Jump to content
James Samiam

Second Life is too expensive!

Recommended Posts


16 wrote:

my observation of watching linden since SL started has led me to a conclusion. dunno if is right or wrong. just seems like to me

in the linden company is a philosophical tenet that everything they do is founded on. a tenet that Philip Linden established in the beginning. the tenet is that art direction of SL is the preogative of the users. is for the users only to determine this. the company will only provide tools. since Rodvik came then the company has moved back to this core philosophy

at times the company staff tear themselves apart over this down the years. leading to resignations. sackings even sometimes

+

the lack of direction provided by the company is often portrayed/seen by us as a codey versus director battle. is the wrong portrayal i think. the difference is philosophical and goes to the core of SL. to uphold the philosophical tenet then linden as a company dont choose any direction for the art that we might make

what we can make is determined by the tools. what we do make is determinded by us. if linden start to make tools that are directed by them to achieve a particular art outcome then the company is now deciding the art. not us the residents

is why the company staff tear themselves apart sometimes. the division in the company is between them that want to influence the art direction of SL and them that want to leave this in our hands

i think that we never going to get a linden avatar 2.0. i think they going to just keep on giving us better tools to make our own. so that we can take the avatars we make in any direction we want. bc of the core philosophical tenet of the linden company

if linden do start directing then SL will just end up like any other game. like predetermined boxes. levels. and grinding it according to a linden directed game/design/art plan

This really does make a lot of sense.

In "Your World, Your Imagination," what art is there for LL to direct outside of website design and possibly LL provided content like such as Linden Realms?

The problems with UI design in the Viewers are not necessarily artistic ones but poor understanding of what makes life easiest for the majority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:

In "Your World, Your Imagination," what art is there for LL to direct outside of website design and possibly LL provided content like such as Linden Realms?


The default camera placement.

The default windlight settings.

The starter avatars.

The welcome areas.

The tutorials that teach people how to create art assets which do not cause undue amounts of lag.

The appearance editor.

The basic bodyshape archetypes that the appearance editor, if designed well, would provide as a starting point for new users attempting to create a shape.

 

 Seriously, artists do more, and are more important, than people realize. Companies like Adobe and Autodesk create software like Photoshop and Maya. These companies are not "content creators", they are more like Linden Lab in that they supply the tools. However, they hire artists.

Why? Simple, the tools are meant to be used by artists, so they need feedback. Both from the customers, that's you, and from their own internal sources, to help them better sort out the noise from the signal when it comes to customer feedback.

 

 For example, lag. Everyone complains about lag. It's safe to say that if it's not the single biggest user complaint, it definitely ranks high in the top ten. 

 What's the noise? The people saying LL needs to do something about lag, like make the servers run better or something! Why is that noise? Because while the complaints about lag are valid, there is no amount of "fixing the code" or "improving the servers" that will get rid of it. The actual problem is more complex than that and basically amounts to resource use, across the board. From scripts and physics to textures and polygons. How can LL possibly sort the signal from the noise unless they have people on staff who understand how things like texture use impact performance and how best to address it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


16 wrote:

if linden do start directing then SL will just end up like any other game. like predetermined boxes. levels. and grinding it according to a linden directed game/design/art plan

In short, this statement above is entirely incorrect because it rests on incorrect assumptions on what an art director for SL would be responsible for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Penny Patton wrote:


16 wrote:

if linden do start directing then SL will just end up like any other game. like predetermined boxes. levels. and grinding it according to a linden directed game/design/art plan

In short, this statement above is entirely incorrect because it rests on incorrect assumptions on what an art director for SL would be responsible for.

you just totally dismiss people like Torley and Michael Linden and the other art focussed lindens when you say these kinda things. they use the same tools we do

the LDPW is the single biggest directed art programme ever in the history of UGC worlds. it includes some of the best 3D modellers and artists ever. they use the same tools we do

is just so wrong that you dismiss all these people and their inputs bc the inworld dont conform to how you want it. and then point at people like me and sniff and say we dont understand

+

what you want is to change the inworld. to shape it to your view

look at the list you made to Perrie:

default camera placement. default windlight settings. starter avatars. welcome areas. appearance editor. bodyshape archetypes

only one of the things you list has to do with tools. everything else has to do with the view

+

is ok for you to want to change the view. to make it more something else

 

but for me is about the tools. more tools. less restrictions. not more restrictions

so what about a zillion 1024x1024 textures. is the artists choice. same as is their choice to not align their prims. to bling everything they make to pieces. to script it to death. whatever they want. however they want. is upto them

yes is a pain sometimes when end up in sight of their creations and get lagged to pieces

but if i have to choose between my comfort and their creativity in this UGC environment. is no contest for me. i will go with them everytime. and i dont care how ugly or unconformist or how badly the creator breaks every rule in the art class manual

is their stuff. their expression. their creation

+

is why i dont want to see a linden avatar 2.0. this is a box. same as avatar 1.0 is

i want to see tools that allow artists to make their own avatars. anyway they want. and i want to see the appearance editor sliders able to affect the avatars they do make. so we can adjust the size of the avatar within the bounds that the avatar maker sets for their own model

not the bounds that will be set by linden if they make a avatar 2.0

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


16 wrote:

what you want is to change the inworld. to shape it to your view


When you say things like this, it only confirms that you don't understand.

No, I don't particularly want to shape SL to my view, I want the Lindens to provide good tools and good default settings so artists can truly let their imaginations fly and get the most out of what is possible in SL.

They're not currently doing that and as a result, what is possible in SL is severely restricted compared to what it could be.


is why i dont want to see a linden avatar 2.0. this is a box. same as avatar 1.0 is

 

That "box" is precisely why you can walk into any shop in SL and purchase some clothing that is compatible with your avatar.

If there were dozens of different mesh avatars and no standard, you're ability to find clothes compatible with your avatar would be severely constricted to only those who supported the avatar you used.

 Most clothing creators would pick ONE avatar to support, and eventually it could become clear that one body or another would be the dominant avatar that EVERYONE used. In order to have the most clothing options, everyone would have an identical body.

Not exactly ideal for creativity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Penny Patton wrote:


16 wrote:

what you want is to change the inworld. to shape it to your view


When you say things like this, it only confirms that you don't understand.

No, I don't particularly want to shape SL to my view, I want the Lindens to provide good tools and good default settings so artists can truly let their imaginations fly and get the most out of what is possible in SL.

They're not currently doing that and as a result, what is possible in SL is severely restricted compared to what it could be.

is why i dont want to see a linden avatar 2.0. this is a box. same as avatar 1.0 is

 

That "box" is precisely why you can walk into any shop in SL and purchase some clothing that is compatible with your avatar.

If there were dozens of different mesh avatars and no standard, you're ability to find clothes compatible with your avatar would be severely constricted to only those who supported the avatar you used.

 Most clothing creators would pick ONE avatar to support, and eventually it could become clear that one body or another would be the dominant avatar that EVERYONE used. In order to have the most clothing options, everyone would have an identical body.

Not exactly ideal for creativity.

about understanding

take the default camera setting. why is it set where it is?

is bc of the ability to rez/build inworld. if change the camera to a flatter position/angle then have to change the camera view to see the ground to rez a box. is the same when building with prims. they have to be rezzed on something. is why the camera is set high by default. so that can see the rez point on the ground close to you

can change the camera to a more flat angle and see how frustrating that works for a new person just wanting to rez a box and firsttime building

 

+

could become clear that everyone going to get dominated by one shape

is just not true this. can look at what is happening with what part and whole avatars are being created. petites. toodleoos. etc. hands. feet. breasts. now even whole heads. and more to come. even without any ability to mod the riggings

is the ability to mod is what linden should concentrate on. not put us in a box. they should abandon the deformer project as well. is a bad technological approach is the deformer. is also impossible to realize for the general case. so don't do it is my advice to linden. when is a way alternative that is easy doable and give even more ability for us to make whatever we want 

I don't disagree that we need better creative tools. what I disagree with is that the way to do this is to put further restrictions on the creators

+

how can this be done?

want we need is the ability to create a physics hull. to be able to assign bones to the hull. be able to create sliders for our hull. to attach sliders to bones. to set bounds for them for the avatar shape we making

then when we got that then is a asset. can sell it or give away or whatever

then we can make meshes for the hull. binding the mesh surface to points on the hull. able to set mesh triangles to either flex or non-flex

like for example

hair. some strands will flex. some not

a coat. the skirt of the coat will flex with the hull. the buttons will move with hull but not flex

the hull being physics means that avatar physics can be turned off and on to compensate for them what don't have high-powered computers

+

how feasible is this?

I get a GTX 660 end last year. is standard off the shelf middle of the road video card now already. can do allot of physics stuff already on it. next year  the GTX Titan going to be middle of the road

dunno if you seen the Titan video card yet. but can buy it now. by this time next year will be standard tech. is a massive breakthrough and where linden need to be going with SL

here is a vid from the Nvdia CEO.

 

is about physics and the Titan. go to 8:20 to get to the really good part. within 2 years this going to be stock standard stuff

this the killer app for 3D everything. realtime physics. linden need be in this space with SL. the first UGC world that can let us create for this environment is going to rule

liquid physics are the ultimate. is now possible to do at the consumer level. and within 2 years will be expected by everyone

and with it will be no boxes. like none. not in a UGC world anyways

   

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only read the first few posts - not even the whole of the first page - but I have no doubt that I'll be swimming against the tide with this post.

You stated simply that SL is too expensive. What you didn't say specifically is who it's too expensive for. But your post did make it clear that having land in SL is too expensive for you personally. That doesn't make SL too expensive. It just means that having land in SL is too expensive for you. But fear not. There is a perfectly good solution for you. Don't have land in SL. That way SL isn't too expensive for you.

SL is not too expensive. From the point of view of owning land, it's the monthly tier that takes the money, but that isn't too expensive either. In fact, it's probably just about right from LL's point of view. If it isn't right, they'd change it. It's not too expensive from a user's point of view either. There are a great many landowners who can afford the tier, so it's not too expensive for them.

The only people for whom SL is too expensive are those who can't afford it. That doesn't make SL too expensive. It just means that those people can't use the system in the same way that other people can. It's the same with most things. Some people can afford expensive cars and huge houses, but I can't. It doesn't mean that expensive cars and huge houses are too expensive. They are not. It just means that I don't have the money to spend on those things, so I have to make do with a cheaper car and a smaller house. SL is no different. If a person can't afford it, don't buy it. It's as simple as that.

I don't agree with the general idea that tier is too expensive. It's a balancing act for LL - tier fees balanced against running costs. What I've always said is that LL would probably make more money if they had more tier levels, with smaller jumps between them, but that's nothing to do with SL being too expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

add more

just want to say more about liquid physics and why is important to 3D worlds

hair again. long hair that flex and don't penetrate your shouders

when dancing with your partner. when your dress swirl if don't penetrate your partners legs. it folds/pushes round them

when your AO sits and puts your hands on your thighs then they sit on top. and not penetrate. no matter how long your arms

and the ultimate couples. when snuggle then the avatars will touch at all points and not penetrate

no need to be phantom anymore

to make this work very well then much of the up close liquid physics need move to client side. and server side physics then just have to deal with the broad bounding box same like now

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Penny Patton wrote:


Perrie Juran wrote:

In "Your World, Your Imagination," what art is there for LL to direct outside of website design and possibly LL provided content like such as Linden Realms?


The default camera placement.

The default windlight settings.

The starter avatars.

The welcome areas.

The tutorials that teach people how to create art assets which do not cause undue amounts of lag.

The appearance editor.

The basic bodyshape archetypes that the appearance editor, if designed well, would provide as a starting point for new users attempting to create a shape.

 

 Seriously, artists do more, and are more important, than people realize. Companies like Adobe and Autodesk create software like Photoshop and Maya. These companies are not "content creators", they are more like Linden Lab in that they supply the tools. However, they hire artists.

Why? Simple, the tools are meant to be used by artists, so they need feedback. Both from the customers, that's you, and from their own internal sources, to help them better sort out the noise from the signal when it comes to customer feedback.

 

 For example, lag. Everyone complains about lag. It's safe to say that if it's not the single biggest user complaint, it definitely ranks high in the top ten. 

 What's the noise? The people saying LL needs to do something about lag, like make the servers run better or something! Why is that noise? Because while the complaints about lag are valid, there is no amount of "fixing the code" or "improving the servers" that will get rid of it. The actual problem is more complex than that and basically amounts to resource use, across the board. From scripts and physics to textures and polygons. How can LL possibly sort the signal from the noise unless they have people on staff who understand how things like texture use impact performance and how best to address it?

I'll agree somewhat with these points.  But you would still have the problem of 'beauty being in the eye of the beholder.'  Would we choose Rembrandt or would we choose Picasso for the position?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

I've only read the first few posts - not even the whole of the first page - but I have no doubt that I'll be swimming against the tide with this post.

You stated simply that SL is too expensive. What you didn't say specifically is who it's too expensive for. But your post did make it clear that having land in SL is too expensive for you personally. That doesn't make SL too expensive. It just means that having land in SL is too expensive for you. But fear not. There is a perfectly good solution for you.
Don't have land in SL.
That way SL isn't too expensive for you.

SL is not too expensive. From the point of view of owning land, it's the monthly tier that takes the money, but that isn't too expensive either. In fact, it's probably just about right from LL's point of view. If it isn't right, they'd change it. It's not too expensive from a user's point of view either. There are a great many landowners who can afford the tier, so it's not too expensive for them.

The only people for whom SL is too expensive are those who can't afford it. That doesn't make SL too expensive. It just means that those people can't use the system in the same way that other people can. It's the same with most things. Some people can afford expensive cars and huge houses, but I can't. It doesn't mean that expensive cars and huge houses are too expensive. They are not. It just means that I don't have the money to spend on those things, so I have to make do with a cheaper car and a smaller house. SL is no different. If a person can't afford it, don't buy it. It's as simple as that.

I don't agree with the general idea that tier is too expensive. It's a balancing act for LL - tier fees balanced against running costs. What I've always said is that LL would probably make more money if they had more tier levels, with smaller jumps between them, but that's nothing to do with SL being too expensive.

Agree with all of the above. I always assume that those who post that something is "too expensive" are probably too young to understand how the world actually works. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


16 wrote:

about understanding

take the default camera setting. why is it set where it is?

is bc of the ability to rez/build inworld. if change the camera to a flatter position/angle then have to change the camera view to see the ground to rez a box. is the same when building with prims. they have to be rezzed on something. is why the camera is set high by default. so that can see the rez point on the ground close to you

can change the camera to a more flat angle and see how frustrating that works for a new person just wanting to rez a box and firsttime building

That's not even slightly true, tho. The camera placement I'm in favour of (Here's a link to see for yourself.) doesn't make building any more difficult or frustrating. In fact, quite the opposite. My ideal camera placement makes building easier.

I'm speaking as someone whose main focus in SL is building.

island village.jpg

sl feed island shot 2.jpg


16 wrote:

could become clear that everyone going to get dominated by one shape

is just not true this. can look at what is happening with what part and whole avatars are being created. petites. toodleoos. etc. hands. feet. breasts. now even whole heads. and more to come. even without any ability to mod the riggings

 

Youre examples prove my point. Why mesh heads while keeping the old bodies that everyone agrees are substandard? Because avatar clothing requires you to stay with those mesh bodies.

 

 

Look at mesh breasts, I have experience with those. You are restricted only to clothing made compatible with the specific brand of mesh breasts you're wearing. Bought the Blush mesh breasts then see a dress you desperately want, but it only supports Tangos? You're out of luck, sorry!

 In addition, giving us an improved base avatar doesn't mean sacrificing our ability to mod the avatar  with non-standard parts. It just means a better base to work off of. So, you're entire argument that it's a "box" is faulty by your own reasoning.

 

 I fully support features that allow us to mod the avatar in all kinds of crazy ways beyond the standard body, but providing a better standard base allows us to do more, not less. More importantly, it allows people who aren't pro level modellers to do more. A kay to SL's success (such as it is) is that anyone can jump in and create. 

Allowing those people to do more, and more easily, is always a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:

I'll agree somewhat with these points.  But you would still have the problem of 'beauty being in the eye of the beholder.'  Would we choose Rembrandt or would we choose Picasso for the position?


We're not talking "beauty", we're talking "skill".

Would you rather have an accountant who knows nothing about car maintenance fix the breaks in your car because they drive the same kind of car as you or the trained mechanic who drives a different kind of car, but knows how to fix breaks in any kind of car?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

 

What I've always said is that LL would probably make more money if they had more tier levels, with smaller jumps between them, but that's nothing to do with SL being too expensive.

Totally agree!  This has been my thinking for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Penny Patton wrote:

The camera placement I'm in favour of
doesn't make building any more difficult or frustrating. In fact, quite the opposite. My ideal camera placement makes building easier.


change camera position to these settings and do a exercise

1) drag drop a box from inventory

2) go to a sandbox. select Build. new box. click on the ground

repeat 1 and 2 on a 512m and in a Linden Home

if you don't have to change the camera view to point down to do this then I be interested to know what is your secret. a vid would be good

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Penny Patton wrote:


16 wrote:

could become clear that everyone going to get dominated by one shape

is just not true this. can look at what is happening with what part and whole avatars are being created. petites. toodleoos. etc. hands. feet. breasts. now even whole heads. and more to come. even without any ability to mod the riggings

 

 

 In addition, giving us an improved base avatar doesn't mean sacrificing our ability to mod the avatar  with non-standard parts. It just means a better base to work off of. So, you're entire argument that it's a "box" is faulty by your own reasoning.

.

where the fault lies is in the misconception that there be one base starting point. this thinking lead to the deformer debacle. a linden provided Avatar 2.0 continues this

only one starting point for an avatar is a box. it limits us by the pigeonhole principle. is a hard limit this

to avoid this hard limit we need to have multiple starting points. below the avatar mesh. to be able to create a hull. physics enabled or not. the mesh needs to bind to the hull. not to the bones. the hull binds to the bones 

avatar mesh and clothing and accessories that deform to the hull

that's what linden should do. not create a base mesh avatar and then bind one hull to it. which is what we got now and will continue to get if linden make a new base mesh avatar 2.0 just more proportioned prettier looking than base mesh avatar 1.0

this a mathematics problem. plain arithmetic tells us this

+

about the lolas and other mesh avatars that require textures to be made in a particular way. why is that a difficulty? it applies now to avatar 1.0. we have to craft for the layers

 +

I realize now that you think is better that there be one base. one starting point. one hull. when it comes to avatars. and just build off that. if so then we have fundamental disagreement about this part

is plain arithmetic like I said. bc we not take this into consideration is why we/resident/lindens are stuck right now. we are stuck on the hard limits. stuck with the misconception that one base shape/hull can fit all

i just don't want us to perpetuate this going forward. I think sometimes that we look at what we have and then just try fix it somehow. using the same methods that lead us into the current problems in the first place

+

with avatar 2.0 linden can go down two paths. single avatar hull one size fits all somehow. or multi-hulls. I vote for multi-hulls. ones that we can make ourselves. however we want

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel sorry for the people who actually buy a plot of pixel land for $1100 + $295 a month. Lol. Unless you buy it for the purpose of selling it for a higher price of course. Then I feel sorry for the idiot who actually buys from you. Next LL will create "pixel banks" for the purpose of "pixel mortgages".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


16 wrote:


Penny Patton wrote:

The camera placement I'm in favour of
doesn't make building any more difficult or frustrating. In fact, quite the opposite. My ideal camera placement makes building easier.


change camera position to these settings and do a exercise

1) drag drop a box from inventory

2) go to a sandbox. select Build. new box. click on the ground

repeat 1 and 2 on a 512m and in a Linden Home

if you don't have to change the camera view to point down to do this then I be interested to know what is your secret. a vid would be good

 

I do this all the time, it is not the issue you imagine it to be. There's no secret, it just works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


16 wrote:

I realize now that you think is better that there be one base. one starting point. one hull. when it comes to avatars. and just build off that. if so then we have fundamental disagreement about this part

You're working with a false dilemma here.

According to you, we either get an improved base avatar OR we get tools making more custom avatar options possible.

I am telling you that there is absolutely no reason we can't have both.

An improved base avatar frees up anyone with limited art and design skills to create a better looking avatar without learning 3D modelling.

More tools allow the more skilled users to craft more unique avatars but personalization is limited to content which supports those unique avatars.

 I say "give us both" wich provides the broadest range of options to both casual users and skilled creative types. 

 You say, "No, just give us the option which relies on skills with external software and isn't particularly friendly to the average user".

 

That is the fundamental difference between our arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Penny Patton wrote:


16 wrote:

I realize now that you think is better that there be one base. one starting point. one hull. when it comes to avatars. and just build off that. if so then we have fundamental disagreement about this part

You're working with a false dilemma here.

According to you, we either get an improved base avatar OR we get tools making more custom avatar options possible.

I am telling you that there is absolutely no reason we can't have both.

An improved base avatar frees up anyone with limited art and design skills to create a better looking avatar without learning 3D modelling.

More tools allow the more skilled users to craft more unique avatars but personalization is limited to content which supports those unique avatars.

 I say "give us both" wich provides the broadest range of options to both casual users and skilled creative types. 

 You say, "No, just give us the option which relies on skills with external software and isn't particularly friendly to the average user".

 

That is the fundamental difference between our arguments.

is nothing false about what I am saying. is not a dilemma either

when you say "give us both" then you agree with me. multi-hulls include both. more than both. many more

yes there will be starter hulls in the library. yes there will starter avatar meshes that will bind to the hulls. that can be manipulated by the sliders set by the respective hull makers

the fundamental core engineering difference between the hull approach and what we have now is that the avatar mesh is not baked into the viewer code like it is now. am not sure why you not see this

+

with starter library hulls and meshes then

can make a human avatar based on a human hull

can make a antelope based on a hull that has legs that go this way < <  can make a horse with legs that go < >

can make a wingie angel demon with wings in addition to arms and legs. a tail even. that just go by apply an animation. no motion scripting needed

can make a giant. an orge. a spider. a centipede even with a 100 legs. whatever we want. no scripting required for limb motion. just apply animations made for the hull

+

I never said anything about having to use external software. you maybe just thinking this bc you self-defining the issue in the context of what we have now

we need go beyond the current context. to do this we need go down a level and stop defining everything based on what we have now. if we want to progress the inworld beyond the limits we have now

+

what I am talking about is laying down a solid engineering foundation/platform to build avatar tools on. to take us into the future to the next levels and beyond in terms of creative

+

edit add bc I am not finished (:

if we get this platform then NPCs are also possible. all kinds of creatures however we want to make them

like: pick a hull. skin it with a mesh. apply pathfinding. apply animation. done

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 wrote:

is nothing false about what I am saying. is not a dilemma either


You're the one who said they should not give us an improved base avatar mesh, but instead give us the tools to more readily import and rig original avatars, as if they could not do both. That's the very definition of a "false dilemma".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


16 wrote:


Penny Patton wrote:

The camera placement I'm in favour of
doesn't make building any more difficult or frustrating. In fact, quite the opposite. My ideal camera placement makes building easier.


change camera position to these settings and do a exercise

1) drag drop a box from inventory

2) go to a sandbox. select Build. new box. click on the ground

repeat 1 and 2 on a 512m and in a Linden Home

if you don't have to change the camera view to point down to do this then I be interested to know what is your secret. a vid would be good

 

I've used Penny's recommended settings,  or something very close to them, for ages.  I build all the time, sometimes in on a building platform and sometimes in my tower.   I don't  have to change the camera view to do this -- obviously I zoom in on things, sometimes, when I'm checking close positioning, but that's all.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Treasure Ballinger wrote:

*NEXT*?  Heheh.  Haven't been in SL long, eh?

Oooo right!  Wasn't there some kind of "bank" or "savings" deal years ago?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Penny Patton wrote:


16 wrote:

is nothing false about what I am saying. is not a dilemma either

You're the one who said they should not give us an improved base avatar mesh, but instead give us the tools to more readily import and rig original avatars, as if they could not do both. That's the very definition of a "false dilemma".

 

what you are recommending is to replace the base avatar with two methods for creating and outfitting avatars. I am recommending one method

the reason for the one is because we have already hit the limits of the current method. replacing the current avatar with another one don't change the limits of this method

+

the current method is: 

a hull/shape restricted to a humanoid form. a form baked into the viewer. a form consisting of a topological surface (mesh) bound to bones

mesh clothes with this method are contained in a second topological surface. a second topological surface which can consist of any number of vertices that can bear no relationship to the first surface

the visual indication of this is bleed. and the necessity to use alphas to cover all or part of the first surface 

is no known algorithm that can compute the relationship between the two topological surfaces for all cases. if there was then would provide a solid proof for either P = NP or P != NP. either way would change computer science forever

the people who went off and commission the deformer either didn't know this. or they did and believe that it was still possible despite the math

deformation in this implementation entails computing the relationship between two different surfaces. this is not tessalation where a second surface is derived from the first. nor is it a displacement of a surface derived from itself 

all the people who have had a go at coding up the deformer have now discovered this. bc sometimes people just have to learn it for themselves

+

so why persist going down this path? 

replacing the current avatar shape with another avatar shape don't change the math

the only case that can be solved perfectly is when there is a previously known or discoverable relationship between a vertice on one surface and a known vertice on the other. is no way tho to compute this algorithmically when there are different numbers of vertices on each of the surfaces. except by proximity guessing

that's the flaw. the guessing. if the algorithm does guess then how does it know that it guessed right. and even if right then what happens if it cant remember? does it have to guess again the next time is passed the same problem to solve. which is how the 3rd party commissioned deformer works

the big problem for creators is that it guesses some surface vertice relationships good and others bad. the creators on the bad end? well to bad for them I guess

when a problem cannot be solved bc there is no solution except a non-solution. then the fix is to avoid the problem altogether. by creating a different solution

I already say what that different solution is. so am not going to say again

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Innula Zenovka wrote:


16 wrote:


Penny Patton wrote:

The camera placement I'm in favour of
doesn't make building any more difficult or frustrating. In fact, quite the opposite. My ideal camera placement makes building easier.


change camera position to these settings and do a exercise

1) drag drop a box from inventory

2) go to a sandbox. select Build. new box. click on the ground

repeat 1 and 2 on a 512m and in a Linden Home

if you don't have to change the camera view to point down to do this then I be interested to know what is your secret. a vid would be good

 

I've used Penny's recommended settings,  or something very close to them, for ages.  I build all the time, sometimes in on a building platform and sometimes in my tower.   I don't  have to change the camera view to do this -- obviously I zoom in on things, sometimes, when I'm checking close positioning, but that's all.

 

i made a diagram:

Camera.JPG

 

if default camera is set to 60deg which it roughly is then when flatten it to 75 deg then the distance to the midpoint where it bisect the ground is twice as far away from the avatar

the black lines show where the default camera is (assume 60). the blue lines show 75 about

can choose different starting angles. say 66 instead of 60. then the bisect = 33. if flatten by half then is still twice as far. if flatten by a quarter then is 1.5 as far. and so on

the greatest number of boxes and first build prims are rezzed closer to the bisect point than any other regardless of angle

+

other thing is the bisect point at 60 deg is approx. half way between the bottom of the screen and the inworld horizon

when flatten the camera angle say to 75 then the horizon is lowered by the same factor. which when translate to the 2D plane of the screen reduces the height of the mouse picking area. while simultaneous increasing the distance/depth of the pickable area

the diagram shows this as well

+

like the other thing i am chattin about. is math this. in this case is geometry

when have to pick a default then pick the one that fits best overall with the geometry of the view

way back when linden first made SL somebody put a lot of thought into this

+

the thing is you and Penny are experienced builders. even if the pick area was even tinier then you probably pick it good.

I don't know if you ever had error: parcel does not allow rez. even when you standing on your own parcel. it happens a lot on small parcels like 512m and Linden Homes.  is bc the point picked is calculated to be beyond the parcel boundary. you have to point the camera down to bring the rez pick point inside the boundary. that rez point is typically the bisect point for the most number of new people

flattening the camera moves the bisect point further away even closer to/beyond the boundary than it is already. as the diagram shows

+

edit add: I think also that both you and Penny build on whole sims where you got build rights all over. most new people don't have this. is why I said try it on a sandbox then try it in a 512m or Linden Home. on these you havent got build rights beyond your tiny parcel boundaries

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...