Kick a Linden in the junk archive at Daikon Forge

Archive for the 'Kick a Linden in the junk' Category Page 2 of 3

Kelly Linden : SVC-1648 is now [Fixed Internally]

Apr
23
2008 in Kick a Linden in the junk, JIRA, Bug Reports and C:SI.

Closed

Hot on the heels of yesterday’s announcement that Kelly Linden had been working on a fix for SVC-1648 ("The Kick Bug"), and my reply to his request for feedback on the proposed fix, he left the following comment :

Kelly Linden said…

Ok, I’m gonna move on then and consider this ‘fixed internally’. I’ll try and remember to update here when this code gets put on the beta grid to get more feedback, but watch the blog posts for it in case I forget.

This will *not* be in the next release (1.21, planned for this week hopefully), but should I hope be in the next server update after that.

This is great. It will still require an update on all C:SI weapons to fully restore the kick functionality, as we will have to increase push power a bit to compensate for the reduced push in Havok 4, but I’m sure a great many people will be happy to hear this news.

I would have reported on this yesterday, which is when Kelly Linden actually replied, but I seem to have been taken off of the watch list and even though I’ve re-added myself I no longer receive any JIRA updates. I must have annoyed someone over at "The Lab"

Popularity: 25% [?]

Share This

Kelly Linden gives hope with a reply to SVC-1648

Apr
22
2008 in Kick a Linden in the junk, JIRA, Bug Reports, C:SI and Second Life.

8 Comments

200px-Tkddemonstration Aimee pointed out on a comment to my blog today about the fact that Kelly Linden has finally posted a follow-up comment on the SVC-1648 PJira issue (colloquially known as "The Kick Bug" to us C:SI fans) :

Kelly Linden said:

I believe I have a fix for the horizontal component of the push not happening. In short the friction keeping an avatar from sliding downhill was just too much for the push to overcome. We had this problem with forces from attachments before (among other things) and fixed it specifically for attachments. I have adjusted the model used for external forces to match how we do attachments (give or take some anti-gravity specific hacks) and it looks much better.

However, when comparing to havok1 the push is still only about 75% the force in havok4. Specifically in the script you gave me, if I adjust the version in havok1 to have a basepow of 15 (instead of 20) the pushes look about the same. Conversely increasing the basepow on the havok4 version to ~26 seems to be pretty close.

Due to the nature of this function - how finicky it is, that I know there are some things with too much push and that it is already live in its current version - I’m tempted to just fix what I already have - the horizontal component change - and leave it with the reduced force.

Thoughts? Curses? Flames?

This is Good News™, because the horizontal component of the push was the part that was really the sticking point for us to create our own reliable and consistent workaround. With that part [Resolved], we can certainly increase the push power to compensate for the reduced push efficiency, and then Shindo won’t have to "kick a Linden in the junk."

That bit of news has made my day much better

Popularity: 29% [?]

Share This

[Resolved] Avatar Jump Height SVC-1975

Apr
18
2008 in Kick a Linden in the junk, Bug Reports, C:SI and Second Life.

3 Comments

For those of you not following the JIRA issues that are related to C:SI, I wanted to just quickly point out that Andrew Linden has indicated that a fix is in the works for the inability to jump as high under Havok 4 as you could in Havok 1, and seems likely to be released in the near future (emphasis added) :

Andrew Linden said…

The simple formula for peak height of a projectile in uniform gravity is:

h = (Vo)^2 / (2 * gravity)

Where Vo = initial velocity
Solving for Vo we get:

Vo = sqrt( 2 * gravity * h)

The ratio of Vo1 by Vo4 is:

Vo1 / Vo4 = sqrt( h1 / h4 )

Solving for Vo1 we get:

Vo1 = Vo4 * sqrt( h1 / h4)

Putting in the numbers:

Vo1 = Vo4 * sqrt( 3.967 / 2.80 ) = Vo4 * 1.19

So, the impulse velocity of jump needs to be increased by a factor of about 1.19.

I scaled the avatar jump impulse by the value above and it worked perfectly. However, the fix won’t be deployed until next week at the earliest.

While I’m sure we’d all like to see fixes for other important issues such as the kick problem, it’s good to see that they are at least working on some of the Havok 4 bugs that are causing us headaches.

I would like to encourage everyone who has not yet done so to head over to JIRA SVC-1648 and vote for the kick problem to be fixed, and explain to "The Lab" in comments why you think they should give the problem some consideration and assign developer time to fixing it.

Popularity: 23% [?]

Share This

Havok 4 to be deployed on Monday

Mar
29
2008 in Havok 4, Kick a Linden in the junk, Bug Reports, C:SI, WTF and Second Life.

17 Comments

Yup, the rumor is true, Havok 4 is to be deployed grid-wide on Monday and Tuesday.

It does not appear that any of the bugs affecting C:SI will be fixed by then, and Linden Lab knows that they are releasing a physics server with many significant changes :

Sidewinder Linden Says:
March 29th, 2008 at 12:33 PM

Please remember - we are here and will be here - we know that you will find some things that behave differently with this version. We will be fixing critical issues as they are raised, and issuing updates as necessary in the short term. Thanks for all of your support! /Sidewinder

Apparently the consideration of whether Havok 4 is more stable than the current simulator code is more important than whether it will break existing content :

As part of our continued effort to increase the stability and reliability of Second Life, we are happy to announce a new simulator that significantly reduces region crashes. This release is the result of the Havok™4 project, a project that updated the physics engine used to determine all movement of objects in Second Life.

….

The Linden Lab Havok4 team will continue to review open issues and work on critical bugs after the release. We know that you will find things that still need attention, and we fully expect that we will continue to do fixes and updates in the period following the release.

With all of the down-time, the almost daily problems with transactions for the last couple of weeks, and everything that has been going horribly wrong lately, I might actually agree with them on that. I’m not terribly thrilled at being a content creator that will have to field questions and provide support for now-broken products, but this may provide some much-needed stability for everyone in general.

In any case, I am certainly very glad that I’m not the one in charge of making this decision.

Popularity: 41% [?]

Share This