Penny Patton Posted April 8, 2013 Share Posted April 8, 2013 Sephina Frostbite wrote: Although they are nice, they still seem a little off to me. But then again I could be crazy. lol You're not crazy. The typical proportions that people are used to in SL are....extremely off. SL avatars tend towards; Small heads. The average adult is about 7.5 heads tall. The average SL Avatar is more than 9 heads tall. Short arms. The average adult has a "wingspan" equal to their height. Most avatar arms are about half a foot too short. Long legs. For the average adult, their legs make up about 1/2 their height. For SL avatars, it's more like 2/3. But when you're exposed to something over a long period of time, it starts to look "normal" to you. If a person gets used to typical avatar proportions, seeing an avatar with realistic proportions can look unusual at first. This tends to pass pretty quickly as realistic proportions are the proportions we recognize outside of SL, in every day life. When people ask me for help with their avatar shapes. I always set them up with more human proportions and, in some cases, the person would tell me the new shape felt odd to them. I would tell them, keep it for a week, after a week let me know if it still feels odd and we'll change it. After a week they could come to me and say they were happy with the shape and didn't want to change it afterall. Every single time. Here's a male avatar with realistic proportions, this avatar is about 6' tall. The Japanese woman is about 4'9" (but appears taller due to her boots adding several inches and it's worth noting she has the proportions of a taller woman). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
495060 Posted April 8, 2013 Author Share Posted April 8, 2013 Thank you everybody, y'all really helped. Thank you Ariel for being the first one to say the sl meter is off -reminding myself of that will help a lot I believe I'd also like to thank those that contributed the LL history of not even telling people anything at first; it goes toward the "LL is broken" mantra I'm making Marigold, dont get me started about having a number for a name (sigh) I thought when I signed up user names were only for logging in and I'd get to choose another one later. First time I've ever seen a body's log in broadcast. And Nox, I never meant to offend you or anybody. Cuz I never called anyone unfeminine. I said it made ME feel it. And thats based on my rl raising and where I'm from. If I was having a good time about it would I really be posting this? Just because a thing doesn't apply to you doesn't mean you don't register it when mean things are said. Its a lot to put together perception wise but you all have REALLY been awesome respondin. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marigold Devin Posted April 8, 2013 Share Posted April 8, 2013 Melita, your new badge looks great - that dress is just exquisite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coby Foden Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 495060 wrote: Thank you everybody, y'all really helped. Thank you Ariel for being the first one to say the sl meter is off -reminding myself of that will help a lot I believe Humm... no, no. The SL meter is not off in any way. SL meter as correct as the RL meter is. It is. :matte-motes-big-grin: What is wrong is that the Linden Lab viewer does not show the actual avatar's mesh height from the sole of the feet to the top of the skull. (Technically speaking it shows what is called "Agent Height". And this agent height is shorter than the avatar's mesh is.) The measurement in the appearance editor is called "Height" and people naturally assume that it is the avatar height. But it is not. So it's always better to measure the avatar with prim to get the accurate and exact avatar's mesh height. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhys Goode Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 I think you are confusing the SI unit of length with the SL unit. The SI unit is rather precisely defined as ""the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second." For those of us who use feet and inches, it works out that there are, by definition, 2.54 cm in 1 inch. There is no such precise definition of the SL meter. The best I can tell, looking at what the viewer tells me is the avatar height in SL meters, there are about 3.1 SL cm in 1 inch. So 183 SL cm actually corresponds more closely to 5 ft than to 6 ft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penny Patton Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 1m=1m When looking at measurements in SL, everything is labled in metres. Not "SL metres", just "metres". The confusion springs from AgentHeight, and the stock viewer's appearance editor (which uses AgentHeight). People often confuse this with avatar height, and indeed it was originally intended to be avatar height. However, it is incorrect, Linden Lab themselves acknowledge that it is incorrect and have repeatedly stated they intend to fix it. Someday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coby Foden Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 Rhys Goode wrote: There is no such precise definition of the SL meter. The best I can tell, looking at what the viewer tells me is the avatar height in SL meters, there are about 3.1 SL cm in 1 inch. So 183 SL cm actually corresponds more closely to 5 ft than to 6 ft. In their great wisdom the creators of Second Life did not decide to use their own random non-defined meter. They just selected to use the meter which is actually exactly the same meter as in RL. Why would anybody in their right mind go and invent some arbitrary measuring system having no relation to anything whatsoever? The mistake what you make is that you think that the viewer shows the avatar's mesh height. Linden Lab also made a mistake by calling the thing in the avatar appearance editor as "Height". This creates great confusion, unnessary forum posts over and over again about the same matter. :smileysad: People assume: "Ah, that must be the avatar height". But it is not. It is a well known fact - even Lind Lab know it, that the height in the appearance editor is "Avatar's Agent Height" - it is not the avatar's mesh height. This agent height is shorter than the actual avatar mesh is. For some strange reason Linden Lab has not so far been able to correct their viewer to show the avatar mesh height in the appearance editor instead of the "Agent Height". Due to this fact there are over and over again threads rising "there must be something wrong in SL meter". Well, the fact is: there is absolutely nothing wrong with the meter unit in SL. Meter is meter everywhere. You don't believe this to be true? If so you can make an experiment. :matte-motes-nerdy: 1. Make a cube in any 3D design program. Size 0.1 x 0.1 x 0.1 meters. 2. Print this cube with 3D printer. Measure the printed cube. You will see that it is exactly 0.1 x 0.1 x 0.1 meters. We have now established that 0.1 design program meters = 0.1 real world meters. 3. Import the designed cube to Second Life. Edit the the cube in Second Life. 4. Look what are the dimensions the edit window shows for the cube. 5. It will show that it is 0.1 x 0.1 x 0.1 meters. We have now shown that 0.1 design program meter = 0.1 SL meters. Good. Then let's summarize: 0.1 design program meters = 0.1 real world meters 0.1 design program meters = 0.1 SL meters Thus: 0.1 design program meters = 0.1 real world meters = 0.1 SL meters All are equal. Great! :smileyhappy: If your assumption was true then the imported cube in SL would have been some different size, not the exact size what it was in the 3D design program. If you are still not convinced you can make the above experiment by making a 3D cube 1 x 1 x 1 feet. Then import it to SL and see is it exactly 0.3048 x 0.3048 x 0.3048 meters in SL. If so, then you have confirmed that RL and SL dimensions do match exactly. PS. By the way, 183 meters is 6.00393701 feet (6 feet 3/64 inch). In SL as well as in RL. The same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 Coby Foden wrote: Rhys Goode wrote: There is no such precise definition of the SL meter. The best I can tell, looking at what the viewer tells me is the avatar height in SL meters, there are about 3.1 SL cm in 1 inch. So 183 SL cm actually corresponds more closely to 5 ft than to 6 ft. In their great wisdom the creators of Second Life did not decide to use their own random non-defined meter. They just selected to use the meter which is actually exactly the same meter as in RL. Why would anybody in their right mind go and invent some arbitrary measuring system having no relation to anything whatsoever? When SL was originally put together they used systems that had pre-defined values. It would have taken an act of God to make them all work together if they all did not all follow the same pre defined scales. What we have in SL is a Scale Model (pops). 16 makes two interesting observations in this Thread (pops). "like the other thing i am chattin about. is math this. in this case is geometry (my bolding) 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" and: "I just add something else bc is important to answer the question. why did linden pick this camera position? and not a flatter one 10 years ago. screen resolution was 800x600. 640x480 on consumer computer. the number of pixels available to form the picking area was half what it is now. less even" Andrew Linden said here (pops) "As I recall, the max and min heights (head to toe) possible are somewhere around 2.95 and 1.25 meters, respectively. I determined those numbers emperically back in late beta. The historical reason the "middle of the sliders" avatar is taller than the average human is because our last non-modifiable avatar" Every one starting SL at the beginning was presented with an over height Avatar, set at the middle of the sliders and built from there. But Andrew was not looking at the actual height of the Avatar but "Then we changed how the avatars looked without changing the physical representation of the avatar (from Primitar (pops) to HUMAN) on the server, and their default size was scaled to match the collision model." The collision model is based on the bounding box which the Avatar "exists" in. He did not take into account actual avatar height. So that is how we got to where we are today with all the "oversized avatars." When they switched from Primitar to Avatar they didn't make the necessary adjustments on the Center Line for the Sliders. Regardless, when used as a scale in SL, a Meter is a Meter is a Meter. It's pure math and it can't be ignored without causing a thousand other things to fail. eta grammar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melita Magic Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 Perrie: Thank you. Your post made me laugh, hope mine did the same for you. Marigold: Thank you so much! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trifina Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 "In their great wisdom the creators of Second Life did not decide to use their own random non-defined meter. They just selected to use the meter which is actually exactly the same meter as in RL." Not to quibble over semantics, but the problem is Linden did not USE the metre they included in the software. They created a frame for avatars which, when scaled to a point that allows the maximum possible realistic and/or pleasing interpretations of the human form, is well over 6' tall, far above the average human height. The fact that over the years players have created shapes that look good, rather than measure well, should not be a surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 Trifina wrote: "In their great wisdom the creators of Second Life did not decide to use their own random non-defined meter. They just selected to use the meter which is actually exactly the same meter as in RL." Not to quibble over semantics, but the problem is Linden did not USE the metre they included in the software. They created a frame for avatars which, when scaled to a point that allows the maximum possible realistic and/or pleasing interpretations of the human form, is well over 6' tall, far above the average human height. The fact that over the years players have created shapes that look good, rather than measure well, should not be a surprise. Read my post above. Tha Avatar that the frame was created for was the "Primitar" which was NOT a human shape. Why no corrections were made before 'locking in' the numbers we don't know. So everything was built based on a ratio. A visit to Jo Yardley's New Berlin which is done on a 1:1 basis rather than the approximately 7:5 that every one has been using ever since Primitar will show you that 1:1 can and does work. We've just gotten too used to looking at and accepting an imperfect model. This is not a new discussion we are having here. Note the date of the date of the discussion I linked above that Andrew Linden commented in: December 2003! If they had corrected the problem back then the effect would have been minimal, but it still would have effected a lot of content. The domino effect today of fixing it would be massive beyond belief. I do get tired of quibbling over numbers too. Regardless of the above, really all I want to do is just enjoy my Second Life. Sometimes I do get tired of thinking about this stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penny Patton Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 People should just enjoy Second Life, and really the average user should not need to be bothered with considering technical issues like scale. The reason the topic comes up so much is because the current situation causes a lot of problems which affect, literally, everything. From animations to your framerate, even how much land you get for your money is affected. That's why I keep saying LL really needed an art department from the beginning. Not to create content themselves, but to set the standards and ensure the tools did what was necessary so SL ran well and was easy and intuitive for users and content creators alike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melita Magic Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 While it would be nice if things like the thigh bone on the SL shape could be shortened, people should also keep in mind that not everyone has the same values, no matter what the base shape's mathematical values are. One person's perfect is another person's "OMG that is ugly." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephina Frostbite Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 Melita Magic wrote: While it would be nice if things like the thigh bone on the SL shape could be shortened, people should also keep in mind that not everyone has the same values, no matter what the base shape's mathematical values are. One person's perfect is another person's "OMG that is ugly." Well said Metilda! Just enjoy you and forget what the nay sayers say..lol You are the one playing it right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melita Magic Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 That's right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penny Patton Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 Melita Magic wrote: While it would be nice if things like the thigh bone on the SL shape could be shortened, people should also keep in mind that not everyone has the same values, no matter what the base shape's mathematical values are. One person's perfect is another person's "OMG that is ugly." I'm not certain how that applies to scale. If you have two identical avatars, one 5' and one 8', one is not intrinsically more attractive than the other, no matter who you show the screenshots to. Without anything to compare them to, they're identical. Size is relative, measurements are objective. You could say this of proportions, but even there no one is saying options should be limited or restricted in any way (the opposite is actually true as better defaults allow for more creativity), only pointing out that there are body proportions that are considered more natural and attractive and that LL would be able to drawn in more people if the base, starting shapes and avatars reflected those widely accepted proportions and then let the users change their individual proportions as they saw fit. And to clarify my last post, I'm agreeing with Perrie that this is an issue the average user shouldn't need to be bothered with. The information should be out there, available to those who want it, but the responsibility for addressing the problem itself really falls to the Lindens and, to a lesser extent, content creators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 Penny Patton wrote: Melita Magic wrote: While it would be nice if things like the thigh bone on the SL shape could be shortened, people should also keep in mind that not everyone has the same values, no matter what the base shape's mathematical values are. One person's perfect is another person's "OMG that is ugly." I'm not certain how that applies to scale. If you have two identical avatars, one 5' and one 8', one is not intrinsically more attractive than the other, no matter who you show the screenshots to. Without anything to compare them to, they're identical. Size is relative, measurements are objective. You could say this of proportions, but even there no one is saying options should be limited or restricted in any way (the opposite is actually true as better defaults allow for more creativity), only pointing out that there are body proportions that are considered more natural and attractive and that LL would be able to drawn in more people if the base, starting shapes and avatars reflected those widely accepted proportions and then let the users change their individual proportions as they saw fit. And to clarify my last post, I'm agreeing with Perrie that this is an issue the average user shouldn't need to be bothered with. The information should be out there, available to those who want it, but the responsibility for addressing the problem itself really falls to the Lindens and, to a lesser extent, content creators. Really, the last thing I want to think about when I Log In is all thi stechno mumbo jumbo. AllI want to do is just have fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melita Magic Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 That is (ETA: also) what I was trying to say. Penny I'm not being sarcastic when I say, I am not sure how much better I can explain it than I already have. I tried to choose my words carefully in the prior post. Maybe reread it a few times is all I can say, if it's yet to sink in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penny Patton Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 Perrie Juran wrote: Really, the last thing I want to think about when I Log In is all thi stechno mumbo jumbo. AllI want to do is just have fun! I really don't want to think about politics when I log in.....so I don't go out of the way to put myself in the middle of political conversations. I don't open up a thread titled "Unhappy Republican", interject some political thoughts, then say, "Hey, I don't want to think about all this political mumbo jumbo!" when someone replies to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melita Magic Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 We are also on topic Penny. It's on topic to talk about how we feel about other people imposing their standard of avatar beauty, proportion and height upon us. It's on topic to talk about how we don't want to have to whip out a calculator every time we modify our avatar, or choose how we want it to look. Sorry subtlety didn't work here. ETA: This part is contradictory even within the same sentence in my opinion: " even there no one is saying options should be limited or restricted in any way (the opposite is actually true as better defaults allow for more creativity), only pointing out that there are body proportions that are considered more natural and attractive " (Bolding mine) By whom?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drake1 Nightfire Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 Syo Emerald wrote: I prefer to be tall rather than following the new trend of dwarfism I saw around. I take offence at that.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penny Patton Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 Melita Magic wrote: We are also on topic Penny. It's on topic to talk about how we feel about other people imposing their standard of avatar beauty, proportion and height upon us. It's on topic to talk about how we don't want to have to whip out a calculator every time we modify our avatar, or choose how we want it to look. Sorry subtlety didn't work here. But that is not at all what you said in the post I responded to. I was agreeing with Perrie that we really shouldn't need to think about these issues in creating our avatars, but explaining why the topic comes up time and again. Explaining why something happens is not imposing anything upon anyone. Melita Magic wrote: " even there no one is saying options should be limited or restricted in any way (the opposite is actually true as better defaults allow for more creativity), only pointing out that there are body proportions that are considered more natural and attractive " (Bolding mine) By whom?? By people in general. We see this in our everyday lives and there have been multiuple studies into human proportion and what people find attractive dating back at least 2,000 years. Artists and scientists both have been exploring the issue and found that while, individually, our preferences might be skewed one way or another, there are broad generalizations which can be made about what people find attractive. Symmetrical faces, low hips to bust ratio, etcetera. Here's a wikipedia article on it, but you can also google "studies on attractive proportions" and find a lot. What the eye finds "natural" can be even more defined. Human proportion is well known and understood. For example, if you stretch your arms out to either side and measure that "wingspan" you will find it is very near equal to your height when measured from the bottom of your feet to the top of your head. If you saw someone with a wingspan significantly shorter or longer than that, say eight inches shorter/longer, you would notice it in real life, and you would find it extremely odd. It looks unnatural and disconcerting to the eye because it almost never happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drake1 Nightfire Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 This is not directed at anyone in general, i find very many different avatars sexy. From thin athletic shapes to furry to ushimimi ones. I don't feel we have any right to say what shape is the right ones for people to wear, aside from the invisible pony riding trout lips... nobody should wear those... they scare me. Personally, i find the exotic ones the most appealing. This is Second Life, a place to explore what we can't in Real Life. If you want to be 7 feet tall with boobs the size of watermelons or a cute curvy 5'4" cowgirl, go for it. Myself, i have so many shapes and avatars i pick a different one each day. I'm off to be a draconian tonight.. See you inworld! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penny Patton Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 Drake1 Nightfire wrote: This is not directed at anyone in general, i find very many different avatars sexy. From thin athletic shapes to furry to ushimimi ones. I don't feel we have any right to say what shape is the right ones for people to wear, aside from the invisible pony riding trout lips... nobody should wear those... they scare me. Personally, i find the exotic ones the most appealing. This is Second Life, a place to explore what we can't in Real Life. If you want to be 7 feet tall with boobs the size of watermelons or a cute curvy 5'4" cowgirl, go for it. Myself, i have so many shapes and avatars i pick a different one each day. I'm off to be a draconian tonight.. See you inworld! I don't believe anyone would disagree with that. I have never seen anyone suggest our ability to create avatar shapes should be in any way limited, not in this thread or ever. The only debate is whether or not SL would benefit from better tools and presentation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melita Magic Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 Penny, I'm sorry you either can't or won't understand what I am saying in the above posts. I don't want to look like you and I don't need advice from you. I feel safe in saying I'm not alone in that. It gets less polite the more often I have to explain it. 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