✨ Feature Requests

When you modify an object, scaling along the X, Y or Z axis allows for a minimum of 0.01m. I propose allowing negative scales, which would otherwise mirror an objects geometry. Symmetry tools are standard in most 3D creation environments. Adding mirroring functionality would modernize Second Life’s in-world building tools and support both new and experienced creators. To have this work fully, SecondLife would have to support both negative scales and flipping the physics mesh layer on the server. Some use cases for this: Creating symmetrical architecture/furniture. Mirroring avatar attachments. Adjusting mesh without requiring multiple uploads for each different mirror axis. I've made a bit of a mock-up video which hopefully explains this feature request a LOT better! (this displays stretching an object, as well as 'mirror' checkboxes for each axis)

In firestorm there is a tool to export prim builds as collada files, I'm not sure if a similar tool is available in the official viewer at all. But this functionality is extremely useful for mesh creators to create scale mockups of their builds that can later be imported into 3D software like blender. However, since blender is removing collada support as of Blender 5.0 a new tool such as this is needed. The GLTF uploader is great, but without a GLTF exporter it will complicate and hinder mesh creation in many ways. I don't know exactly which viewers has had this features in the past or if it was only firestorm that had it, but it is something that would be useful and/or needed on all viewers, which is why I think it would be great if this was implemented in the SL viewer first since that will naturally spread the feature to third party viewers over time. Personally I depend on exporting mesh in my workflow, so I will have to stay on Blender 4.5 until a new export tool is available that supports GLTF.

So I think it would be cool if objects could be linked at a greater distance. And also create groups so that way people that make things like trains or large Houses can keep them all linked together. And unlinking groups of objects, instead of just individual one.

Second Life presents itself as a creative platform, but the 'Destination Guide' currently surfaces mostly lifestyle‑oriented categories (beaches, clubs, homes, shopping, photogenic regions, etc.). This unintentionally frames SL as a lifestyle simulator for new residents, even though the platform supports far more imaginative and non‑realistic content. There is no clear place in the 'Guide' for: surreal or dreamlike environments, experimental or conceptual builds, impossible architecture, non-realistic worlds, creative experiences that don't fit in existing categories. These spaces do exist in SL, but they're basically invisible to newcomers because the 'Guide' doesn't signal that they're part of the platform's identity. This isn't a criticism of existing categories, just an observation that a major creative segment of SL isn't represented. A few new categories would make the 'Destination Guide' more accurate and more welcoming to the imaginative side of the platform. Thanks!

Right now, SL has great pieces of history and exploration culture scattered around, but nothing that functions as a home for hidden gems, little-known places and especially Mole secrets. Other MMOs have “Explorers’ Guilds” that celebrate discovery and the MMOs history. I’d love to suggest a very lightweight version of that idea for Second Life; something focused entirely on exploration for residents who enjoy wandering off the beaten paths. The talented and busy Moles hide fun details in their work, but there’s no official list, no hints, and no “start here” point. Discoveries spread by word of mouth or Flickr. Some bloggers collect “strange places,” but they’re not maintained long‑term, and none of them are official. Many new and even long-term residents aren't aware that the Moles exist and are a real team with a long history or that SL has lore, inside jokes, and environmental storytelling scattered everywhere. An explorers guild home base would help surface that history in a fun and low-pressure way. There is more to SL than meets the eye! An in‑world Explorers Guild homebase, built by the Moles, could offer clues or hints, giving explorers a place to start. Something that piques interest. No new systems or gamification are required. It might also help to add an “SL Hidden Gems and Little-Known Places" category to the destination guide on SL's website to make this kind of content more visible. Thanks!

Please give us more Colour Picker save spaces, which is currently limited to just 32 saved colours. Double it to 64, or perhaps 128, or even 256?! I used up my 32 saved colour spaces years ago and have to physically store my newer colours on physical prims as my "Colour Palette" ! Thanks.

We can already embed landmarks, images, and other full-permissions assets within notecards, yet even the most simple formatting of text relies on access to third party tools to employ Unicode trickery (with spotty implementation across various third party viewers and operating systems). I suggest the addition of some basic formatting, Bold, Italics, Indents, and making hyperlinks clickable (perhaps using the standard [<url> Link Text] employed in other places within the viewer. Even Canny supports formatting of text. Why doesn't the single most common method of providing information and product instructions within SL? Heading bold italicized bold italicized Ordered Lists Unordered Lists code It even has hyperlinks

Let us import a mesh with multiple uv maps so we can swap the uvmap in the texture tab instead of having to import multiple meshes if we want to support multiple uvmap sets. Am sure the performance would improve vastly, I see many products with multiple meshes combined so we can choose which UV set we like (mostly heads in this case) but there's many products that come with multiple UV versions (per example, to support multiple texture placements on the BODY for a BOM tail), thank you.

Currently each mesh object can have 8 faces. However, if I link 255 together, that is effectively 8 * 255 = 2040 faces in that linkset. I think there would a lot of benefit if a single object could have a maximum of 2040 faces but be unlinkable or a linkset could be comprised of objects with more than 8 faces as long as the current maximum number of faces per linkset is not exceeded. This would give us more flexibility in structuring our mesh objects and give us the ability to eliminate workarounds that are inefficient. If the user tries to link another object into a linkset which would exceed the total number of faces for the entire linkset, then it would fail to link in the same way it fails to link if you try to link more than 255 objects together. Examples: * 1 object could have a maximum number of 2040 faces but then could not be linked to another object. * 5 objects could have 16 faces and another 20 objects could have 4 faces for a total of 160 faces which could all be linked and is equivalent to 20 objects in a linkset each with 8 faces. One area where this could be a benefit is mesh bodies with alpha cuts. Today they are linksets of about 25 objects so that there are about 200 faces for enough cuts. Each object brings extra overheads as well as the faces. With the scheme I outline here, one object would be able to have 200 faces and so a mesh body would not have to be cut up and linked. It would still be more efficient than a 25 object linkset. There are many other applications which would benefit from this scheme. NOTE#1: It may seem open to abuse to allow a single unlinked object to have this many faces but in reality if someone wanted that many faces today, they already could and the 255 object linkset would be far worse than a single object with the same amount of faces. NOTE#2: Obviously the number of total faces per object wouldn't have to be that high. There would still be a lot of benefit. The point is in adding the flexibility rather than what the actual per object maximum should be.

This was a jira in the past...and still now many more years in it is still needed. The default attachment point of right hand is still not assigned by many creators to a more obvious location, some that are so new that they may not even be aware they could do otherwise, leaving it up to the end user to reassign. If there was a checkbox or drop down available in the upload window, then this would give the creator the opportunity to just select the attachment point that better works with the product. We still see people losing an upper object when trying to wear a lower object because not all people use add and not everyone assumes that they will be to the same point. I made a mock up and there is enough room for something of this nature in the upload window as it is currently.