Comments on: Second Life in a web browser: beta launches

By: burhop

burhop — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 17:09:00 +0000

Sorry I’m late to the comment party… but I like the web browser idea. My hour of playing with the web browser UI seemed to work pretty well. Oh, I’d rather user a fully functional client but there are a lot of people that just find it too heavy or too much work.

When I can send someone who has never used SL a SLURL and have them show up at an inworld meeting, conference, 3D demo, etc, then I’ll really be impressed. Plus, a few of them may hang around in SL afterwards.

By: 3D Virtual Worlds and the 2D Browser « Vinair's Techtales

3D Virtual Worlds and the 2D Browser « Vinair's Techtales — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 16:11:54 +0000

[...] not, Second Life also announced the beta of their browser-based version of their Second Life viewer earlier this week as well, which [...]

By: Djehan kidd

Djehan kidd — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 13:55:00 +0000

The experience is very fluid, more than my own avatar on viewer with the same settings(sort of), like drawing distance, set to around 128.
It is very stable, image quality is good, fps is smooth.

By: Linden Lab's Web-based Teaser Creates

Linden Lab's Web-based Teaser Creates — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 14:41:44 +0000

[...] Lab launched a beta version of Second Life© in a browser. Naturally, curiosity got the best of me and I had to give it a try. [...]

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 14:10:00 +0000

Not a problem We’re all friends here, more or less

Actually the whole end-to-end grid-to-viewer bandwidth model is quite astonishingly complex. I’ll likely pen something about that very shortly.

By: Sam Duel

Sam Duel — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 13:19:00 +0000

A ping to their servers takes 200ms so I cannot see long lengthy response times being the problem, LL gives me less than 100kb/sec most of the time, and I can download elsewhere at much higher speeds.

But maybe I was not clear last time – I was not meaning to say your comment was rot, but that the situation you describe, and the excuses LL provides for its poor service do not stand up to closer scrutiny, so, sorry if I sounded obmoxious

By: Sam Duel

Sam Duel — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 13:19:00 +0000

By: Sam Duel

Sam Duel — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 13:19:00 +0000

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 12:57:00 +0000

Nobody’s boosted the speed of light lately (which goes much slower in a fibre cable than in a vacuum) so distance will remain a factor in acceptable response times for streamed, server-rendered content.

As for the video, it isn’t coming from Linden Lab (most of the content on that page isn’t) – it’s served up by Amazon’s high-speed S3 server cloud.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 12:57:00 +0000

As for the video, it isn’t coming from Linden Lab (most of the content on that page isn’t) – it’s served up by Amazon’s high-speed S3 server cloud.

By: Sam Duel

Sam Duel — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 12:50:00 +0000

This is the Internet!!!!!! Distance from the servers? Wat rot – the problems will be blamed on routing, congestion, pickled onions on your modem, but this is all about bandwidth and the ability of their provider to service a global audience. Put simply – most people who have issues with SL bandwidth can download just fine on other sites. Linden Labs send me a fraction of my line speed and the video at the beginning timed out 3 times. As anyone who uses SL knows, its plateaued growth is down to poor performance and poor customer service, not the viewer/browser option.

By: Laura Seabrook

Laura Seabrook — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 09:21:00 +0000

When I read in the Tateru Nino article that “Usage of the Skylight viewer is limited to one hour, by IP address, during which time it uses an estimated 1080MB of bandwidth” I lost most of my interest. May as well play Blue Mars if I want to burn up bandwidth.