Simplify Land Impact Calculation
planned
Signal Linden
Simplify the calculation of Land Impact (LI) by eliminating all relevance of object scale on LI. It is highly confusing that the size of an object impacts its LI, especially when an object switches from old to new accounting methods, suddenly becoming much more expensive LI-wise than it was previously.
Context
Second Life has two methods of calculating the LI of content:
- "Old" style
Basic prims with blinn phong materials are counted using the original LI method: 1 prim = 1 LI.
- "New" style (Mesh and Material Calculations)
Mesh content and objects with new-style PBR materials use a newer style of accounting that takes many things into account, including object scale, download size, etc.
- Download weight
- Physics weight
- Server weight
- Display weight
Solution
Let's err towards simplicity here:
- Eliminate impact of scale on LI
The goal should be that users should not be surprised when working with LI. Eliminating the scale from the calculation would mean that LI would not wildly vary based on the size of an object. This should make the accounting system much less variable and confusing.
Links
Log In
Rosa Hexem
my hope for this has increased 10 fold now i finally am seeing the out of pocket contrarian takes from people who don't get it, which is like the hallmark of a good feature, or from people who are arguing against it but by complaining about some other thing which is, like, ok
Lucifera Morningstar
Gonna say I'm against it. Especially given that more often than not, LI changes with scale due to poorly-implemented physics, in my observation. Watched a friend resize a mesh boulder, LI jumped up, but when I rightclicked > edit > more info, it was the PHYSICS weight that jumped up by orders of magnitude.
Daniele Tatham
I'm absolutely against it.
Reason: I've studied the current model, and it has a lot of advantages!
Once you combine the right parts, you can drastically reduce the LI!
I was able to reduce the over 500 regular LI on my Linden Home, through clever combinations, to well below the maximum permitted 351 LI. Even so much that I was able to rez my sailboat if I wanted to.
Nevertheless, I agree with you: the current system is far too complicated and should be simplified considerably.
Mari Moonbeam
So will items currently rezzed in world change impact UPWARD and then we'll lose the latest rezzed item on parcel to autoreturn?
Many No copy gacha items are detailed and we've sized them down - is there a risk they get bounced if impact rises and then are lost?
I shop, not build ,so keeping my places happy are my current and future focus.
Tech Robonaught
As a counterpoint ... cap avatar height to 6.5 feet. 8 foot avatars need bigger EVERYTHING and that uses more Land impact. Sometimes I think by design.
Allegory Malaprop
Signal, I'm sure you know and this was an oversight and sorry to be pedantic but it shouldn't be spread erroneously, Blinn-Phong materials-
materials
- do in fact switch an object to the new mesh accounting system. Specular and/or custom Normals, pre PBR, do change traditional prims and sculpted prims to use mesh calculations, for good or ill. (Plan ahead accordingly on your linkset, it can even be for good, though there are of course other ways to flip accounting systems as well.)IF, and it's a huge IF, this doesn't blow up the LI on anything on the smaller side that's rezzed, yes. If it does, well, you've just wrecked a bunch of regions. It may not be great practice (I have Opinions, but let's just not), but small scale detailed rezzables have absolutely been incentivized over large scale builds when it comes to mesh, from day 1. You're also not
entirely
throwing out Download as a calculation entirely if you remove scale and respect small costs...but you pretty much are.But also, I have to laugh- "The goal should be that users should not be surprised when working with LI"- LI by scale is SO MUCH MORE PREDICTABLE than PHYSICS LI. I can make educated guessed on LI by scale and I'm usually in the ballpark. Physics LI doesn't report itself correctly in the uploader, is a complete and total mystery with Analyze, and has the wonderful??? effect of often reducing physics LI when you make an object
larger
...and I'm not even going to get into the .5m issue or DOOR PHYSICS /cry. (Now, Physics working the scale to LI way it does actually makes logical sense except
the uploader gives zero clues what is going to happen, you have to actually uploaded an object and set it to the correct Physics, at the correct scale, to know what it actually will do. And that goes double for knowing when to use Analyze. I always figured the LI scale thing was a tradeoff because things would be visible, and therefore load, at higher LODs from father away, as LOD is more or less based on the size of the object on the users screen.)Tech Robonaught
Allegory Malaprop I've not once seen PBR increase a builds land impact.
misstoriblack Resident
No just no ! ... Let the Land impact be more explicit sure. But no simplification is needed. It will break existing lands
misstoriblack Resident
This brings NOTHING but trouble.
By removing the scale, you remove the ONLY ability for users to lower the Land impact of an object. You're breaking years of work for some.
If you want to simplify the Land Impact system, remove the legacy 1 prim = 1Li and compute everything with the new system which is more than fine.
misstoriblack Resident
maybe a more fair way to compute Li would actually be to not take the biggest value but the average of the 3 values : download, server and physics
Arwyn Quandry
No! I love being about to resize items to get a lower LI! This would utterly f up my builds!
Rosa Hexem
i hadn't even considered that this might punish poorly optimized assets that only pass because of some kind of negative multiplier based on scale but still cause performance issues
bueno >:)
Jamesp1989 Resident
Arwyn Quandry they are removing scale from the equation. Meaning an object wont have extra li for being bigger.
squidpaladin Resident
Jamesp1989 Resident which also means you cannot make a larger object smaller to save on LI costs though...
Miles Doge
Yes PLEASE. I always thought it was silly scale was a factor in all of this.
misstoriblack Resident
Miles Doge This works both ways, you wont be able to optimize things by scaling them down.
Cain Maven
This would be awesome! The size consideration have always been a complication that I would love to be without :)
misstoriblack Resident
Cain Maven Involving scale is 100% fine, it should be the average of the values instead of taking the biggest one. This way, impactful object cost more. BUT less than before.
Load More
→