http://www.adamfrisby.com/blog/2009/04/mrm-making-scripting-simpler-and-faster/ ZOMGWTFHAI Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:36:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 http://www.adamfrisby.com/blog/2009/04/mrm-making-scripting-simpler-and-faster/comment-page-1/#comment-7904 Adam Frisby Thu, 09 Apr 2009 06:02:11 +0000 http://www.adamfrisby.com/blog/?p=140#comment-7904 Yeah that is true - I moved our check from Util.GetDistance(x,y) in OpenSim to Util.IsLessThan(amount,x,y). The remainder is however a fairly expensive and unnessecary process. Yeah that is true – I moved our check from Util.GetDistance(x,y) in OpenSim to Util.IsLessThan(amount,x,y). The remainder is however a fairly expensive and unnessecary process.

]]> http://www.adamfrisby.com/blog/2009/04/mrm-making-scripting-simpler-and-faster/comment-page-1/#comment-7903 Dale Innis Thu, 09 Apr 2009 00:20:11 +0000 http://www.adamfrisby.com/blog/?p=140#comment-7903 One nit: while calculating a distance requires taking a square route, doing a distance *comparison* doesn't. Checking if a bunch of points are within 96m of you doesn't have to involve any square roots at all; you can just compare the sum of the squares of the axial distances to 96 squared. I don't know if SL does this internally in the implementation of sensors, but if it doesn't it should... :) One nit: while calculating a distance requires taking a square route, doing a distance *comparison* doesn’t. Checking if a bunch of points are within 96m of you doesn’t have to involve any square roots at all; you can just compare the sum of the squares of the axial distances to 96 squared. I don’t know if SL does this internally in the implementation of sensors, but if it doesn’t it should…

]]>