Can you tell me what are skins vs shapes?

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 

I would have assumed that a new skin is just a blank skin, just like any other skin but blank instead of having pretty drawings on it - a blank canvas, like a new shirt is just a blank shirt.

---

Your assumption is pretty close to correct. When you create a new skin, then wear it, and edit it - a window named "Appearance, Editing Skin" pops up in the viewer. On the upper part of this window you see three squares for the skin textures. Linden Lab has named them with misleading names:

 

• Head Tatto

• Upper Tatto

• Lower Tatto

Those are the places were we put the three designed beautiful skin textures: Head texture, Upper body texture, Lower body texture. Those three textures make up what is called a skin (the beautiful designed one). If those three skin textures are  opaque then they will totally cover the Linden Skin, out of sight. The three new designed skin textures are like like a new paint on the house covering the old paint.

 

If we don't put any textures on those three skin texture squares, leaving them empty, then what we see on our avatar is the Linden Skin.

[Phil Deakins]

Then I don't see how it is any different to any other skin, apart from the fact that it doesn't have any pretty drawings on it. It doesn't strike me as being a different layer to any other skin.

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Then I don't see how it is any different to any other skin, apart from the fact that it doesn't have any pretty drawings on it. It doesn't strike me as being a different layer to any other skin.

---

Well, the Linden Skin is the undermost texture what is applied to the avatar shape: The Linden Skin is always on the avatar shape. It has three, its own separate texture slots. For head, for upper body and lower body. We cannot access those Linden Skin texture slots. So we cannot replace the Linden Skin textures with our own textures.

We can only acces the three texture slots intended for the designed skin textures. When we put textures on there, then they will cover the Linden Skin. The Linden Skin is still there under our won designed skin. If "scratch" our designed skin textures a bit (i.e. leaving parts of the texture transparent) the Linden skin shows through those transparent parts.

Therefore it is obvious to me that the Linden Skin is on separate layer from our own designed skin. Linden Skin is under, designed skin is on top. I think that indeed is layering the skin textures.

[Perrie Juran]

What I want to know is why isn't there a big market for Avatar Brains?

I get so tired of seeing clean clear through my Avatar's head!

[Coby Foden]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

One bit of information that hasn't been mentioned is that a shape cannot be seen. It doesn't actually exist.

Skins are textures and they do exist. Like the shape, you can't remove it but you can replace it. This time you do literally replace it. You replace the texture on your shape with another one.

---

If a shape without a skin doesn't "exist", how can a skin exist without a shape? It's impossible to see a skin in-world unless it's on an avatar shape, and it's impossible to see a texture in-world unless it's on an object. If you want to be logically consistent either shapes/objects and textures/skins both exist or neither do.

---

After the long debate with Phil I have been thinking this matter a bit more. Phil still says that the shape is not a "thing" in its own right. On the other hand he says that a texture is a thing in its own right. ( I hope I got it right Phil... :matte-motes-big-grin:)

Here is what I think at this point of the discussion:

• Avatar shape, or an object, is an item, a "thing". It surely does exist.

• Texture is an item, a "thing". This surely does exist too.

• Avatar shape, or an object, and a texture can only co-exist inworld (i.e. to be rezzed and to be seen).

• Neither one can be rezzed inworld, to be seen, without the other.

And I think that Phil's statement that "a shape cannot be seen" is not correct. Of course we can see the shape inworld. The shape is just painted over with skin textures. We can see the shape and we can see the skin art work covering the shape; we see them both simultaneously. Painting over some object does not prevent us seeing what shape an object has. A texture has zero thickness anyway, it does not hide the shape's form a slightest bit.

 

[Coby Foden]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

What I want to know is why isn't there a big market for Avatar Brains?

---

Hi Perrie, please look closely at the picture in my earlier post in this thread:

http://community.secondlife.com/t5/General-Discussion-Forum/Can-you-tell-me-what-are-skins-vs-shapes/m-p/2703676#M179103

Can you see the denser mesh concentration inside the avatar's skull? That is the Avatar Brain.  :matte-motes-big-grin: :smileywink:

[KarenMichelle Lane]

I'm loving the things I'm learning from this thread. Now since I see everything in terms of music here is an appropriate song for the topic...

                    Walter Trout's - "Under my Skin"

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

You can certainly see a texture without is being on an object. Just open it. You can't do that with a skin but you can certainly see it when it's worn. You can do neither with a shape. They all exist as files in an inventory, of course, and it seems probable that, when an avatar is rezzed, the shape data stays with it.

But you've entered this thread a wee bit late. We've had quite a lengthy discussion about the very point your raised. Reading the thread will get you bang up to date

---

A Second Life texture is actually a rectangular array of values for red, green, blue and transparency. The number of values is always a power of two in both directions. If you open it in the viewer you can see a representation of how those values would look on a flat surface under neutral lighting without repeats. If the exact same texture is applied to a sphere at SL sunset it will look radically different. Which is the "real" texture?

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Then I don't see how it is any different to any other skin, apart from the fact that it doesn't have any pretty drawings on it. It doesn't strike me as being a different layer to any other skin.

---

Well, the Linden Skin is the undermost texture what is applied to the avatar shape: The Linden Skin is always on the avatar shape. It has three, its own separate texture slots. For head, for upper body and lower body. We cannot access those Linden Skin texture slots. So we cannot replace the Linden Skin textures with our own textures.

We can only acces the three texture slots intended for the designed skin textures. When we put textures on there, then they will cover the Linden Skin. The Linden Skin is still there under our won designed skin. If "scratch" our designed skin textures a bit (i.e. leaving parts of the texture transparent) the Linden skin shows through those transparent parts.

Therefore it is obvious to me that the Linden Skin is on separate layer from our own designed skin. Linden Skin is under, designed skin is on top. I think that indeed is layering the skin textures.

---

Being as I am totally unfamiliar with creating and editing skins, I tested what you wrote. I created a new skin, and got it in edit. I saw the grey panels that you mentioned, each with a diagonal cross in it, so they gave the appearance of being inaccessible. But they were acessible. I put a texture in each of them, and now I'm standing in my skybox with a fully textured new skin - 3 cushion textures, actually

So it still seems to me that this 'Linden skin' is just a normal skin, like any other skin, and not an extra layer of any kind. Sorry, Coby, but on the evidence of this test I have to disagree with you about the extra 'Linden skin' layer.

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

So it still seems to me that this 'Linden skin' is just a normal skin, like any other skin, and not an extra layer of any kind. Sorry, Coby, but on the evidence of this test I have to disagree with you about the extra 'Linden skin' layer.

---

Sorry Phil, but you're wrong in thinking that the Linden Skin is not different from the "normal" designed skin. :matte-motes-big-grin:

Make parts of your skin textures transparent (they will be like see through holes). When you do that then you can see your designed skin and from those transparent parts you can see the Linden Skin. So, the Linden Skin and designed skin are not the same. They both exist separately and are layered.

 

PS.

As a proof of the fact, when I go inworld I make some screenshots about the Linden Skin. The three small thumbnail images of it can be accessed when you know where to look. I'll post the screenshots here later.

 

[ETA]

Even easier without the need to make new textures. Just leave for example the head slot empty. Then you can see the Linden Skin on your head, and in the upper and lower body you can see your skin textures.

[Freya Mokusei]

Linden Skin can also have its hair (as in eyebrows) tinted in colour, I think. I remember a skin creator or two getting creative by keeping those areas tintable (by doing as you mention Coby, cutting out the shape in the head texture), allowing carpet/drape configurations never before imagined!

I also seem to remember the option of being able to add freckles via slider, too. These differences - assuming my memory isn't playing tricks - would imply it's very different from an uploaded, 3-texture skin.

It's been a reeeeeeal long time since i checked.

[Coby Foden]

You're right Freya. Here's one test I made. The head has no designed textures, so the Linden Head texture shows. Upper and lower body have designed skin textures.

All the sliders in the tabs Skin Color, Face Detail, Makeup and Body Detail affect only the Linden Skin texture, they have no effect to the opaque designed textures. So it clearly shows that designed skin and Linden Skin are different things.

 

[Freya Mokusei]

Scooore.

I'm totally adding that picture to my embarrassing educational file!

[Phil Deakins]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

So it still seems to me that this 'Linden skin' is just a normal skin, like any other skin, and not an extra layer of any kind. Sorry, Coby, but on the evidence of this test I have to disagree with you about the extra 'Linden skin' layer.

---

Sorry Phil, but you're wrong in thinking that the Linden Skin is not different from the "normal" designed skin. :matte-motes-big-grin:

Make parts of your skin textures transparent (they will be like see through holes). When you do that then you can see your designed skin and from those transparent parts you can see the Linden Skin. So, the Linden Skin and designed skin are not the same. They both exist separately and are layered.

 

PS.

As a proof of the fact, when I go inworld I make some screenshots about the Linden Skin. The three small thumbnail images of it can be accessed when you know where to look. I'll post the screenshots here later.

 

[ETA]

Even easier without the need to make new textures. Just leave for example the head slot empty. Then you can see the Linden Skin on your head, and in the upper and lower body you can see your skin textures.

---

Yes, I see what you mean now. I put a window texture (a window frame with transparent glass) on the upper body and the the 'linden skin' is showing inside the window frame.

So there does appear to be another layer underneath the skin. For this discussion, though, that layer simply shows the form of the shape, just as a normal skin does, and not the actual shape 'thing' itself.

It doesn't matter to this topic but it occurs to me that it's not actually another layer. It's simply that, when drawing the avatar, the viewer first draws the basic 'linden skin' and then draws the desired skin on top of that, meaning that the 'linden' skin is no longer drawn when the required skin has overwritten it, meaning that it's not another layer. But, then, what is layer?. It's a layer of drawing that overwrites what was was there before it and, in the end, there is only one layer, no matter how many are actually drawn. You probably always think of it that way but, never having had any reason to think about it before, I'm just learning it as we're discussing it, thinking about it, and writing it

But we've digressed

[Phil Deakins]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

You can certainly see a texture without is being on an object. Just open it. You can't do that with a skin but you can certainly see it when it's worn. You can do neither with a shape. They all exist as files in an inventory, of course, and it seems probable that, when an avatar is rezzed, the shape data stays with it.

But you've entered this thread a wee bit late. We've had quite a lengthy discussion about the very point your raised. Reading the thread will get you bang up to date

---

A Second Life texture is actually a rectangular array of values for red, green, blue and transparency. The number of values is always a power of two in both directions. If you open it in the viewer you can see a representation of how those values would look on a flat surface under neutral lighting without repeats. If the exact same texture is applied to a sphere at SL sunset it will look radically different. Which is the "real" texture? 

---

What I've meant throughout the thread is that a user can actually see a texture, but the same is not true for a shape. That's all. So your question doesn't apply to this discussion

[Freya Mokusei]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

It doesn't matter to this topic but it occurs to me that it's not actually another layer. It's simply that, when drawing the avatar, the viewer first draws the basic 'linden skin' and then draws the desired skin on top of that, meaning that the 'linden' skin is no longer drawn when the required skin has overwritten it, meaning that it's not another layer. But, then, what is layer?. It's a layer of drawing that overwrites what was was there before it and, in the end, there is only one layer, no matter how many are actually drawn. You probably always think of it that way but, never having had any reason to think about it before, I'm just learning it as we're discussing it, thinking about it, and writing it

---

This paragraph hurts my brain. Not a criticism, it's a complicated subject. :-P

I think what you're saying is that the server (previously the client) bakes the 'layers' together, to create a 3 overall textures - baked head, baked torso, baked legs (oh! And eyes, but these are weird, I'll skip them). These three textures are 'flattened' versions of however-many assets as layers you're wearing (Linden Skin, Skin, Tattoo, Underlayers, Socks/Shoes, Overlayers, Jacket/Skirt, Alpha).

They're never 'actually' separate layers at all when seen in-world, unless they're viewed as textures in the Edit Clothing floater.

Yes? Yes. Yeeeeeeeeeees~

The argument about whether a shape can be 'seen' seems quite redundant to me. You can tell when someone does not have shape data (i.e., when they're 'Ruthed), and when someone has shape data loaded - this works as a detection method.

[Phil Deakins]

Something like that, yes. As I said, It's never even crossed my mind before, and it's easy to think of layers as seperate layers because we use them that way. I'm just drawing some conclusions here, sometimes as I'm actually writing the post. I don't suggest a single final layer for attachments like shoes though - just for things like skin(s), tattoos, and standard clothing, but not mesh or sculptie clothing, which are attachments. To be honest, it's the only sensible way to do it, imo, as there is no need for all the layers to be redrawn, one on top of the other, every time an avatar moves. They all end up, with no thickness, right on the surface of the shape, so they are all in the same 'space'. I've no idea about the head, torso and legs parts though. It's the first time I've even been aware of the 3 textures that make up a whole skin.

The argument as to whether a shape can be seen or not came about from one short phrase of mine - "it doesn't exist" - which I later partially retracted. The OP had asked what the difference was between a skin and a shape, and I tried to explain it by saying that a shape is an invisible human-shaped blob, which to all intents and purposes it is, unless it's not a human shape, of course It's a very good way of picturing it, imo. But then Coby took me to task on it and we finished up with a longish thread of disagreements about whether or not it can be seen 

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

You can certainly see a texture without is being on an object. Just open it. You can't do that with a skin but you can certainly see it when it's worn. You can do neither with a shape. They all exist as files in an inventory, of course, and it seems probable that, when an avatar is rezzed, the shape data stays with it.

But you've entered this thread a wee bit late. We've had quite a lengthy discussion about the very point your raised. Reading the thread will get you bang up to date

---

A Second Life texture is actually a rectangular array of values for red, green, blue and transparency. The number of values is always a power of two in both directions. If you open it in the viewer you can see a representation of how those values would look on a flat surface under neutral lighting without repeats. If the exact same texture is applied to a sphere at SL sunset it will look radically different. Which is the "real" texture? 

---

What I've meant throughout the thread is that a user can actually see a texture, but the same is not true for a shape. That's all. So your question doesn't apply to this discussion

---

Yes, a "shape" is only a modifier that is dependent on something else, but so is a texture. A "shape" is a set of values that modify the configuration of the default avatar mesh - you can see the effect of these modifications in a number of ways.

A "texture", on the other hand, is a modifier for a surface. You can only "see" a texture when it's on a surface. You can "see" a texture by opening it in a viewer without it being on an in-world object only because the viewer generates a variable-size surface to show it on.

 

You've already changed what "you actually meant" a number of times, now we're just waiting for your, "Well, this discussion is over because I'm right and there's no need to continue" post.

 

[Phil Deakins]

Sorry, Theresa, but I see no point in me continuing it with you. I've already gone though it with Coby and it would be very tiring to do much more. You can see things how you want to see them, and I'll see the same things how I want to see them. If our thinking coincides, great. If it doesn't, it really doesn't matter. The only thing that mattered in this thread is answering the OPs question, which was done on the first page.

That's not to say that the thread hasn't been very interesting. It has. I've learned some things from it - both by thinking about things I've never thought about before, and by others pointing things out that I didn't know before.

ETA: Everything in SL is only a set of values/data. We know that. It doesn't sound like you've understood me when I talked about the difference between something that can be seen and something that can't be seen, and I only talked about it that way to explain to the OP how to think of a shape as distinct from a skin. But it doesn't matter - honestly.

Parting shot: A shape can never be seen. It's form can obviously be seen, but not the shape itself. Everything else can be seen one way or another

 

Another ETA: There was no need at all for this:- You've already changed what "you actually meant" a number of times, now we're just waiting for your, "Well, this discussion is over because I'm right and there's no need to continue" post - unless you're spoiling for a verbal fight. If that's what you want, it'll be a one-sided fight because i won't be in it. I haven't changed what I "actually meant" at all.I partially withdrew one short statement but what I meant by it still stands.

[Freya Mokusei]

Sounds fair. Yeah, this subject is easily over-complicated. For example!

I mentioned shoes in my post as the System Shoes - modern SLers only use them for heel heights. These are of course a clothing layer (not an attachment) and their texture is baked onto the avatar the same as their socks.

System skirts have more or less the same feature - though, I think it's harder to determine whether wearing a skirt deforms the avatar or is applied to otherwise-hidden (via alpha) polys. I think it's maybe a combination of both.

There's also the well-documented SL bug - dating back to 2003 - all shirts and undershirts have a 0.5px 'tear' around one side of the seam, which usually shows the avatar's underlying skin beneath. It's actually not possible to cover this section up using shirts or undershirts at all - jacket layers are the only way to make this long-standing bug invisible.

All this, and your avatar has managed only to dress themselves.

[Phil Deakins]

Speak for yourself, Freya. My avatar never manages to dress himself. I always have to do it for him lol.

You see how little attention I've paid to clothes over the years? It never occured to me that system shoes were just another layer. I'd always imagined them as attached. I could have guessed about socks though.

[Freya Mokusei]

I have two great passions in life: clothes and systems analysis (also music, many others >.>). When the two meet there are rarely many survivors.

I realised after posting that I may well be a little unique there, I never dress myself! I leave it almost entirely to systems that I've scripted myself, and some friends.

[Phil Deakins]

Heh. I don't even have stuff sorted so that I can wear a folder. I'm great at dressing myself as long as I can be naked though

[Perrie Juran]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

What I want to know is why isn't there a big market for Avatar Brains?

---

Hi Perrie, please look closely at the picture in my earlier post in this thread:

http://community.secondlife.com/t5/General-Discussion-Forum/Can-you-tell-me-what-are-skins-vs-shapes/m-p/2703676#M179103

Can you see the denser mesh concentration inside the avatar's skull? That is the

Avatar Brain

.  :matte-motes-big-grin: :smileywink:

---

Ah, OK.  I thought that was sinus congrestion.

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 

Yes, I see what you mean now. I put a window texture (a window frame with transparent glass) on the upper body and the the 'linden skin' is showing inside the window frame.

So there does appear to be another layer underneath the skin. For this discussion, though, that layer simply shows the form of the shape, just as a normal skin does, and not the actual shape 'thing' itself.

It doesn't matter to this topic but it occurs to me that it's not actually another layer. It's simply that, when drawing the avatar, the viewer first draws the basic 'linden skin' and then draws the desired skin on top of that, meaning that the 'linden' skin is no longer drawn when the required skin has overwritten it, meaning that it's not another layer. But, then, what is layer?. It's a layer of drawing that overwrites what was was there before it and, in the end, there is only one layer, no matter how many are actually drawn. You probably always think of it that way but, never having had any reason to think about it before, I'm just learning it as we're discussing it, thinking about it, and writing it

But we've digressed

---

Because you still don't quite get it, although very close, but not completely there in understanding how the the skins work, I add something here to clarify things.

The Linden Skin textures and the designed skin textures indeed are on separate layers. Which I demonstrated in my picture in my earlier post. You can make similar skin, to play with in edit, as in my example and play with the skin sliders. You will see that they affect only the Linden Skin texturing, not the designed skin texturing. If they are not on separate layers how would that be possible?

(Please don't mix the shape here now, we are talking about the textures applied on the shape, not the shape itself.) :smileyindifferent:

So, the above is what happens first when we make a new skin, or change skin.

 

Then next step is that the texture baking starts its work in the server. The baking process bakes the original layered textures (textures for: skins, system clothing, tattoos, alpha masks) on a single layer. (You understood this process pretty well.)  For simplicity, let's assume that in this experiment the avatar is wearing only the Linden Skin and the designed skin.

Ok, the server looks what textures both of those skins have. The server knows the order of layering for those textures. To illustrate the baking process in an easy way, let's imagine that there is a virtual baking table in the server. So, first the server puts the Linden Skin textures on the baking table, then on top of those it puts the designed skin textures. Then it presses the "bake" button. The result is that instead of the original six separate textures, there are now only three baked textures left - the Linden Skin textures and the designed skin textures baked together. If the designed skin textures were completely opaque, no Linden Skin texture will be seen in those baked textures (because the designed skin textures were on top of Linden skin textures). Similarly, if there were transparent or semi-transparent areas in the designed skin textures, then the Linden Skin textures will be seen in those areas in the baked textures.

What the server does next is that it sends those baked textures to the viewers and the viewers will renders them on screens.

This same baking process, done in the servers, applies to all system clothes too. The net effect is that there is less work and traffic for system textures.

 

[ETA]

Still more to clarify: after the baking process all avatar's system textures are cleanly and effectively on a single layer and are shown on the avatar shape's faces.