Jump to content

Cut Mesh Prims by Changing Your Camera Angle

Pamela Galli

By Pamela Galli,
in General Discussion Forum

 Share
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3898 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Madelaine McMasters

Madelaine McMasters

Posted
Posted

Aethelwine wrote:

Quite, no matter how much money we throw at sl I can't make sims take more than 15000 prims (or Li), and I could happily do with another 5000 to fit in some more race tracks and expand the space stations.

Expand the space stations?! Doesn't Hippie have enough walls to walk into already?

;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Madeline Blackbart

Madeline Blackbart

Posted
Posted

Suspiria Finucane wrote:

Pamela Galli wrote:

 

I am guessing you have not scaled mesh items up or down before and are not aware of how much difference in Land Impact it really makes. 

Yea, that must be it...not...

Not everyone is financially challenged; therefore size and land impact aren't issues for them.

Wow what a rude way to put it.  I also would like to see someone who doesn't make lindens in sl who has the money for a large amount of prims. I mean what does a private island go for now several hundred a month? And what everyone or most have that? I'd say it's far to say that for the MAJORITY or users size and land impact ARE infact and issue. How are you defining financially challenged anyway? A lot of people who are middle class can't and really never could afford that much of an expense for a game even before the financial meltdown were in now. Or is anyone who is middle class or lower "financially challenged"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
Pussycat Catnap

Pussycat Catnap

Posted
Posted

Um, did you mean to link back to your original post in the same thread but without comment? :)


I agree by the way, I've blogged on this a number of times. I use different camera settings than Penny's. Penny's match gaming perhaps, but I found them uncomfortable in the more 'relaxed' pace of SL.

I use:

http://catnapkitty.wordpress.com/2010/08/08/getting-started-in-second-life/#Camera_Setup

CameraOffsetRearView
X: -2.5
Y: -0.100
Z: -0.300

FocusOffsetRearView
X: 0.4
Y: -0.100
Z: 0.100

- But it comes down to taste. Just want to get those out there to say that, if someone finds the values Penny Puts forth not comfortable - don't go back to default, just tweak them a little until you find your sweet spot.

 

Scaling mesh down can cut prim cost a LOT. And its not hard. Use any chat based resize script to get exact precision with mod objects.

(I can drop a script into any Mod object, and then just type "/4 0.83" and the whole thing is cut to 83% of its original size - which most of the time makes it perfect for my particular shape. Much easier than messing with clicks in a popup window and trying to guess what happens when I click -5 -5 +1 -10 +5 versus clicking +5 -10 +1 - was each click based on original and current total for this plus prior clicks, or current size modded by this click...)


The free linkset resizer script in the linden script library is the chat based one I use.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Phil Deakins

Phil Deakins

Posted
Posted

I'm don't have an opinion one way or the other but, just out of interest, don't you find that the 'over the shoulder' view causes the avatar to take up too much viewer space? I've adjusted the camera in the past, for an experiment, and that's what I thought at the time, and the screen shot you posted looks that way too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pamela Galli

Pamela Galli

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Phil Deakins wrote:

I'm don't have an opinion one way or the other but, just out of interest, don't you find that the 'over the shoulder' view causes the avatar to take up too much viewer space? I've adjusted the camera in the past, for an experiment, and that's what I thought at the time, and the screen shot you posted looks that way too.

I had not even thought of that. It doesn't bother me, I suppose because there is a tradeoff -- it is so pleasant to be able to walk around without my camera flying up behind me like a kite, getting stuck behind walls, etc., that I don't notice any missing screen space. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Phil Deakins

Phil Deakins

Posted
Posted

When I tried it, some years ago, I decided that the av used much too much screen space. Coincidentally, in another thread, Jo Yardley just posted some screen shots in one of her Berlin Project buildings, and there it was - a huge head taking up far too much screen space for my liking :) Plus it shows the inability to see what's right in front of her and lower than shoulder height, so she'd only be able to guess whether or not she was about to walk over the corner of a bed, for instance, or even about to step on and squash a cat lol.

It may be that because of mesh buildings and LI, avatar heights will evolve to being shorter in general. Time will tell on that. I'm ALL in favour of reducing LI count, and I welcome any way of doing it, even it results in me shrinking all my furniture. Mesh buildings may cause that to happen. Not down to RL-equivalent sizes, of course, but part way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pamela Galli

Pamela Galli

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Phil Deakins wrote:

When I tried it, some years ago, I decided that the av used much too much screen space. Coincidentally, in another thread, Jo Yardley just posted some screen shots in one of her Berlin Project buildings, and there it was - a huge head taking up far too much screen space for my liking
:)
Plus it shows the inability to see what's right in front of her and lower than shoulder height, so she'd only be able to guess whether or not she was about to walk over the corner of a bed, for instance, or even about to step on and squash a cat lol.

It may be that because of mesh buildings and LI, avatar heights will evolve to being shorter in general. Time will tell on that. I'm ALL in favour of reducing LI count, and I welcome any way of doing it, even it results in me shrinking all my furniture. Mesh buildings may cause that to happen. Not down to RL-equivalent sizes, of course, but part way.

Yes I wondered about that screenshot of Jo's -- there were two of them, and I agree I would not want a giant head in the middle of the screen.  The other shot showed something more like what I use.

In any case you can adjust your camera angle to something inbetween having your head block the screen and having your camera tethered like flying a kite behind you. 

I imagine it will take quite a while for mesh buildings to have the effect I am predicting. Probably a couple of years.  I still sell more non mesh stuff than mesh, even though my inventory is close to 50 - 50, and I sell many more non mesh houses than mesh ones, so non mesh is not going away anytime soon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jo Yardley

Jo Yardley

Posted
Posted

Here is a more recent screenshot, this is what I see all the time, when building, navigating, etc.

And it works fine.

Of course, I've been doing this for years now, not just for a moment as an experiment.

I've not stepped on the cat yet, not often anyway.

Snapshot_010.jpg

In the end it all boils down to what you're used to and personal preferences.

A LOT of the standard SL settings are completely wrong and wacky, so in the end we all end up tweaking them.

If the mouseview setting allowed us to do everything we can do in the regular settings, I'd probably use that ALL the time.

Maybe I can tweak my camera so that it ends up a few inches in front of my eyes, so a bit like mouseview but without losing any abilities.

Perhaps worth a test.

Either way, I love seeing my primscale sim as my avatar sees it and if that means having my big old head in the screen, so be it.

It is worth it.

Immersion reaches a whole different new level when you see what your avatar sees.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Perrie Juran

Perrie Juran

Posted
Posted

Phil Deakins wrote:

With the best will in the world, I can't see that many people would be happy to have their avatar covering so much of the view as the norm, Jo.

I'm going to agree with this.

I prefer being able to watch my sexy Martian ass wiggle as I walk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Coby Foden

Coby Foden

Posted
Posted

Perrie Juran wrote:

Phil Deakins wrote:

With the best will in the world, I can't see that many people would be happy to have their avatar covering so much of the view as the norm, Jo.

I'm going to agree with this.

I prefer being able to watch my sexy Martian ass wiggle as I walk.

I'm in the same boat Perrie. :smileyvery-happy:

One of my preferred view is low camera, but far enough so that I can see the whole avatar.

Well, I'm not very much interested about the ass wiggle as such.

But seeing the whole avatar serves a purpose in some occasions - we spend a lot of money on clothes and of course it is nice to see a long gown completely in it's glory while dancing - for example.

Then closer view comes handy in other some circumstances. My display is 24 inch, resolution 1920 x 1200. I have never had any feeling that the avatar would cover too much the view in any of my preferred camera locations. It could became an issue with lower resolution screens.

I chose on purpose my 24 inch widescreen display with 16:10 aspect ratio and resolution of 1920 x 1200.  I find that for general computing (and for Second Life) it is better than those displays with 16:9 aspect ratio and 1920 x 1080 resolution which is the norm for HD TV.  I don't use my computer as TV, so HD TV aspect ratio is not optimal for me - 16:10 is. The Extra vertical pixels one gets with 16:10 aspect ratio compared to 16:9 displays do mean a lot in computing. It's still widescreen; not at all like the horizontally cramped old style 4:3 ratio displays were.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pamela Galli

Pamela Galli

Posted
  • Author
Posted

To me the bottom line is this:  The best camera angle and distance depends on individual preferences.  

The reason I like to see discussion is to remind/inform people that altho LL provides a default*, we are not obliged to go with it. We have options. It is worth our time to check our options out and pick the one WE like best, and not just go with what LL hands us (unless we decide we like that one best).

 

*There are viewers that have other camera defaults.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Madelaine McMasters

Madelaine McMasters

Posted
Posted

Perrie Juran wrote:

Phil Deakins wrote:

With the best will in the world, I can't see that many people would be happy to have their avatar covering so much of the view as the norm, Jo.

I'm going to agree with this.

I prefer being able to watch my sexy Martian ass wiggle as I walk.

I've seen it wiggle, it's worth watching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Perrie Juran

Perrie Juran

Posted
Posted

Coby Foden wrote:

Perrie Juran wrote:

I'm going to agree with this.

I prefer being able to watch my sexy Martian ass wiggle as I walk.

I'm in the same boat Perrie. :smileyvery-happy:

 

 

Oh, so your the girl who's been camming my ass from just outside of radar range. 

Now I know!    ;)

 

Coby Foden wrote:

I chose on purpose my 24 inch widescreen display with
16:10
aspect ratio and resolution of
1920 x 1200
.  I find that for general computing (and for Second Life) it is better than those displays with 16:9 aspect ratio and 1920 x 1080 resolution which is the norm for HD TV.  I don't use my computer as TV, so HD TV aspect ratio is not optimal for me - 16:10 is. The Extra vertical pixels one gets with 16:10 aspect ratio compared to 16:9 displays do mean a lot in computing. It's still widescreen; not at all like the horizontally cramped old style 4:3 ratio displays were.

 

 

For anything text I resize the windows to something closer to 4:3.  Otherwise all that left to right tires my eyes out.

 

For SL, I prefer the widescreen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Phil Deakins

Phil Deakins

Posted
Posted
Coby Foden wrote:

I hope that
Phil
reads Pamela's post - carefully and open mindedly.  :matte-motes-big-grin: :smileywink:

I did read Pamela's post with an open mind, Coby :)

It doesn't change anything though. I would guess that the vast majority of people use the default camera position, simply because it's the default and it works just fine. But whether the vast majority uses it or not, doesn't make any difference to anything because it has to be assumed that the default is what the majority uses. And if your comment rally about the other thread, it still changes nothing. What works works, and what doesn't work still doesn't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Coby Foden

Coby Foden

Posted
Posted

Phil Deakins wrote:

Coby Foden wrote:

I hope that
Phil
reads Pamela's post - carefully and open mindedly.  :matte-motes-big-grin: :smileywink:

I did read Pamela's post with an open mind, Coby
:)

 

What works works, and what doesn't work still doesn't work.

But thank you anyway that finally in the other thread you did agree that what I suggested indeed would work too.

 

It was just some misunderstanding what we actually were talking about - which caused our disagreement discussion based on non applicable (to the discussion) matters. I was talking about something "if" and you were trying refute it by "what is now" matters.

 

But in the end all was well:  What works now, works as it works - and also the other idea would work as suggested.

Great!  :matte-motes-big-grin: :smileywink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3898 days.

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
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...