User talk:Andrew Linden

VEHICLE_FLAG_HOVER_UP_ONLY

Your addition to VEHICLE_FLAG_HOVER_UP_ONLY makes me uneasy, specifically the section title. Could you please qualify if it is a Bug or a Misfeature?

In the LSL documentation we don't have a section for Misfeatures because it makes people uncomfortable; they don't want to use features that are tagged as misfeatures, lumping misfeatures and bugs together only heightens their unwillingness to use it. We have two sections that fill this niche, Bugs and Caveats. If there is some misfeature we put it in the Notes section. That said, the LSL Constants template is currently in a state of flux, there are several tasks on the TODO list for it such as a box for Bugs, Caveats, Newbie Notes and Notes. -- Strife Onizuka 18:03, 17 April 2008 (PDT)

Strife, I don't quite grok the wiki template features and was having trouble adding the comment I wanted to make to the right section. Please feel free to move it to whatever section you want. It was a bug and is now a misfeature. -- Andrew Linden 2008.04.17 21:45

I've poked and prodded the wording a bit and attributed it so it fits with the caveat style, the only part of the change that I'm unsure about is the addition of 'officially'. I've got to ask, what was it intended to do if this wasn't the intended behavior? Was the intent to have it hover down to the hover height or maybe critically damp down (instead of fall)? -- Strife Onizuka 13:42, 19 April 2008 (PDT)

Strife, the intended behavior was that buoyancy and hover would be "linearly independent" vehicle features, and that VEHICLE_FLAG_HOVER_UP_ONLY would NOT disable the buoyancy effect at any height, but would only affect the hover effect. The "bug now a misfeature" is that VEHICLE_FLAG_HOVER_UP_ONLY also disables buoyancy when the vehicle is too high. -- Andrew Linden 2008.04.22 13:31

Ahhh, I didn't fully grok that they were separate effects. -- Strife Onizuka 19:52, 22 April 2008 (PDT)

New Vehicle Types

I was poking at the vehicle tutorial and in the vehicle types section it mentions you are looking for new vehicle types and that they can be sent to you by notecard or script. Considering that a few sections up it mentions that vehicles are new to SL 1.1, I thought I should ask if this offer was still open and if you wanted to change the submission procedures now that we have JIRA and wiki talk pages. -- Strife Onizuka 13:42, 19 April 2008 (PDT)

Strife - I'm interested in perhaps making entirely new vehicle behaviors that are independent of the legacy vehicles. In Havok4 is will be much easier to add new "actions", so it would be possible to add features that are more specialized than the general vehicle. For example, an "airplane vehicle" that uses "lift", "drag", and "stallspeed" parameters, and perhaps a few other bells and whistles that would make it easy to make flying things that use traditional flight-sim controls. -- Andrew Linden 2008.04.22 13:36

Mega Prims

Heyas Andrew!
I wrote an article about Mega Prims. A Resident informed me that the havok physics engine would have problems with detecting multiple collisions per prim, which would be the reason why non-phantom mega prims might be a cause for lag when used as a floor. Having multiple regular prims and the same amount of collisions shared on these multiple objects would be less computationally intensive than having them all on the same prim. Can you confirm that? Might also have a look at the article, since I quoted you multiple times in the last paragraph. Wanted to backup that you're fine with it.
Greetz, Lynch ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up:

The argument in question is now not located at the article anymore, but on the talk page.

Geetz, Lynch ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

LSL syntax in the LL viewer:

Hi, I guess you're the one to talk to? I'm working on an update for the file Second Life/app_settings/keywords.ini. Whom should I send a copy when I'm done with it for review and merge? -- Kireji Haiku 09:29, 5 June 2013 (PDT)