For a limited time only: get a huge 64-region Mega World running on a dedicated server for just $99.95/month

[Snoots Dwagon]

Regarding RAW files, we rolled out an update today that significantly improves RAW file uploading and downloading. See: https://www.kitely.com/virtual-world-ne ... raforming/

[Snoots Dwagon]

A I appreciate your feedback but I'm afraid you missed a few conceptual problems... For example, world A has items that were rezzed by users who aren't the world owner, while world B contains content and activities that those users don't wish to be associated with...

B ...we're not stopping anyone from merging content outside Kitely, and people who wish to do so can use the Replace World function to import their merged OAR files into existing Kitely worlds...

C ...to properly support doing this inside Kitely would require that we handle quite a lot of cases, which means spending a lot of time implementing this...

D ...isn't justified for Mega Worlds, which we'll only be offering until the end of this month.

E ...it's far from clear that implementing this for Advanced Worlds will have a net positive effect for our business...

F ...merging multiple OAR files into a single world requires optimization, and as many people just won't do that, the resulting merged worlds can create frustrating user experiences.

Dwagony opinion forthcoming. Mwahahahaha....

A. Methinks that this would be more the exception than the rule. If a few people don't want their items migrated to the new world, the items they own can either be filtered out or they can remove their items either before or after the transfer is done. Informing participants is the responsibility of the world owner.

B. As mentioned prior, doing this outside of Kitely will likely result in a lot of lost content due to permissions issues preventing transfer to external OARs. This would not only potentially destroy the secondary world, but the primary world being transferred as well.

C. If this would require Kitely handling "quite a lot of cases"... sounds to me like there is quite a lot of demand for this option. ; )

D. Officially MegaWorlds are only being offered to the end of this month. But from what I've seen on Wellspring, the MegaWorld is doing quite well and putting the calculator to it, is more profitable for the company overall. I believe despite company intentions at this time... we'll be seeing more MegaWorlds after the end of November. Just an objective guess, but when something works, people want it. Where there's a market, there's profit to be made.

E. I believe implementing this for Advanced Worlds will have benefit now--- and in the future when people decide to upgrade from Advanced Worlds to a MegaWorld. But as you said, "quite a lot of cases" even now.

F. Customers can be fully informed and aware of optimization requirements. Existing region stats can be evaluated (amount of assets, scripts, etc), and it be determined ahead of time whether merging two or three worlds would be a wise choice. If not, they can "trim" worlds ahead of time to optimize them better. It's not like they need go into such decision blind. When we moved Wellspring our group board considered all aspects before making the final decision. I believe any world owner can take into account the same considerations prior to deciding to combine more than one world.

Just a few thoughts. The only reason I mention these things is because of the possibility it might encourage customers to move to MegaWorlds... and I currently believe MegaWorlds to be good for both customer and company. So making them inviting to the greatest number of people (including allowing them to combine 2 or more existing worlds into one) would potentially increase the sales of these worlds, improving Kitely's profit and customer appreciation in the end run.

/me turns over debate to distinguished other

[Alexina Proctor]

Hi Snoots,

I'll reply to your points using the letters you've assigned them:

A) Regardless of who should be responsible, what happens quite too often is that people contact us for help regarding what happens in various Kitely worlds. This feature is going to cause issues for some people and thus would require more than just investing time in blindly moving regions from one part of the world map to a different part. In other words, there is a cost to providing this service, both in R&D and in ongoing customer support, no matter what terms we add to our TOS regarding this feature.

B) I agree merging outside Kitely is not ideal for existing Kitely worlds. But it is very relevant for people who want to move their OAR files into new Kitely worlds.

C) Just because people want a service it doesn't mean that what they'd be willing to pay for it would justify the costs to Kitely for developing and offering it.

D) There is obvious demand for Mega Worlds but we need more time to evaluate whether the price we're charging for them now ($99.95/month) is something which makes sense for us to continue offering in the long run. Even if we decide that we'll continue offering them, we may decide that we need to charge more for Mega Worlds that are created after our current limited time offer ends.

E) While this may change in the future, right now it doesn't make sense for us to spend the time to implement this for Advanced Worlds in a way that won't create more issues than it will solve.

F) We've implemented various automated optimizations in the past, because many people don't do what they should to keep their worlds performing well. That's a problem because many of those people then complain to us and on social media that Kitely doesn't perform well (despite us sending them instructions for how they could improve their builds so they'd work better). In other words, we have to keep in mind how adding a feature changes the dynamics of how our users perceive our service. Otherwise, what looks like a good idea that people want can turn into a net loss for our company and the Kitely community as a whole.

[Dot Matrix]

Here's an update on the effect the announcement of Mega Worlds on 22 October 2020 has had on the size (in number of standard region equivalents) of Kitely grid.

On 21 October Hypergrid Business's OpenSim land area post reported Kitely having 18,057 regions.

Today (9 November), the grid info on the login page shows Kitely having 19,154 regions, a 6% increase in under three weeks.

Not bad going!

[Signature Safety]

Just switched to an 8x8 mega today and it could not have been easier.
Ilan answered the couple questions I had before making the decision.
Resizing from a 4x4 var was easy and seamless.
Now I have four times the area to make mistakes!

[Koshari Mahana]

I haven't fully committed to the idea of a mega region for Coopersville. If or when I do I would need to decide where I wanted the old 4x4 to fit onto the new region. Ideally it would be best to keep it in the southwest because no landmarks would change which would save a huge amount of work. However, I have some terrain texture mapping to consider too.

Right now I only have a small beach in the southwest of the 4x4. I don't have to keep it there I suppose but I want to consider that idea. The image directly below shows what it would look like if I put the original 4x4 (with its current texture mapping) in the southwest of a mega region which makes it possible to avoid changing any of my teleports.



The problem is that all of the houses that are currently around the edges of the first original 2x2 Coopersville have grass, and I want them to have grass yards. Does this mean it's impossible to have sand in the north, NE, NW and SE of the mega region without losing the grass yards on the original region? Is there any configuration that would make it possible to have sand anywhere else on the new region without altering the grass yards or the current location of the beach?

This is what my configuration looks like currently with the 4x4 (and sandy area) in the south west as it has always been.



Would I need to completely remove the sandy beach that's now in the SW if I want sand (for instance) north, NE, NW and SE of the mega region? Do mega regions map the land textures as one huge region or can we configure smaller parts of it differently than the whole. I'm guessing that it's one be region for the texture maps the same as it is for smaller regions ... but I thought I'd ask.

I hope I explained that in an understandable way.

Thanks in advance for any answers.

[Alexina Proctor]

Hi Koshari,

Mega Worlds are implemented using OpenSim VarRegions, which are a single region that has had it's size increased. The viewer UI changes that you make for an entire region will effect all the area of your world's single (big) region. This means that you don't have more control over land textures in a VarRegion than you have in a normal 256x256 sized region.

[Koshari Mahana]

Thanks Ilan, that's sort of what I thought. I guess that means if I get the mega region either I get rid of the beach in the south west or I place the 4x4 in a different place on the mega region. Your answer helps.

Hi Koshari,

Mega Worlds are implemented using OpenSim VarRegions, which are a single region that has had it's size increased. The viewer UI changes that you make for an entire region will effect all the area of your world's single (big) region. This means that you don't have more control over land textures in a VarRegion than you have in a normal 256x256 sized region.

[Dot Matrix]

What if you made the beach areas using meshes? There are quite a few terrain meshes on the Market — and Ozwell Wayfarer even offers a set of free basic landform meshes that can easily be sized and retextured. Then soften/disguise any joins or boundaries with vegetation, e.g. marron grass.

[Koshari Mahana]

Thanks Dot, that's an idea. I've not used any of the mesh beaches before. Do they work well as far as walking into the water and swimming around?

What if you made the beach areas using meshes? There are quite a few terrain meshes on the Market — and Ozwell Wayfarer even offers a set of free basic landform meshes that can easily be sized and retextured. Then soften/disguise any joins or boundaries with vegetation, e.g. marron grass.