft, lower right, with his hand-picked team of original NASA flight directors, Gene Krantz (bottom left), Glynn Lunney, (top left) and John Hodge (top right). Credit: NASA
Mid-way through the Gemini programme, Kraft was asked to oversee the design and implementation of the brand-new mission control centre that would form a part of the new Manned Spacecraft Centre, near Houston, Texas (now the Johnson Space Centre), which would become the nerve centre for all of NASA’s human spaceflight operations.
Kraft, Lunney and Kranz worked directly on the requirements for the new mission control centre, located at Building 30 at the new space centre, liaising with contractors and determining the design of the two primary Mission Operations Control Rooms (each referred to as MOCR, or “moe-ker”).
By the mid-1960s, Kraft was made Director of Flight Operations, and closely involved in planning the Apollo programme. He joined with Gilruth, now the head of the Manned Spacecraft Centre and possibly the most powerful man in NASA next to the agency’s administrator, George Low, the manager of the Apollo Spacecraft Programme Office and Donald Kent “Deke” Slayton, the head of the Astronaut Office, to take on an entirely unofficial, but essential role:
The four of us … had become an unofficial committee that got together often in Bob’s [Gilruth’s] office to discuss problems, plans and off-the-wall ideas. Not much happened in Gemini or Apollo that didn’t either originate with us or with our input.
– Chris Kraft, Flight: My Life in Mission Control, 2001
Kraft at the flight director’s console during Gemini IV, June 1965, despite having been promoted to Director of Flight Operations. Credit: NASA
In 1969, Kraft officially became Gilruth’s deputy in running the Manned Spacecraft Centre, and succeeded him as overall facility director in January 1972. He remained in that role past his due retirement in 1980, remaining firmly embedded in the space shuttle programme. However, his stubborn and outspoken nature in matters relating to that programme brought him into conflict with NASA Administrator James M. Beggs and others, and he suddenly announced his belated retirement at the end of 1982.
Kraft indirectly returned to the shuttle programme in 1994, when he was appointed chairman of an independent review committee with the remit to investigate ways in which NASA could make that programme more cost effective. His report, published in February 1995, recommended NASA’s should outsource shuttle operations to a single private contractor.
Christopher J. Kraft Jr., February 1924-July 2019 in his official NASA portrait, 1979. Credit: NASA
More contentiously, it was sharply critical of the post-Challenger accident safety regime at NASA, claiming it was “duplicative and expensive”, while claiming the shuttle had become “a mature and reliable system”.
NASA’s own Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel responded that, “the assumption that the Space Shuttle systems are now ‘mature’ smacks of a complacency which may lead to serious mishaps.” Nonetheless, responsibility for shuttle operations was turned over to United Space Alliance.
In 2003, the investigation into the Columbia accident, directly cited the recommendations made by Kraft’s committee as potentially contributing to that accident, by encouraging NASA to view the shuttle as an operational, rather than experimental vehicle and distracting attention from continuing engineering anomalies. In typical form, Kraft defended his report, insisting thespace shuttle was “the safest space vehicle ever built”.
Kraft received numerous awards throughout his career, and in on April 4th, 2011, he was guest of honour at a ceremony at Johnson Space Centre’s Building 30 Mission Control Centre when it was renamed the Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., Mission Control Centre, in recognition of the facility’s 50 years managing US human space flight, and Kraft’s unique place in both NASA’s and the building’s histories.
Christopher Kraft passed away on July 22nd, 2019 at the age of 95 and leaving his wife of 69 years, Betty Anne, and son and daughter Gordon and Kristi-Anne, and their families.
Eku Zhong and Yure4u Sosa produce a wide range of items for Second life from buildings to furnishings to the more quirky. Within this blog I’ve written about a couple of items that might be considering furnishings: the Culprit Bento Upright Piano, and the Culprit Baby Grand; – and also one of the more quirky: the Culprit Mousie. Over the weekend I’ve had the opportunity to try out the newest of their fun items: the Culprit Little Motor Boat.
Launched in-world on August 3rd, 2019, the Culprit Little Motor Boat is a tender-style boat capable of seating up to four people – and little is the operative word here: it’s small enough to feel as though you could pick it up and walk off with it under one arm. This gives the boat a cute look – but if you find it a little too small, it has a scripted resizing capability so you can customise it to fit.
Culprit Little Motor Boat
The packaging for the boat is also small, but includes a lot: there’s a “solo” version of the boat, designed to be kept rezzed and which can be set for personal or public access and supplied Copy / Mod. There is also a version in a rezzer system. This takes the form of a buoy that auto-rezzes an initial boat (no Mod, as it is a rezzer version), and that rezzes further boats as the previous one is used, with the owner able to set the total number of boats that can be rezzed at any one time (up to a maximum of 12). These boats will also de-rez when the driver stands up, so they leave no clutter. Also supplied is a pier sign (provided Copy / Mod) that can be used with the rezzer, and an additional buoy.
When considering the Culprit Little Motor Boat the first and foremost thing to remember is that it is intended for fun. If you take your SL boating seriously, then this little boat may not be for you; but if you’re looking to offer people the opportunity to go motor boating on your estate or region – either on open water or on a Linden Water boating lake, or if you just want a little low-cost boat for occasional fun, then the Culprit Little Motor Boat could be just the thing.
Culprit Little Motor Boat
Operating the boat (either the rezzer version or the solo) is simple: sit in it as the drive and the engine then starts. Steering is via the Left / Right keys, while the Up key supplies forward motion, the Down arrow throttles down and the Left and Right provide turning (you can use WASD if you have the viewer set that way).
In addition, a menu can be called up by touching the boat. This provides access for manually turning the engine off / on, throttling up / down, operating the interior light, and sounding the horn. It also allows adjustment of the driver / passenger positions, and provides access a range of additional options – camera position, etc. (I confess to not having tested all of these).
Culprit Little Motor Boat compared to a typical SL speedboat, in this case, the Foilstream Little Bee
Two interesting options in the menu are the Turbo button and the Flight button. The former should really only be used on open water as it is fast! The Flight option is handy if you do end up in trouble after using Turbo – such as finding yourself stranded inland, where it can be used to take to the air and fly back to the nearest suitable water.
There are a couple of quirks with the handling that those familiar with boating might find unusual. The first is that the Up key must be continuously pressed to maintain forward motion (like a car’s accelerator). Tapping the Down key will slow the boat / put it into reverse, but releasing the Up key will also cause the boat to slow down – an inertia setting within the menu allows you to adjust the degree of inertial drift.
The rezzer buoy and boat sign
The second is that if using the Down key for low speed manoeuvring (such as turning in a confined space), Left / Right turning can get switched when moving forward again – just tap the Up key once to correct.
However, when used as a rezzer boat, I doubt either of these above points will be noted, as people using the boats will be too busy zipping around the water having fun rather than trying to be master boat handlers. My only real grumble with the boat is the engine sound loop, which has an awkward little break in it, making it obvious it is a short loop. However, just flicking local sounds off whilst driving resolves this.
The boat is provided in five individual finishes (shown below), with each package containing the rezzer and solo versions of each finish, boat sign and additional buoy. The normal retail price is L$299, however, they are also on introductory offer at L$100 through until midnight SLT on Monday, August 5th (offer extended from that stated in the Culprit group note card).
Culprit Little Motor Boat finishes
Again, this is a boat for fun, not necessarily the serious boating enthusiast; but for those interested, it can be obtained via the Culprit store in-world, where it can test also be test driven on the Culprit boating lake in-world.
Update, August 5th: Following the soft opening, Melusina and San are making changes to the exhibit and it appears the 3D elements of the image fames have been moved toe the rear of the image panels, so people see the “2D view” first, before walking around to see the faceted views.
Open at Ribong Gallery, curated by Santoshima, through August is Lonely Gazes, an exhibition of 24 images by Melusina Parkin, focusing on locations within Second Life.
Melusina is an artist whose work presents a fine blend of detail, space and minimalism, all carefully combined and crafted to present images that are elegant in their unique focus and rich in narrative and feeling. This is once again evident with this collection. However, within Lonely Gazes presents the 24 images in the most unique manner.
Each is framed as a photo-sculpture with two distinct sides. On the one (which tends to be facing the walls of the gallery, so may need a degree of camming unless you wall behind the displays) is a straightforward presentation of each of the image set against a black background.
On the other side of the frame is a further version of the image, overlaid with a truncated, transparent pyramid with either a smaller version of the image, or a “window” looking “in” to the image. The result of this is that the observer can select different angles from which to view the image: the smaller image sits proud of the larger, giving the impression it is being projected onto the background
Those with the “window” element, meanwhile offer a frame through which the observer’s focused can be drawn into a specific part of the image, which can shift as we cam around, as if examining the piece through a lens. In addition, the side faces of pyramid presents individual facets of the larger image.
I never cease to be drawn to Melusina’s work and the way her images allow us to become storytellers. They always present the idea that they are a part of a much broader canvas, one that extends well beyond their borders. Thus, they invite our imaginations to create stories around them. With the way in which the images in Lonely Gazes, this is magnified tremendously – in much the same way the faux 3D presentation of the pieces suggests we are viewing a magnified image of a picture on a lens hovering over that piece, or that we looking through a lens allowing us to focus into a specific part of the landscape and its story.
Visual, engaging and imaginative, Lonely Gazes is another extraordinary exhibition from Melusina, and there is a formal opening featuring DJ Kara Mellow at 14:00 SLT on Thursday, August 8th.
Inara Pey: Living in a Modemworld 