I'm on the "love creator" side of this question. Not just because Quantum Core is an elegant and well-supported "weapons system." I actually have very little use for it in that capacity; my primary use for it is as a building, navigation and exploration tool. The ability to quickly teleport to wherever one's camera is looking is invaluable. It can spawn a walking platform anywhere - very handy when working on a skybox! And the non-physical vehicle/shield/cloak is an amazingly useful tool for cinamatograpy and photgraphy. It replaces any number of scripts and utilities that I might otherwise have running at once.
I feel that by supporting QC and talking it up, I'm also supporting and it's user and development community - and of course Darling Brodie. One of it's most important functions is actually somewhat counter-intuitive, which might just be summarized so: "pissing off the Lindens."
That is to say, Darling Brodie is an inspired hacker with a talent for creating beautiful exploits and unintended interactions, things that nobody on the design end would have thought to try - and who clearly resent on a deep, dogmatic, philisophical level. Of course, if nobody deliberately exploited those bugs, they would lie in wait for people like me, people who push buttons, believing they are in the right order.... and >kaboom!<
So, as annoying as some may find it - Darling Brody makes SL a lot more robust for everyone in the medium-short-term, as opposed to the long term. Simply by keeping and maintining a community that will make the necessity to discuss patches needful - and sometimes for demonstrating that a bug may well be a feature.
For myself, though, the single best recommendation for QC is the fact that it makes other weapons franchise owners go mental. There's a very interesting political aspect to this, as illustrated above. But you can get more background into the politics at the QC blog. Furthermore, I strongly believe there IS a need for tools to enforce community standards without dragging the Lindens into it. There are far, far too many conflicts of interest involved in that; furthermore, the entire point to SL is simulating and exploring various human interactions - including alternative legal and social organizations - without deadly risk.
And, due to human nature, some of those explorations will be be made by pests and idiots.
I think it ironic that the Lindens have themselves purchaced the QC to pest-proof their environments; I think it likely that as they play with it, they will start to see how it's an extention of SL in many ways - if not in terms of code, in terms of intent.
I'd like to encourage everyone to consider how much further we all have to go, how much coding (for such little compensation) MUST be done to achieve the obvious goal - a standard, common, robust and intuitive standard for a useful and flexible 3D environment, and how difficult that is to achieve in a typical way. Life is a remarkably fuzzy phenomonon; developing a simulation cannot really succeed without being equally messy and random.
There are two standards to shoot for ... so to speak ... that if implemented will take care of most of these things by definition. First, the ability to simulate a large-scale sport or combat event in a single sim without appreicable lag.
Second, the ability to much more effectively and transparently simulate sex. If that experience can be made intuitive enough - it will make everthing UP to the point of sexual interaction possible. Philisophically, morally and personally, I think that simulating sex is a far better and nicer thing to base a world's development on than simulating combat - but, of course, I'm an notorious pervert.
Not that such a thing makes me incorrect in the slightest.
Posts
