✨ Feature Requests

Second Life presents itself as a creative platform, but the 'Destination Guide' currently surfaces mostly lifestyle‑oriented categories (beaches, clubs, homes, shopping, photogenic regions, etc.). This unintentionally frames SL as a lifestyle simulator for new residents, even though the platform supports far more imaginative and non‑realistic content. There is no clear place in the 'Guide' for: surreal or dreamlike environments, experimental or conceptual builds, impossible architecture, non-realistic worlds, creative experiences that don't fit in existing categories. These spaces do exist in SL, but they're basically invisible to newcomers because the 'Guide' doesn't signal that they're part of the platform's identity. This isn't a criticism of existing categories, just an observation that a major creative segment of SL isn't represented. A few new categories would make the 'Destination Guide' more accurate and more welcoming to the imaginative side of the platform. Thanks!

Please give us more Colour Picker save spaces, which is currently limited to just 32 saved colours. Double it to 64, or perhaps 128, or even 256?! I used up my 32 saved colour spaces years ago and have to physically store my newer colours on physical prims as my "Colour Palette" ! Thanks.

stop me if you've heard this one before... * you send your build to your partner to texture, they send it back all textured. you rez it on the ground to set permissions, but when you pick it up, it is NO COPY to you. * you want to use a particle effect you created for an alt. so you log in to your alt, set it back to full perm (so you think!) and hand it over. when your main links it to a build -- oops, there was a no transfer object inside the prim. now your whole build is NO TRANSFER, and the entire linkset is corrupted and you can't change it. PROPOSED SOLUTION: * when hitting LINK (ctrl-L), pop up a warning if linking this new thing to your build will change the whole build's permissions TO YOU. ie: --linking a no copy object to your build --throwing a no-transfer script or object into the contents etc. * when placing a texture on a build, warn if your texture permissions are NOT FULL PERM. because the texture perms suck. :/ * ditto when trying to throw on a material.

The 'Skin' body part inventory type should support PBR materials. In other words, add PBR to the skin baker. Many of my characters have non-human skins such a fur, scales, metal (robots), stone (statues), wood, or other interesting and fantastical materials. Opening up avatars to PBR materials would allow these to be used directly without relying on appliers. As an initial release, PBR could be added to just the "skin" rather than clothes, tattoos, and the 'universal' clothing type. Any "legacy" clothing worn layers worn over top would be treated as "Base Color" and set the normal, roughness, metalness, occlusion, and emissive maps to "default" values (where not transparent) so the skin material doesn't shine through. Alternately, PBR skins could disable all legacy clothing. Whatever gets us PBR skins fastest. Later on, PBR clothing could be added with different blend modes. A "robotic" or "doll" tattoo, for example, could blend a normal map onto the skin to create different looks for the base skin.

Some of the library plants created by Eric Linden track the terrain, for example Leafy ground cover Grass - short 1 Grass - short 2 Grass - tall 1 Grass - tall 2 The above also track the terrain as it is moved, which is simply fabulous. I believe it would be a useful feature to allow the creation of custom ground cover that was able to use this system rather than the current mechanism of having to manually create a mesh that follows the contours only to have to re-do or hack something else in if the land needs to be changed. I'll admit I was 6001 days old before I realised this when I decided to decorate some ground with Linden plants to match the surroundings!

I’d like to know if there is currently any way to link CasperVend vendors with Marketplace listings — meaning, when I add a new product to the Second Life Marketplace, it would automatically appear in one or more of my CasperVend inworld vendors. My idea is to create an inworld gallery-style store, where all products available on the Marketplace are also visibly displayed inworld using CasperVend vendors. Ideally, I’d love to be able to: 💡 Automatically sync my Marketplace inventory with selected CasperVend vendors. 💡 Choose which products appear on each vendor (e.g., categorizing them by theme, product type, etc.). 💡 Allow customers to buy directly from the vendor inworld, while still being counted as a Marketplace sale (or at least maintaining stock/pricing consistency). Why this would be useful: 💡 Creators wouldn’t have to duplicate every product manually between the Marketplace and inworld stores. 💡 Promotes better inworld shopping experiences, while benefiting from Marketplace organization. 💡 Keeps product info, prices, and availability consistent across platforms. 💡 Encourages hybrid shopping behavior — browsing inworld, buying wherever is more convenient. 💡 Saves time for merchants who manage large catalogs. If something like this already exists, I’d appreciate some guidance on how to set it up. If not, I think it could be a powerful feature worth considering for future development, especially as Second Life continues to support both inworld and web-based commerce. ♥ Thank you! ♥

Now that we just got Water Exclusion Surface objects it would be desirable if we could also have Exclusion for terrain. This would make it possible to visually have builds below the terrain surface.

The Second Life inventory library only contains 'legacy' environment settings. As a parcel owner, I have no way to change my parcel's day cycle to the "new default" that was added as part of the PBR release - only region owners can do that. Could the new environments, such as the "PBR Mid day" and the new PBR default day cycle be added as full permission resources in the SL library? That would allow us to more easily take the "new default" and make minor adjustments instead of starting from scratch.

Currently each mesh object can have 8 faces. However, if I link 255 together, that is effectively 8 * 255 = 2040 faces in that linkset. I think there would a lot of benefit if a single object could have a maximum of 2040 faces but be unlinkable or a linkset could be comprised of objects with more than 8 faces as long as the current maximum number of faces per linkset is not exceeded. This would give us more flexibility in structuring our mesh objects and give us the ability to eliminate workarounds that are inefficient. If the user tries to link another object into a linkset which would exceed the total number of faces for the entire linkset, then it would fail to link in the same way it fails to link if you try to link more than 255 objects together. Examples: * 1 object could have a maximum number of 2040 faces but then could not be linked to another object. * 5 objects could have 16 faces and another 20 objects could have 4 faces for a total of 160 faces which could all be linked and is equivalent to 20 objects in a linkset each with 8 faces. One area where this could be a benefit is mesh bodies with alpha cuts. Today they are linksets of about 25 objects so that there are about 200 faces for enough cuts. Each object brings extra overheads as well as the faces. With the scheme I outline here, one object would be able to have 200 faces and so a mesh body would not have to be cut up and linked. It would still be more efficient than a 25 object linkset. There are many other applications which would benefit from this scheme. NOTE#1: It may seem open to abuse to allow a single unlinked object to have this many faces but in reality if someone wanted that many faces today, they already could and the 255 object linkset would be far worse than a single object with the same amount of faces. NOTE#2: Obviously the number of total faces per object wouldn't have to be that high. There would still be a lot of benefit. The point is in adding the flexibility rather than what the actual per object maximum should be.

Can we possibly get the ability to use Linden water, or its unique visuals, on surfaces such as a prim in the future? Existing attempts at prim water are decent, but all lack the distortion element provided by the Linden water which adds immersion and realism.