Talk:LlSetLinkPrimitiveParamsFast

What's the catch?

When these fast functions are introduced we should just convert? Or is there a catch? I mean, will there be times when we shouldn't use the fast version? -- Fred Gandt ^{(talk|scripts|contribs)} 16:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, there is no catch! The old functions are not changed so old scripts using them do not break if they depend on the delays. --Cerise Sorbet 18:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes too good to be true really is. *remains sceptical* But thanks for the positive response Cerise. I look forward to seeing the objects this will allow; especially in tandem with llGetLinkPrimitiveParams OMG!!! llGetLinkPrim... LLGetLINK!!! >>> LINK <<< *faints* ;-) -- Fred Gandt ^{(talk|scripts|contribs)} 22:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The catch is that the delay turned out to be more costly. The idea with the delay was to discourage people from resource abuse. The thing is that people used multiple scripts to get around to the delay... the overhead of running multiple scripts was more then just not having a delay. At least that is my impression (and it sounds about right). -- Strife ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The cost was particularly onerous for attachments during boarder crossings. -- Strife ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm shocked to hear that the delay was fake. I assumed it was unavoidable. What a bizarre idea. -- Fred Gandt ^{(talk|scripts|contribs)} 22:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)