✨ Feature Requests

This has been the case from the beginning. On a standard prim, the maximum hollow percentage is 95. This leaves a shell that is simply TOO THICK. Please, please change that arbitrary 95 to 99. It will make a big difference in viable objects and build attractiveness.

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.

Note: I know this was suggested before and it's tracked. I know this will be merged. That's okay, I wanted to give more suggestions on implementation and answer "why" beyond that it would just be a nice feature. Problem: You don't want to see stuff made by a certain creator on the marketplace. There may be a variety of reasons for this. Here are a few examples. You have the shop owner in game block due to harassment, drama, or other personal reasons and don't want to accidentally give this person money. The vendor is selling rips. The seller has a business model you don't want to support. Maybe you don't want to buy clothes that are no mod, maybe they have shady business practices that involve over-editing their ads, or using AI on their ads resulting in false advertising. Maybe the seller's content makes you deeply uncomfortable such as selling adult products but the models scream childlike and you don't want to see that. The seller is flooding the marketplace with thousands of generative AI textures to make a quick buck, making it impossible to find high quality textures. This is a growing problem that needs urgent addressing. Solution: Allow us to block the shop and/or the owner of the shop. Owner might be better in case the marketplace someday expands to let a single user have more than one storefront. Or both. Blocking a particular product may also have its place. Implementation: Beneath the flag listing link there would be additional links: Block this shop Behavior: Browsing and searching omits all products from the store. Adds shop to a block list. They can be removed from block list if needed. Block this seller (<--- Alternative, or TBI if multiple storefronts ever becomes a thing.) Behavior: Browsing and searching omit all products from any and all products from the store. A popup that asks, "Do you want to block this person from your shop as well?" may be a good move in some circumstances. They can be removed from block list if needed. Hide Product Behavior: Omits an individual product from search and browsing. Unhide Product Behavior: Removes product from hide. How would you find a listing if it was hidden? Give people a checkbook to show hidden products in search and browse. By giving us the tools to better curate our experience with the marketplace you will empower users to find what they want without having to wade through things they don't want to see, increasing the likelihood of them spending money instead of getting frustrated and giving up on the search.

Allow the ability to edit the size of existing megaprims to smaller megaprims. Sometimes all that is needed is to chop-off 0.5 meters in one direction. And Also allow that if, say, the 0.5 meters was too much, to allow increasing it back up fractionally (decimally) to the original size. Instead of any deviation causing it to snap-rubber-band down to some default maximum prim size.

In these days of cloud computing, and fast processors, I think it's time to rethink the current prim limits and maybe reconsider how they're allotted. Instead, of the current hardline limits for each parcel size I propose: 1) Each land parcel retains its current object limit with no changes to how objects are rezzed, counted, or returned. 2) Once the current limit is reached (item #175 on a 512 parcel) rezzing each additional object will cost 1 Linden, up to a predetermined number of additional objects (maybe another 350?). Once the items are picked up or returned, the L's return to the owner's account. 3) Once that additional limit is reached, rezzing each item will cost even more; say 2 Lindens each. I'll leave it to you to decide if that's the final amount, or if you want to add another tier that costs even more. Either way, the L's should be returned when the item is picked up. Here are my reasons: I've been in SL for more years than I care to admit, and during that time I've bought some truly awesome items. I spend a LOT of money here when I'm actively playing (okay, so that's relative; a lot to me may be pocket change to you, but regardless, I spend real money here). I see stuff, I buy stuff -far more and more often than I purchase in real life. Then....well, I carry the stuff around. I love it too much to delete it, but I can't USE it because I rarely have enough land. When I buy a parcel, I have to decide if I'm going to have nice landscaping or nice furniture -never mind I have both or am willing to pay for both. I have to decide if I'm going to set up shop or a workshop. Even a huge parcel often doesn't allow enough objects to build nice jewelry and have a good photography studio, too. Add the shop and vendors...and well, no prims left for bumper cars or horseback riding which is often what brings the visitors who become customers. I don't think I'm alone in getting frustrated with this. As the SL world grows ever more commerce-centric and mesh is allowing greater and greater creative freedom, I think more and more people want to be able to rez and use the awesome items they're able to buy, without having to constantly pick up their sofas so they can rez their rocket ships. This fantasy world offers so many attractions but USING them is so limited. :( Now, I realize part of SL's revenues (or maybe most of it?) comes from tier payments on ever-larger tracts of land for those who wish to build their dream homes while making or selling items, also. But I don't think having a higher prim limit will prevent people buying land tracts any more than it does in real life -even factoring in temp rezzed scenes and sky builds. I think people will continue to buy land...though many may buy smaller tracts. I, personally, would like to keep my home and my shop on two separate places. I'd like to be able to split up my land allotment amongst multiple tracts on multiple regions and be able to make each one as beautiful and comfortable as they can be -and in that regard SL can be gorgeous. I'd like to be able to call one place "home", and another place "work"; but "work" often requires a huge parcel so buying another makes the tier prohibitively expensive. This could be fixed by eliminating the object limits. Those who wish to put up motorcycle courses or horseback riding areas are going to need more area; whether all in one place or with portals leading to multiple parcels. In those cases, I think being able to do several things with a larger parcel would more of a draw. I believe it would offer newcomers or those who have been on the fence more reasons to take the plunge and buy a place. I think even more people will be interested in learning to build stuff if they don't have to constantly make choices during construction based on the object limits, and I'm almost certain far more people will buy land parcels if they really are able to build the world of their dreams on it without breaking the real life bank for high tier payments if they're not investing with the hope of some kind of return other than just sheer enjoyment. Now, I know all about rentals and sandboxes and temp-rezzing, etc. I know limits lead to creative solutions, and I think if rezzing additional objects temporarily costs a bit o'cash, it will continue to encourage builders to keep the limits in mind and discourage people from disgorging their entire inventories for the world to see, although some might. I do suspect implementing my ideas will lead to a rise in the purchase of castles and luxury homes and such! As long as people are sure they will get their L's back, they won't hesitate to buy -and rez- really beautiful builds that will make SL a truly gorgeous and lush place. Thank-you for reading this, I really didn't intend to write a book.... Thanks for your time and thank-you in advance for your consideration.

As a creator of buildings of all shapes it would be great if we had the option of making custom shaped Probes and even a Triangle as an addtion to the sphere and box shaped ones.

Some kind of cloth simulation would be great, I think everyone agrees on that. Except that it's computationally very expensive, and while it's practical in a game where you've only got one main character and care can be taken to avoid much simulation happening at any one time, SL needs to render up to a hundred (sometimes more) "main characters" at a time. There's already a feature request in for some kind of cloth simulation tracked here: https://feedback.secondlife.com/feature-requests/p/weighted-clothing-material-with-collision -- in the thread people have discussed some things like collision volumes to stop the mesh intersecting, which was always a problem with the old flexi solutions too. All these things would be great, but maybe there's a computationally cheap way we can at least get part of the way? People have tried things using spare bento bones and animating, but that doesn't coincide with actual avatar movements, so it's really no more than a gimmick. I admit this is a bit beyond my wheelhouse, but I had a crazy idea, spoke to a few people about it, and they seem to find it intriguing, so I'm bringing it here. I call it "Velocity Bones". Imagine we have an extra (or maybe a few) bone in the skeleton, which mirrors existing bones, but all motion is delayed . When you move your avatar, the velocity bone starts moving a second behind the rest of your avatar, and stops moving a second after it. When you play an animation, the velocity bones will animate as per their mirror bones, but start a second later. This gives a bone that rigged mesh can be weighed to, which will be where you just were a second ago, and catch up with you when you come to rest. For example, imagine a ponytail with the end of the tail weighted to this velocity bone. You move left, the ponytail will trail to the right. You stop, the end of the tail catches up with you. You jump down from something, it bounces upwards. You dance, the end of the tail takes a little time to catch up with the top of the tail, giving a basic simulation of inertia. This doesn't solve collision problems, doesn't allow for things being moved by wind, but otherwise could provide us with something akin to what people used to use flexi for with attachments. We could have a cape flowing behind us, that moves dynamically as we fly. We could have moving hair. Clever people might even be able to put a bit of reasonably convincing movement into a dress with it. Best of all, it should be pretty computationally cheap. As I say it's beyond my technical wheelhouse -- I'm not sure how practical it would be to split-animate a skeleton in this way. However people have been crying out for flexi mesh or something for years, and since the idea occurred to me I thought I'd throw it out there and see if it gets any traction.

Mesh levels of detail (LODs) are an important part of keeping the world of Second Life (and other 3D software and games) from becoming too graphically demanding on the variety of devices that run it. Different LODs are selected to be rendered by the viewer based on distance from the camera, scaled with the appropriate LOD distance factor in graphics settings. The problem: Creators are penalized with higher upload fees for creating proper mesh LODs, and users are penalized with higher land impact for using those meshes on their land Mesh involves two costs, upload fees and land impact, which affect both the creator and the end user. Many mesh creators upload their creations with great detail on the highest LOD, but then cripple their lower LODs to as few triangles as possible to reduce these costs. While this results in higher quality mesh compared to a mesh made with proper LODs at the same costs, it also increases the processing power needed to render the scene and causes the mesh to crumple or almost completely vanish when medium or lower LOD is rendered, most notably on lower-end PCs. This problem and workaround have irreversibly damaged our ecosystem, and for years now creators have crippled their own creations and told users to raise their graphics settings to compensate. With SL21B going on right now, and a recent Firestorm viewer update that automatically changed graphics settings on first launch, I saw a handful of shops with signs telling Firestorm users to raise their object LOD distance factor to maximum. This is not a good solution. There is also an ongoing bug in Firestorm that complicates this problem. When moving the camera around in Firestorm, objects worn by avatars (including the user's own avatar) sometimes remain in lower LODs even when moving the camera very close to them, and this requires the user to right-click the incorrectly-rendered avatar and reset their mesh LOD. Suggestion 1: Upload fees and land impact should be based on the LOD with the highest byte count To encourage use of proper mesh LODs, both the upload fee and the land impact (download weight) should be based on solely the highest byte count of the LODs provided, instead of the weighted average currently implemented . Suggestion 2: Restructure upload fees to encourage correct use of LODs For each LOD, the general guideline is that the triangle count should be roughly 25% to 50% of the next higher LOD. The upload fee and land impact should not increase if the byte count of each LOD is less than half (or one quarter?) of the byte count of the LOD above it. The upload fee and land impact should remain unchanged from the current implementation otherwise. Suggestion 3: Penalize misuse of LODs Conversely, the upload fee (but not the land impact) should be increased if the uploader is deliberately crippling LODs to try to game the system. Crippled LODs are obvious when the triangle count of the highest LOD is in the (tens of) thousands but medium and lower LODs are two digits or less, with the expectation that users will raise their graphics settings in order to see the mesh as the creator wants it to be seen.

Add support for basic mesh import using GLTF by allowing the Second Life viewer to select GLTF content and converting it to SL's internal mesh format, similar to how Collada (DAE) import works now. This simplified approach will be easier to implement than larger GLTF initiatives which involve implementing scene hierarchy to Second Life, UDP protocol changes, physics extensions, additions to the SL asset system, etc. While not perfect, it will allow much simpler content, and provide a good stepping stone for future enhancements. Suggestions: Allow the viewer to select a *.glb or *.gltf file when uploading a model Preview this mesh in the mesh preview window Detail PBR materials that will be imported (+ include their cost in the calculator) Multi-object scenes should be imported as a coalesced object, similar to Collada

We can with regular prim but attempting to drop mesh from attach results in an error