Charolotte Caxton Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Facelight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceka Cianci Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 lol that is their butt shading in the texture of the skin i believe.. i don't think it was meant to be bent hehehehehe it probably shades under the cheeks and can be really scarey on some skins when it gets stretched..some skins have this under the breast as well.. i had one awhile back and put it on and took it off pretty quick hehehe it probably looks nice for certain poses.but others..well ..just say no!! lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Baloo Uriza wrote: Lighting is unpredictabe in the real world. Lighting, unlike what you claim, can't change a bad looking skin or accessories from looking bad. Then they just look bad, brightly. Hue, saturation, tint, white balance, etc, All so much fun. I was photographing some musicians at a concert who were all wearing what appeared to be black turtleneck shirts. But under the spot lights, the reflected light from their shirts caused the shirts to all look brown to the camera. Not hard to compensate for but something you have to be aware of. I saw a lot of cell phone pictures that their shirts looked brown. Another show the lead singer had two red spot lights that hit the top of his head when he stood at the microphone. The naked eye really didn't notice it that much but almost all the pictures I saw it looked like he had third degree sunburn on his scalp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pussycat Catnap Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Done right lighting is EVERYTHING you notice about a scene yet completely unoticed. In animation and to some extent MMO land, there are people who's full time job is to do nothing but work on lighting. Games like Guild Wars - known for moody and richly alive avatars - actually "just" have good lighting. In my Poser / Daz days, I was lighting nut - even though most of my scenes used only 3 spot lights carefully positioned and set for just the right effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pussycat Catnap Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Ceka Cianci wrote: lol that is their butt shading in the texture of the skin i believe.. I suppose that's better than I was thinking. Given the very low number of vertices there - I was thinking that was detail spilling over from the other side on a poorly done texture. Pretty much anyone with those hoochy-mama butt cheek showing pants in SL looks like this to everyone but themselves. Its common with 3D models for this part of the body to be undetailed in the number of vertices for usually intentionally prudish reasons (Daz used to say for years that a female mesh didn't need vertices down there because there was nothing 3-dimensional to see... /facepalm). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Jetaime Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 What I choose as the sources of rendered lights in preferences only effects my viewer. My viewer renders them or not based on my choice.. If you choose NOT to render attached lights then your viewer doesn't render them. It makes no sense that it would not render the light but still count it as rendered . I have never seen anything stating this happens and never noticed it myself. The link Charlotte posted also proves that if you derender face lights that they no longer effect the atmospheric lighting. Some have said that if they do that, other lights people have on or carry would be turned off too. But a point in fact is that using the same stnadard, anyone carrying any kind of light. like flash lights and lanterns, is negatively effecting the ambient light too. Why are they OK but face lights are not? Seems pretty hypocritical and based on a personal preference not logic. I don't like human flashlights much myself and have derendered them when they bother me. In view of the facts in that link, those of you who do not like them can turn them off. There is no need to jump on people that use them, or call them names like some of you have in your posts. It is childish bullying. The bottom line is no one has promised you a perfect visual experience in SL but you have the tools to choose what you see or not. Use them. Live and let live and recognize that people have a right to look the way they want to. There are PLENTY of other things I see people wearing that I personally find much more offensive. But it is their choice and no one has the right to restrict that choice unless they are on land you own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coby Foden Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Amethyst Jetaime wrote: The bottom line is no one has promised you a perfect visual experience in SL but you have the tools to choose what you see or not. Use them. Live and let live and recognize that people have a right to look the way they want to. I agree to that people do have the right to look the way they want to. That is perfectly all right. The problem with facelights is that the wearer does not change only how they themselves look. They affect also the environment near them, and they affect also how other avatars look who are near them. Even if I turn worn lights off so that I don't see them, still others see how the facelight wearer standing near me changes my appearance to them. It's not very cool that a facelight wearer has the right to change how I look to others, is it? Naturally I can move further away. But for example, if I'm in a crowded live concert in a good spot, I don't want to move anywhere. Let's say that if SL had a new kind of light source, the kind of ligh that it would affect only the light wearer and absolutely nothing else, then this facelight issue would not exist. People could light themselves up in anyway they would wish without affecting the environment nor other avatars. I don't know would that kind of light be possible at all, but it would be great if it was. That would be a perfect solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Coby Foden wrote: Amethyst Jetaime wrote: The bottom line is no one has promised you a perfect visual experience in SL but you have the tools to choose what you see or not. Use them. Live and let live and recognize that people have a right to look the way they want to. I agree to that people do have the right to look the way they want to. That is perfectly all right. The problem with facelights is that the wearer does not change only how they themselves look. They affect also the environment near them, and they affect also how other avatars look who are near them. Even if I turn worn lights off so that I don't see them, still others see how the facelight wearer standing near me changes my appearance to them. It's not very cool that a facelight wearer has the right to change how I look to others, is it? Naturally I can move further away. But for example, if I'm in a crowded live concert in a good spot, I don't want to move anywhere. Let's say that if SL had a new kind of light source, the kind of ligh that it would affect only the light wearer and absolutely nothing else, then this facelight issue would not exist. People could light themselves up in anyway they would wish without affecting the environment nor other avatars. I don't know would that kind of light be possible at all, but it would be great if it was. That would be a perfect solution. "It's not very cool that a facelight wearer has the right to change how I look to others, is it?" This is a very good point! Generally, I do move out of range of the spotlights, but really, why should I have to move? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceka Cianci Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 i thought we were dropped down to only 2 lights from 6? this was like a good while ago they did this..or did they change it back at some point and i missed the memo.. like LL gives us memos lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Mokusei Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Ceka Cianci wrote: i thought we were dropped down to only 2 lights from 6? There are now infinite lights available. 6 is the old limit, used by older hardware. Modern PCs will see as many lights are there are within viewable distance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charolotte Caxton Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Perrie Juran wrote: Coby Foden wrote: Amethyst Jetaime wrote: The bottom line is no one has promised you a perfect visual experience in SL but you have the tools to choose what you see or not. Use them. Live and let live and recognize that people have a right to look the way they want to. I agree to that people do have the right to look the way they want to. That is perfectly all right. The problem with facelights is that the wearer does not change only how they themselves look. They affect also the environment near them, and they affect also how other avatars look who are near them. Even if I turn worn lights off so that I don't see them, still others see how the facelight wearer standing near me changes my appearance to them. It's not very cool that a facelight wearer has the right to change how I look to others, is it? Naturally I can move further away. But for example, if I'm in a crowded live concert in a good spot, I don't want to move anywhere. Let's say that if SL had a new kind of light source, the kind of light that it would affect only the light wearer and absolutely nothing else, then this facelight issue would not exist. People could light themselves up in anyway they would wish without affecting the environment nor other avatars. I don't know would that kind of light be possible at all, but it would be great if it was. That would be a perfect solution. "It's not very cool that a facelight wearer has the right to change how I look to others, is it?" This is a very good point! Generally, I do move out of range of the spotlights, but really, why should I have to move? I have always considered facelights to be a part of the Second Life experience. When I joined, they were as common as hair that goes through your body and skirts that are really shorts with a crotch flap. I stay away from long hair styles because I don't like when it goes through my body and I don't hardly ever wear skirt flaps because, well, its not what I like, personally. However, both of those things can look great in photos when done right, so too the facelighting, which is why I use them, facelights that is. My first realization that they were affecting others reality was when I was near someone with what I thought was a very very subtle facelight, to make me pretty with a soft glow, when they said, oh, you are wearing a facelight. I said, how could you tell? They said, well, its shining on my body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceka Cianci Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Freya Mokusei wrote: Ceka Cianci wrote: i thought we were dropped down to only 2 lights from 6? There are now infinite lights available. 6 is the old limit, used by older hardware. Modern PCs will see as many lights are there are within viewable distance. i remember it being an LL change not a client side change though..i'd have to look up the old thread in the archives to really remember what it was about.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Mokusei Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Ceka Cianci wrote: i remember it being an LL change not a client side change though..i'd have to look up the old thread in the archives to really remember what it was about.. I don't follow; all light-rendering is client-side. Suggest you check your sources. LL's Lighting and Shadow's engine replaced the default OpenGL-style shading (known in the viewer as Advanced Shaders), which was limited to 8 light-sources (2 being reserved for sun/moon). L&S doesn't use the old OpenGL commands, instead using a more typical approach to render as many lights as are within view. There are three rendering systems at work:- Basic Shaders (LL viewer circa 2003) - One lightsource, global light. Facelights don't work and neither does Windlight/advanced prim features such as lights or glow.. Advanced Shaders (LL viewer circa 2008) - Limited to 8 'basic' orb lightsources max, as described above. Windlight works, as does glow, shiny and bump. Lighting and Shadows (LL viewer circa 2010/2011) - 2 to infinite lightsources. Also allows spotlights, textured-lights, shadows. Windlight glow/shiny/facelights all work, also. The disparities between these engines is what's causing 99% of the technical issues with Facelights. The largest problem with Facelights remains cultural. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceka Cianci Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Freya Mokusei wrote: Ceka Cianci wrote: i thought we were dropped down to only 2 lights from 6? There are now infinite lights available. 6 is the old limit, used by older hardware. Modern PCs will see as many lights are there are within viewable distance. ok i found it hehehe i guess there was a glitch with a viewer at that time..like 1.19 to 1.21 i think.. anyways this is a quote from one of the posts in the thread i found.. i think i was mistaking talk about the sun and moon and back lighting for the two lights..it's been so long since i had seen these threads thatit's really a blur to remember..but looking back it seems to just have been a glitch and me getting the other two mixed up that are always there.. "Hardware lighting Any primitive in Second Life may be turned into a light Light properties are radius, color, intensity, and falloff New options in the Preference panel indicate the type of lighting you want to use "Sun or Moon only" is best for low-performance hardware Everything in-world is lit in real time by the sun or moon only "Nearby Lights" is available for any hardware configuration Everything in-world is lit by sun or moon and up to six nearby light sources "All Lights" is available on systems with GPUs supporting Vertex Shaders Objects in-world, and terrain, are by sun or moon and all lights Avatars and attachments, trees and grass are lit by sun or moon and up to six nearby light sources "All Lights + Shadows" is available only to high-performance systems Includes features in "All Lights" above plus the ability for the sun and moon to cast shadows in-world and on terrain" and this was someone trying to explain it better to the person quoting the wiki..which was dated April 13 2006 "OpenGL, the graphics language that SL is written in, allows for up to eight lights to be in use at any given time in any real-time environment. SL, as an OpenGL application, has to follow this rule. There is absolutely no way around it. So what are the eight lights? Well, the first one is the sun/moon. The second one is what's called the "backlight", which simulates ambient light. Those two always have to be present, or you wouldn't be able to see the world. That leaves six other lights available for users to play with. The maximum is eight. Two are always in use. The remaining six, you can do whatever you want with." here let me just link the thread lol because they go into facelights as well.. http://forums-archive.secondlife.com/327/a3/250865/1.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baloo Uriza Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Freya Mokusei wrote: There are now infinite lights available. 6 is the old limit, used by older hardware. Older hardware, or specific settings? Freya Mokusei wrote: Modern PCs will see as many lights are there are within viewable distance. Just remember, the only wrong answer is to tell people to get a real computer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceka Cianci Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Freya Mokusei wrote: Ceka Cianci wrote: i remember it being an LL change not a client side change though..i'd have to look up the old thread in the archives to really remember what it was about.. I don't follow; all light-rendering is client-side. Suggest you check your sources. LL's Lighting and Shadow's engine replaced the default OpenGL-style shading (known in the viewer as Advanced Shaders), which was limited to 8 light-sources (2 being reserved for sun/moon). L&S doesn't use the old OpenGL commands, instead using a more typical approach to render as many lights as are within view. There are three rendering systems at work:- Basic Shaders (LL viewer circa 2003) - One lightsource, global light. Facelights don't work and neither does Windlight/advanced prim features such as lights or glow.. Advanced Shaders (LL viewer circa 2008) - Limited to 8 'basic' orb lightsources max, as described above. Windlight works, as does glow, shiny and bump. Lighting and Shadows (LL viewer circa 2010/2011) - 2 to infinite lightsources. Also allows spotlights, textured-lights, shadows. Windlight glow/shiny/facelights all work, also. The disparities between these engines is what's causing 99% of the technical issues with Facelights. The largest problem with Facelights remains cultural. ok ya then this was awhile ago and i am just remembering or trying to remember from back then and getting even the old information mixed up.. lol it wouldn't be the first time.. i guess thats why i asked if it had changed..and me thinking it was an LL change was really just glitched viewer release lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Mokusei Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Ceka Cianci wrote: http://forums-archive.secondlife.com/327/a3/250865/1.html Mostly accurate for the time. PC technology has advanced significantly since and the 'high end systems' are now 'average systems', etc. 'Sun + Moon' is the lowest setting using L&S. As I said above, L&S allows between 2 and infinite lightsources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Mokusei Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Baloo Uriza wrote: Just remember, the only wrong answer is to tell people to get a real computer. I said no such thing. However, clinging to the past will only cover you with dust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceka Cianci Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 thanks for clearing that up..just thought i would show where i was coming from since i had not really been updated on the info till now.. i haven't really been glued to changes like i used to be back when RA was around..so some things i get a bit out of date on and things get a bit blurry and wonder if they have changed.. again ..thanks for clearing it up for me =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Mokusei Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Ceka Cianci wrote: thanks for clearing that up..just thought i would show where i was coming from since i had not really been updated on the info till now.. i haven't really been glued to changes like i used to be back when RA was around..so some things i get a bit out of date on and things get a bit blurry and wonder if they have changed.. again ..thanks for clearing it up for me =) Not a problem. As I say, it's mostly misunderstandings like this that cause abusively-powerful Facelights to exist in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceka Cianci Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Freya Mokusei wrote: Ceka Cianci wrote: thanks for clearing that up..just thought i would show where i was coming from since i had not really been updated on the info till now.. i haven't really been glued to changes like i used to be back when RA was around..so some things i get a bit out of date on and things get a bit blurry and wonder if they have changed.. again ..thanks for clearing it up for me =) Not a problem. As I say, it's mostly misunderstandings like this that cause abusively-powerful Facelights to exist in the first place. that and you still see a lot of them in folders and boxes of the products we buy.. i see so many of them from just shopping that you just know that a new user will put it on just thinking it has to be worn with the outfit.. they don't really know any better until someone tells them they don't need them.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pussycat Catnap Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Freya Mokusei wrote: LL's Lighting and Shadow's engine replaced the default OpenGL-style shading (known in the viewer as Advanced Shaders), which was limited to 8 light-sources (2 being reserved for sun/moon). Advanced Shaders (LL viewer circa 2008) - Limited to 8 'basic' orb lightsources max, as described above. Windlight works, as does glow, shiny and bump. Lighting and Shadows (LL viewer circa 2010/2011) - 2 to infinite lightsources. Also allows spotlights, textured-lights, shadows. Windlight glow/shiny/facelights all work, also. The disparities between these engines is what's causing 99% of the technical issues with Facelights. The largest problem with Facelights remains cultural. The problem here is that I would wager the vast majority of people run in the Advanced Shaders settings, and only sometimes dabble into Lighting and Shadows. This can be born out by looking at screencaps here, the feeds, flickr, and elsewhere. It is usually very obvious which of these settings is in play, and it is a minority that are using shadows. Rare are the folks with shadows on in a scene with more than 2 or 3 avatars. Its used for art - while in day to day socializing and exploring, people are on Advanced and suffer when somebody flips on a facelight. Most machines lose 20-30 off of FPS when they switch on shadows. Some lucky folks will lose less when alone. Some few will lose less even in crowds. This limits its use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeny Howlett Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 If you are limited to low graphic settings you can adjust your scene gamma, it eliminates the need for facelight. V3: World menu-->Environment editor-->Sky presets-->new preset-->lighting-->turn your scane gamma to 2.5 or higher and you wont have those ugly face shadows anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malanya Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 LOL..People come to sl for their own experience and to escape, enjoy whatever the reason may be, how they build their avi, what attachments they use, clothes they wear, etc. is neither MY business nor YOURS. Learn how to use your preferences and settings. OT: BTW I don't like that your store spammed me to send out a "TEST EMAIL" I didn't sign up for your group, store anything, but you feel you can clutter my sign on with your notices that were unwarranted? I have never even heard of your store until the "notice" Please keep complaining about facelights, wasn't aware that you were involved in my sl account. SL sure has not changed since I had my last account a few years back. Jeeeez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pussycat Catnap Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 You might want to read a bit further in before making that anti-community rant. SL is a shared world - what we do impacts others, and we can and should be held responsible for such. There's some serious debate here over whether or not a person wearing facelights disrupts the lighting for others around them. - If that is the case, then it is essentially a form of griefing. Mild as most may not be aware they are doing this to others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now