"Standard Sizes"

Phil Deakins · September 2, 2013

Coby Foden wrote:

Phil Deakins wrote:

... the reason why it occurred to me that standard sizes might be a cause of the diminishing avatar height trend ...

I think it is mesh objects (houses, furniture, vehicles, etc) which will cause avatar heights to go shorter.

Why so? Well, the bigger mesh objects are made the bigger the LI will go. So I guess that makes designers thinking of making things close to RL sizes instead of 1.5 times or even two times bigger as has been the practice so far. That will lead people to notice that unrealistacally tall avatars do not go well with RL sized objects.

That may well be the ONLY reason to have RL-sized things in SL, and it would cause avatar heights to tend more towards RL-sized people. But, imo, it's not a reason that trumps the awkwardness of having things sized suitably for SL.

But if it wasn't for that, there would be absolutely no reason to create things (avs, furniture, rooms, etc.) to RL sizes. It's SL and not RL, and scales need to be suitable for the SL environment and system. Apart from the increased LI of larger mesh, there is no reason whatsoever to make SL things the same sizes as RL things. It's silly to do so when it doesn't work anything like suitably sized things.

Ceka Cianci · September 2, 2013

Phil Deakins wrote:

Coby Foden wrote:

Phil Deakins wrote:

On the contrary, Coby. It was proved that RL sized avatars cannot work indoors in SL - unless that rooms are unrealistically huge, that is.

No Phil, it was

not

proved to be so. It was just your idea, to what - unfortunately - you still seem to cling to.

RL sized avatars are happy with RL sized furniture, vehicles and other stuff. They would need only slightly bigger rooms than in RL to be able to move about easily. They definitely would not need unrealistically huge rooms as you are claiming.

On the other, hand very tall avatars will need a lot bigger rooms - unrealistically huge - and a lot bigger furniture. Or am I thinking something wrong here, what do you think?

These are the facts - not opinions. :matte-motes-nerdy:

One of your facts is definitely an opinion

You said that it's my "idea" when in fact it's my fact based on my actual building and testing it. I built an RL sized room (a box) and put an RL sized double bed in it (another box) and made my avatar RL sized, and adjusted its cam position according to what was said in the thread. Then I tried to use the room and it didn't work - and it can't work. Or perhaps I should say that I could move in the room (obviously) but the suggested cam position and especially the inability to move my head meant that I simply couldn't see where my feet were with respect to the bed, so it doesn't work. On top of that, I only had a bed in it. RL bedrooms have much more than a bed in them. Not only that but, also because the head can't be moved like an RL head, the walls interfered with the camera. Those are facts - not merely my "idea".

However, you did say that it needs a slightly larger room, which implies that you agree that using RL measurements doesn't work - as I said. My room was 12' x 12' I don't remember its height, but a typical RL height would mean that the ceiling would probably get in the way too.. How much larger would you suggest? Tell me the room dimensions and I'll test it again.

well ya that's in any game with a 3rd person view..

WoW and others..

SL lets us go through the walls here atleast..

if you are talking like stack home sized houses.. with like 16'x12' rooms for a bedroom..

you can't put a counch against the wall in any room of any size and have your cam view not messed with..

but to say it can't work in here because of that..

if that's all the reason..then it's really not much of a deterrent to not do it..

it's workable..it's not that it won't work..

anything workable is not not working..

it becomes like everything else in here..something we get used to..

it's never really gonna be Real life..but it can get realistic to a point..

i was having cam obstruction since the day i got here...

that's just part of sl..

Phil Deakins · September 2, 2013

Freya Mokusei wrote:

Phil Deakins wrote:

I'm meaning that RL sized avatars can't work well in RL-sized rooms, because of the way we see in SL - from behind the head - and our SL heads don't work the way our RL heads do - they don't move to see where our feet are, for instance. It means that a typical RL sixed living room can't work well enough in SL, even with RL sized avatars.

I assume you mean to say something a little more insightful than "third person perspective doesn't look the same as first person perspective", but I have no idea what it could be.

ETA: Yeah, you're confusing physical size and camera perspective/field of view, which are two separate and unconnected issues. Cameras don't work like eyes, so drawing the equivilence here is silly - RL physical size works because SL only uses an atomic and consistant unit of measurement (meters). Departing thread because nonsense will follow.

Depart you may, but it doesn't mean that you can get away with that piece if misinformation.

The only things that matter in this little debate is the camera position and the inability to move the head to look around. Nobody suggests that the default camera position works indoors with typical RL-size rooms. If nothing else, that's more than enough to say that RL-sized things and avatars don't work in SL. The only way that a few people (wrongly) claim that RL sizes work is if each user radically changes his/her cam position, and, imo, that would be silly to expect.

Phil Deakins · September 2, 2013

The walls aren't the only thing. THE things are the cam position is RL size rooms and the inability to move the head - to see where you are with respect to stuff that's in the room. Those are the two reasons why is doesn't work.

As I said, a few people really want to use RL sizes for everything, and they do manage it, but to do so, they accept the awkwardness of it all. It's just too unnatural which is why I say that it doesn't work. In other words, it can be done if you accept the awkwardness but, to my way of thinking, that's not working.

Ceka Cianci · September 2, 2013

Phil Deakins wrote:

The walls aren't the only thing. THE things are the cam position is RL size rooms and the inability to move the head - to see where you are with respect to stuff that's in the room. Those are the two reasons why is doesn't work.

As I said, a few people really want to use RL sizes for everything, and they do manage it, but to do so, they accept the awkwardness of it all. It's just too unnatural which is why I say that it doesn't work. In other words, it can be done if you accept the awkwardness but, to my way of thinking, that's not working.

i guess i'm just trying to see where it is any different than any room in sl i guess..

it's not like we are going from huge to tiny..

i think i understand what you mean when it would come to say a cramped room..

maybe i'm hving a hard time grasping it because i don't have that small of rooms in my house in RL anyways hehehehe

we're in a log cabin..my ceiling in my living room is like 30' up..my furniture is in the middle of part of the room with lots of room around them..

the bedrooms and basment has high ceilings also..like 10 or 12'..

maybe this is why i'm not grasping all the crampdness?

Phil Deakins · September 2, 2013

Maybe that's the reason, Ceka. The largest room in my house is 12'x12' and some rooms are smaller, of course. Most houses in the uk don't have any larger rooms that mine, although some do. Bedroom are usually smaller though. So I tested with 12'x12' room, put a double bed in it, etc. etc. It just doesn't work.

Try it. It's quick and easy to do. Just make a hollow 12'x12' box and cut it back to leave a door opening. Then put a typically RL size box in it for the bed, and walk around in it. Yes you can do it but you can't see whether or not you're going to walk over the corner of bed. But them imagine other pieces of furniture in it as well, and imagine how you would negotiate the everything as you walk around the room. Once you tested it, you'll fully understand what I mean.

ETA: I should say that Coby and I will probably never agree on this subject, but we won't fall out over it. I'll still love her as I have ever since she looked so small and cute standing next to my kitchen units

Ceka Cianci · September 2, 2013

Phil Deakins wrote:

Maybe that's the reason, Ceka. The largest room in my house is 12'x12' and some rooms are smaller, of course. Most houses in the uk don't have any larger rooms that mine, although some do. Bedroom are usually smaller though. So I tested with 12'x12' room, put a double bed in it, etc. etc. It just doesn't work.

Try it. It's quick and easy to do. Just make a hollow 12'x12' box and cut it back to leave a door opening. Then put a typically RL size box in it for the bed, and walk around in it. Yes you can do it but you can't see whether or not you're going to walk over the corner of bed. But them imagine other pieces of furniture in it as well, and imagine how you would negotiate the everything as you walk around the room. Once you tested it, you'll fully understand what I mean.

ok..ya i had the same problem with the very first house i had in SL.

i learned real fast that cameras were going to have to have room made for them..

my firsthouse.they called it a mansion..which really was just a name for it..

because it may have actually been sized for real life sizes..but this was back in 2006..not many were running around all proportioned right..

it was pretty cramped.

but i lived in it for around a year and just like anything..got used to it..

i didn't know anything about building back then..

but back then we had so many glitches and crashing all the time that cam position was really low on the list hehehehe

i was just glad to make it back to that house at times with the hard lag and crashing adn other stuff going on hehehe

Phil Deakins · September 2, 2013

I was into renting out skyboxes within a few weeks of arriving in SL. I took the size more or less from the size of a skybox that I was renting. Actually I made mine a bit smaller to save a few prims. I made the furniture for them too. Everyone was larger than RL back then so thinking about RL size didn't come into it. It's only through forum discussion and continuing to make furniture that I realised why it has to be bigger than RL.

What I don't get though is why the RL-size evangelists can't or won't see that it doesn't make any difference. SL is a different world and sizes should be according to it, and not according to a foreign world - RL. Also, and I've argued this before, there is no reason to assume that SL meters are the same as RL meters. If a person decides that SL meters are SL meters and RL meters are RL meters and that they just have the same name (like the U.S , Canada, Australia, Linden Lab, etc. all use dollars), then sizes in SL can be seen as the same as RL sizes, only the SL meter is shorter than the RL one so it needs more meters to have the same sort of space. It's only a matter of adopting the attitude that SL meters are different to RL meters. I honestly don't see why they are so keen on making RL and SL the same. It doesn't make any sense to me in an environment (world) that doesn't suit it.

Coby Foden · September 2, 2013

Phil Deakins wrote:

... you did say that it needs a slightly larger room, which implies that you agree that using RL measurements doesn't work - as I said.

No, I don't agree to that. RL measurements do work in SL. :smileywink:

It appears to me that you are thinking that there is some "sweet spot" in avatar size which works the best in SL. I wonder what would that size be - 2 meters, 2.3 meters, 2.5 meters? Why would there be a sweet spot where everything would work better that in some other avatar size? It seems to me very odd idea.

I'm sure that you will agree that for RL sized avatar, RL sized furniture works excellently. If you make your avatar 1.5 times taller than average human (let's say this average would be 1.6 m) then your avatar would be 2.4 m tall. Surely that taller avatar would need 1.5 bigger furniture than the smaller avatar, don't you agree?

Now let's talk about room size. Surely SL avatar needs more room than a person in RL to feel comfortable (I have already stated this earlier). But that does not mean that RL measurements in avatars and in objects would not work in SL. (Telling that SL is not RL is a very poor argument).

Let's suppose that the 1.6 m avatar would be happy in 6 m x 6 m spacious living room furnished with RL sized furniture. Surely the 2.4 m tall avatar would feel everything being too small in that room. So for the same experience as the smaller avatar has the bigger avatar would need 1.5 times bigger furniture and also 1.5 bigger room - which would be 9 m x 9 m room. The fact is: bigger avatar will need bigger everything.

RL dimensions do work excellently in SL - in avatar sizes and object sizes. Rooms need to bigger than in RL due to avatar movement clumsiness and due to limited view on the flat screen. A lot can be done to correct the view limitation:

• by learning to use the mouse and keyboard simultaneously in moving

• by adjusting the camera to better position than the viewer default

The viewer default is not the "Word of God". It can be changed to a lot better position. Linden Lab did a bad choice in defining the default. Implying that "RL measurements do not work because of the default camera position" is like putting one's head into the sand. The debug settings for camera position are there for a reason - we can change the position if we are not happy with the default.

Perrie Juran · September 2, 2013

Ceka Cianci wrote:

Phil Deakins wrote:

The walls aren't the only thing. THE things are the cam position is RL size rooms and the inability to move the head - to see where you are with respect to stuff that's in the room. Those are the two reasons why is doesn't work.

As I said, a few people really want to use RL sizes for everything, and they do manage it, but to do so, they accept the awkwardness of it all. It's just too unnatural which is why I say that it doesn't work. In other words, it can be done if you accept the awkwardness but, to my way of thinking, that's not working.

i guess i'm just trying to see where it is any different than any room in sl i guess..

it's not like we are going from huge to tiny..

i think i understand what you mean when it would come to say a cramped room..

maybe i'm hving a hard time grasping it because i don't have that small of rooms in my house in RL anyways hehehehe

we're in a log cabin..my ceiling in my living room is like 30' up..my furniture is in the middle of part of the room with lots of room around them..

the bedrooms and basment has high ceilings also..like 10 or 12'..

maybe this is why i'm not grasping all the crampdness?

It is pretty much a given that the smaller a room is in SL, the more difficult it becomes to maintain camera angles where walls and ceilings don't interfere with your view into the room.

For it to really work you'd need to have a TV/Movie Set view into the room, where there are really only three walls, the fourth wall removed to give the camera an unobstructed view into the room.

Coby Foden · September 2, 2013

Phil Deakins wrote:

What I don't get though is why the RL-size evangelists can't or won't see that it doesn't make any difference. SL is a different world and sizes should be according to it, and not according to a foreign world - RL. Also, and I've argued this before, there is no reason to assume that SL meters are the same as RL meters.

I have already show this earlier:

• In 3D design software set the unit to meters

• Create a cube 1 x 1 x 1 m

• In 3D printer set the unit to meters

• Print the cube and take it out from the printer when ready

• Measure the printed 3D cube to see that it is exactly 1 x 1 x 1 m

• Save the designed cube in DAE file

• Import the saved file to SL

• Find the imported object from your inventory

• Rez the object on ground

• Edit the object and check from the edit window that it shows X=1, Y=1, Z=1

Thus (to be clear, the edit window shows dimensions in SL meters as everybody should know):

1 3D software meter = 1 RL meter = 1 SL meter

This is no assumption, this is a fact. It surely makes a big difference. It is very convenient when importing mesh objects from 3D design software to SL - no need to fumble with some strange random conversion factors between different dimensions.

Linden Lab sometimes makes mistakes or bad choises. But they didn't make such a mistake as inventing some random SL dimension unit not related to anything.

Phil Deakins · September 2, 2013

Coby: I'm replying to both of your posts in this one - in chronological order.

I ma not, and never have been, thinking about a "sweet spot" in terms of avatar size etc. So your arguments against that idea don't apply to me.

Yes, I agree that RL size furniture works perfectly well for RL size avatars. Where it doesn't work at all is when you put them into an RL size room.

You said that a room needs to be slightly bigger, but you didn't say what size it needs to be, and I did ask. I also said that i would test your room size if you provided it.

Saying that SL is not RL may be a very poor argument to you, but it is absolutely true.

Yes I know that a bigger avatar needs bigger everything. That's the whole point. It's why furniture and rooms are bigger in SL

You said, "RL dimensions do work excellently in SL - in avatar sizes and object sizes. Rooms need to bigger than in RL due to avatar movement clumsiness and due to limited view on the flat screen.". And that's the whole point again. Rooms do need to be bigger. RL size room don't work in SL. That's what I've been saying. But you also said that rooms need to be "slightly" bigger. They need to be a lot bigger, but I'm still waiting for the dimensions.

You also said, "• by learning to use the mouse and keyboard simultaneously in moving
• by adjusting the camera to better position than the viewer default". Sure. Just because a few people don't want to adopt the attitude that SL meters are not the same as RL meters, let's have everyone learn to use SL in an unusual way, and change the default camera position. None of which works well enough anyway.

And finally...

I don't care about 3D software. We went through that the last time, but it didn't make any difference. If you adopt the attitude that SL meters are different to RL meters, then all the bigger stuff in SL can be seen as being RL sized. because it's so awkward to use RLm = SLm, it's doesn't make any sense not to adopt that attitude. Just have avatars, buildings and furniture sized to suit the SL world, so that they look like they do in RL, and have done with it. It's really very simple AND very sensible.

This argument can never be won by the SL=RL thinking because SL does not lend itself to RL sizes, and using RL sizes is much too awkward in SL.

Ceka Cianci · September 2, 2013

Phil Deakins wrote:

I was into renting out skyboxes within a few weeks of arriving in SL. I took the size more or less from the size of a skybox that I was renting. Actually I made mine a bit smaller to save a few prims. I made the furniture for them too. Everyone was larger than RL back then so thinking about RL size didn't come into it. It's only through forum discussion and continuing to make furniture that I realised why it has to be bigger than RL.

What I don't get though is why the RL-size evangelists can't or won't see that it doesn't make any difference. SL is a different world and sizes should be according to it, and not according to a foreign world - RL. Also, and I've argued this before, there is no reason to assume that SL meters are the same as RL meters. If a person decides that SL meters are SL meters and RL meters are RL meters and that they just have the same name (like the U.S , Canada, Australia, Linden Lab, etc. all use dollars), then sizes in SL can be seen as the same as RL sizes, only the SL meter is shorter than the RL one so it needs more meters to have the same sort of space. It's only a matter of adopting the attitude that SL meters are different to RL meters. I honestly don't see why they are so keen on making RL and SL the same. It doesn't make any sense to me in an environment (world) that doesn't suit it.

i'm not really gonna lose sleep over either direction this all goes..

half the time if i'm not at home i'm out in someone elses sim living in their dimensions anyways..

no matter what size avatar i have..

if i'm in a public place and someone tries to give me crap about it..me being big or small..

i'm gonna wear them out..

unless they want to hire me full time at my rate for my time plus my SL expenses..

i always enjoyed seeing the variety of avatars..i never had a problem with anyone sized up this way or that way..

heck i used to love the shapes griefers would show up with..

usually trying to look as terrible as they can..

i used to cry laughing ..because it was intentional..

we can do caricatures in here which look very awesome..

the cool thing is we can do what we want pretty much..

the grain goes in every direction here..

i like to try to make shapes that can look real as i can get them once in awhile..but i also like other shapes as well..

and same with things i build..

i just always thought the coolest thing about SL is you could break those rules if you wanted too when it came to creating..

i'm not one to go telling people their look sucks or their build sucks..i don't really concern myself with those things thatmuch..they all take time and effort to create..

i usually only help people when they ask when it comes to their looks or builds..i learned awhile ago..offering help can cause friction when it comes out of nowhere..

maybe i've been lurking in too many political forums lately and learning not to go sticking my nose in a lot of places i used too lol

Perrie Juran · September 2, 2013

Coby Foden wrote:

Phil Deakins wrote:

... you did say that it needs a slightly larger room, which implies that you agree that using RL measurements doesn't work - as I said.

No, I don't agree to that. RL measurements do work in SL. :smileywink:

It appears to me that you are thinking that there is some "sweet spot" in avatar size which works the best in SL. I wonder what would that size be - 2 meters, 2.3 meters, 2.5 meters? Why would there be a sweet spot where everything would work better that in some other avatar size? It seems to me very odd idea.

I'm sure that you will agree that for RL sized avatar, RL sized furniture works excellently. If you make your avatar 1.5 times taller than average human (let's say this average would be 1.6 m) then your avatar would be 2.4 m tall. Surely that taller avatar would need 1.5 bigger furniture than the smaller avatar, don't you agree?

Now let's talk about room size. Surely SL avatar needs more room than a person in RL to feel comfortable (I have already stated this earlier). But that does not mean that RL measurements in avatars and in objects would not work in SL. (Telling that SL is not RL is a very poor argument).

Let's suppose that the 1.6 m avatar would be happy in 6 m x 6 m spacious living room furnished with RL sized furniture. Surely the 2.4 m tall avatar would feel everything being too small in that room. So for the same experience as the smaller avatar has the bigger avatar would need 1.5 times bigger furniture and also 1.5 bigger room - which would be 9 m x 9 m room.

The fact is: bigger avatar will need bigger everything.

RL dimensions do work excellently in SL - in avatar sizes and object sizes

. Rooms need to bigger than in RL due to avatar movement clumsiness and due to limited view on the flat screen. A lot can be done to correct the view limitation:

• by learning to use the mouse and keyboard simultaneously in moving

• by adjusting the camera to better position than the viewer default

The viewer default is not the "Word of God". It can be changed to a lot better position. Linden Lab did a bad choice in defining the default. Implying that "RL measurements do not work because of the default camera position" is like putting one's head into the sand. The debug settings for camera position are there for a reason - we can change the position if we are not happy with the default.

I don't know if "Linden Lab did a bad choice in defining the default" is really a fair thing to say. It was a judgement call, an empirical judgement based on the physics engine at that time.

16 (I miss her and hope she is doing well), makes an observation in this thread that we tend to forget about.

"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"

And as she points out, you can't ignore the math, you can't ignore the geometry.

The decision was based, empirically on what worked best overall. If anything, you could say they didn't see far enough into the future.

You are right, the world is built on the sq meter. But at that time, the Avatar worked best when scaled a little larger than the world, an about 7:5 scale rather than the 1:1 being advocated.

In this thread you made the statement,

"Personally I prefer the 16:10 aspect ratio wide screen monitors over the 16:9 ones. The latter is ok for TVs and watching movies but for general computer use it always feels cramped in vertical space."

That is an empirical judgement based upon what you see. But it's interesting because the old 800x600 monitors were at your preferred aspect ratio.

Personally, I use Penny's camera settings, slightly tweaked to my preference. But that is mainly because I prefer a more straight ahead view than from over head.

I'd be interested to know how WOW handles this. (I don't play it). Are all the Avatars perfectly scaled or are they all "oversized" seven foot giants?

Ceka Cianci · September 2, 2013

Czari Zenovka wrote:

Coby Foden wrote:

Ceka Cianci wrote:

it's been awhile since i messed with any of this or been around it..but doesn't the smaller mesh have less impact? or does size not matter with that?

Let's suppose we have two copies of the same item. Then we stretch the other item bigger. What will happen?

• The item streched bigger will have bigger land impact (LI) than the smaller item.

So size does matter - smaller item will have smaller LI than the bigger one.

This should encourage designers to make things close RL sizes. This way more things can be fitted on the same land than would be the case with bigger items as each smaller thing would consume less LI than the bigger ones.

I could be wrong on this, but in other discussions of mesh furnishings one of the potential drawbacks was resizing an item increased its Li.

For example, what I recall reading (and hearing anecdotal evidence of) was that one could have a chair that was 5 Li (that made with prims might be 10 prims or more, depending on detail). Great!!! Same detail, less prims. The problem arose if one wanted to modify, ie. resize, the item. Stretching it a bit could make that 5 Li chair suddenly skyrocket up to 50 Li. (Numbers may be way off, but just using them for the point.)

This was especially an issue with larger items such as mesh houses. In "The Great Mesh Debate" that seemed to be the main "downfall" of mesh furnishings, a low Li would double, triple, etc. if modified after purchase.

What I want to experiment with is using convex hull on some of my prim furnishings. I've read a tiny bit on the subject, but have heard (again anecdotal) evidence of people using convex hull (however that is done) on an existing prim-built item, thereby reducing the number of prims/Li. I don't have that many items rezzed on my home parcel and I noticed last night that I'm using a lot more prims than would seem normal for the number of items I have rezzed. (Although, it could be my breedable dogs using prims *sighs* Whyyyyyyyy did I step into that? lol)

wasn't a lot of that based on how it was made as well..

i remember something about a way less impact if someone knew what they were doing in making mexh..

this may not be the same thread you are talking about..

this was way back when people first started talking about land impact..

i'm just curious if that is still the case or if we found out all that really was just first report stuff?

Jennifer Boyle · September 2, 2013

Phil Deakins wrote:

I'm meaning that RL sized avatars can't work well in RL-sized rooms, because of the way we see in SL - from behind the head - and our SL heads don't work the way our RL heads do - they don't move to see where our feet are, for instance. It means that a typical RL sixed living room can't work well enough in SL, even with RL sized avatars.

I have my camera just in front of my face. It is a more immersive experience for me than having it behind me.

Ceka Cianci · September 2, 2013