-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/11/2011 1:10 PM, leliel wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Kadah wrote:
>>> (4) Deferred render pipeline with projected lighting
>> Was mostly there in 2.7.
>
> Deferred rendering has been around since the 1.20 viewer, projected
> lights
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Kadah wrote:
>> (4) Deferred render pipeline with projected lighting
> Was mostly there in 2.7.
Deferred rendering has been around since the 1.20 viewer, projected
lights were added in 2.0. The only thing 2.7 did was put the options
in the preferences floater.
__
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/10/2011 9:06 PM, Daniel wrote:
> (1) Addition of a whole new asset class (mesh) with custom UV mapping,
> LOD's, and physics shapes
> (2) New physics engine & physics type
> (3) Change of the prim accounting system from fixed to variable for me
I think calling it Version 3 with simplify the marketing...if you want mesh,
you need a version 3 viewer...
ponzu
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 12:06 AM, Daniel wrote:
>
> > From: Brandon Husbands
> > I how does this constitute a major revision number?
>
> (1) Addition of a whole new asset class (m
> From: Brandon Husbands
> I how does this constitute a major revision number?
(1) Addition of a whole new asset class (mesh) with custom UV mapping,
LOD's, and physics shapes
(2) New physics engine & physics type
(3) Change of the prim accounting system from fixed to variable for mesh
and i
2.9 and 2.09 are two very different version numbers. But the point of my email
is that now that LL has re-versioned and released 2.5.1 officially, shouldn't
the development snapshot get bumped up to 2.5.2 or 2.5.3?
On Mar 4, 2011, at 11:49 AM, Kadah wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I believe versioning numbers would go from 2.9 to 2.10 instead of 3.0
I think SL has used the non-decimal numerical school of thought for
versioning on the viewers, like with Viewer 1
On 3/4/2011 6:45 AM, Trilo Byte wrote:
> I understand the rational
I understand the rationale behind dialing back the version numbering to 2.5.1
(it put the viewer on a path towards 3.0 much sooner than may have been
desired), but seeing as 2.5.1 was given an official release yesterday shouldn't
the development snapshots be on 2.5.2 to avoid confusion?
TriloBy
On 2010-08-19 12:08, Trilo Byte wrote:
> Now that 2.1.1 has been released, shouldn't nightly builds be labeled 2.1.2?
Yes, probably... still getting that sorted out.
___
Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
http://wiki.secondlife.com
Now that 2.1.1 has been released, shouldn't nightly builds be labeled 2.1.2?
TriloByte Zanzibar
___
Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev
Please read the policies before posting to keep unmo
10 matches
Mail list logo
