Incentivise inworld building, reduce land-impact of linked primitives to 0.25Li, and disregard 'mesh accounting' for Torus-type primitives using materials
tracked
Bambi Bubbles
Long lamented on the SL forums, and anyplace SL users congregate, "the death of collaborative inworld building' is seen as a major social issue for many creatives and collaborative efforts.
Reducing the inherent 'land impact' of the 'basic-building-blocks-of-sl' would make prim-building more of a viable activity, both as a social/collaborative outlet in sandboxes and limited impact private builds, but also as a path toward helping new users function in the user-generated-content economy.
A reasonably modeled and textured prim-built end-table will often have many fewer vertices than an imported mesh counterpart, yet through trickery of LOD generation and physics models, the uploaded mesh can achieve land impacts that make the prim-built version completely non-viable in most cases.
Reducing the land impact of primitives also has the upshot of encouraging simple lighting, the placing of more reflection probes, and so on.. which our shared world desperately needs to encourage in a 2026 version of SL, with more and more PBR avatars' butts reflecting the blue sky outside.
Log In
Whirly Fizzle
Spidey Linden I unmerged the issues due to the Discord discussion & comments on this issue.
Discord discussion starts here: https://ptb.discord.com/channels/677442248157167619/968504343911346196/1550240564593696799
Original discussion by Signal here: https://discord.com/channels/677442248157167619/681996155953086516/1353844158749737031
Nexii Malthus
Huh, I have never voted for this issue, whats going on?
Cackle Amore
Honestly I do think this could be a nice feature. Old prim builds do have their charm but they eat up a lot of prim space and I think even a LI reduction can save some of the more complex prim builds from that.
But they can also be handy if you need to add in a extra filler, maybe some mesh parts in a decoration you have isn't fully closing up, then you can pull out a prim to help patch in the hole.
Perhaps your having trouble with getting the physics to work for some structural model, like a building for example. Been a few occasions I've replaced a models included physics with an invisible prim structure around it to be the new physics with the models set to none.
They may not be quite the full prim builds as this idea is being expressed for, but there's a lot of utility benefits to prims li being lowered.
AlettaMondragon Resident
Cackle Amore Are there really a lot of benefits of it? Yes obviously lower LI is better, that's not a problem. The problem is that the way to go forward is mesh, the things you mentioned all come from incompetent people's poorly created mesh. I had to stick things full of prim buffers too because the creators of the mesh items had no idea what they were doing.
By the way the 0.25 LI thing is quite a hoax. It does exist with mesh, but only with a severely reduced lowest LOD factor. For example when I made my own mesh cube to replicate a prim cube, it has the same weights as a prim because the LOD models of my mesh cube are all the base model. If I reduced the low and lowest LOD models to something that isn't a cube, I could get it down to 0.25 LI when linked, but it means the 2 lowest LOD values of the object will be useless. This works with things that don't have to be visible from afar, but not with anything that must stay visible.
I have some prim builds, too, so it's not like thinking of using prims is bad, the problem is to try and prioritize it over proper mesh object creation.
Whirly Fizzle
Spidey Linden I unmerged the issues due to the Discord discussion & comments on this issue.
Discord discussion starts here: https://ptb.discord.com/channels/677442248157167619/968504343911346196/1550240564593696799
Original discussion by Signal here: https://discord.com/channels/677442248157167619/681996155953086516/1353844158749737031
June Starlight
Why was this merged? These are two barely related suggestions and my vote wasn't for this. While I do not oppose to Bambi's suggestion, I do not find it similar enough to justify the merge. And I am not at all happy that my vote was transferred to it without prior notice or me being able to read through this one. Moreover, now instead of considering Bambi's suggestion on its own merit you get about 4 hundred of people being upset about the merge here. Was it worth it?
AlettaMondragon Resident
Maestro Linden could you please take a look at what happened here? The 450 votes were on Signal Linden's mesh LI optimization suggestion, but it was merged into this completely different suggestion today and it merged the votes. Nobody voted for this nonsense prim LI reduction suggestion which was made yesterday! We need Signal's suggestion back separately so we can put our votes back on it. We don't want prims prioritized over mesh, we want a simplified mesh LI calculation and the elimination of the scale and object radius factors.
Light Snacc
What the heck? This isn't what I voted for!
Thornotter Resident
I agree that this is not the right approach and that this issue should have been merged into Signal’s idea, not the other way around.
We should be striving to move to a single, fair, and easy to understand Li accounting system.
Incentivizing legacy non-PBR content without offering the same benefits to high quality, efficient, and visually appealing mesh is incredibly backwards and regressive.
AlettaMondragon Resident
Spidey Linden why did you merge Signal Linden's suggestion into this one when it's completely different? We upvoted that one, not this stupid idea that promotes building with prims like it's 2005.
Shakeno Tomsen
AlettaMondragon Resident Agreed. This ruins my hopes of seeing modular mesh buildings becoming more practical, or solving the unpredictability of LI when it comes to optimizing large builds. Oh well, there it goes I guess...
AlettaMondragon Resident
Shakeno Tomsen This is what happens when LL hires people that can't even read.
Light Snacc
AlettaMondragon Resident Yeah this isn't what I voted for. Merging it feels like it misrepresents why I voted for this in the first place. I'm half tempted to remove the vote simply because of this because now it's torn between two ideas. One that would benefit, the other that wouldn't.
AlettaMondragon Resident
Wow, I don't know why the good one was merged into this one, but I'm removing my vote because this suggestion is completely different. Thanks LL, you're messing up these Canny tickets marvelously.
SL Feedback
updated the status to
tracked
Load More
→