Havok4 Early Adopter Update – RC0 of the New Second Life Simulator with 15 Fixes – 2008-03-07

Quick Status

The Havok4-based Second Life simulator v1.19.1.81747 has been deployed to both the Beta Preview and the over 500 Early Adopter regions. This version resolves 15 of the remaining issues and brings us to the point of having a first release candidate of the simulator. More fixes are still in process – this is not the last build – but we are getting much closer to a version that can be integrated with release and become the next Second Life simulator.

We are getting close to a release-ready version of the new Havok4-based simulator. The team will be continuing to work on issues. I will be posting more information about expected timetables soon (but not with this blog post…)

The team is committed to the quality of this new simulator version, and will be remaining together to work issues after the Havok4 simulator is released to Second Life at large. (We will not practice “release and run” with this simulator, just as you have seen that we do not practice “post and run” on the blog… We’ll still be around ;). We are trying to get the benefits of reduced simulator crash rates out to all of Second Life as soon as it is reasonable, and will clean up lower level issues going forward from that point.

Why Did We Not Deploy This Version To Beta Preview First This Time?

The original plan was to deploy this build to the Beta Preview only, and test it over the weekend before deploying it to the Havok4 Early Adopter regions. As a result of a recent security exploit and the accompanying fix, I decided that it would be better to bypass the Beta Preview period than to leave the exploit “in the wild” with our Early Adopters.

I hope that we have caught any major issues that might be in this build, and that you will understand this decision is based on a security first philosophy, even though it may risk some other problems. If we missed something major, the back-out plan will be to pave over the Havok4 Early Adopter regions with the current Second Life simulator temporarily. I will be on and offline for the next several hours and will be making that call later on tonight (keep this version online or pave it over with the release version).

What Has Changed In This Version?

Changes in this build include (SVC items were submitted on the public jira issue tracker / DEV items are internally discovered issues / there are a few in this list that were fixed without jira tracking #โ€™sโ€ฆ).

*** Resolved security exploit

*** Added the fix for the script performance issue that was picked up through our merge to the 1.19.1 Second Life Simulator. This is the same fix that was deployed to the non Havok4 Second Life simulators with the last rolling restart.

SVC-1680: llGetMass() now returns correct values for child prims after rez without having to recompile the script

SVC-1700: Non-physical child prims of physical root prims now behave correctly with llTargetOmega()

SVC-1469: Items no longer deleted or returned from off-world above 768m after region restart

SVC-1299: Sit targets adjusted to more closely match release simulator placement

SVC-1488: Prim.Docker automatic prim alignment no longer leaves gaps

DEV-10635: Personal Hugger (90 sec) and Lost Dog Hugz Sphere hug mis-alignment corrected

DEV-10702: Push-based weapons are now functional (the previous deploy had code that would penalize attempts to push “overly hard” to the point that many weapons displayed zero push – whereas now they are simply capped to the max push allowed)

SVC-1542: Many concurrent shape changes no longer causes physics to stop being applied to objects (a.k.a. “the bunny problem” ๐Ÿ˜‰

SVC-1688: Simulator now recognizes changes to child prims without waiting for a change to the root object

SVC-1261: Avatars standing on sloped terrain no longer slide down the slope slowly

SVC-1066: Temp prims no longer count towards region prim limits

DEV-10985: Discrepancy between visual and physical collision location resolved for fast-moving object

DEV-11599: Removed new crash mode discovered in final QA process

Best regards,

Sidewinder Linden
Havok4 Program Manager

This entry was posted in Announcements & News, Bugs & Fixes, Preview Grid. Bookmark the permalink.

142 Responses to Havok4 Early Adopter Update – RC0 of the New Second Life Simulator with 15 Fixes – 2008-03-07

  1. Sidewinder Linden says:

    @4 Wake up: As you well know, I’m not involved in viewer releases at this point, and *I* did not force an update. I cannot control what other folks do and don’t do with blog posts. Which viewer are you talking about? Release, RC, Windlight? I have been running the latest WIndlight, which on my machine has been much more stable, but stability is often highly dependent on graphics hardware specifics. /Sidewinder

  2. Darien Caldwell says:

    Yes! now I can sit like a proper lady once more! ๐Ÿ™‚

  3. Aria Alexandria says:

    /me has panic attack…

    http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SVC-1683 please…

  4. Sidewinder Linden says:

    @2 Aria: Have faith! That bug was being worked on today, and is close to resolution. The fix for it should be in our next deploy ๐Ÿ˜‰ /Sidewinder

  5. Wake up in SF please says:

    well sidewinder…the latest client u made me switch to is not stable…so speak up dude…no hiding with the ‘off topic thing’…u people need to get honest and get honest fast with these comment things…every post by sl needs to be open to comment…and sl needs to get deadly honest in replying comments like this…get it?

  6. Sidewinder — I’m still hoping to get one of my regions added to the early adopter program… I’ve had the support ticket filed for about a week and a half now. When I contacted support they were saying that they ran out of ‘slots’ for the test but were hoping for more. Do you know, will there be any more ‘slots’ added for the early adopters? Thanks!

  7. RodneyLee says:

    I am still looking forward to Proper Prim Alignment when coping hollow prims, using (copy/Wand) Create and copy selection ๐Ÿ™‚ hope its fixed soon….

  8. Sidewinder Linden says:

    @6 RodneyLee: Is there a jira with this specific issue? /Sidewinder

  9. Wake up in SF please says:

    sidewinder i have been using windlight for some time…but today sl forced some kind of upgrade to a client that is totally unsatisfactory to what i was using…send me an im and i will try to help you (sl)

  10. Pingback: Havok 4 now being called a Release Candidate - even though it’s still horribly broken at Daikon Forge

  11. Pingback: Havok 4 now being called a Release Candidate - even though it’s still horribly broken « Samurai Pickle

  12. Sidewinder Linden says:

    @10 Comment re Daikon Forge: Please see notes above regarding the fact that we are not yet done with fixes for the public release. Best Regards, Sidewinder

  13. @Sidewinder – Understood. Actually, feel free to delete that pingback, as my post was basically written before I had a chance to fully think about everything.

  14. @9 Wake up, you must have been using the buggy WindLight Client which is now outdated and users of the client have been forced to upgrade to the new Test client. Try download the STABLE viewer instead if your not satisfactory continuing your bug hunting on the buggy viewers..


  15. Wake up in SF please says:

    @14 ty for trying to be helpful but no…using latest hardware and software…not talking to a beginner here…bottom line is sl needs to ramp it up…seems to not have adults working here who understand what it really really means to deliver reliable products to customers…sorry to say this…but many many months of experience have proven this true over and over and over…do u understand?

  16. WarKirby Magoijiro says:

    DEV-10702: Push-based weapons are now functional (the previous deploy had code that would penalize attempts to push โ€œoverly hardโ€ to the point that many weapons displayed zero push – whereas now they are simply capped to the max push allowed)

    Why undo this? People generally don’t like being orbited.

  17. o.h. says:

    thanks for updating the servers for the new media texture feature.

  18. Pingback: Havok4 update released at Daikon Forge

  19. @Warkirby – True, most people don’t like being orbited, but content creators also don’t like having their in-world products broken. And it’s possible that such well-intentioned fixes had adverse effects on more benign scripts that used push.

  20. Sidewinder Linden says:

    To all re push weapons and orbiting… Push is limited. Yes, it is possible to build an orbiter, but the classic blitz orbit will no longer work. There are people in-world who are quite fervent for basic push-style weapons for combat, and we did not want to completely disable that category of use. /Sidewinder

  21. Sidewinder Linden says:

    @15 Wake up in SF: You asked me to IM you in-world. Could you please tell me your Second Life name so that I can do so? I did a check in our user database and have not found a user “WakeUpInSF” or one starting with the string “WakeUpIn”, so I assume that this is a made up alias for commenting on the blogs.

    You claim the current client is “totally unsatisfactory”. Please provide me with the specific version of the viewer you are using (from Help > About Second Life”. You can copy and paste the top line. This wil tell me which specific viewer you are running.

    Can you provide specifics of the issues that you are encountering. Please note in advance that I will delete posts that are summary rants about everything being broken. If you would like help with something specific, or for me to check something out, I will. Using this blog post as a method of generalized, non-specific insinuations and essentially “blog griefing” is not something that I will tolerate. Such posts will be deleted.

    Please feel free to send me a notecard in-world if you have extensive comments or many specific items (Sidewinder Linden in-world).



  22. Sidewinder Linden says:

    @13 Takuan: Thanks for your consideration. I went back to review that bug report, and noticed that there was some internal discussion in the comments that seemed to be about what proper behavior should be, and how to replicate it. I had thought when I last looked at it that our current fixes might make the issue you’ve reported behave better or even be resolved.

    Have you checked the behaviors with the code we deployed tonight to see if things are working any better (and if not, could you check to see if it has been addressed by other work that we have done)? If not, please let me know in-world, and I’d be happy to drop in so that you can demonstrate the problem.

    Something to note is that we had thinned the physical representation of the avatar somewhat in previous builds, and went back to make it larger again (part of fixing hugger positioning). I wonder if the slender avatar representation was part of what was making it seem that “kicks” did not work well.


  23. Blinders Off says:

    Sidewinder, since you’ve mentioned avatar representation… why is it that we can’t have smaller avatars? Why do we have to distort bodies to make tiny avatars? Why can’t pixies and leprechauns be small size? Why the continual arbitrary decisions that limit function on SL?

  24. Sean Heying says:

    It’s a pity that push based weapons are being allowed again, but if it stops the insane numbers and your scripts being fried and also your avatar deforming and turning invisible then it’s not so bad I guess.

    For curiosity, what is the maximum push height, and why in No Push zones should a device be able to get me there? What Rationale was used to allow the landowners choice to be overridden?

    SVC-1261 Still happens, although rarer, still slide backwards slowly… also the somewhat linked SVC-1702 still rarely happens.

    SVC-1281 The swimmer still hasn’t changed, impossible to swim linden water without this.

    You had my hopes up with SVC-1469 but I see that you still can’t move objects that are over 768M without them falling to the old ceiling height.

    Definitely ready for release candidate status!

  25. candi clawtooth says:

    I have an Nvidia 8800 GT vid card and have been running wonderful until this update………now im lagging horribly and have crashed several times today!! I can no longer log into windlight even after I downloaded this update!!!!!!!!!! what is wrong?

  26. Sean Heying says:

    @ Sidewinder “Something to note is that we had thinned the physical representation of the avatar somewhat in previous builds, and went back to make it larger again (part of fixing hugger positioning).”

    Eeep. can you please clarify this? As you know I am 4’5″ tall O_o you have scared me.

  27. Bryon Ruxton says:

    “We will not practice โ€œrelease and runโ€ with this simulator, just as you have seen that we do not practice โ€œpost and runโ€ on the blogโ€ฆ”

    Kudos for such statement Sidewinder, I wish I’d see more of that with the other teams, with a spanking from the love machine if they fail to comply to your standards.

  28. Darek Deluca says:

    SideWinder, Txs for the fixes.

    llTargetOmega has a problem though.
    it is not rotating linked prims in a physical object.
    llTargetOmega is in a child prim.
    Was working earlier today before the release.

  29. Cheshyr Pontchartrain says:

    Looks like SVC-845 is still broken. My shape-shifting vehicles lose steering after a prim change. Other changes look great. Awesome!

  30. yuriko nishi says:

    wow great job again guys!
    thanks for fixing the banking ground vehicles! i love you andrew (or whoever did it)

    and i see you worked on the jumping problems too, but sorry i have to say this, it needs more work. actually i have the feeling i jump even more now. somehow… different. not the extreme jumps like before, but the number of jumps seems to have increased.

    and i still can lag sims with my skirt ๐Ÿ˜‰

    will try to come to the next office hour, couldnt come this week…


  31. Sidewinder Linden says:

    @23 Blinders Off – another alias that does not match any Second Life user name that I can find… No user names that begin with “Blinders” in the user database…

    These questions are completely off topic for this thread. If you would like to talk about those issues I would be happy to in-world, and to do that I will need to know your Second Life name.

    The quick answer to “why the continual arbitrary decisions that limit functionality in SL” is that that is a self-answering, biased question that does not take into account the way that software and products are built. There are no software systems that do everything and allow everything. All design is tradeoffs, tradeoffs of ease of use, flexibility, performance and various other factors. Some things that seem like limitations some years down the road are not imagined when systems are built.

    When limitations are found, there are choices made as to where to invest resources, and which types of flexibility and new features are the best use of those resources. You may not agree with where the functionality expansions have been done in Second Life, but there have been many, many expansions of functionality over time.

    At the moment, projects such as the Havok4 project are focused on reliability and stability – and frankly many folks – I believe yourself included if I recall correctly, have complained that we are adding features rather than focusing on stability. For this project, we are consciously avoiding adding significant features in order to invest resources in removal of crash modes, increased stability and enabling some future project to add new functionality through a more stable platform.

    Best regards,


  32. Sidewinder Linden says:

    @24 Sean: SVC-1281 – aka the swimmer problem – was being worked on today and I believe is pretty close to resolution. I hope to have that fix in the next deployed version (not been forgotten!).

    Push in no push zones should be significantly reduced or removed in many cases – are you still seeing this as possible with this latest deploy? If so, please contact me off the blog so that we can document the situation and see whether it can be handled without breaking other things.

    The build ceiling will be raised to 4096m, *but* you will not be able to access that height until there is a viewer update, since there is a cross-check for this in the viewer code. This update will happen after the Havok4-based simulator is rolled out to the rest of the Second Life Grid in order to avoid confusion and issues with a mixed simulator environment.

    @26 – Avatar thickness, not height, is what was adjusted ๐Ÿ˜‰


  33. Sidewinder Linden says:

    @28 Darek: Hmm… Could you contact me with a repro case for this. It sure seemed to be working… Thanks, Sidewinder

  34. Sidewinder Linden says:

    @29 Cheshyr: Could you provide me a specific step-by-step with sample vehicle (or pointer to where I can pick one of that model up) so that I can be sure this gets addressed? Off-blog would be great – thanks, Sidewinder

  35. Sidewinder Linden says:

    @30 yuriko: I have to grin about “lagging sims with your skirt”… For those who don’t know, this is no normal skirt… it’s a scripted multi-prim animated piece with hud to control it! We have some other performance optimizations in the queue and I hope that they will help with that case. See you at office hours, Sidewinder

  36. Darek Deluca says:

    Changes in direction of slow physical motion have become VERY jerky and almost seem to freeze for a split second since the update.

  37. Vittorio Beerbaum says:

    Sidewinder if you still around … take a look here:


    …the physics on this H4 sim doesn’t work at all, even after a restart (the restart was because this H4 upgrade), the problem is NOT from this latest upgrade (it happened even before). I’ve left a message to you inworld. I did not open a jira entry since i don’t know what’s the problem.
    That’s not my sim, im reporting the problem since an user there uses one of my products (but any other physical object doesn’t work there). Cheers.

  38. Sean Heying says:

    Ah, a test of orbitting weapons on Push Safe land shows no or minimal action. This is good.

  39. Creem says:

    To Sidewinder, Andrew, Simon, and the rest of the H4 team, keep up the good work! I haven’t been able to attend the last few H4 meetings, but are there any plans to commit the vehicular friction change that Andrew considered implementing? (something about vehicular friction completely overriding a prim’s “native” collision friction)

  40. Monalisa Robbiani says:

    My jetski (Mocassin 1200 v1.0 by Scout Detritus) is still borked. It’s even worse now. I can barely take a turn in low gear. It just wouldn’t move. Considering that this is one of the most popular jetskis in SL that’s bad. The creator is not available for quite some time now. BTW I can’t swim anymore either. SLWIM is broken. Will I drown now? ๐Ÿ˜€

  41. Sidewinder Linden says:

    @37 Vittorio – that is because collisions are disabled on that region ๐Ÿ™‚ /Sidewinder

  42. Sidewinder Linden says:

    @40 Monlisa:SLWim is being worked on right now – literally was started on in the last day or so – so it’s not fixed but is being looked at. Can you IM me inworld at some point so that I can take a look at that jetski? Thanks, Sidewinder

  43. Ookamisuke Babenco says:

    Well, as what I call an anti-griefer (I know of a griefer attack, I go to the scene and file an AR), I know what the code can do, especially in sandboxes. Perhaps Linden Labs could design an all-new simulator all-together designed solely for sandboxes, that allow, say, a 10-20 meter push? Perhaps a kind of limited-push setting for land, that restricts pushing.

  44. ZATZAi Asturias says:

    Sidewinder, might I suggest you take a look at SVC-1662 (http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SVC-1662), I just tested it on my Havok4 Beta Server sim and the problem described is still an issue.

  45. thegrimmling Snook says:

    Hey Sidewinder, thanks for the feedback in SL.

  46. Sean Heying says:

    Still happy with this version, after much testing. No need to roll it over to the production simulator server from my point of view. This seems pretty solid for me at least.

  47. Tegg B says:

    Keep up the good work Sidewinder, mate ๐Ÿ™‚
    Many of us appreciate it.

  48. Jacomo Beltran says:

    I’m aware this is a bit OT, but could you please fix the Windlight Linux Client in a way, that it logs into the grid again? All it does is to crash on initializing world. ๐Ÿ˜ฆ

  49. Zi Ree says:

    Sidewinder, this is great! Thank you for the quick update! ๐Ÿ˜€

  50. Well, thanks for two things: first, for the “avatars sliding down the slope”. It was both very amusing but a trifle annoying, but I’m glad you worked it out).

    Many many thanks for allowing HTML-on-a-prim on the Havok4-based sims too ๐Ÿ™‚ That was a wonderful surprise on this “last minute” deployment which did make a lot of us very happy ๐Ÿ™‚

    (I’m testing it right now on one of the early adopter regions, and it works just fine… and I’m not sliding down the slope into the water when looking at a Web page ๐Ÿ™‚ )

  51. Sascha says:

    Great :P. Good progress:). Go on like that!

  52. Sascha says:

    Darn, I thought the sliding was gone, but it is still there, ok not like before, but it is. Here is the repro: stand on a slope and turn AV 180 deg and then back , do that some times and see – moved , even without AO :(.

  53. Winter Ventura says:

    Okay I have a question, and it’s a serious one.. And while it may seem sarcastic, it really isn’t.. and I’m very curious about hearing an answer.

    I’m watching the implementation of Havoc 4 onto the grid, and what I’m seeing is that yes, you’re tweaking it so that old content still works the way it should. This is great.. on one hand, because it may mean that we’re not all forced to run out and make/buy new stuff.

    But there’s something I’m not getting here.. if you tweak Havoc 4 to the point that it functions the same as Havoc 1… what benefits are we actually GETTING out of H4? I’ve seen a lot of broken, as several friends have H4 adopter sims. What I’m not seeing is anything that really seems “better”. and the effort seems to be towards making H4 indistinguishable from H1.

    If that’s the case… why aren’t we just remaining with H1?

    What’s H4 good for anyways? Why are we bothering with all this if the end result is “basically the same as before”?

  54. Dwayanu Weyland says:

    @ 32, Sidewinder: “…The build ceiling will be raised to 4096m, …”. I’ve not been involved with Havok design, but I hadn’t heard that before, and would like to put in an opinion. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    I think 4096 is far too high. 4k would seem designed to allow people and things to disappear into distance. And, 4k high versus 256m sims, is like building 30-story needle buildings on town house plots in Manhattan (been there, seen that ๐Ÿ˜‰

    I assume the advocates of 4k are some subset of landowners who want to disappear ;-/, who 1) want to look outside and see nothing, and/or 2) don’t want their activities to be discernable (sp?) by anyone passing by, or 3) who didn’t know how to space skyboxes to prevent chat leakage ๐Ÿ˜‰ Some advocates might think that being up high will prevent anyone from finding them. All i see here is self interest by such advocates — no group interest (SL population, or SL landowners) is being served.

    4k is far more than can be populated by e.g. vertical stacks of rental skyboxes, because of prim limits and simple teleport limits.

    I’ve lived on my First Land parcel, on an open platform at 700 meters for the last year, and my main store is elsewhere at 600 meters. As a sim matures, the heights form an ecology and scenery that is fun and interesting to wander through. I think that would be lost.

    I also think the resulting willful isolation of some people, would be a overall negative to the SL experience. Increasing the existing opportunities for this or that corner of SL becoming concealed from all outsiders, I think is also negative.

    Elbow room above cloud layer, of course is good ! ๐Ÿ˜‰ Long vacant echoing open-walled elevator shaft, with pigeon nest at the top, imo no ;-(

    You could try a survey perhaps, asking Premium accounts or landowners older than six months, or maybe all accounts older than one year?

    Restricting 4k to private islands, would also work imo.

  55. Sidewinder Linden says:

    @44 ZATZAi: Thanks we’ll look at 1662. That was in the LSL stack so I’d missed it on review but we’ve got it now. /Sidewinder

  56. Sidewinder Linden says:

    @53 Winter: The quick answer is: Stability – and the architectural shifts needed to enable the use of new physics features in the future as appropriate. This is, and has not been, a features project.

    From the start of the beta process I’ve been trying to be very clear about this… This is not a “features release”. The goals are simple:
    1) Reduce incidental crash rates
    2) Reduce content loss caused by rollbacks from incidental crashes
    3) Remove targets for purposeful crash vectors (griefer-induced crashes)
    4) Move to a more current version of the Havok physics engine and reduce the effort to stay current
    5) Enable (but not yet implement) the ability to use the Havok4+ new features in Second Life by moving to a more current version

    The Early Adopters have so far found that the incidental crash rate is significantly reduced from the levels seen on Havok1-based simulators. We are working to further reduce the possible crash vectors before release. Second Life product creators have been consistent in saying that they are no longer seeing incidental simulator crashes based on vehicles, toys or animals doing something that the physics engine or simulator “didn’t like”, which dramatically reduces the need for rollbacks and reduces content loss.

    Two more side benefits related to stability are that with the simulator now this “clean” from a crash vector perspective, identifying and resolving new crash modes is getting more straightforward.

    There area small number of remaining purposeful crash strategies – in other words crashes that do not happen by accident – they are triggered by someone trying to crash a simulator (and I know that you griefers watching the project know about them too, and have been witholding proof of concepts during the beta… sorry guys we already know the techniques you have in hand). The remaining purposeful simulator crash vectors follow a similar pattern, and frankly “leave fingerprints” on the simulator that make it pretty clear who perpetrated the crash. In addition, in most cases, these crashes do not require a rollback to resolve. We will be closing those loopholes as well, but have focused on incidental crashes first, since they affect the highest number of residents on a regular basis.

    In the process, the linkage rules have been changed to be a spherical bounding model, so that prims linked at the boundary of the rules may be rezzed in any orientation in world without “falling off the edges”, whereas the current simulator uses a cubic bounding volume that is orientation-sensitive at the boundaries.

    Hope this helps,


  57. Tenebrous Pau says:

    Can’t wait to see Havoc4 rolled out. Good luck ๐Ÿ˜€

  58. Tenebrous Pau says:

    Can’t wait to see Havoc4 rolled out. Good luck ๐Ÿ™‚

  59. Sidewinder Linden says:

    @52 Sascha: Thanks for that repro re sliding. It seems to me that we’ve resolved the fundamental issue, and that this remaining case should not block integrating the simulator with release. As mentioned before, that does not mean that it would not get fixed, but that it might end up as a normal maintenance fix rather than something that prevents the rest of Second Life from getting the benefits of this update. (If you were making the call on this, and you’d hold the release for this fix, please let me know why – I’m happy to be convinced if I’m missing the wide scale impact that this would create.)



  60. Elvis Orbit says:

    Thanks for this Havok 4 update. Happy to play with the websites on prims, been wanting that! And it is running great so far! As well with the new RC Viewer I have had no problems running in this config:
    Second Life 1.19.1 (0) Mar 5 2008 17:51:19 (Second Life Release Candidate)

    You are at 263211.6, 299030.6, 22.8 in Inochi Island located at sim5621.agni.lindenlab.com (
    Havok4 Beta Server

    CPU: Intel Core 2 Series Processor (2399 MHz)
    Memory: 3071 MB
    OS Version: Microsoft Windows Vista (Build 6000)
    Graphics Card Vendor: NVIDIA Corporation
    Graphics Card: GeForce 8400 GS/PCI/SSE2

  61. Captain Noarlunga says:

    Re: Wake Up In SF……..

    If you cannot use your SL name you are not worthy of a response from the Havok4 group. Sidewinder and his team have behaved in an exemplary manner throughout this project and have displayed a genuine willingness to respond in an extremely constructive manner to resolve genuine concerns and to correct problems. Sidewinder even had the good manners to respond to you, which you certainly did not deserve. Either use your real name or butt out !
    Well done Sidewinder…..you and the team are true professionals.

  62. Sidewinder Linden says:

    @54 Dwayanu: I understand your concerns. At the same time, if there are residents who would like that space for building, for whatever reason, or even want seclusion as part of their Second Life, why should we prevent them from having a world that accommodates that life style? This seems akin to requiring participation in group events in order to mandate community involvement. It seems to demand a specific lifestyle in the form of property that seems antithetical to the goals of allowing each Second Life resident to style their part of the world to their desires.

    I may be missing the point, but I see this as a matter of inclusiveness and respecting the desires of a widely varying and global community to express themselves and style their property and the air above it in whatever fashion they would like to (within the TOS…).

    Also please note that on larger parcels you can place much larger platforms. A large platform is as visible at 4096m as a moderate to small platform is at 768m. It is not completely clear to that “wanting to disappear” is the only reason for high altitude placement. It could also be that with a large platform you don’t want it to have too much visual sky obstruction while still being visually present.

    Something thing I’ve learned about Second Life as a platform is that people will find ingenious, unique and amazing things to do with each capability of the platform. I suspect that we’ll see all sorts of “cool stuff” done with an expanded build ceiling that we cannot imagine today. As in the real world, there may be upsides and downsides.

    At the same time, I do see your points, and will continue the discussion on this internally before release.


    P.S. The current build ceiling is at 768m, not 256m, which for small platforms is pretty close to invisible already. This is roughly a 5x height expansion. As part of this work, we’ve allowed for faster assist speeds (256m/S) – in particular because builders who have been involved with the beta process wanted to be able to create short-range teleporters that would cover these distances in a reasonable amount of time. This was the topic of many discussions over the last few months in the project office hours, which are still continuing.

  63. @22 Sidewinder – Yeah, my explanation on the JIRA issue wasn’t very good, was it? I will head in-world today and test to see if the other issues that were fixed resolved this one as well, and if not I’ll do my best to come up with a repro script that can concretely demonstrate the issue.

  64. I’m liking the updates so far. Not sliding into the water while talking to someone next to the lake in Serenity Woods is nice, and that temporary prims no longer count towards the prim limits is awesome. I believe I’ve found a small issue with binding a mass (512) of objects to the physics simulation at the same time however. Apparently when I converted my “cube of cubes” (an 8x8x8 cube made up of cubes, 512 in total) to temp/physical some of them reverted back to non-physical/temp (they rotated slightly out of place, but then froze in mid air and didn’t disappear along with the rest), while others seemed to spin off into the abyss, slowly, like the sim was outer space. Like I said, small issue, I don’t really know of a practical application for adding that many objects to the physics simulation at the same time, aside from relieving stress by toppling towers.

    I do have some questions however regarding the linkage rules and prims , if you could contact me in world or something. I promise not to take up too much of your time. >)

  65. @22 Sidewinder – The behavior is definitely different now, though not quite correct. Previously a kick against a standing opponent in Havok-4 would do nothing at all, now it does push them just a bit in the air vertically, but with no horizontal movement. I sent you an object that can repro that with just a click, and the script inside is simplified to (hopefully) make it clearer how it was intended to work in HAVOK-1.

    The other cases mentioned in that JIRA issue in the comments may also be changed, but I’ve not yet had the chance to find out.

  66. candi clawtooth says:

    I guess no cure for the horrible lag, freezin and crashing in the Rome/sparta sim , eh??? Talked to several after we raided last night and many of them are having the same problems which werent there before………yikes!! Makes me get killed !!! ;o) Hate when that happens! please offer any assistance you have…any help is GOOD help!

  67. Sidewinder Linden says:

    @66 Candi: Which regions are you talking about in your post? There are a few that have Rome and Sparta in the name, and some are Havok4 and some are not… In particular it is also important to separate out viewer issues from server issues. If the whole simulator did not crash, in other words all avatars were not thrown off the region at the same time, then this is a viewer, network or data center issue. If you will provide more specifics it might be possible to find out what was going on, and to determine whether this had anything to do with the Havok4 simulator or was part of a general infrastructure or data center problem.



  68. Simon Linden says:

    @64 Feynt: You may be seeing some of the new code that throttles the physics engine when it begins to get overloaded. It’s one of the mechanisms to prevent the simulator from getting bogged down and freezing or crashing.

    We’ve found two general things slow down the region in physics – collisions and changing shapes, so we’ve added code to try and control this to keep the region alive.

    A few things may happen if the region gets too slow:

    a) It will lower the ‘level of detail’ used to model objects. It will start treating some objects as simple boxes rather than the full-detailed mesh shape

    b) If it gets even slower, some physical objects will be temporarily frozen in place.

    c) If it gets really slow (over 2 seconds per frame) it will start ignoring some collisions compeletly.

    All this is to lower how much calculations it needs to figure out the physics in world. As the region recovers to a higher fps, the original settings for objects are restored and hopefully everything returns to normal.

    I’m guessing you’re seeing some of this effect – it sounds like some of your boxes are being frozen for a bit. I’ve actually used a very similar situation (a grid of boxes, and setting them physical) when testing the code.

    If you see behavior that can’t be explained by this, definitely let us know.

  69. Just wondering if there will be any more regions added to the early adopter program? Apologies if this was covered already, I’ve read through and haven’t seen a reply to my question up in #5. Thanks again! ๐Ÿ™‚

  70. candi clawtooth says:

    We are a Havok4 test group, I guess you would call it………if I can log in I will post the info here………thank you for answering me.

  71. candi clawtooth says:

    Keep getting DNS log in issues, and Im on the internet right now!!! I will keep trying .

  72. That is a smart idea, Simon, however I’ve got a few comments/questions on those steps:
    a) Some shapes would be better resolved as spheres (actual spheres, for instance, or a torus), and as far as I’ve learned spherical collision detection is easier to calculate than box collisions. Since you only really need one check (llVecDist(pointA, pointB) D

    My questions weren’t about these though, but I don’t really want to ask in a public forum because it might illicit poor feedback.

  73. candi clawtooth says:

    heres the info ……………..THE SPARTAN EMPIRE, 68,135,23
    We were having a sparring match in the grass off and on all day yesterday , from what i could gather from the others was horrible lag, so much so, you couldnt tell the direction you were going! Intermittent freezing and then crashes……..;O( Sorry for the probs, I hope its not too big of a headache… ;o)

  74. Bah, it ate my comment. WordPress bad. x.x

    b. It seems like it doesn’t hand the object back to the physics simulation when lag subsides, about a dozen of the prims remained while about 500 of them settled or careened off into the sim with no gravity to stop them. That dozen, give or take, just stayed floating in midair without disappearing, which leads me to believe they were completely disabled, not just removed from the physics simulation.

    and c. I didn’t notice any prims ignoring collision, most of them settled on the floor, that dozen or so got disabled midair, and…. Oh I don’t know, two dozen went slowly sailing off into the abyss like gravity was disabled on them. I believe perhaps the engine is trying to cancel out all forces on those prims, but failed to take into account current forces, OR it’s getting forces applied to them due to interpenetration, which you’re not stopping and seem to be forgetting to add gravity back to those prims.

  75. Zi Ree says:

    @59: I can still reproduce the sliding, but it seems to be depending on who tries it. A friend and I tested it and while I slipped down the slope, she was standing firm. A steeper slope made us both slip, but after changing avatars she stood firm again.

    Another issue I found: Walking with space bar held down is not possible on Havok 4:


  76. Blinders Off says:

    @ Sidewinder Linden: Sidewinder, to my recollection, Lindens aren’t all that easy to get hold of in world, are they? (Another major customer complaint).

    If you people want folks to use their in-world names here, rather than chiding others for using alts here… maybe you should allow people to sign in only with their account names. Pardon me, but DUH. I use the Blinders Off tag here for a good reason: to constantly remind people not to swallow every word that comes off the keyboard of Linden Lab. That is my exercise of freedom of speech and is prompted by past propaganda from Linden Lab offices (no insult intended… plain fact. You DON’T want to ask me for examples. This blog doesn’t have enough room.)

    What I mean by arbitrary decisions (again without taking up miles of space to listing examples), the 10m prim limit (accompanied by totally tech-bogus explanations as to why that is necessary), the current avatar size limits, the flight limit (we can build up to 700m or so but we can’t fly that high? And so almost everyone owns a flight device so they CAN flight that high? Come on).

    Shall I go on and on? Sorry Sidewinder, but between our two posts, I think mine was far the more legitimate and honest. Of course, you can delete this post, but it won’t be because I’m unnecessarily demeaning, rude or flaming in my post. Everything I’ve said here is factual and right on the button. And while I’d like to deal with LL in a professional, friendly manner, it seems after several years of experience, LL only tends to listen when it’s hit over the head with a board. Sorry, that’s just my personal opinion (and that of many others). Why do I say that?

    How many people have NICELY asked for Linden Lab to fix group chat problems. And for how many months have they been nicely asking? (simple answer: more than a year)

    How many people have asked LL to fix the llTargetOmega glitch in the Linden Scripting Language? And for how many months and months have they been asking?

    So please, don’t try to make it sound like all we have to do is contact a Linden in-world if we have issues. Frankly guy, that’s pure nonsense. (and yes, some LL employees do have “office hours”… what an hour or two a week, during business hours when most people are at work…)

    Sorry Sidewinder, honestly no offense intended, but it doesn’t work that way.

  77. Blinders Off says:

    BTW Sidewinder, as a side… you folks are expanding ceiling from 768 to appx 3500m? GOOD JOB. (See… I’m capable of a pat on the backwhen warranted).

    Will we have flight ability to 3500m as well? Hoping so.

  78. Blinders Off says:

    @ 54 re 4096m ceiling (yup 4096 not 3500m like I’d heard. Woot!)

    I appreciate your opinion and agree somewhat with your feelings, but in truth, I would find people isolating themselves at 4000m much preferable to the constant “security barriers” we slam in to while flying through mainland.

    There are many advantages to high-sky building. Groups may wish private discussion chambers that they can secure. Some people may wish high-sky builds in which they can have some REAL privacy. With 4096m, a sim owner can grant land renters certain sky levels along with security device rights… and 4096m is enough to grant them 100m all the way around without causing sky space problems.

    I think this is a good move by LL. Perhaps it will help remove some of the garbage and endless security grids from the surface.

  79. Blinders Off says:

    Sidwinder, forgive mulitple posts, but while you folks are bringing in Havok 4, it sure would be nice to be able to TP anywhere on a sim without having to use a LM. The current limit of (what, about 296m? not sure) may have a tech reason behind it I’m not aware of, but if that could be overcome, that would be spiffy.

  80. Cliff Dieffenbach says:

    SVC-1488: Prim.Docker automatic prim alignment no longer leaves gaps

    I did some general testing and it’s behavior is perfect.

    I’ll show up with my first born during the next in-world office meeting.

  81. Sidewinder Linden says:

    @69 Atashi: I did see your post about Early Adopter additions, and have been checking on it. The Concierge team is handling these on a time-available basis and is getting to them as fast as they can. I suggest that you contact the concierge team directly if you have an urgent need. /Sidewinder

  82. Sidewinder Linden says:

    @79 Blinders Off: I don’t fully understand what you’re looking for in terms of TP to anywhere on a region without a landmark. You can teleport to anywhere on any region by typing coordinates into the map panel… so unless I’m missing the point you can already do what you are asking for… maybe I am missing what you meant? /Sidewinder

  83. Prodigal Maeterlinck says:

    I’m really looking forward to grid-wide implementation of Havok4 physics, and I would really like to be able to participate in the bug-testing and feedback. Which is why I volunteered to become a first adopter. Unfortunately, Havok4 physics is active indiscriminately, or at least it’s bugs are, on objects whether or not they have their physics on. This makes it unfeasible to monitor objects to make such reports.

    C’mon, I’ve got a support ticket requesting a rollback to the start of the opt-in period, and it’s been gathering dust over the last week. Do I need to open another to get attention?

  84. Sidewinder Linden says:

    @79 Bilnders Off: By the way – the reason I had hoped to find out your Second Life name is that I suspect that if we can talk inworld, vs “one comment at a time on a blog” I might better understand the issues and you may find that I share more of your goals than you suspect, and as a result we can both be more effective at achieving the goals than in this forum in this manner. Regards, Sidewinder

  85. Sascha says:

    @59 Hehe yes is ok, i don’t think that so many people will go to beaches with slopes from terrain and try to hug or kiss people and slide away. i will just think that i am standing on slippery ground and wait for a maintenance fix :P.

  86. Sidewinder Linden says:

    #83 Prodigal: I just found the jira you entered, SVC-1384.

    My apologies for missing this one – it was marked normal priority as opposed to some higher priority and for some reason I missed it. We had found a problem with objects of certain geometries or placements being mishandled at startup with Havok4, and believe that we have resolved that problem.

    For what it’s worth,It turns out that our Havok4 startup routines were being quite strict about validating object integrity, and not tolerating some construction problems that earlier release simulators had allowed. We loosened our startup checking to be sure that legacy content would load correctly, and left the strict checking in place for new construction.

    Lets get in touch inworld so that we can set up a time to work this out? I don’t think that this one is a simple concierge simstate rollback, and apologize that it was not flagged as a develepment team issue from the start.

    I would like to pull a simstate from before the conversion and be sure that your region will load correctly with Havok4 on the Beta Preview. If it does not, we will resolve this issue – prim content loss is for us a serious issue that we work at very high priority and had thought that there were no remaining issues.

    Thanks for bringing this up, and I will make sure this gets addressed.



    P.S. I’d also like to talk more about “physics is active indiscriminately” as I am not sure what you are talking about with this comment, and would like to be sure that it is either already addressed in the current build or that the issue gets clarified so that we know where to look for a solution. Thanks again.

  87. Sean Heying says:

    The slide is not fixed for small, (probably low mass avatars.) In my normal 4’5″ self I will slide backwards, on even a minor slope ( http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/9135/snapshot001va8.jpg ). No special steps required, just stand there.

    When I put on my 6′ shape I don’t slide.

    In answer to the question posed above… and knowing the way the average SLer likes to complain I would still roll it out based on the benefit of blitzing being killed off. Slide down a hill if you are a small avatar or be orbited by people who hate Kids is an easy one.

  88. U M says:

    are Teleporting drop pointed fixed? its a bad when you telport to a location where you KNOW where the drop point is then you landup in a different location.

  89. Sean Heying says:

    Usagi, I have never seen that problem unless the land owner has forced a landing point. Do you have a Jira reference for your issue? Does it only happen on Havok4 sims?

  90. Sidewinder Linden says:

    @87 Sean: Thanks for that catch… the fix must work down to a certain avatar mass and then not below that.. I’ll re-open the internal bug on this one. That would hopefully also resolve Sascha’s finding as well. /Sidewinder

  91. RodneyLee says:

    “@6 RodneyLee: Is there a jira with this specific issue? /Sidewinder”

    yes, posted it several times, it has claimed to be resolved several times,
    or claimed to be same as another.. something about not aligning to floor, (which seems to be fixed) I reopened a couple days ago

  92. Alisha Matova says:

    Both Jiras You mentioned do concern copy selection. Both have been resolved and should be closed

    Your Hollowed copy selection is different enough to warrant its own Jira, and will receive attention that way.

    Before You do, please read Andrews comments near the bottom of SVC 1178. This explains why We are seeing an overlap when copy selecting more complex prims.

    PS If I open another build related Jira, Simon will kill me =P If after reading Andrews thoughts, You still feel it needs attention, by all means Jira away.

  93. Paeoti Pomeray says:

    Hi Sidewinder.

    Tonight (March 8th) I submitted a ticket to Linden Labs to have one of my sims added to the HAVOCK4 for beta testing. The sim I would
    like to have added is called “LIL STURGIS 1” is sim geared at catering to highly scripted bikes/motorcycles. The traffic is an average of 20K a day and we feel that it is very important at this point to be involved in the beta.

    Im in hopes that the ticket goes through soon. I am leaving you this message just so you will know to be looking for it. If I need to do anything else please let me know.

    Thank you,
    Paeoti Pomeray

  94. Catten Carter says:

    “Thanks for that catchโ€ฆ the fix must work down to a certain avatar mass and then not below that.. Iโ€™ll re-open the internal bug on this one. That would hopefully also resolve Saschaโ€™s finding as well. /Sidewinder”

    Ty for that – otherwise tinies would be sliding everywhere instead of walking (we would have fun doing it though) ๐Ÿ˜€

  95. Greho Otaared says:

    If I may add my two cents to the sim height issue:

    I run a roleplay sim, and some of the roleplay sets are floating buildings and islands in the clouds. (I must also accommodate landowners who want to have skyboxes.) With much higher upper limits on altitude, I can isolate those builds from each other, to really give a sense of a place which is far removed from the world below.

  96. Blinders Off says:

    @ 82 Sidewinder: Hiya. The TP issue I’m talking about is scripted TPs (which basically use the SIT function). Yes, you’re correct, one can TP by entering coordinates into a map. Another even faster way is for a scripted device to offer someone a specific sim URL (taken from the MAP), with which they can go into Chat History and TP in that fashion.

    But what would be nicer would to be able to simply touch a TP device and be ported anywhere within sim limits (in other words, remove the SIT limit or even better, provide a TP-specific script function). Another option would be to add a TP options to the “touch” features of prims (along with a coordinate window). Several ways to do it.

    Since I have your ear for a second (and have tried every other mode of suggestion) if I may, I’d really like to bring up the issue of large prims again. In truth Sidewinder, I have read about every argument on both sides of the issue and it all comes down to the fact that there’s not really a valid reason to prevent large prims (up to 256m… or at the very least 64m). This is especially the case now that Havok 4 is coming in.

    If I may list the pros and cons:

    * Griefers will use them. This is the #1 argument I’ve heard against them. So what should we do… shut down everything in SL that griefers use? What HAVEN’T griefers used on SL? Scripting… building… avatars… chat. If we prevented use of everything that griefers use… we’d be down to a black, empty screen.

    * They cause sim instabilities. Only because LL isn’t currently supporting them properly and people don’t know how to use them properly. Supported and used properly, they cause no problems. I know. We have experimented extensively with them and found NO adverse affects when large prims are used correctly (even under current LL limitations). Those limitations removed and large prims fully supported, there would be no sim stability problems.

    * Large prims cause lag. Uh, no, they don’t. Just the opposite in fact. Reality: it takes a graphics card exactly the same amount of time to render a 1m prim as it does a 10m prim as it does a 100m prims. Same number of vectors. So logically, if I build a 60m square floor, one single prim would take significantly less rendering time than the 36 prims it would otherwise take to build the same floor.

    * Large prims reduce prim count.
    * Large prims render faster than using multiple prims to make the same thing (they “lag” less).
    * They’re much faster to build with.
    * They allow more impressive and interesting builds.
    * They allow building some things that are otherwise prim costly or even impossible to build.

    Why 256m prims? Imagine a sim-sized dome for a “Logan’s Run” simulator. Imagine being able to create a special type of sky using only 2 prims (hollowed cube for the corners and one for the top). Imagine being able to create multiple sim “floors” by using a single 256m flat prim (some sims are already doing this with the existing 256m prim).

    As for griefers using these, simple solution:
    1. Limit the prim size to 256m max.
    2. Provide Estate option to allow large prims to be used only by land owners or group members (thus preventing use– at sim owner’s option) by outsiders / griefers.

    Anyway, I know that’s a little off the side issue, but it directly relates to the increased abilities of Havok 4. Builders have too long been burdened by the 10m prim limit. As I said, we’ve tried every other method to get these incorporated into the system (forums, JIRA, direct contact with Linden Lab) and we always hear the same lame excuses and “old-wive’s-tale” claims.

    The day of the 10m limit is long past due. Time to allow builders some decent power. If you can help with this Sidewinder, I’ll personally post a blog attaboy and pat on the back. : )

  97. U M says:

    Please, Please there are many people asking questens here don`t be a smart *** and think you know everything. Asking Questen is what this blog is about. Now instead of directing your Person problems that you have in rl at people posting on the blog. Why not just keep them to yourself and be a good boy. Your not even worth writing your name or quoting. OH BTW Enjoy your sl life. Its why your here right………………

  98. Winged Heron says:

    I had crash issues from the time I started on SL last year. Then I switched to Windlight in January with mid January – found the crashes were reduce to only highly populated SIMs – since I was “forced” to update the old Windlight to get into SL on Friday – the lag and crashes I have experienced have been the worst since joining SL. I want my last Windlight back ๐Ÿ˜ฅ

  99. Sean Heying says:

    @97 Usagi, in reference to 88 I was being serious and you are being rude in return. Does the problem happen in Havok4 and have you submitted a Jira?

    I ask as I have not seen the behavior you mention unless the landowner forces a landing point, like happens in many malls. That would not be a Havok4 problem.

    There is no reason to be abusive to me.

  100. Domino Marama says:

    Blinders Off said: * Large prims cause lag. Uh, no, they donโ€™t. Just the opposite in fact.

    I’ve recently noticed crazy depth buffers when megaprims are around. There are definately lag spikes when the viewer switches between normal depth buffers and one that seems to be constantly changing. (Client – Render – Show Information – Show Depth Buffer or something like that). A normal depth buffer is virtually black with a touch of red for each layer of transparency as far as I can tell. With a mega prim you get lots of shades of red that are constantly flickering between different values. So there are lag issues that I think are tied to this, the constant flickering seems to slow the viewer slightly, but it’s when you come into range of this effect that things are particularly bad.

  101. candi clawtooth says:

    Winged Heron!!!!! Same here!!!!!!!!! YOu are the first ive heard who had a problem such as mine when i first started on SL …windlight was my savior until i bought a powerful video card (nvidia 8800 GT).

    Then this update happened and now its reminiscent of my first days here , in spite of the good vid card……;o(((.
    Nothing is as bad as my old site was tho…..booted, sometimes 10-15 times a day (everyone not just me ) crashes that lasted hours…..updates you couldnt download!!!!!!

    SL IS A UNIVERSITY OF 3D !!!! my old site was a Kindergarten. thanks SL people for the wonderful world!!!!!!

  102. Sidewinder Linden says:

    @96 Blinders Off:
    Short-Range Teleporters: This has been discussed historically for quite some time. The direct reason why they are not part of this project is that they represent a significant feature expansion, and this is a stability project, not a features project.

    Megaprims: 256m x 256m x 256m megaprims are already allowed!!! I do not understand why at this point you felt the need to write a diatribe justifying their existience. This has been discussed on this blog, and that position published many times over the course of months Megaprims up to that size have been allowed by Havok4 builds for months, and we have published the decision on this many times, in the blog and in office hours:

    Megaprims up to 256m on a side WILL and ARE being allowed to stay, but no new creation or manipulation tools will be added until some other features and related parts are figured out – which will not happen within the context of this project.

    Please contact me in-world for any other extended discussions or off-topic requests. I have demonstrated quite clearly that you are being listened to, and in exchange I ask that you respect the others on this blog – people who do not want to wade through large distractions. My IM is forwarded to email, and many people here will attest that regarldless of your claims to the contrary I am quite available off the blog for discussion.

    Best regards,


  103. Zi Ree says:

    Aww .. So we can only build cubes that are at max 6.35 x 6.35 x 6.35 meters?

    Just kidding, Sidewinder, you probably just mistyped ๐Ÿ˜‰

  104. Sidewinder Linden says:

    @103 Zi: You lost me completely (tries to figure out how to get to 6.35 from 256) :)… Maybe it was the “^3” shorthand for cubed? I’ll remove that… /Sidewinder

  105. Zi Ree says:

    Might be a difference in international notations. we would use 256m^3 for 256 cubic meters and that would be pretty small ๐Ÿ˜‰

  106. Sidewinder Linden says:

    @88 U M: Can you provide an example (specific region and coordinates) where the drop-point is not correct so that I can see what you mean by this? Thanks, Sidewinder

  107. Sidewinder Linden says:

    @105 Zi: Heh – yup… thanks… All fixed now ๐Ÿ™‚

  108. Jen Shikami says:

    How about this one? http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SVC-1658

    We have sold many of these every day for about a year now, so we probably have hundreds if not thousands of people affected. Other similar arcade games (bowling, other skee-type games) would be affected too. We’re getting nervous here. o_o

  109. Sidewinder Linden says:

    @108 Jen: Is this still a problem with the version that we deployed just before the weekend (That bug was entered about a month ago)? In other words if you try this on the currently deployed version is it still broken? If so, please IM me so that we can take a look at the game in operation and better understand the open items. Thanks! /Sidewinder

  110. Sidewinder Linden says:

    @108 Jen: I just tried this machine again, and it does seem to still be having issues, although not quite the same as the original description. I’ll log an internal bug to look at it again. Thanks, Sidewinder

  111. Pointside Sunbleter says:

    SIM CROSSING??!?!?!

    Please tell me that you are *not* going to release the new Havok until sim crossing is fixed in the new havok. If not then whats the point of a shiny new havoc engine with the same old sim crossing nightmare.

    This is one reason I dont log in much, because flying, sailing, racing and horseback riding all the things that used to be really fun were destroyed for me when the sim crossing bug popped up and no matter how many votes it receives, thats just one bug that Linden does not want to tackle.

    Well if not in the new Havok then when??? I have sat by and watch bug after bug get fixed that aren’t nearly as big of a problem and now its more than a year now so I have to ask how many more years do we suffer form the sim crossing bug. Everyone I know sailing groups, racing groups, horseback riding groups have voted to have this bug fixed but it continues to be ignored.

    Please make SL enjoyable again for those of us with these types of hobbies because as it is, there is not much to do in SL. Oh yeah how about a another dance, yippie…

    Well if not in the new Havok then when???

  112. Shanessa Vendetta says:

    I am with Pointside, I have lost the enjoyment in SL sailing now that the sim crossing bug is around. I end up frozen and spinning off into no where and have to relog to actually free myself back up. I hope they will fix this soon, maybe the new Havok is the hope for us yet.

  113. Very Keynes says:

    “As part of this work, weโ€™ve allowed for faster assist speeds (256m/S)” Wow that is close to the speed of sound (344 m/s). You could almost say somthing as you jump off a platform and hit the ground befor it apperas in your chat log ๐Ÿ™‚
    Joking asside, it sounds great, and evverything I have tested is working fine. I look forward to my sim being upgraded.

  114. Krimson Gray says:

    I was simply amused when I fell to the bottom of my sim and bounced, yes bounced, off the ground. Now if I could only figure out what the periodic dips in framerate are attributed to. Still, Havok 4 is performing well enough that I become emo-sad when I teleport to a Havok 1 region. Keep it up!

  115. Argent Stonecutter says:

    Re: the 4096 limit. I was already building at 4000 meters using my Superporter and very careful rezzing. Superporter was able to travel from ground to 4000 meters in about 1s (that’s faster than the shuttle during reentry, though not as fast as the Apollo reentry).

    Personally I’d rather be able to build below zero…


  116. Sidewinder Linden says:

    @111 Pointside and 112 Shanessa: We would all like region crossings to run faster. You specifically point to “the region crossing bug” and I would like to know if this is something new with Havok4, or are you talking about the general speed of region crossings and the issue of having them not work under heavy load? if there is a new region crossing issue with Havok4 that does not exist with the regular “release” simulators please let me know right away.

    By the way, wearing lots of huds during region crossings is one way to make the problem much worse. Just as an experiment, try doing some region crossings with all huds detached and I think you’ll find the experience quite different and much better. If you are in a position where you would like speedy border crossings, you might want to consider which huds are really required and which are not – and detach the ones that are not required, in order to have a better experience.

    Perhaps once the Mono server support is out, and folks rewrite and optimize their huds to take advantage of the Mono environment, the situation will be improved.

    The larger picture behind border crossing is that the limitations are not particularly Havok4 per-se, but more a matter of how fast all the objects and scripts can be serialized (snapshotted and packed up on the server your are leaving) and de-serialized (unpacked on the server handling the region you are arriving into). Efforts to improve that process are not part of the Havok4 project. That does not mean that they will not be undertaken – just that we as the Havok4 team are not working those issues.

    If you have more detailed questions please feel free to IM me off the blog as improving region crossings in general is not part of this project.



  117. Sidewinder Linden says:

    @115 Argent: Basements are an interesting idea (although I cringe at the amazing complexity that might yield for physics and other issues…). Please understand that at this point in the Havok4 project, we are being even more careful to avoid anything that feels like new features… We are working to get this release cleaned up to the point that we can integrate with release and have the Havok4-based simulator be the standard simulator for Second Life. Ideas like this are a major new feature expansion and would have to be part of some new future project…

    Best regards,


    P.S. Please keep the ideas flowing… just understand that our focus at the moment is “get good enough so that this new simulator can be released for use across Second Life, and remove every distraction that could send us down a side-track that is unrelated to that goal” ๐Ÿ™‚

  118. Pointside Sunbelter says:

    @116 Sidewinder Linden
    When I talk about the sim crossing bug. The speed at which one crosses the line, is the smallest of problems. That pause at the line by itself would be welcomed by comparison.

    There are a couple of problems associated with the sim crossing bug that I am referring to:

    One part of this problem is, the “Rubber-banding” effect, which I assume Shanessa Vendetta is also talking about. You cross in a boat, plane, horse or even fly and you get sling-shot into space and the only way to get back usually, is to relog, sometime if you wait it out you come back to yourself. You donโ€™t actually go off world. Only your perception is that you are flying off world but every one else just sees you normally. And you continue to sail into the shore or fly into the sim edge, etc. This happens even with all attachments removed.

    The second part would be the what I call crotch-wigs:
    As any sailor in SL can verify, removing all of your attachments only copes with the fact that if you donโ€™t remove them, they will ALL end up removed from their original attachment points and placed firmly at your crotch. To include your prim *hair*. Which is why most female sailor in a race will be noticeably bald. They either remove their hair ahead of time or its at their crotch.

    But the critical part about sailing is that you desperately need your “Sailing Hud” which gives you wind speed and direction and angle, among other things. You need these in order to race properly because its difficult to place your sail at the correct angle if you donโ€™t know the wind direction (most sailing sims use non-sl wind). But as soon as you cross an ocean sim line your hud will be removed and placed at your crotch and it will reset and lose the current wind speed, angle, etc. Causing you to drop the hud in the water and reload another by typing the “hud” command, only to have it dropped one or two more crossings later. But this is how SL sailors do it, they just deal with it. Which is why I hardly ever sail anymore.

    But I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that the pause at the sim crossing, by itself is no big deal in my opinion. But having to relog if you were about to win a race is very aggravating. (By the way I never win ๐Ÿ™‚ thats just an example)

    The third problem is the client viewer crashing when crossing the line.

  119. Argent Stonecutter says:

    Heh. Don’t worry, that’s a side issue, I guess I’ll have to make a gang script warp mover to keep superporter working.

  120. Pingback: The Grid Live » Second Life News for March 10, 2008

  121. CC says:

    can someone please FIX the EVENTS PAGE

  122. re: max push….

    Can you tell us what the “max push” will be under the new havok 4 system?…I make a security system that has a forcefield in it that relies on a fairly small push…just enough to get someone back off your parcel…

  123. Solitarian Lunasea says:

    I just discovered that in a havok4 sim while flying at higher altitudes, i would continuously fall, despite having scripts that prevent this correctly in non-havok4 sims.

  124. Blinders Off says:

    LOL Sidewinder, you are a piece of cake. Dude, you have a bad habit of telling people what they can and can’t discuss in blogs. I don’t see other Lindens taking that route, and your routine is getting old. No, I don’t wish to discuss things in world with you. Mainly, because I don’t much like your attitude here. And I figure you don’t like mine either. Which is about par for LL attitude. And that’s why people gripe about LL all the time (in case you hadn’t noticed).

    As for megaprims, the reason I brought it up again here is because as you demostrated above, LL doesn’t listen to what we’re saying. I *know* we have megaprims already. Duh. Pretty obvious. What you DON’T have is megaprims that can be stretched and altered just like any other prim. And THAT is what I’m talking about… and if that wasn’t clear, well, that’s why people don’t get along very well with LL.

    Hey, sorry to be so blunt, but you’ve twice rudely answered my factual posts, and frankly guy, that gets old.

  125. Blinders Off says:

    And while I’m at it Sidewinder, one more point, just for the record. In an earlier and equally rude response, you chided me because I mentioned a logical feature for possible implementation in Havok 4 (greater range of avatar sizes). You responded that Linden Lab– as per my request– had decided to stop adding “toys” to Second Life and work on core foundation first.

    Nice typical LL propaganda reply. Can you say “Dazzle”?

    You want to be rude to us, we can lay it on the line. I was fairly friendly in my posts above and your reply was unprofessional and demeaning. We pay your salary bub, not the other way around. And as paying customers if we want to say something on these blogs, so long as it isn’t just totally off the wall… I think we’ve flipping well PAID for that right.

    I haven’t discussed other issues here. I’ve talked about features that might be considered for Havok 4. And I will note that after several days of this blog being posted, it’s still not filled, so I don’t think we’re needlessly wasting space. So you want us to be “respectful” to you… show a little respect for us. WE’RE the customer here.

  126. Zi Ree says:

    In my opinion, Sidewinder is one of the few Lindens who actively monitor and feed their blog postings. I can’t see him being impolite or rude in any way. If you ask m e, keep up the great work you’re doing with Havok 4 and this blog! ๐Ÿ™‚

  127. Sidewinder Linden says:

    @124 Blinders:
    I apologize for whatever it is that you took as rude. What would you have me do differently on this blog in order to not come across that way to you?

    I was providing a direct answer to this comment in your post:
    “Since I have your ear for a second (and have tried every other mode of suggestion) if I may, Iโ€™d really like to bring up the issue of large prims again. In truth Sidewinder, I have read about every argument on both sides of the issue and it all comes down to the fact that thereโ€™s not really a valid reason to prevent large prims (up to 256mโ€ฆ or at the very least 64m). This is especially the case now that Havok 4 is coming in.”

    I answered that we are not preventing large prims of the size you suggested. I also explained that we are not “against” providing tools to support large prims, however I did explain that we will not be adding those tools before we implement a way to handle parcel overlap of large prims.

    I did not chide you about avatar sizes. That is a feature expansion (and I never used the term “toys” to talk about this), and feature expansions are not part of this project. These posts are about the Havok4 project, and this project is not about feature expansions, and has nothing to do with viewer features such as Dazzle. I am commenting about the project that I am involved with, and purposefully not presenting the perception that I have authoritative answers in areas that I do not have direct information.

    I did not, and do not intend to say that Linden Lab is not working on new features. I am saying that this project is fundamentally an infrastructure project, and thus my posts and discussion will not focus on addition of features via the Havok4 project – it is explcitly not the focus of our team’s work at the moment.

    Best regards,


    P.S. I am asking the community to keep posts on topic so that blog slots do not get used up for off-topic discussions, preventing people who want to discuss the Havok4 project from have space to do so here.

  128. Sidewinder Linden says:

    @122 Temporal: I am working on a Havok4 page to capture things such as Max Push and other significant parameters of the new simulator. I was thinking about creating a wiki page outline for comment and expansion by the community, and then filling in the values, as a way of getting this information published. Does that seem like a reasonable plan? /Sidewinder

  129. Sidewinder Linden says:

    @123 Solitarian: I had thought that we had fixed he flight feather related bugs. Which flight script or product are you using, at which altitude, and in which region? Thanks, /Sidewinder

  130. Blinders Off says:

    @ Sidewinder: I’m not going to quote rude posts because I think to most folks, it’s pretty obvious. And also, there was a couple places where I lost my temper and responded in kind. Only difference there is that I’m not a corporate representative. I’m a frustrated bill-paying customer (like many, many others).

    Suggestion (for what it’s worth): if LL is so concerned about the Blog posts reaching their limit before people get to post their “on topic” concerns… then greatly increase (or better… remove) the blog post limit. It’s not like allowing 300 messages instead of 150 is going to destroy your servers. As a simple note, I’m not the only user here who has commented on you chiding users for being “off topic”. It’s kind of a pattern. While I understand where you’re coming from, there’s a simple solution: instead of constantly spanking your customers because you think their posts are “off-topic”… remove the blog limits. Not everyone is aware of the exact area in which you work, the exact subject and limits of blog topics, or what is allowed and disallowed. And no one (especially not paying customers) like being told what they can and can’t say here.

    If people were flaming or using obscene language or just being total trolls, that’s one thing. Someone posting a thoughtful, concerned blog… only to be told it’s a “diatribe” (ok, maybe one rude example) simply doesn’t work. ๐Ÿ˜‰

  131. Blinders Off says:

    (And btw, if I may, instead of considering that post a “diatribe”… why don’t you copy it and pass it on to the parties involved. That’s how a company is supposed to work. “Not my department” is an old, tired and invalid excuse. Everyone in the company should do their best to make things better… and if that means passing on a legitimate piece of feedback outside one’s department, so be it. Thanks.)

  132. Sidewinder Linden says:

    @130 Blinders: Thanks for your comments. I guess I am less concerned about the total number of comments than that folks have to read ‘around’ comments that are not on topic for the primary content of the original post. I have gotten repeated complaints from people on the blog when there is too much off-topic “noise” (not my word -the word used several times by folks who have emailed me off the blog).

    I do pass along commentary to other groups within Linden Lab when they appear on blog posts, regardless of which project they apply to. At the same time I am trying to encourage people to directly communicate with those teams through their posts, office hours or whatever means each team is using to be publicly available. I believe that this creates the best, clearest communication and certainly provides the easiest way to get detailed answers quickly. If that isn’t the case feel free to let me know, and I’d be interested in why, so that whatever is the issue can be improved.



  133. Blinders Off says:

    Durn, a Linden who actually pays attention to customers. You gonna ruin the rep, Sidewinder. ๐Ÿ˜€

    Fair nuff!

    (btw, I do try to keep relatively on topic. Sometimes though, for customers, not being privvy to LL inner circle workings, we don’t know exactly what topic boundaries and subjects are. Which is why a couple users have commented on lightening up on the off-topic thing. I fully agree with you in part… I hate seeing the constant “why haven’t you fixed this and this and this” posts when that has nothing to do with the blog subject. But even those are valuable– for it’s frustrated users replying to LL in the only way they know how. Personally, I think LL would benefit greatly from an easy-to-use “feedback” page and one or two employees to handle and route that feedback. Feedback can be a company’s strongest asset. Although there’s a lot of resultant garbage… it’s sometimes amazing what one insightful customer can discover. Might even save SL’s bacon from time to time). But as far as “off topic”… perhaps “topic” should be a little more widely defined. I know it can be frustrating to LL folks (I wouldn’t want the job) but every legitimate post… whether exactly on-topic or not… has potential value. : )

    Thanks for replying. Agree or disagree, it’s nice to see a Linden willing to wade into the front-line middle of things.

  134. Blinders Off says:

    (after reading back) LOL… “front line middle of things”. Hope that didn’t come across wrong. LOL.

    Meant “front line of things”. Two cliches crashed head on. ๐Ÿ˜€

  135. Abigail Merlin says:

    Did the latest Havok 4 restart put Havok 4 on RC1 or are we talking more in the lines of RC0.fix1? (would not be unlogical seeing the latest fix was not havok 4 related but more general sim related).

  136. Sidewinder Linden says:

    @133/134 Blinders: Thanks Blinders… We (not just me – many folks at Linden Lab) are doing what we can to be attentive. Everyone I know in the company cares deeply about building the best world that we can, and one that supports as many interests and people as possible. It is quite a challenge to try to be attentive to a community of this huge size, and we have to live with the idea that whichever choices we make, not everyone will be happy with them. We do hope to make the wisest choices we can with whatever insights we can gather. I do hope that sometime we can talk in-world. /Sidewinder

  137. Sidewinder Linden says:

    @135 Abigail: The newest restart was not supposed to convert any Havok4 regions to release (Havok1) simulators. If it did, please let me know. You can tell whether a region is running Havok4 by opening Help > About Second Life and looking at the fourth text line. It will say “Havok4 Beta Server” for a Havok4 region.

    We incoprorated a few critical fixes from the release codeline, so that all simulators on Second Life (release and Havok4) would include the same patches. These patches were related to general simulator operation, and not to the physics/Havok4 arena. The deploy just before that also included a couple of important “release simulator fixes” along with our physics bug fixes.

    Just as a bit of background, there are several teams working on simulator (server-side) projects at the same time, along with teams that work on updates for the release simulator. Each of the teams is alerted when a critical fix is made to the release simulator (the one that is operation throughout most of Second Life). All of the teams then include that code fix in our work. This ensures that regardless of the region you are visiting, whether it is a beta level server or release level server, these critical patches are in place. We try to have these updates happen as close to each other in time as possible, but sometimes due to the state of the work on a particular project, it may take a day or two to synchronize the results. For highly critical fixes we “drop everything” and ensure that he patch can be done as close to concurrently as possible.



  138. Pointside Sunbelter says:

    @116 Sindwinder
    @118 Me
    Just curious about the sim crossing bug as discussed in these two post. It would not be a new feature or anything, just a bug fix.

    I realize that this bug is probably a tall order. Either way this bug needs to be addressed relatively soon, at some point. My concern was that another year doesn’t go by before it gets on the bug fix list.

  139. Sidewinder Linden says:

    @138 Pointside: I know that region crossing seems like a bug, but it is really a question of re-architecting how things work through region crossings so that they operate faster (at least if I’m correctly understanding the parts of it that you’re concerned about). The reasons that you see these symptoms are the latency (delay) in completing the handoff of an avatar with lots of scripts running from region to region. There is a certain amount of time involved in snapshotting and moving the avatar and it’s running scripts, and this delay is long enough for an avatar with lots of scripts on a region with significant load, that the simulation has a very noticeable lag until it can catch up “on the other side”.

    There are several ways to improve the hand-off performance, and I’ve heard several teams talking about the possibilities, but that work is a project – not just a bug fix, so it’s not something that can be popped out of the pipeline quickly. The internals of what is required to significantly improve the behavior – as opposed to make some token change, is a big deal in terms of work. It is, however, very clearly something that people are aware of and want to improve. I can’t comment on timelines, since that is not a project that I’m involved with, but will check around.



  140. Pointside Sunbelter says:

    @139 Sidewinder
    I would hope this is considered a valid bug no matter what reason is causing it. I am only saying that when these kinds of weird things happen while operating vehicles then something can be done to fix it.



    Lets take a civil approach to this, let say that it is something to do with speed of scripts from sim to sim as you suspect, then that is what needs to be debugged, you cant just approach it as ” Oh here is the probable reason why these weird crazy symptoms happen so it just seems like a bug when its really a speed issue.”

    This problem is that this bug did not *used* to exist before about version 1.18 or so, therefore when something starts happening because of an update then a *BUG* gets in the system. Sort of like how they just reported that the bug of the avatar only turning half way around while editing appearance is fixed, only after release of the latest update the avatar does not turn around at all. Things like that are going to happen when your dealing with millions of lines of code, its a given.

    Or you could look at it like this:
    Speed of scripts between sims used to get handled just fine and now speed of scripts between sims is not. It is causing extremely unusual client behavior like boats flying off into space, etc. No matter how you slice it… thats got to be considered a bug, or this thing is never going to get fixed. I am not making demands just saying that its about time to start working on it or at least plan on it over the coming months.

    My point is that this isn’t some random occurrence. If you don’t want to take my word for it ask the 1200 members of just one group, Starboard Yacht Club, there are several more boating clubs just as large so you are talking thousands of people experience this everyday, who have all submitted it as a bug and have voted to have it fixed.

    I am just saying that even if the speed of the crossing does not improve then something can be done to stop the boat from flying off into space or attachments going to your crotch and resetting, script speed issue or not. Like I stated before the speed of crossing is not that big of a deal but something can certainly be done to fix the extremely unusual effects, or at least that what I hope.

    I would hope you guys are not going to just dismiss this issue as some sort of unfixable script speed issue. This has to be looked at as a valid bug and after more than a year requires valid attention, or at least in the near future.

    You stated that its not a bug but more like a re-architecting issue well I was hoping you guys would use Havok4 as a good excuse to
    “… re-architecting how things work through region crossings so that they operate faster” Thats all. ๐Ÿ™‚

  141. Sidewinder Linden says:

    @140 Pointside: Have you (or could you if you haven’t) tried sailing region crossings on the course that’s on the Beta Preview, so that we can get a sense of how this behaves on the Havok4-based simulator compared to the Havok1-based simulators on the main Second Life system? /SIdewinder (it may be no different, but this will give a baseline for understanding the situation)

  142. Zi Ree says:

    @140 Pointside Sunbelter: You say, this problem did not exist before 1.18. I can assure you, it has been around ever since I am on SL, and that was by the time of 1.8.x, 2 years ago. Sim crossing always was a problem on crowded or otherwise loaded sims, and the more attachments and scripts were involved, the longer it took to complete the crossing.

Comments are closed.