Nyx, I did also notice that if you wear an outfit folder that makes use of mutliple attachments in v2.1.2, it no longer works properly.
Instead of putting on all the items in the user-specified folder, it only puts on the first attachment the viewer gets to. Any additional ones are left un-worn, and must be added to the outfit manually, one at a time. On Aug 27, 2010, at 5:11 AM, Aleric Inglewood wrote: > The following has been proposed before: > > * Add new bits to each object (all existing objects should act as if > all bits are set). > * Give the bits a default meaning (read: human readable word, which > can be different per attachment point), > but allow each user to override those descriptions locally. > * Allow users to change the bits for each of their objects, even no-modify > ones. > * If a user 'wears' (or adds, which becomes redundant) a new > attachment, then remove those attachments that have > one or more of the same bits set. In other words, at any time one > can only have one object attached at a given > position with any given bit set. > > Suppose you think that 8 bits are enough, then the following holds: > > * 11111111 = old 'wear' behavior: replaces everything else. > * 00000000 = 'add' behavior: is added, replaces nothing. > * 00000001 = (for example): assign default meaning 'jacket' for chest > attachments (jacket collars and hoodies). > * 00000010 = (for example): assign default meaning 'shirt' for chest > attachments (shirt collars). > * 00000100 = (for example): assign default meaning 'necklace' for > chest attachments. > and so on. > > This allows users to make groups of attachments that are mutually exclusive, > but having up till 8 classes that can be worn at the same time on the same > attachment point. > > Personally I think that those bits also should be added to normal wearables, > so that it is possible to have attachments being removed when you wear > a new shirt (ie, a shirt without a collar should remove all existing > shirt-collars, > or wearing a penis could automatically remove underwear and pants and > visa versa, Linden shoes could remove prim shoes, etc, all user customizable > for his/her own attachments; the default naming would be just a hint to > make things work reasonable after just having bought it). > > I'm not sure, but I think that having eight classes per attachment points > should be enough, so adding a single byte to every object should be > enough. > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Nyx Linden <n...@lindenlab.com> wrote: >> however, so if you have suggestions for better ways of exposing the >> functionality, please do let us know! _______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
