Category: SL Project Updates

2024 TPVD Meetings: May 10: WebRTC; SL21B PBR

Posted on by Inara Pey
Alone, May 2024 – blog post †

The following notes were taken from the video recording of the Third-Party Viewer Developer (TPVD) meeting held on Friday, May 10th, 2024. My thanks as always to Pantera for recording the TPVD meeting and providing the video, which is embedded at the end of this article.

  • The TPV Developer meeting provides an opportunity for discussion about the development of, and features for, the Second Life viewer, and for Linden Lab viewer developers and third-party viewer (TPV) / open-source code contributors to discuss general viewer development. This meeting is held once a month  the third or fourth Friday, at 13:00 SLT at the Hippotropolis Theatre.
  • In regards to meetings:
    • Dates and times are recorded in the SL Public Calendar.
    • Commence at 13:00 SLT on their respective dates.
    • Are conducted in a mix of Voice and text chat.
    • Are open to all with an interest in either content creation or viewer development.
  • The notes herein are a summary of topics discussed and are not intended to be a full transcript of either meeting.

Official Viewers Status

[Video: 01:24-2:28]

  • The Maintenance X RC (usability improvements) updated to version 7.1.7.8974243247, May 8.
  • The WebRTC Voice work was released as a project viewer, version 7.1.4.8947030231, May 8.
  • The Puppetry project viewer has been withdrawn.

The rest of the current crop of official viewers stands as:

  • Release viewer: 7.1.6.8745209917, formerly the Maintenance Y/Z RC ( My Outfits folder improvements; ability to remove entries from landmark history), dated April 19 and promoted April 23 – No Change
  • Release channel cohorts:
    • Maintenance C RC (reset skeleton in all viewers), version 7.1.7.8820704257, May 6.
    • Materials Featurettes RC viewer, version 7.1.7.8883017948, May 2.
    • Maintenance B RC (usability updates / imposter changes), version 7.1.7.8820696922, April 29.

General Viewer Notes

  • Maintenance X looks to be the next viewer in line for promotion – most likely in week #20.
  • Following the promotion of Maintenance X, the focus will be on getting the Materials  Featurettes viewer promoted, as the simulator-side support for this is already available across the Main grid ( although see below).

Viewer Code White Space

[Video: 24:58-29:00]

  • White spacing in viewer code has long been an issue in that it can be a mix of both tabs and spaces.
  • A move to standardise on either tabs or spaces has been mooted but never formalised because of the concerns that any bulk change would produce conflicts in things like code merges.
  • Signal Linden has been investigating this, and found that providing an appropriate command line option is given, such conflicts between white space using tabs and white space using spaces can be avoided.
  • As a result, the current Maintenance X viewer does standardise white space.
  • To avoid potential conflicts when merging to this code base after Maintenance X goes to de facto release status, Signal has produced documentation on how to make such a merge.
  • Those involved in viewer development (TPVs and self-compilers) are encouraged to read this documentation prior to merging with Maintenance X.

Graphics / Materials Featurette Update

[Video: 2:36-6:12]

  • The is the viewer with the new PBR terrain code, support for 2K texture uploads, and PBR mirrors.
  • The Graphics team believes all issues considered to be showstoppers for this viewer have now been fixed, and the viewer is going through what is hoped will be a final QA pass.
    • However, there is one remaining issue which can crash the viewer, but this might be down to running the viewer on unsupported hardware as much as requiring a fix.
  • Remaining issues / updates will be handled through the main glTF development branch of the viewer.
    • As the server team has switched to the Git Flow  Git branching strategy, and there are conversations about moving to this for the viewer as well.
    • As such, the glTF development branch is a step towards the use of Git Flow.
    • If the approach works for the glTF work, it will likely be adopted for all viewer development work.
  • There was a brief debate as to whether the Featurettes viewer will be available for promotion sooner rather than later, with Dan Linden indicating that there is still “quite a bit of testing” still to be done.

glTF Scene Import

[Video: 40:40-48:15]

  • More generally covered in my CCUG meeting summaries.
  • This is a glTF project to allow glTF scenes (objects, materials, animations, etc) can be imported to SL as assets and brought in-world as a series of nodes rooted in a prim, with the nodes updated with both tools in the viewer and / or using LSL, and ensuring they stay in synch with all viewers looking at them.
  • Overall, the idea is a “one touch” import to get a scene from Blender to SL, where it should appear exactly as it is in Blender, modify it as required in SL via the build tools  / LSL or – subject to permissions – export it back to Blender for update.
  • Currently at the prototyping stage, with test viewers and test regions on Aditi able to preview a scene (that is, see it within the viewer without the scene being physically imported into SL) for reference purposes, .
  • Work is “almost” at a point where a scene can actually be uploaded to SL and stored as an inventory asset and then downloaded and rendered by the viewer – although more back-end work (such as with the CDN pipes) needs to be carried out.
  • There are multiple questions still to be addressed concerning the overall data model (LOD generation, LI, linking etc., scene export (for updating) and working with the SL permission system, physics / collision shapes, etc.), so definitive answers to question on these topics cannot be properly addressed at present.
  • A video demonstrating how this works can be seen at 44:43.
  • This moved into a general discussion on the glTF work – please refer to the video below and my CCUG updates, as linked to above.

WebRTC Voice Update

Summary

  • A new project intended to move Second Life away from reliance on the Vivox voice service and plug-in, and to using the WebRTC communications protocol (RTC=”real-time communication”).
  • Roxie Linden is leading this work.
  • WebRTC is something of a “defacto standard”, being built-in to most web browsers and supporting  wide range of real-time communications tools in common use (e.g. Google Meet), supporting audio, video and data communications.
  • In terms of audio / voice (the primary focus here), WebRTC has a number of standard features expected of audio communications services (such as automatic echo cancellation, better noise cancellation and automatic gain control, etc.) and offers much improved audio sampling rates for improved audio quality.
  • WebRTC will be supplied within the viewer using a library and wrapper. This will mean no requirement to run a third-party voice plugin (SLvoice.exe, as supplied by Vivox) going forward.
    • Care is being taking to address potential security issues (e.g. preventing eavesdropping, exposing users’ IP address (by using an internal proxy server), etc.).
  • The switch to WebRTC also opens the door to adding new features and capabilities to SL Voice, some of which have been long-requested.
  • Feature requests for WebRTC made via the WebRTC board on the SL Feedback Portal are being evaluated and some are being actioned, together with issues being investigated.
  • LL will be looking to Linux devs to help give feedback on how well WebRTC is working on their Linux viewers.

[Video: 6:29-17:35]

Status

  • As noted above, a WebRTC project viewer is now available via the Alternate Viewers page.
  • Viewer work is currently focused on bug fixing, and the hope is the viewer will move from project status to RC status “pretty shortly”.
  • The overall hope is that as WebRTC is a library + wrapper, changes will be fairly localised within the viewer, speeding the implementation process.
  • The schedule for WebRTC is described as “pretty aggressive” and TPV developers are encouraged to look at the code repository.
  • Work is in progress / has been completed on getting a simulator Snack RC channel set-up with the required back-end support for WebRTC voice – but this will be spatial voice only, not peer-to-peer / Group or ad-hoc Voice communications for the time being.
    • Region names for this channel were not given at the meeting.
    • In line with the aggressive viewer development cycle, the team is looking to have WebRTC support available across at least one full RC channel by the end of June (simulator update schedules permitting) and potentially have the back-end support live across the Main grid by the end of July 2024.
    • Those wishing to test peer-to-peer, Group and ad-hoc Voice via WebRTC can do so via the Aditi (Beta grid) webRTC1 test region.
  • There will be further updates to the WebRTC library during the development cycle, as the Lab updates to the latest releases from the WebRTC open-source development website.
  • As the work progresses, there will be a blog post to provide and overall update on the work, including the proposes schedule for deployment and explanations of any caveats / potential roughness during the transition (see below as well).

WebRTC and Vivox Voice Support

  • The initial versions of the viewer (project and RC) will support both WebRTC and Vivox for Voice.
  • As peer-to-peer / Group or ad-hoc Voice support for WebRTC is added to the back-end, things might “get a little weird” as the viewer swaps between WebRTC and Vivox, but Roxie Linden is trying to ensure things are correctly negotiated (e.g. if there is a Group chat going on with everyone using WebRTC, and someone joins from a region still using the Vivox back-end, the viewer will negotiate everyone to using Vivox.
    • This means that for purely testing WebRTC for Group, peer-to-peer and ad-hoc Voice (as support for these are added to the simulator code), it is important for all testers to be on regions with WebRTC support only.
  • Voice will not travel across region boundaries between regions using WebRTC and Vivox (and vice-versa)
    • This should not be an immediate issue, but might become noticeable during the transitional period when WebRTC support is being deployed across the main simulator RC channels and before it is grid-wide.
    • Voice will obviously work across regions using the same voice service (e.g. between regions which are both running WebRTC).
  • Given the aggressive schedule for the work, it is hoped that support for both WebRTC and Vivox within the viewer will be for a limited duration.

SL21B – glTF and Blinn-Phong

[Video: 18:19-24:38]

  • To ease the workload for creators building for SL21B (opening on Friday, June 21st, 2024), Linden Lab has stipulated they do not have to include Blinn-Phong (aka “SL legacy materials”) fallbacks in their build if they opt to use glTF PBR materials.
  • This means viewers, in keeping with the expected behaviour, should only display the glTF materials, and should not under any circumstance attempt to display any fallback (as doing so will result in content rendering as grey or white objects).
  • This is likely to impact any viewers that do not support PBR materials (and content will not look “right”).
  • However, the above should not be taken to mean that LL are looking to “get rid of” Blinn-Phong (e.g. objects have been created using Blinn-Phong only, they will continue to display using Blinn-Phong reflections, etc.).
  • Runitai Linden also noted:
Sometime between now and then, we’ll likely start making the LSL scripts that modify Blinn-Phong parameters modify their PBR equivalents, or do nothing when a PBR material is applied. So llSetColor, for example, would set the base colour, not the diffuse colour. That should make life a lot simpler for scripters going forward, as scripters have been giving us feedback that trying to do something simple like that with existing scripts is impossible as they have to do a check to see if a glTF material is applied, and if there is then use llSetPrimParams and if there isn’t, use llSetColor.
  • It was unclear if this will require a conversion to linear colour (as glTF uses SRGB), given the LSL for GLTF_BASE_COLOR requests linear colour – or whether there is a conversion from linear colour to SRGB when using GLTF_BASE_COLOR. This is to be looked into.

In Brief

  • [Video: 30:10-37:47] 2K textures:
    • There have been concerns raised over “abuse” of 2K textures (e.g. people being “forced” to use them because “everyone else is”).
    • Runitai Linden is of the opinion that with functional texture streaming, use of 2K textures is not as big a problem as is being presented in some cases, because the full 2K texture is not necessarily downloaded rendered by the viewer until the viewer zooms right in on the object face using it; otherwise the texture should be displayed at the pixel resolution (e.g. if the face is only taking up 64×64 pixels, then the 64×64 version of the texture is selected and used.
  • Bakes on Mesh support for 2K textures: this is currently not a project under consideration, but the Lab acknowledged that this might need to be re-thought in terms of what is required and scheduling priority.
    • It was noted that updating the Bake Service would not be sufficient for 2K texture use, as the service also composites wearable textures, so the allowed texture resolution for all wearable layers will have to be updated in order for BoM to effectively support 2K textures.
    • That said, updating BoM to support 2K textures is seen by the Lab as a matter of “when” and not “if”. In this, it was further noted that support for the work being shown through the Feedback Portal from users will help LL determine / re-evaluate the priority of the work compared to other projects.

Next Meeting

† The header images included in these summaries are not intended to represent anything discussed at the meetings; they are simply here to avoid a repeated image of a gathering of people every week. They are taken from my list of region visits, with a link to the post for those interested.

Second Life Combat User Group: May 9th, 2024 summary

Posted on by Inara Pey
Credit: Rider Linden

The following notes were taken from the Thursday, May 9th, 2024 Combat User Group meeting (also referred to as the Combat Committee User Group or CCUG, an abbreviation also used by the Content Creation User Group, and which I’ll not be using in these summaries to reduce the risk of confusion between the two). They form a summary of the items discussed, and are not intended to be a full transcript.

Meeting Overview

  • The Combat User Group exists as a forum to discuss improvements to the Linden Lab Combat System or LLCS to better support combat in Second Life.
    • The core idea is to provide additional events and capabilities which sit on top of LLCS to provide combat creators with better tools with which to create better combat systems for their specific scenarios.
  • The meetings are the result of a proposal document on improving the native damage system in SL, written by Rider Linden, and which is the focus for both the meeting and any work arising from them.
  • These meetings are conducted (as a rule):
    • By Rider Linden, with the support of Kyle Linden.
    • On alternating Thursdays (rotating with the Content Creation User Group) at 13:00 SLT. Meeting dates are recorded in the Second Life Public Calendar.
    • Initially in text, although voice might be included in the future depending on feedback from those attending.
    • At this location.
    • Discussion topics, requests, etc., can be found on the SL Feedback Portal Combat Board.
  • Additional details are available via the SL wiki.

Work In Progress

  • Rider has updated the simulator side of the combat system. This includes:
    • The most recent updates to Leviathan Linden’s Game Control event work for game controllers (see below).
    • Message changes in RegionInfo. There is now an optional CombatSettings block that can be seen by the viewer, it has all the region settings such as regen rate and damage throttle (this requires a viewer-side update to be visible, which is currently in the works).
    • Bug fixes, including for one in which being slammed into the ground is bad for your health and bypasses the damage functions. Also see: Allow Region To Modify Physical Collision Damage Factor.
  • llDamage is in the process of being updated to reflect the work in this project.
  • It is hoped that more detailed documentation on “Combat 2.0” will be produced.
  • There is now a UUID / name for the combat log: COMBAT_LOG_ID or Brigadier Linden.

Comments and Requests

  • A request was made to add onto the existing llSensor functions (or created a new function) that would allow the option to do an llCastRay (i.e. llSensorNew( string name, key id, integer type, float radius, float arc, float rate, list options )), plus, and when using raycast options, to just return the llDetected events based on successful hits.
    • This would allow an object to detect Agent or other Objects that is in full view of the object calling the Sensor event, and was seen as helping the likes of “wall safe” melee attacks and explosions all in one call.
    • The idea was favourably received by Rider and several at the meeting.
  • There was a question on whether triggering llDamage at a target on safe land, would it trigger on_damage? The answer was no, it would just fail, and also a damage enabled object colliding with something on safe land will not cause damage.
  • There was some confusion as to which has priority within a region: does the region’s Damage Allowed setting override the Safe setting at parcel level, or vice-versa – and exactly what the “Damage Allowed” actually does (“allowed” does not necessarily mean Damage is “enabled” on setting it).
    • Rider indicated that within the Camber updates he is writing for the viewer, the term has been changed from “Damage Allowed” to “Enable Combat” – which is clearer as to intent, but again, not necessarily indicative that setting it automatically sets the entire region to Damage “enabled”).
    • A suggestion was made to make the setting directly more granular at region level via a drop-down, e.g. “Always On”; “Use Parcel Settings”; “Always Off”.
    • This may become the subject of an additional discussion on the SL Feedback Portal Combat Board.
    • Rider also indicated that as follow-on work to the current project he intends to allow overriding things like the damage throttle and health regen on a parcel level.
  • A request (feature request pending) was made for a damage over time function that doesn’t require additional objects.
  • A general discussion on llRezObjectWithParams and potential improvements – these will be recorded as / when actual changes are made.

Game Controller Support Update

  • This is a separate, on-going project by Leviathan Linden to provide better support for game controllers (such as X-Box controllers) in Second Life, and exposes input from game controllers to LSL.
  • It is generally reported on in the weekly Simulator User Group meetings.
  • Current status:
    • The feature has been merged into the same server code as Combat2, as noted above.
    • The viewer is still undergoing work, but a further pre-release viewer (for those on the SL Discord server) should be available in week #20.
    • The viewer-side work will eventually surface in a project or RC viewer.
    • Leviathan is additionally overhauling the Flycam options / Preferences tab as well – no details as yet, but updates will be appearing in a future version of the Game Control viewer updates.

2024 SL Governance meeting week #19: Child Avatar Policy

Posted on by Inara Pey
Vindfjell, May 2024 – blog post †

The following notes were taken from the Thursday, May 9th, 2024 Governance User Group (GUG) meeting. They form a summary of the items discussed, and are not intended to be a full transcript, and were taken from my chat log and the video by Pantera – my thanks to her as always for providing it.

Meeting Overview

  • The Governance User Group to a forum for the discussion of topics relating to safety and security in Second Life. Please note this does not include:
    • Direct discussion of filed Abuse Reports the outcome of investigations, or potential actions taken in abuse cases; this includes providing feedback on reports and / or addressing questions relating to hypothetical situations.
    • Matters related to copied or stolen content, DMCA or copyright issues / filings.
  • These meetings are conducted (as a rule):
    • Every second Thursday of the month, starting at 14:00 SLT.
    • May be a mixture of voice and text.
    • Are chaired by Keira and Tommy Linden.
    • Held at this location.
  • They are open to anyone with a concern / interest in the above topics, and form one of a series of regular / semi-regular User Group meetings conducted by Linden Lab.
  • Dates and times of all current meetings can be found on the Second Life Public Calendar, and descriptions of meetings are defined on the SL wiki.

General Notes for May 9th Meeting

  • The Thursday May 9th, meeting was subject to a special discussion on changes to the Second Life Child Avatar Policy, as announced within an official blog post issued a few hours ahead of the meeting.
  • This meeting was entirely in text, and these notes are drawn from both Pantera’s video (embedded below), and copies of the chat transcripts forwarded to me be several attendees – my sincere thanks to all who did so.
  • No: this is not a full transcript of the meeting. However, I have tried to include all relevant comments made by Keira and Tommy Linden.

Initial Meeting Discussion

The role of Governance and the GUG Meetings

[Video: 8:08-24:18]

  • Tommy Linden provided an overview of the Governance Team and their responsibilities, primarily for those who may not be fully aware of the team’s role:
    • Handling Abuse Reports (and appeals).
    • Handling reports of fraud reports.
    • Account security (with a recommendation that users should use multi-factor authentication (MFA) for added account security).
    • Marketplace moderation and forum moderation.
  • Keira Linden then added:
Going forward with these monthly meetings we intend to increase Resident education as it pertains to account security, as well as being more transparent with the community on Abuse actions by publishing some meaningful data around abuse reports. We will also be regularly reviewing and updating trust and safety policies, procedures, and tools based on evolving threats.
What I mean by that [“meaningful data”], is that we intend to publish data pertaining to abuse issues as were able to.
  • It was further noted that LL is currently in the process now of evaluating several different products and systems to help with proactive moderation.
    • No specific details were made available, but it was indicated that the tools being considered “will help the team identify potential violations of the” Terms of Service or Community Standards.
    • This drew speculation that AI tool will be used and questions asked on real-time chat monitoring. Keira responded by stating (Video: 18:42):
We are not going to discuss the specifics around the tools at this time. As more decisions are made we may be able to offer more information. Right now, we are looking at a number of different tools that have different capabilities.

Abuse Reports

[Video: 14:16-22:01]

  • Tommy expanded on how the team approaches such investigations, starting with the initial Abuse Report (which needs to be correctly completed (please see my Abuse Report tutorial on this, to which he and other members of the Governance Team contributed for notes on completing ARs), and to which he added:
Each report is thoroughly investigated as we understands that there are always 3 sides to every story. While we always try to take an educational approach first when responding to reports, there are some issues that are so severe that it will result in a termination instead. We also want to clear up the misconception that the submitting of multiple reports from Residents, also known as AR parties, does not mean that action will be taken, or even be taken in a quicker timeline.
  • On the appeals process, he stated:
Appeals are thoroughly investigated by someone other than the initial agent in the investigation. This reviewer treats this as a new investigation and again looks at all the criteria available before making their decision. In addition, as part of the full review process, the appeal does get reviewed by a committee before a final decision is made. We don’t take action before completing our investigation, unless we need to hold an account temporarily for its own security. Action is only taken after an investigation is completed. Without disclosing how our internal tools work, we have taken every measure possible to remove any potential bias in every investigation.

Child Avatar Policy

[Video: 25:00-]

Background

  • Enhancing Our World Together: Important Updates for the Second Life Community – Linden Lab official blog post, May 2nd 2024.
  • Official Child Avatar Policy
  • FAQ relating to the above (and a work-in-progress at the time of writing).
  • Second Life Maturity Ratings.
  • Please also refer to the official General Discussion section of the official forums for multiple discussions on this topic, and specifically, this thread.

Meeting Discussion and Quotes

This limits of this discussion were set by Keira Linden at the opening on the meeting (Video 5:47):

We understand many of you have come here to potentially protest, or debate the changes we have made to our child avatar policy, and while we understand that not everyone agrees with the changes, we are not here today to debate the policy. That said, I am completely open to feedback. If you have feedback regarding the policy, we encourage you to submit a support ticket, or use our feedback portal.
General Notes
  • The primary forum thread on the subject is being read comprehensibly by Tommy Linden, and as a result, the FAQ is being updated to provide further information and clarification. As such, it should be seen as a living reference document.
Modesty Layers for Child Avatars

[Video: 27:37-end]

  • New images have been added to the FAQ to illustrate what LL is looking for with regards to child avatars.
Male child avatar modesty layer example provided by Linden Lab
  • It was noted that there have been requests on the forums to have the [presumably the upper] back of the modesty layer for female avatars be optional, and Keira indicated that might be possible, but is currently subject to review and approval.
  • Whatever approach is used – (e.g. baked into the skin at creation or otherwise), the modesty layer cannot be intentionally removed / ignored (or, presumably, intentionally masked). Keira (video: 52:20 and 52:51):
Cannot be removed means just that. It cannot be removed by any means. If a new [skin] is applied then it will need to have the modesty layers.
  • In terms of how the modesty layers should work, Keira stated (video: 28:24):
The other concern in regards to the modesty layer is how it will impact existing content. To be clear, we are requiring skin sellers to have the areas shown in the images use a modesty layer on the skin files. However, for existing content, bake layers and alphas can be a viable temporary solution but we would STRONGLY encourage everyone to move to a more permanent solution.
Female child avatar modesty layer example provided by Linden Lab
  • Keira confirmed that modesty layers will be required by any avatar “presenting as under the age of 18”, and there will be a period of adjustment (video: 28:58-30:44 – comments concatenated here for ease of reading):
We understand there is some confusion regarding the age range that would be expected to follow the new policy, so we want to clarify that anyone presenting under the age of 18 will be required to follow the policy in regards to child avatars. Regarding enforcement of these new policies, I do know that there will be an adjustment period We fully intend to take an educate and inform approach to these issues, and not actively seeking to strong arm enforce these unless there is an egregious violation of the terms of service, such as sexualized age play.
General Comments / Concerns
  • In response to questions related to the use of furry avatars (e.g. will cubs her required to have modesty layers), anime characters (who can appear to be under 18 even when not), petite avatars, Keira Linden stated (video: 31:36-35:01)  – comments from each concatenated for ease of reading):
I can assure that appearance alone is not the deciding factor in most cases, when we are looking at abuse reports.
As was mentioned before, we do have an appeals process that I believe allows for many evaluations of that appeal. If that proves to be insufficient, we will re-evaluate the process. There are some things that we cannot change, but when it comes to processes and policies I believe that those require frequent review and tweaking to keep up with current Internet trends and community use.

With Tommy further adding:

As someone who has worked on the Governance team for the past 12 years both as an agent and the leader of the team, I can say that we have very rarely taken action on just appearance alone, there has almost always been additional factors leading to action.
For those asking about clarification on age, regardless of your gender, whether or not you are a furry, or participating in the anime community, if you are presenting as under the age of 18, that is required to follow our policy regarding child avatars.
  • (video from 35:02 onwards): Various concerns and questions were raised, relating to (responses quoted, where given):
    • The use of non-human avatars, and the use of modesty layers.
    • The requirement for female babies to have a “bra” modesty layer potentially sexualising them.
    • Whether anyone in an under-5 avatar can requires the “bra” modesty cover when just the “panties” cover should suffice.

Keira Linden (video: 48:57) :

I hear you all on the modesty layer on infants, and is something I am willing to consider, but I can’t promise that any change will be made at this time.
    • Had the fact that by enforcing baked modestly layers in skins potentially “breaks” the baby / young child skin market (which is currently unisex).
    • Can the technical aspects of the modesty layer can be discussed in more detail between creators and the Lab.

Keira (video: 41:15):

I am open to discussing it further. Feel free to email me or send in a support ticket to my attention.
    • How is “presenting as” treated? Many have Profiles which present as children, but adopt adult avatars for certain aspects of their SL. Are they allowed to visit with friends who have homes on A-rated regions, or A-rated combat regions? If they have a Profile referencing being as a child and are reported for being child whilst visiting an A-rated region, how would the report be evaluated? What happens if someone as a child avatar inadvertently teleports to an A-rated region and gets reported?

Kiera (video: 43:38, 44:16 and 48:02 – concatenated into a single response for readability):

You can still go there just not as a child avatar  If you are reported and you are in an adult avatar that is how we will evaluate the report.  If a report is made we do look at the intent of the Resident. We can tell if someone popped into a region then immediately left.
    • Are adult bodies such as Maitreya allowed for teens (Maitreya has some geometry in the groin that cant be removed); does the need for child avatars to be “G-rated” mean they are unable to purchase / wear M-rated items (jewellery, hair, etc.)?
  • Questions passed as unanswered will hopefully be addressed through other means.

 

 

† The header images included in these summaries are not intended to represent anything discussed at the meetings; they are simply here to avoid a repeated image of a rooftop of people every week. They are taken from my list of region visits, with a link to the post for those interested.

2024 SL SUG meetings week #19 summary

Posted on by Inara Pey
Blue Finch Blossoms Hollow, April 2024 – blog post †

The following notes were taken from the Tuesday, May 7th, 2024 Simulator User Group (SUG) meeting. They form a summary of the items discussed, and are not intended to be a full transcript, and were taken from my chat log and the video by Pantera – my thanks to her as always for providing it.

Meeting Overview

  • The Simulator User Group (also referred to by its older name of Server User Group) exists to provide an opportunity for discussion about simulator technology, bugs, and feature ideas.
  • These meetings are conducted (as a rule):
  • They are open to anyone with a concern / interest in the above topics, and form one of a series of regular / semi-regular User Group meetings conducted by Linden Lab.
  • Dates and times of all current meetings can be found on the Second Life Public Calendar, and descriptions of meetings are defined on the SL wiki.

Simulator Deployments

  • On Tuesday, May 7th,  the Main SLS channel was updated with the back-end support for the the glTF updates available in the Graphics Featurettes viewer (e.g. PBR terrain textures 2K textures and mirrors).
    • Note that these updates require the use of the Graphics Featurettes RC viewer (available from the Alternate Viewers page), or a TPV that has merged with this code.
  • On Wednesday, May 8th, all RC channels will be re-started with no deployment or update.

SL Viewer Updates

  • The Maintenance C RC viewer, version 7.1.7.8820704257, was issued on Monday, May 6th.
    • The most notably update in this release is that resetting your avatar skeleton will now send the update to all viewers in your location, rather than people also having to reset your skeleton in their view as well.

The rest of the official viewers in a pipeline remain as:

  • Release viewer: 7.1.6.8745209917, formerly the Maintenance Y/Z RC ( My Outfits folder improvements; ability to remove entries from landmark history), dated April 19 and promoted April 23 – No Change
  • Release channel cohorts:
    • Materials Featurettes RC viewer, version 7.1.7.8883017948, May 2.
    • Maintenance B RC (usability updates / imposter changes), version 7.1.7.8820696922, April 29.
    • Maintenance X RC (usability improvements), version 7.1.6.8758996787, April 23.
  • Project viewers:

SL World Map Generator

Pepper Linden reported that a new version of the system responsible for world map tile generation has been deployed. This includes:

  • Fixes for issues where map tiles can become significantly out-of-date compared to the regions they represent.
  • A significant reduction in the time required for the daily regeneration of a complete map of the Main grid (down to 2 hours, from 11 hours).
  • Anyone noting any issues with the new map tile generation is asked to file a bug through the feedback portal.
  • This lead to a further general discussion on map and region crossings during the meeting.

In Brief

  • Leviathan Linden plans to have his Game Control event updates to be included in the Summer Fun simulator update (not Spring Break – which should be the next deployment – as originally hoped).
  • The meeting included further discussion on the SL Combat System updates + requests for additional work / options / capabilities. I’ll have an update on the SLCS work after the associated meeting (to be held on Thursday, May 9th).
  • Much of the the meeting formed a general discussion on a range of topics – PBR, region crossings, etc. Please refer to the video below.

† The header images included in these summaries are not intended to represent anything discussed at the meetings; they are simply here to avoid a repeated image of a rooftop of people every week. They are taken from my list of region visits, with a link to the post for those interested.

2024 week #18: SL CCUG summary

Posted on by Inara Pey
Venus by the Water, April 2024 – blog post †

The following notes were taken from my audio recording and chat log transcript of the Content Creation User Group (CCUG) meeting held on Thursday, May 2nd, 2024.

Meeting Purpose

  • The CCUG meeting is for discussion of work related to content creation in Second Life, including current and upcoming LL projects, and encompasses requests or comments from the community, together with related viewer development work. This meeting is held on alternate Thursdays at Hippotropolis.
  • In regards to meetings:
    • Dates and times are recorded in the SL Public Calendar.
    • Commence at 13:00 SLT on their respective dates.
    • Are conducted in a mix of Voice and text chat.
    • Are open to all with an interest in content creation.
  • The notes herein are a summary of topics discussed and are not intended to be a full transcript of the meeting.

Official Viewers Status

  • On Thursday, May 2nd, the Materials Featurette RC viewer updated to version 7.1.7.8883017948.

The rest of the official viewers remain as:

  • Release viewer: 7.1.6.8745209917, formerly the Maintenance Y/Z RC (My Outfits folder improvements; ability to remove entries from landmark history), dated April 19 and promoted April 23.
  • Release channel cohorts (please see my notes on manually installing RC viewer versions if you wish to install any release candidate(s) yourself).
    • Maintenance B RC (usability updates / imposter changes), version 7.1.7.8820696922, April 29.
    • Maintenance X RC (usability improvements), version 7.1.6.8758996787, April 23.
  • Project viewers:

Graphics / glTF

  • Mirrors: Geenz Linden continues work on bug fixing (notably the fact that mirrors under Linden Water seem to break) and additional updates to improve usability.
  • PBR Terrain:
    • Cosmic has fixed an issue wherein 2K textures were not rendering on the mini-map.
    • In addition, she is looking into the ability to customise repeats in PBR terrain.
  • It is known that screen space reflections (SSR) do not work well on Linden Water, producing moiré effects. There has been talk within the Graphics team of “ripping out” SSR and replacing it with “something” – but no determination has been made as to what should be used, and it is pending work elsewhere within the graphics / rendering system.

glTF Scene Import

  • Runitai Linden is continuing to work on glTF scene import. This has reached a point where (on test viewers) it is now possible to preview a scene (tied to an in-world object) in-world.
  • Work is now being done to set-up a couple of test region on Aditi (the Beta grid) where this can be more widely tested.
  • The overall status of the glTF scene import work is described as “prototyping with much brokenness”, and the project is liable to continue through summer in order to get it into something of a more productive state.
  • The initial aim is to get to a point where scenes can be imported and seen, and nodes within them updated with both tools in the viewer and / or using LSL, and ensuring they stay in synch with the rest of the scene.
  • Once the above has been reached, then the plan is to start looking at performance, working out a Land Impact accounting schema, etc.
    • In as much as Land Impact is concerned, it is likely that nodes within a scene will have their own Land Impact, with those also involved in skeletal animation having an additional Land Impact.
  • Scenes are liable to use the MSFT glTF extension for Level of Detail (LOD), as this allows LODs to be set per node within a scene, providing more intuitive / consistent LOD switching management (based on screen coverage).
    • For automatic LOD generation, the first pass of work might only use the automatic LODs generated by Blender; if a home-ground automatic LOD generation system is used, it will “almost certainly” be Mesh Optimiser.
    • Overall, glTF scene support should leverage Blender’s LOD generation, as Blender is “way better” at this than LL are “any day of the week”.
    • Managing LODs (e.g. setting a default LOD Factor in the viewer is liable to become more firmly set and managed as glTF scene import becomes available (e.g. all viewers working to a fixed LOD of 3.00 or something).
  • The will be constraints placed on scene imports (e.g. will not be able to have a scene which exceeds the capacity of a region; scenes will not be able to span more than one region (so as to avoid issues with physics, etc.); and so on).
  • It was noted that glTF scene support will require a lot of work in areas such as physics management, update message handling (the object-based messaging currently used will not work with glTF scenes). Not of these aspects are seen as potential blockers – but solving all of them will take time.
  • glTF scenes will present more of a two-way street for creators, moving more seamlessly between a design tool such as Blender and SL when building and testing a scene and, following the upload of a scene, the ability to save it back locally again (subject to the SL permissions system where content has been subsequently added to a scene after its initial upload).

In Brief

  • Animations: it was noted that under glTF there is support for at least eight morph channels (with one vertex attribute being considered a channel, so it could be that 2 morphs change 3 attributes), making animation far more flexible in terms of use.
  • Some using the SL Mobile app have apparently been reporting that PBR terrain textures are not showing in that app, as it currently does not have PBR rendering support – this has been passed to the Mobile team.
  • It was noted that one of the reasons for LL adopting the glTF specification is that it is mobile friendly, so the Mobile team is going to be adding PBR, etc., support.
  • A lot of the meeting was taken up with a general discussion on matters relating to glTF scene import – LOD management, collaborative building, licensing matters (e.g. if an asset is available on a third-party asset store with a specifically licensed use, and importing it to SL potential break that license – should LL proactively block the asset from being imported?), etc., which have yet to be fully determined internally at LL, and so fall outside of this summary.

Next Meeting

† The header images included in these summaries are not intended to represent anything discussed at the meetings; they are simply here to avoid a repeated image of a gathering of people every week. They are taken from my list of region visits, with a link to the post for those interested.

May 2024 SL Web User Group summary

Posted on by Inara Pey
The Web User Group meeting venue, Denby

The following notes cover the key points from the Web User Group (WUG) meeting, held on Wednesday May 1st, 2024. They form a summary of the items discussed and is not intended to be a full transcript. A video of the meeting, recorded by Pantera Północy, is embedded at the end of this summary – my thanks as always to Pantera for recording it and making it available.

Meeting Overview

  • The Web User Group exists to provide an opportunity for discussion on Second Life web properties and their related functionalities / features. This includes, but is not limited to: the Marketplace, pages surfaced through the secondlife.com dashboard; the available portals (land, support, etc), the forums.
  • As a rule, these meetings are conducted:
    • On the first Wednesday of the month and 14:00 SLT.
    • In both Voice and / or text.
    • At this location.
  • Meetings are open to anyone with a concern / interest in the above topics, and form one of a series of regular / semi-regular User Group meetings conducted by Linden Lab.
  • Dates and times of all current meetings can be found on the Second Life Public Calendar, and descriptions of meetings are defined on the SL wiki.

Marketplace Infrastructure Update

  • The Marketplace infrastructure update has been completed, although the work did lead to a few “bumps” and some rapid bug fixes. However, the Marketplace team believe things should be running “just fine now”.
    • If any Merchant is experiencing issues with list / updating items, etc., then it is requested they raise a Canny report through the Feedback Portal.
  • As a result of this work, the Marketplace should be a lot more responsive in terms of page loading, etc., and the work also opens the door to the Lab adding a “lot of cool features” to the MP.
  • Garfield Linden noted that the focus on MP work now is making it “mobile-friendly and making improvements to Marketplace search”.

General Discussion

  • Sntax Linden indicated that the request to allow people to be able to Gift items directly from the Marketplace without having the item transferred to their Shopping Cart is “high” on the list of updates for the MP, but will not be available “soon”.
  • There have been multiple requests for users to be able to have more wish lists / favourites lists, both public and private. Requests to go with additional lists were also given, including:
    • Provision of sort filters added (e.g. newest first / oldest first)
    • Ability to search lists for items previously added to a list.
    • Ability to give lists custom names / create custom lists (e.g. by selecting items in another list / the Shopping Cart and use them to create a new wish / favourite list).
    • General load time improvements (for those with very large lists).
    • An ability to move items more easily between different lists (e.g. from the Shopping Cart to a favourites or wish list, or between wish lists if there are multiple lists available, etc.).
    • All of these were seen as potentially “good ideas” for improving the functionality and usability of lists within the MP.
  • A further request was made for Merchants to be able to respond to poor ratings and / or purchasers to be able to message Merchants through the MP – particularly to help where people have made a purchase and are confused about something and needs a little assistance.
    • A messaging system was seen as particularly beneficial for Merchants who get their IMs capped, as it provides a further channel to track comments and requests, making it potentially easier to help provide customer service support / mitigate bad reviews that are based on misunderstandings.
    • Sntax  suggested this could be handled via a prompt / link could be added to the review option (e.g. “do you need assistance with the items? Contact me by clicking here”).
    • This suggestion was seen as potentially However, there was some opposition to making any message option that “hidden”.
    • Instead, a preference was expressed for a proper messaging system – button, form, an “inbox” for the Merchant to receive messages (rather than them going to e-mail, although this should be offered as an option), etc., – all of which would take significant resource to supply.
  • The above led to a broader request to make it possible for anyone to reply to a review – so even if the creator of a product does not reply, someone who might be able to help (e.g. having gone through a similar misunderstanding) can drop an explanatory reply.
  • A request was made for LL to provide more header differentiation between e-mails sent to users that are off-line Group notifications and those that are actual off-line IM from individuals, with some claiming Gmail often lumps them together after filtering (which could as much be an issue in how the Gmail filter is set-up).

 

Next Meeting

  • Wednesday, June 5th, 2024.