Uploaded image for project: 'Firestorm'
  1. Firestorm
  2. FIRE-10718

Remove FS bridge component that enables double click teleport in forced LZ sims

    Details

    • Type: Improvement
    • Status: Passed QA
    • Priority: Major
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Affects Version/s: Phoenix Firestorm 4.4.0
    • Fix Version/s: Phoenix Firestorm 4.6.0
    • Component/s: None
    • Labels:
      None
    • Environment:
      FS (any version) and PHX with bridge worn and enabled on a sim with forced LZ or block teleport settings in parcel details.
    • SL Avatar Name:
      disisme Misfit
    • Reported In:
      Firestorm 4.4.0.33720‏ SSA Release

      Description

      the FS bridge currently enables users to bypass a forced LZs hold on them. A user, once landing in the sim, can double click teleport to any other location in the sim, thus opening an exploit by allowing them to bypass things like script limitation boxes. Also, in the rare situation where the double click fails, if the user simply re-teleports to the LM they landed on (not LZ), it takes the avi to the DC location, NOT the forced LZ. This is a major security hole opening exploits that allow users to bypass a sim owners entry conditions.

        Issue Links

          Activity

          Hide
          pudenta Pudenta Magic added a comment -

          It may simply be their sim, but I was given an LM, it landed me as expected. I attempted a double-click TP (DCTP) ... my avatar moved, but was given a message that it was ".. unable to locate a destination .. "

          http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Kirsi/81/184/427
          Sim is not parcelled

          Landing point set, designated Landing point .. above results
          Landing point set, designated as Blocked .. same results

          (There have been many sims I've visited where the landing point is fixed and attempts to DCTP failed, normally returning me to the LP, so I don't know why this is happening. I thought the ability to override parcel settings with TCTP had been disabled)

          Show
          pudenta Pudenta Magic added a comment - It may simply be their sim, but I was given an LM, it landed me as expected. I attempted a double-click TP (DCTP) ... my avatar moved, but was given a message that it was ".. unable to locate a destination .. " http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Kirsi/81/184/427 Sim is not parcelled Landing point set, designated Landing point .. above results Landing point set, designated as Blocked .. same results (There have been many sims I've visited where the landing point is fixed and attempts to DCTP failed, normally returning me to the LP, so I don't know why this is happening. I thought the ability to override parcel settings with TCTP had been disabled)
          Hide
          tonya Tonya Souther added a comment -

          The message about "unable to locate a destination" is a bug we've been working on fixing. It shouldn't do that.

          As for the original report, Firestorm is working as designed. The ability to double-click teleport was a requested feature, and carried over from Phoenix. We need more than a few isolated complaints from those who attempt to enforce limits without an understanding of the way the system works to justify removing it again.

          Show
          tonya Tonya Souther added a comment - The message about "unable to locate a destination" is a bug we've been working on fixing. It shouldn't do that. As for the original report, Firestorm is working as designed. The ability to double-click teleport was a requested feature, and carried over from Phoenix. We need more than a few isolated complaints from those who attempt to enforce limits without an understanding of the way the system works to justify removing it again.
          Hide
          disisme misfit irrelevant added a comment -

          So based on user request to enable an exploit, you arbitrarily override a sim setting introduced by LL as a security measure and have no intent of removing it. Did I read that right?

          Show
          disisme misfit irrelevant added a comment - So based on user request to enable an exploit, you arbitrarily override a sim setting introduced by LL as a security measure and have no intent of removing it. Did I read that right?
          Hide
          ansariel.hiller Ansariel Hiller added a comment - - edited

          There is no exploit. You cannot directly bypass the restrictions set by the simulator. If a landing point is set, you will always end up there first. The rest is a simply LSL move operation that neither can bypass any security restrictions. If you consider script counters as security device: They're not.

          Show
          ansariel.hiller Ansariel Hiller added a comment - - edited There is no exploit. You cannot directly bypass the restrictions set by the simulator. If a landing point is set, you will always end up there first. The rest is a simply LSL move operation that neither can bypass any security restrictions. If you consider script counters as security device: They're not.
          Hide
          tonya Tonya Souther added a comment -

          Security measure? What security measure is that?

          The bridge provides nothing that the user can't get on his own. All it does is use the existing scripting to make life a bit easier.

          If you're looking to enforce arbitrary script limits, even though doing so has no real effect on lag, then I suggest you investigate a limiter that does not depend on the avatar being at a particular location to enable the check. Yes, it is possible.

          Show
          tonya Tonya Souther added a comment - Security measure? What security measure is that? The bridge provides nothing that the user can't get on his own. All it does is use the existing scripting to make life a bit easier. If you're looking to enforce arbitrary script limits, even though doing so has no real effect on lag, then I suggest you investigate a limiter that does not depend on the avatar being at a particular location to enable the check. Yes, it is possible.
          Hide
          hopedreier Hope Dreier added a comment -

          Disi, you seem to have EM privileges on your region, this allows you to override the LZ on Double click TP. I find that as a Normal user I end up at the LZ for the region in question. I tried this both in Sardar (LZ is the Market) and Valkyrie Forest (LZ is also in the market).

          Show
          hopedreier Hope Dreier added a comment - Disi, you seem to have EM privileges on your region, this allows you to override the LZ on Double click TP. I find that as a Normal user I end up at the LZ for the region in question. I tried this both in Sardar (LZ is the Market) and Valkyrie Forest (LZ is also in the market).
          Hide
          whirly.fizzle Whirly Fizzle added a comment -

          This feature has been removed in rev 40269 (http://hg.phoenixviewer.com/phoenix-firestorm-lgpl/rev/3b5bf9c5d4f3).
          In the 4.6.1 release of Firestorm you will no longer be able double click teleport about a region that has a forced landing point set. Attempting to do so will just throw you back to the landing point.

          For those of you unhappy about this, I am afraid we had no choice to remove this feature. The removal was requested by Linden Lab in response to compaints such as this one.

          Show
          whirly.fizzle Whirly Fizzle added a comment - This feature has been removed in rev 40269 ( http://hg.phoenixviewer.com/phoenix-firestorm-lgpl/rev/3b5bf9c5d4f3 ). In the 4.6.1 release of Firestorm you will no longer be able double click teleport about a region that has a forced landing point set. Attempting to do so will just throw you back to the landing point. For those of you unhappy about this, I am afraid we had no choice to remove this feature. The removal was requested by Linden Lab in response to compaints such as this one.
          Hide
          lucy daughter of the devil Lucia Nightfire added a comment -

          I find this ironic considering LL recently discussing changing teleport behaviour post initial parcel entry at a landing point, allowing guests to dctp around the parcel without being forced back to the landing point each time.

          Show
          lucy daughter of the devil Lucia Nightfire added a comment - I find this ironic considering LL recently discussing changing teleport behaviour post initial parcel entry at a landing point, allowing guests to dctp around the parcel without being forced back to the landing point each time.
          Hide
          whirly.fizzle Whirly Fizzle added a comment -

          Oh interesting!
          Lucia, do you have a reference for that discussion? Was it at a UG?

          Show
          whirly.fizzle Whirly Fizzle added a comment - Oh interesting! Lucia, do you have a reference for that discussion? Was it at a UG?
          Hide
          Phirestorm Not Available added a comment - - edited

          The reason we use firestorm is these few extra features that the other viewers lack. Now with this important feature being removed, you have lost your reputation with the players. We're no longer going to update/use your new viewer, until this feature is back. Deleting this feature will no longer allow players to move freely, they will have to run around objects or have to teleport back to the entrance(landing point) of certain areas, and will not have the ability to explore the world of SL like they did before. Not everyone abused this, you know, but it seems like you don't give a damn.
          You chose somebody's virtual privacy over our fun. You're just another bunch of nerds who support the mentally-retarded, emotionally-attached to the game players, who want to have privacy as if it was their real life. And why should you care about what Linden Lab says? All they care about is money, nothing more. Nobody forces you to do what they say, you know it. This game's security is so bad that people can use their own viewers, scripts and everything to abuse the game in so many ways...

          Show
          Phirestorm Not Available added a comment - - edited The reason we use firestorm is these few extra features that the other viewers lack. Now with this important feature being removed, you have lost your reputation with the players. We're no longer going to update/use your new viewer, until this feature is back. Deleting this feature will no longer allow players to move freely, they will have to run around objects or have to teleport back to the entrance(landing point) of certain areas, and will not have the ability to explore the world of SL like they did before. Not everyone abused this, you know, but it seems like you don't give a damn. You chose somebody's virtual privacy over our fun. You're just another bunch of nerds who support the mentally-retarded, emotionally-attached to the game players, who want to have privacy as if it was their real life. And why should you care about what Linden Lab says? All they care about is money, nothing more. Nobody forces you to do what they say, you know it. This game's security is so bad that people can use their own viewers, scripts and everything to abuse the game in so many ways...
          Hide
          panterapolnocy Pantera Północy added a comment -

          Not Available: "the removal was requested by Linden Lab in response to compaints such as this one."

          Show
          panterapolnocy Pantera Północy added a comment - Not Available: "the removal was requested by Linden Lab in response to compaints such as this one."
          Hide
          Phirestorm Not Available added a comment - - edited

          So what Chakat? What if Linden Lab asks for it? Why do you have to obey them? Nobody can force you to do it. You're neither getting paid by them, nor are they going to ban you for not doing what they ask you to. And I have enough knowledge to easily bypass it anyways, just like most of us old users do. I'm not here to defend myself, but the users this update will ruin the fun of.

          Show
          Phirestorm Not Available added a comment - - edited So what Chakat? What if Linden Lab asks for it? Why do you have to obey them? Nobody can force you to do it. You're neither getting paid by them, nor are they going to ban you for not doing what they ask you to. And I have enough knowledge to easily bypass it anyways, just like most of us old users do. I'm not here to defend myself, but the users this update will ruin the fun of.
          Hide
          ansariel.hiller Ansariel Hiller added a comment -

          Because Linden Lab can block access to their grid using Firestorm. If you have enough knowledge to bypass it, then do it at your own risk but refrain from demanding actions that might have severe consequences for all other users!

          Show
          ansariel.hiller Ansariel Hiller added a comment - Because Linden Lab can block access to their grid using Firestorm. If you have enough knowledge to bypass it, then do it at your own risk but refrain from demanding actions that might have severe consequences for all other users!
          Hide
          whirly.fizzle Whirly Fizzle added a comment -

          Not Available , we didnt like having to remove this either, believe me. But when Linden Lab asks for a feature to be removed, we have to remove it. Not doing so could result in Linden lab blocking Firestorm logging into the grid. We had no choice.

          Show
          whirly.fizzle Whirly Fizzle added a comment - Not Available , we didnt like having to remove this either, believe me. But when Linden Lab asks for a feature to be removed, we have to remove it. Not doing so could result in Linden lab blocking Firestorm logging into the grid. We had no choice.
          Hide
          Phirestorm Not Available added a comment -

          That's not true. They can not completely block you. Do you really think that Linden Lab gives access to all these people using their own, self-made viewers to hack the game?

          Show
          Phirestorm Not Available added a comment - That's not true. They can not completely block you. Do you really think that Linden Lab gives access to all these people using their own, self-made viewers to hack the game?
          Hide
          ansariel.hiller Ansariel Hiller added a comment -

          If you are so experienced, then do whatever you want, but stop bugging here - it won't change anything! Period!

          Show
          ansariel.hiller Ansariel Hiller added a comment - If you are so experienced, then do whatever you want, but stop bugging here - it won't change anything! Period!
          Hide
          Phirestorm Not Available added a comment - - edited

          Ansariel Hiller: I was just stating some facts, I could care less. But it looks like I'm wasting my time here indeed. Goodbye.
          You know that Linden Lab is not stupid enough to prohibit the access of so many users and force them to use their own crappy viewer. They would lose lots of players.

          p.s. "So experienced"? It's basic knowledge... anyone can do it, whatever.

          Show
          Phirestorm Not Available added a comment - - edited Ansariel Hiller: I was just stating some facts, I could care less. But it looks like I'm wasting my time here indeed. Goodbye. You know that Linden Lab is not stupid enough to prohibit the access of so many users and force them to use their own crappy viewer. They would lose lots of players. p.s. "So experienced"? It's basic knowledge... anyone can do it, whatever.
          Hide
          whirly.fizzle Whirly Fizzle added a comment -

          They can and they would. Remember Emerald? They completely blocked that viewer from access to the grid. I'm sorry, but we cannot change this - you need to complain to Linden Lab about this decision.

          And I have enough knowledge to easily bypass it anyways, just like most of us old users do

          Yes, no-one can stop you doing this and I think a lot of people will be doing the same I did
          The same functionality can be had by wearing a scripted prim and is available in many HUDs.

          But please - complain to Linden Lab - we cannot do anything about this.

          Show
          whirly.fizzle Whirly Fizzle added a comment - They can and they would. Remember Emerald? They completely blocked that viewer from access to the grid. I'm sorry, but we cannot change this - you need to complain to Linden Lab about this decision. And I have enough knowledge to easily bypass it anyways, just like most of us old users do Yes, no-one can stop you doing this and I think a lot of people will be doing the same I did The same functionality can be had by wearing a scripted prim and is available in many HUDs. But please - complain to Linden Lab - we cannot do anything about this.
          Hide
          jessica_lyon Jessica Lyon added a comment -

          The viewer was circumventing a permission flag by using llMoveToTarget teleports in regions with landing points. This is a direct violation of the Third Party Viewer Policy. The result can lead to blocking access of our viewer at worst, and at least damage our healthy working relationship with LL. Having a healthy working relationship with LL benefits the end users in more ways that can be listed here... and if the only cost is losing a feature that was breaking the rules anyways then it's worth while.

          However I can assure you that not having this feature makes my blood boil as well. You are not alone, there will be a great many like you and I who whole hardheartedly believe we should be able to get around easier in SL and not be restricted.

          I would suggest you direct your complaints where they are due... When you find a region with a TP routing or landing point... Contact the owner.. politely complain... leave and never come back. If everyone did this; region owners would have to decide if they want tp routings or visitors.

          Jessica Lyon
          Project Manager

          Show
          jessica_lyon Jessica Lyon added a comment - The viewer was circumventing a permission flag by using llMoveToTarget teleports in regions with landing points. This is a direct violation of the Third Party Viewer Policy. The result can lead to blocking access of our viewer at worst, and at least damage our healthy working relationship with LL. Having a healthy working relationship with LL benefits the end users in more ways that can be listed here... and if the only cost is losing a feature that was breaking the rules anyways then it's worth while. However I can assure you that not having this feature makes my blood boil as well. You are not alone, there will be a great many like you and I who whole hardheartedly believe we should be able to get around easier in SL and not be restricted. I would suggest you direct your complaints where they are due... When you find a region with a TP routing or landing point... Contact the owner.. politely complain... leave and never come back. If everyone did this; region owners would have to decide if they want tp routings or visitors. Jessica Lyon Project Manager
          Hide
          Phirestorm Not Available added a comment - - edited

          Will do, thank you whirly/jessica for the responses, have a nice day!

          Show
          Phirestorm Not Available added a comment - - edited Will do, thank you whirly/jessica for the responses, have a nice day!
          Hide
          peebee Peebee McMillan added a comment -

          It is a mute discussion. If I understand correctly, the DCTP is only disabled in regions/parcels where a landing point has been set fixed via the 'AboutLand' tools. DCTP will still work where there is no landing point restriction. Maybe Whirly can kindly confirm that. That being said, if people set a fixed landing point, there's mostly a good reason for it. Above all privacy issues. I commend the FS team to address the subject. I cannot see any disadvantage of disabling the feature, where the land owner wouldn't want it.

          Show
          peebee Peebee McMillan added a comment - It is a mute discussion. If I understand correctly, the DCTP is only disabled in regions/parcels where a landing point has been set fixed via the 'AboutLand' tools. DCTP will still work where there is no landing point restriction. Maybe Whirly can kindly confirm that. That being said, if people set a fixed landing point, there's mostly a good reason for it. Above all privacy issues. I commend the FS team to address the subject. I cannot see any disadvantage of disabling the feature, where the land owner wouldn't want it.
          Hide
          whirly.fizzle Whirly Fizzle added a comment -

          Peebee, yes you are correct.

          Show
          whirly.fizzle Whirly Fizzle added a comment - Peebee, yes you are correct.
          Hide
          peebee Peebee McMillan added a comment -

          gives Whirly thumbs up and goes on exploring the change log with glowing eyes and an Cheshire cat smile

          Show
          peebee Peebee McMillan added a comment - gives Whirly thumbs up and goes on exploring the change log with glowing eyes and an Cheshire cat smile
          Hide
          Phirestorm Not Available added a comment - - edited

          Peebee, not everybody knows how to do it, and preventing people from freely tping around is impossible without doing it for the entire place as far as I know. What do I mean? You can't prevent players from tping into your house only for example, you have to set it for the entire parcel I believe. And not only, they have to prevent users from rezzing objects too, otherwise anybody will be able to go just about anywhere they want to.

          Show
          Phirestorm Not Available added a comment - - edited Peebee, not everybody knows how to do it, and preventing people from freely tping around is impossible without doing it for the entire place as far as I know. What do I mean? You can't prevent players from tping into your house only for example, you have to set it for the entire parcel I believe. And not only, they have to prevent users from rezzing objects too, otherwise anybody will be able to go just about anywhere they want to.
          Hide
          satomiahn Satomi Ahn added a comment -

          Would it be possible to detect that teleportation is restricted and just disable the double-click action in this case, instead of telporting back to landing point ?
          In that kind of sim, it is very common that running/flying(when allowed... )/tp-sitting back from landing point to where you previously were will be a very tedious process.

          Show
          satomiahn Satomi Ahn added a comment - Would it be possible to detect that teleportation is restricted and just disable the double-click action in this case, instead of telporting back to landing point ? In that kind of sim, it is very common that running/flying(when allowed... )/tp-sitting back from landing point to where you previously were will be a very tedious process.
          Hide
          peebee Peebee McMillan added a comment -

          NotAvailable: The fixed landing point controls - in my practice and understanding - are not a security measures per se. It's more about routing visitors. Imagine a gallery or shopping sim, that wants their visitors to land at a greeting hall. Or a role-playing sim, that wants to have their players in a showroom with their rules on display first. In these scenarios, I would not appreciate people just DCTPing their way out of what I have set up for good reason.

          If one would want to secure parcel access properly, there are many other types of pinpoint access control available, such as security orbs and the sorts.

          As far as people not knowing how to set viewer features, I recommend the Firestorm classes and Wiki. Always a great source of knowledge, even for veterans like me.

          Show
          peebee Peebee McMillan added a comment - NotAvailable: The fixed landing point controls - in my practice and understanding - are not a security measures per se. It's more about routing visitors. Imagine a gallery or shopping sim, that wants their visitors to land at a greeting hall. Or a role-playing sim, that wants to have their players in a showroom with their rules on display first. In these scenarios, I would not appreciate people just DCTPing their way out of what I have set up for good reason. If one would want to secure parcel access properly, there are many other types of pinpoint access control available, such as security orbs and the sorts. As far as people not knowing how to set viewer features, I recommend the Firestorm classes and Wiki. Always a great source of knowledge, even for veterans like me.
          Hide
          whirly.fizzle Whirly Fizzle added a comment -

          Here is the problem in a nutshell - Role Play/game regions have a good use case for having a forced landing point set on their region to prevent players "cheating".

          However, lots of other regions, shopping districts, scenic regions, use a forced landing point too, because they want to control where an avatar lands on the parcel. I think many people that have a forced landing point set do not actually realise how annoying this behaviour is for shoppers/explorers and those of us that use dbl click TP as a matter of habit to get about.
          I would even go as far as to say, this feature in Firestorm probably causes a lot of people using forced landing points not to even realise how annoying this behaviour can be because most people have been able to just bypass it and so they have not been getting complaints from their customers.

          Anyway, on a brigher note - there has been a feature request filed with Linden Lab that should help here. Linden Lab have accepted this proposal. What follows is a paste of this request and the Linden response...


          Feature Request: Add option to region/parcel to allow intra region/parcel TP when a landing point exists.

          Preferred Options

          I would like the ability for land owners to choose whether or not residents can TP around a region (for example double click TP) that has a landing point.

          Current Behavior

          Intra region TPs are disabled when a landing point exists

          Use Cases

          1) A store owner may wan a central location for residents to arrive at, but don't care if people quickly hop about the region taking a look at the various items. In this case, double click to TP would be allowed.
          2) A RP region owner doesn't want people hoping about and needs players to follow a certain path to achieve goals, so double click to TP would be off in this case.

          Maestro Linden added a comment - 26/Feb/14 3:24 PM

          On the parcel level, I suppose this could be an option under "Teleport Routing" in parcel options. Right now the options are "Blocked", "Landing Point", and "Anywhere". What you want is a 4th option, between "Landing Point" and "Anywhere", which follows this logic:

          Behave as "Anywhere" if the avatar Teleported from within the region (even from a different parcel in the region)
          Behave as "Landing Point" if the avatar Teleported from outside the region
          Is that correct?

          I'm not sure how this would be implemented in the UI at the region level. Right now, there are no region-level TP controls, but there is an estate-level control called "Allow Direct Teleport". When "Allow Direct Teleport" is disabled, users TPing to the estate always arrive at the estate's telehub. Can you detail how this control would be modified with your feature request?

          Maestro Linden added a comment - 27/Feb/14 6:06 PM

          Hm, for the estate level, I guess the UI could be changed to a 3-state version:

          Allow direct teleport anywhere
          Allow direct teleport from within the estate (from outside the estate, force them to the telehub)
          Disallow all direct teleport (force all TPs to the telehub)

          Show
          whirly.fizzle Whirly Fizzle added a comment - Here is the problem in a nutshell - Role Play/game regions have a good use case for having a forced landing point set on their region to prevent players "cheating". However, lots of other regions, shopping districts, scenic regions, use a forced landing point too, because they want to control where an avatar lands on the parcel. I think many people that have a forced landing point set do not actually realise how annoying this behaviour is for shoppers/explorers and those of us that use dbl click TP as a matter of habit to get about. I would even go as far as to say, this feature in Firestorm probably causes a lot of people using forced landing points not to even realise how annoying this behaviour can be because most people have been able to just bypass it and so they have not been getting complaints from their customers. Anyway, on a brigher note - there has been a feature request filed with Linden Lab that should help here. Linden Lab have accepted this proposal. What follows is a paste of this request and the Linden response... Feature Request: Add option to region/parcel to allow intra region/parcel TP when a landing point exists. Preferred Options I would like the ability for land owners to choose whether or not residents can TP around a region (for example double click TP) that has a landing point. Current Behavior Intra region TPs are disabled when a landing point exists Use Cases 1) A store owner may wan a central location for residents to arrive at, but don't care if people quickly hop about the region taking a look at the various items. In this case, double click to TP would be allowed. 2) A RP region owner doesn't want people hoping about and needs players to follow a certain path to achieve goals, so double click to TP would be off in this case. Maestro Linden added a comment - 26/Feb/14 3:24 PM On the parcel level, I suppose this could be an option under "Teleport Routing" in parcel options. Right now the options are "Blocked", "Landing Point", and "Anywhere". What you want is a 4th option, between "Landing Point" and "Anywhere", which follows this logic: Behave as "Anywhere" if the avatar Teleported from within the region (even from a different parcel in the region) Behave as "Landing Point" if the avatar Teleported from outside the region Is that correct? I'm not sure how this would be implemented in the UI at the region level. Right now, there are no region-level TP controls, but there is an estate-level control called "Allow Direct Teleport". When "Allow Direct Teleport" is disabled, users TPing to the estate always arrive at the estate's telehub. Can you detail how this control would be modified with your feature request? Maestro Linden added a comment - 27/Feb/14 6:06 PM Hm, for the estate level, I guess the UI could be changed to a 3-state version: Allow direct teleport anywhere Allow direct teleport from within the estate (from outside the estate, force them to the telehub) Disallow all direct teleport (force all TPs to the telehub)
          Hide
          viviennegraves Vivienne Graves added a comment -

          Whatever was done to fix this has resulted in it being now horribly broken. Teleport lures to other avatars in sims with set landing points no longer work. This only affects Firestorm, not the LL viewer or other TPVs. Repro: Go to a sim with a set landing point, using FS 4.6. Have a friend who is in the same sim send you a TP request to their location. Expected behaviour: teleport lure overrides landing point. Actual behaviour: you get sent back to the landing point. (This ONLY happens with Firestorm, by the way. Not with the LL viewer or other TPVs, where direct teleport lures work as expected.)

          Show
          viviennegraves Vivienne Graves added a comment - Whatever was done to fix this has resulted in it being now horribly broken. Teleport lures to other avatars in sims with set landing points no longer work. This only affects Firestorm, not the LL viewer or other TPVs. Repro: Go to a sim with a set landing point, using FS 4.6. Have a friend who is in the same sim send you a TP request to their location. Expected behaviour: teleport lure overrides landing point. Actual behaviour: you get sent back to the landing point. (This ONLY happens with Firestorm, by the way. Not with the LL viewer or other TPVs, where direct teleport lures work as expected.)
          Hide
          nogardrevlis NogarDrevlis Lectar added a comment -

          Vivienne Graves that's correct behaviour , these change was made to brake it on Linden Labs will so TP on sims with landing point doesn't work any more and you will be put to landing point instead.

          Show
          nogardrevlis NogarDrevlis Lectar added a comment - Vivienne Graves that's correct behaviour , these change was made to brake it on Linden Labs will so TP on sims with landing point doesn't work any more and you will be put to landing point instead.
          Hide
          viviennegraves Vivienne Graves added a comment -

          Nogar: No, it isn't. What part of "this doesn't happen with the LL viewer or other TPVs" was unclear, exactly?

          Show
          viviennegraves Vivienne Graves added a comment - Nogar: No, it isn't. What part of "this doesn't happen with the LL viewer or other TPVs" was unclear, exactly?
          Hide
          whirly.fizzle Whirly Fizzle added a comment - - edited

          Vivienne Graves
          Myself and Ansariel just tested this both on Firestorm (making sure the bridge was attached and functional) and Viewer 3.
          We saw the same behaviour in both viewers.

          We tested on 2 regions, one where the land was group owned and one where the land had a single owner - both had a LP set and telport routing was set to landing point.
          We couldnt reproduce your problem.

          I stood on the parcel that had a forced LP but I stood at a different location to the LP.
          I sent Ansariel a teleport request and every time she landed at my location, not at the landing point.

          Can you give a SLURL to a location where you are seeing this problem se we can test?
          Thanks!

          Show
          whirly.fizzle Whirly Fizzle added a comment - - edited Vivienne Graves Myself and Ansariel just tested this both on Firestorm (making sure the bridge was attached and functional) and Viewer 3. We saw the same behaviour in both viewers. We tested on 2 regions, one where the land was group owned and one where the land had a single owner - both had a LP set and telport routing was set to landing point. We couldnt reproduce your problem. I stood on the parcel that had a forced LP but I stood at a different location to the LP. I sent Ansariel a teleport request and every time she landed at my location, not at the landing point. Can you give a SLURL to a location where you are seeing this problem se we can test? Thanks!
          Hide
          viviennegraves Vivienne Graves added a comment -

          Consistent failures here: http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Saint%20Martin/185/96/27 and also here: http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Webhost/133/120/27 --second sim is BlueSteel RC, both are currently group only; open access group: secondlife:///app/group/152f2c53-7275-089e-34bd-b403b66c4715/about

          Show
          viviennegraves Vivienne Graves added a comment - Consistent failures here: http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Saint%20Martin/185/96/27 and also here: http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Webhost/133/120/27 --second sim is BlueSteel RC, both are currently group only; open access group: secondlife:///app/group/152f2c53-7275-089e-34bd-b403b66c4715/about
          Hide
          hopedreier Hope Dreier added a comment - - edited

          Well once I got my scripts below 15 (seriously 15 scripts limit?) I started using my alt and me to test TP LUREs
          All lures from outside ended up at 146,118,27 as did all lures from inside. the region. This was from FS to V3 and vice versa. Also FS to FS and V3 toV3

          Show
          hopedreier Hope Dreier added a comment - - edited Well once I got my scripts below 15 (seriously 15 scripts limit?) I started using my alt and me to test TP LUREs All lures from outside ended up at 146,118,27 as did all lures from inside. the region. This was from FS to V3 and vice versa. Also FS to FS and V3 toV3
          Hide
          hopedreier Hope Dreier added a comment - - edited

          I suspect that it has something to do with either the way the region is set up or the way the parcel(s) are set up. I went to Three Moons Valley (which has a market and a forced region entry). Lures to individuals draw them to the correct place, not to the landing point.

          Edit: fixed typeo, correct region name.

          Show
          hopedreier Hope Dreier added a comment - - edited I suspect that it has something to do with either the way the region is set up or the way the parcel(s) are set up. I went to Three Moons Valley (which has a market and a forced region entry). Lures to individuals draw them to the correct place, not to the landing point. Edit: fixed typeo, correct region name.
          Hide
          whirly.fizzle Whirly Fizzle added a comment -

          Thanks Vivienne.

          • I have Alt A here: http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Webhost/157/58/23 using Firestorm 4.6.1. Made sure Alt A's bridge was newly created and functional.
          • Landing point on this parcel is 128,128,21 - Teleport routing is blocked.
          • Alt B logs into another region using Viewer 3: Second Life 3.7.3 (287491) Mar 4 2014 05:01:31 (Second Life Release)
          • Alt A (FS) sends Alt B (V3) a teleport.
          • Alt B (V3) lands at landing point.
          • Alt A sends TP to Alt B (both avatars are now on same region).
          • Alt B lands back at the landing point, not where Alt A is.

          So I see the same behaviour on Viewer 3 as you say happens on Firestorm.
          Telport routing is blocked here, so this is expected behaviour.

          Show
          whirly.fizzle Whirly Fizzle added a comment - Thanks Vivienne. I have Alt A here: http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Webhost/157/58/23 using Firestorm 4.6.1. Made sure Alt A's bridge was newly created and functional. Landing point on this parcel is 128,128,21 - Teleport routing is blocked. Alt B logs into another region using Viewer 3: Second Life 3.7.3 (287491) Mar 4 2014 05:01:31 (Second Life Release) Alt A (FS) sends Alt B (V3) a teleport. Alt B (V3) lands at landing point. Alt A sends TP to Alt B (both avatars are now on same region). Alt B lands back at the landing point, not where Alt A is. So I see the same behaviour on Viewer 3 as you say happens on Firestorm. Telport routing is blocked here, so this is expected behaviour.
          Hide
          effy mirabella Eva Afarensis added a comment -

          The bridge 2.7 performs a call to llGetSimulatorHostname every time llMoveTo could be used to check for lindenlab.com.
          Problem is that this causes the script to sleep for 10.0 seconds.
          So, even on grids where its use is allowed, and when a tp may already be performed, 10 seconds later you're pulled back to the spot you (tried to) TP to.

          Show
          effy mirabella Eva Afarensis added a comment - The bridge 2.7 performs a call to llGetSimulatorHostname every time llMoveTo could be used to check for lindenlab.com. Problem is that this causes the script to sleep for 10.0 seconds. So, even on grids where its use is allowed, and when a tp may already be performed, 10 seconds later you're pulled back to the spot you (tried to) TP to.
          Hide
          panterapolnocy Pantera Północy added a comment -

          Delay will be removed in next publicily available Firestorm version, beginning from rev. 40558: http://hg.phoenixviewer.com/phoenix-firestorm-lgpl/rev/105facd58d61 - instead of LSL function now the viewer itself makes the SL/Opensim check and just passes 0 or 1 value to the Bridge.

          Show
          panterapolnocy Pantera Północy added a comment - Delay will be removed in next publicily available Firestorm version, beginning from rev. 40558: http://hg.phoenixviewer.com/phoenix-firestorm-lgpl/rev/105facd58d61 - instead of LSL function now the viewer itself makes the SL/Opensim check and just passes 0 or 1 value to the Bridge.
          Hide
          effy mirabella Eva Afarensis added a comment - - edited

          That would fix it. I was thinking of a single call to the routine during the initialization of the bridge.
          Edit:
          Ehm... the check is made using an #IFDEF on OPENSIM? Doesn't that make it a compile-time check?

          Show
          effy mirabella Eva Afarensis added a comment - - edited That would fix it. I was thinking of a single call to the routine during the initialization of the bridge. Edit: Ehm... the check is made using an #IFDEF on OPENSIM? Doesn't that make it a compile-time check?
          Hide
          panterapolnocy Pantera Północy added a comment - - edited

          1) This would cause the Bridge to sleep for 10 seconds after every recreation. Still not too optimal.
          2) "#ifdef OPENSIM" means "if the version currently being compiled is the OpenSim one, then add this code to the final program". So OpenSim version has this tiny bit of code ("if not on SL grid, then change the variable to 0"), and Havok version don't (so variable is always 1). This way OpenSim version may dynamically check, if its logged in on SL or non-SL grid and switch accordingly.

          Similiar, one of many checks like this one, here:
          http://hg.phoenixviewer.com/phoenix-firestorm-lgpl/file/b380d152b19d/indra/newview/fscommon.cpp#l276

          Show
          panterapolnocy Pantera Północy added a comment - - edited 1) This would cause the Bridge to sleep for 10 seconds after every recreation. Still not too optimal. 2) "#ifdef OPENSIM" means "if the version currently being compiled is the OpenSim one, then add this code to the final program". So OpenSim version has this tiny bit of code ("if not on SL grid, then change the variable to 0"), and Havok version don't (so variable is always 1). This way OpenSim version may dynamically check, if its logged in on SL or non-SL grid and switch accordingly. Similiar, one of many checks like this one, here: http://hg.phoenixviewer.com/phoenix-firestorm-lgpl/file/b380d152b19d/indra/newview/fscommon.cpp#l276
          Hide
          effy mirabella Eva Afarensis added a comment -

          ad 1) Yes, not too great, but a lot happens there, and it isn't too obvious an effect when the 10 seconds have passed.
          ad 2) I thought the version for open sim and linden labs had merged, so the general version needs the dynamic check too.

          Show
          effy mirabella Eva Afarensis added a comment - ad 1) Yes, not too great, but a lot happens there, and it isn't too obvious an effect when the 10 seconds have passed. ad 2) I thought the version for open sim and linden labs had merged, so the general version needs the dynamic check too.
          Hide
          panterapolnocy Pantera Północy added a comment -

          1) If there is a possibility to tell the viewer or its submodules (like Bridge) to run faster, then it's always worth to do it. Bridge recreation sometimes already takes few seconds and adding 10 seconds more to that time would also need a modal alert "you may now go and make yourself some tea".
          2) It is merged - that's why we're compiling from one main code repository (so we don't need to maintain two separate codebases; There are of course side repositories for testing, but they're basing on LGPL one), but OpenSim and SL-Havok versions are slightly different in many places, that's why these checks are there. "General version", the Havok one, is able to connect only to SL grid, so "1" would be send anyway all the time.

          Show
          panterapolnocy Pantera Północy added a comment - 1) If there is a possibility to tell the viewer or its submodules (like Bridge) to run faster, then it's always worth to do it. Bridge recreation sometimes already takes few seconds and adding 10 seconds more to that time would also need a modal alert "you may now go and make yourself some tea". 2) It is merged - that's why we're compiling from one main code repository (so we don't need to maintain two separate codebases; There are of course side repositories for testing, but they're basing on LGPL one), but OpenSim and SL-Havok versions are slightly different in many places, that's why these checks are there. "General version", the Havok one, is able to connect only to SL grid, so "1" would be send anyway all the time.
          Hide
          effy mirabella Eva Afarensis added a comment -

          Point taken... Though 'get some tea' isn't a bad advice anyway.

          Show
          effy mirabella Eva Afarensis added a comment - Point taken... Though 'get some tea' isn't a bad advice anyway.
          Hide
          storm engineer Storm Engineer added a comment - - edited

          This makes me want to slap LL so badly... It is not only that I will feel crippled now, as this was always the default way I get around, rarely ever walking, but I also used LP in my shop until now, knowing that the majority of possible customers use FS and it isn't an issue... and now I have to consider turning it off.

          It is really hard to decide because I had a designated landing area for damn good reasons, but I don't want to stop anyone from TPing around inside the store.

          Are there any news on the feature request?

          (Also if anyone have a free script that helps with this... please drop me a copy. Thanks in advance.)

          Show
          storm engineer Storm Engineer added a comment - - edited This makes me want to slap LL so badly... It is not only that I will feel crippled now, as this was always the default way I get around, rarely ever walking, but I also used LP in my shop until now, knowing that the majority of possible customers use FS and it isn't an issue... and now I have to consider turning it off. It is really hard to decide because I had a designated landing area for damn good reasons, but I don't want to stop anyone from TPing around inside the store. Are there any news on the feature request? (Also if anyone have a free script that helps with this... please drop me a copy. Thanks in advance.)
          Hide
          kagehi Patrick Elliott added a comment -

          Hmm. Wasn't even aware that TP once "in" a sim had been possible, well, except for "join me here" type. Doing this is banned in the sims I go to, since they don't want a combat situation to get "mobbed" with extra people. I always felt that the hub was a very limited setup, and they needed a bit more granularity, so that you could say, allow objects to TP, to linked/allowed sims, so you could make gateways that bypassed the hub (move to stuff is useful, except it can't go across sim boundaries all that well, if at all, especially without bugging during transitions), and that you should be able to explicitly ban TP at all from inside the sim, to others in the same chain, if you want to (as a means to stopping people cheating that way), etc. In other words, give people real control, not false control, by either denying it in all cases, or routing them to an entry point (which does nothing to solve the problem you tried to restrict, if the fight ends up near the entry point, for example), and a whole host of other idiocies, not the least of which being, as I said, not having a way to directly link locations, of you have a legit reason to want to.

          But, yeah, bypassing the hub entirely, has annoying as the dang thing was, shouldn't be possible (unless its like, OpenSim, and you "allow" that).

          Show
          kagehi Patrick Elliott added a comment - Hmm. Wasn't even aware that TP once "in" a sim had been possible, well, except for "join me here" type. Doing this is banned in the sims I go to, since they don't want a combat situation to get "mobbed" with extra people. I always felt that the hub was a very limited setup, and they needed a bit more granularity, so that you could say, allow objects to TP, to linked/allowed sims, so you could make gateways that bypassed the hub (move to stuff is useful, except it can't go across sim boundaries all that well, if at all, especially without bugging during transitions), and that you should be able to explicitly ban TP at all from inside the sim, to others in the same chain, if you want to (as a means to stopping people cheating that way), etc. In other words, give people real control, not false control, by either denying it in all cases, or routing them to an entry point (which does nothing to solve the problem you tried to restrict, if the fight ends up near the entry point, for example), and a whole host of other idiocies, not the least of which being, as I said, not having a way to directly link locations, of you have a legit reason to want to. But, yeah, bypassing the hub entirely, has annoying as the dang thing was, shouldn't be possible (unless its like, OpenSim, and you "allow" that).

            People

            • Assignee:
              Unassigned
              Reporter:
              disisme misfit irrelevant
            • Votes:
              1 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              16 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              • Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved: