Why do some houses suffer from gigantism?

[Perrie Juran]

Mattress sizes, U.S.

 

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Aethelwine wrote:

None of this is a big issue but I think the picture illustrates why builders building to a scale based on their perceptions of the scale they think people want and not a prim sized scale causes such huge confusion.

---

Imo, the person who made that bottle of wine and the glasses you described, has no concept of the scale that people want. Either that or you are a

very

small avatar

Most creators have a realistic idea of scale that suits the majority of avatars in SL.

 

---

But that's the problem.  Everyone is using random scale based on their idea of what looks good.  And it doesn't take much variance to wind up with a bed that is too small or too large. 

I could start posting pictures of all my beds with me on them and from creator to creator the differences can be huge actually.  And what we've done is suffer through it.  We've gotten to putting out of our minds just how bad some things really look.

[irihapeti]

jejejejje (:

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I don't think that houses are resizable from menus, and it can be awkward resizing them using the Edit box. It used to be the case that houses came in multiple parts - not linked. If that's still the case, then many or most people wouldn't be able to resize them very well.

I don't buy houses so I don't have any significant experience of them, but aren't they rezzable before you buy?

---

These days many mesh ones do come as one huge linkset. Or if not, a couple linksets.

Either way, to resize them is trivially easy.

Drop this script:

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linkset_resizer

into the root prim(s), and then type:

/4 some_number

See my comment earlier on page 2 of this thread.

 

The caveats are that no-mod houses can't be resized (you'd think this obvious, but I buy a lot of houses for... reasons... that make no sense even to me given that I have nowhere to rez most of them and the one I live in was made by me... and at least one out of every 10 I get that claims to be mod... isn't somewhere in the prims.

The other caveat... is that if there is any prim in there with even a single face at 0.01m in size... you're stuck. You have to find that prim and make it bigger. This is usually in things like glass windows, floors, roof prims, a security panel, or a built in wall painting. Or shadow prims...

Sizing that 0.01 side to 0.013 is usually enough to be able to reduce the size of any house enough to be made for a 'Tiny' once the whole set is shrunk... but this second caveat - requires building skill.

 

But if you hit neither of those two problems, dropping that script in and typing a number is something any noob can handle.

- except you better remove the script once you're done, or any random time you type in /4 some_number, everything you own within 96m is going to change size... Which... can get interesting... if its something you left sitting there a year or more ago and have no idea how big it was 1 second before you typed that...

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Coby Foden wrote:

Phil Deakins replied in blue:

 

I know that you are referring to room sizes (somebody new here might not know it). They go: "Darn, not possible to make any object RL size here, ufff... " :smileysad:

If anyone reads, then there is no confusion. What would you prefer? People saying that RL sized rooms and furniture are just fine, when they are not?

Well, we have already agreed, in one earlier very long discussion, that for avatar comfort, for ease of movement it is a good idea to make the interiors bigger than in RL. If the avatar is average RL height, and if the camera is located away from its default "sacred" location to a much better natural view position, then the interiors need not to be hugely larger than in RL, for comfort and ease of movement. However, if the camera is kept in the default location and the avatar is very tall then huge interiors are needed.

But, as you said, rooms do need to be larger, which results in larger furniture or it would look much too small for the room. As a furniture maker I've seen it and known it for years. As a result of that, avatars need to be larger too.

---

Phil, do you remember this discussion?

http://community.secondlife.com/t5/General-Discussion-Forum/Dimensions-Avatars-Content-some-thoughts/m-p/2185525#M126607

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 

The idea of RL sizes in an empty SL would work in exactly the same way is it works in the current SL. Avatars and furniture would work just fine, but room sizes must be bigger than RL because of the way we see. So your

idea of having avatar and furniture sizes the same as RL, and having bigger rooms because of the way we see, would work just fine

. We've never been in disagreement about that.

---

As you see, you have agreed in earlier discussion that RL sized furniture and RL sized avatars work just fine. Now you're going back to your earlier claim that they don't work. Why is that, did you change your mind?

No, I haven't changed my mind. Of course larger rooms with RL-size furniture would work, but then the furniture would look small for the room because the room needs to be significantly larger. In other words, you can't successfully have a typical RL-sized room with RL-sized furniture and RL-sized avatars. Yes, it can be done, but it's just too awkward for moving around and seeing inside the room.

[...]

I'm totally convinced that these RL examples of spacious living rooms would work in SL very well when dimensioned exactly 1:1 (1 RLm = 1 SLm). RL sized sized avatar would work well in those environments. No issues whatsoever.

 

No need to enlarge the furniture, no need to enlarge the room, no need for bigger avatar. Works fine just as it is. :smileyhappy:

---

Yes, buildings can be made with rooms large enough to accomodate RL-sized furniture so that an avatar can move around and see ok. But that's not typical of rooms in RL homes.

You may be convinced that those 2 pictured rooms can be made successfully in SL, and I agree with you. But I don't agree that avatars could move around in them all that easily, and that's always the problem. For instance, the one with the wooden floor looks to be about 12 or 13 feet from the window to the back, and I know for certain, from my actual experiments, that that's simply too small to move around in easily and actually see everything you would see in RL; i.e. to avoid walking into or over things. The camera is the problem. I tested it for a previous discussion about RL sizing.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

(I'm in brown this time

)

Phil you know very well that the "

sacred default camera setting

"

(what you refuse to touch because it is the default) :smileywink:

does not prevent anybody in any way from creating content in RL sizes. You can do it, and you

do know

it. Please stop confusing people by saying something what is not true. Thanks. :matte-motes-smile:

I didn't say that the camera position prevents RL sized content from being made. I said nothing like that. What the camera's default position doesn't allow is making everything in RL sizes - rooms specifically, and that causes furniture to be bigger, etc. It's not me who is confusing people, it's you who reply to me by changing what I said. That's confusing.

In effect you did say that the default camera setting prevents making RL sized objects because you replied to my post where I was telling about sizes of

objects

, not rooms. You are confusing people, not me. I'm not changing what you said. :smileyhappy:

I replied to your post, in which you listed some pieces of furniture. The furniture was for rooms in homes and we were discussing RL sizing. I correctly said that the default camera position doesn't allow it, which meant the whole thing. It goes without saying that the camera position has no impact at all on the size of anything. It's only when you put them all together that it prevents certain things. I don't think anyone reading the whole dicussion would be confused. If you take a piece of the discussion in isolation, as you did here by only quoting one little bit, then it could be confusing. And, of course, you changing what I said is still confusing

I know that you are referring to room sizes (somebody new here might not know it). They go: "Darn, not possible to make any object RL size here, ufff... " :smileysad:

If anyone reads, then there is no confusion. What would you prefer? Me saying that RL sized rooms and furniture are just fine, when they are not?

What I prefer to say is that:

RL sized furniture + RL sized avatar + good camera location + spacious RL room work

perfectly in SL. No need at all to making

everything

bigger. Your idea that bigger works better is wrong.

If you want typical RL-scaled room content, then bigger rooms most definitely do work better. 1:1 scaling doesn't work at all. Of course you can have big rooms and RL-sized furniture and make it work, but you have do other things for it to work - more furniture to prevent the room from looking too empty. I've never talked about RL-sizing as not working in big rooms. I've only ever talked about it typical RL-sized rooms.

Incidentally, you included "

good camera location

" in your list of how to make it work, but that's not an option. The default camera lposition is the only one that any sensible creator creates for, because that's the one that the majority of people use.

Jo Yardley created her Berlin scaled at 1:1 and it doesn't work, even with the camera position adjusted. She says it works, and it's possible to make yourself accept it, but that's all you'll do - accept it, because it really doesn't work anywhere near as well as bigger does. I tried her buildings, so I know - I'm not just guessing 

Well, we have already agreed, in one earlier very long discussion, that for avatar comfort, for ease of movement it is a good idea to make the interiors bigger than in RL. If the avatar is average RL height, and if the camera is located away from its default "sacred" location to a much better natural view position, then the interiors need not to be hugely larger than in RL, for comfort and ease of movement. However, if the camera is kept in the default location and the avatar is very tall then huge interiors are needed.

But, as you said, rooms do need to be larger, which results in larger furniture or it would look much too small for the room. As a furniture maker I've seen it and known it for years. As a result of that, avatars need to be larger too.

Larger rooms do not result in that the furniture and avatars need to be bigger. That's your wrong thinking. You're so stuck in that thinking, result of the many years of making furniture for very tall avatars, that you seem to be incapable of thinking anything else.

Reproduce most RL rooms in homes, including bedrooms and bathrooms, and you'll find that, if you scale them so that moving around them and their contents is good, then 1:1 furniture will look too small. I've done all that in my years in the furniture business. The default cam position can't be changed when creating furniture for the masses.

You might be interested to know that even I consider that some of my older furniture has become too big. It didn't used to be, but we are seeing more and more shorter people these days. I made some smaller pieces but I'm not changing the bigger ones because, as you know, the store is intentionally fading away.

The default camera position is no excuse for extra large content creation. We know that the camera is not locked in that position. Any content creator should be aware of it. Not knowing that it is not locked is no excuse either. Content creators should familiarize themselves with the platform well; especially those who sell content.

The default camera position is no reason to make

gigantic

houses, but it does mean that house contents end up being larger because houses are necessarily larger.

You are right - the cam position isn't locked, but what percentage of people change it? Content creators need to make content suitable for the most common, which is the default cam position. And I assure you that content creators are very well aware of it. That's why you don't see much RL-sized furniture. Just because the cam position can be changed, doesn't mean that most people change it.

If the avatar is RL sized it does not need so huge rooms as the very tall avatars will need. The result is that the RL sized avatar's house works well with RL sized furniture, there is no need to upsize them.

I completely disagree. Since we won't come to agreement on that, perhaps you'd care to join me in experimenting with it. Remember, though, that the default cam position can't be changed.

But as the content creators know the camera postion so well and know that it can be changed to better location, they should be an example to people. Make things to RL sizes, inform people how the content looks right. Make content modifiable, so that those who want to be giants can scale the content to suit them. It's rather silly to continue to support giant sizes for years and years.

Why would any creator who wants to sell stuff be an example to people and make stuff that's too small for the majority? In this case, the creator follows the people, not the other way round.

You claim that large interiors need large furniture because RL sized furniture would look too small. That's a funny claim.

It's not a funny claim at all. You are just waffling now, presumably because you don't have any good argument against something you don't want to be true. I've been in the furniture making business for a lot of years, and I promise you that RL-sized furniture looks way too small in typical SL rooms in homes.

Your claim is funny. YOu have made content for very tall avatars for years and years. You have no experience at all how things would look with RL sized content. Yes, I'm sure that RL sized furniture would look rather small in the houses made for the very tall avatars, that we can agree. :smileyhappy:

Of course I have an idea how things look for RL sized avs and furniture. Without rooms, they look just fine - no different to bigger ones. When you put a room round them, though, then you have to consider ease of movement and seeing. You don't think that I'm just guessing about furniture looking too small for a room, do you? I've done it. I know what it looks like. I haven't had all those years in the furniture business without seeing and testing these things.

Where I live we many large malls. These malls have large interior spaces where there are seats for people to rest their feet, there are many small cafeterias in the middle of the open areas, there are snack bars. Plenty of empty space all around. The ceiling is very high. All the furniture is normal standard size, same size what people have in their homes. Not a single very large, oversized piece of furniture is seen anywhere. And nobody complains "

Why the furniture is so small in this big place?

" For everybody everything looks normal in the scene.

We are talking about homes, not malls etc. You put an RL-sized sofa against a wall in a typical SL living room, and you'll see that it looks much too small and unrealistic for the room. It's no good arguing about it Coby. I've been in the business for years and I know.

Who said we are about homes?

Homes are all we've discussed until you suddenly introduced big buildings like malls.

 Why are you referring to typical SL living room?

Because typical homes contain typical living rooms.

 We know that there are lots of "typical" SL living rooms which are extremely large.

There are plenty of RL homes with large rooms, but they aren't typical.

 We know that RL sized furniture looks small in those rooms. We are not arguing about it at all. We are discussing (at least I am) whether RL sized content and avatars work in SL or not. Your business experience has been making content for very tall avatars. That has nothing to do with RL sized content and avatars.

My business experience through the years includes trying, testing, and seeing what things look like in different sized rooms. When I say a piece of furniture looks small in a very big room, it's not my imagination talking. It's my experience of exactly that that's talking.

Normal size furniture works perfectly in RL in big spaces. Why do you feel that it wouldn't work in SL?

I didn't say it wouldn't work in the sort of large spaces that you mentioned. It doesn't work in homes. Please stop changing what we are discussing. Why do you change the object of the discussion? Are you hoping that, if you change it, you can win a point?

RL sized furniture works very well in SL homes when they are made for RL sized avatars. I'm not here "to win a point". I'm here to discuss that RL sized content works in SL. There's no compelling reason for gigantism.

I agree that there is no compelling reason for gigantism, but we're not discussing that. The enormous house in the earlier pic is an example of gigantism. All the furniture I've ever seen is not.

To me, your feeling that way makes no sense at all. Is it just a thing what you have deeply instilled in your mind ('

it does not work

'), or what is it?

It's deeply ingrained in my mind due to my extensive experience of it. It doesn't matter if it makes sense to you or not. Unless I'm mistaken, you are one of the minority who want their avatar to be more or less RL sized, and for no apparent reason. It's a 'thing' with you - almost a principle.

It's funny that you often refer to 'minority'. Does it make your claim stronger as you feel to be in the 'majority'?

Actually, yes. Being in the majority does make my arguments stronger.

There are many reasons to support RL sizing.

I've never seen even a good reason, let alone a compelling one, to use 1:1 sizing. The reason I've never seen one is because there are none.

 It has been discussed over and over again. But you prefer to discard anything what is said in favour and about the benefits of RL sizing. To the best of my knowledge,

I've never seen anyone write an actual reason. I think that all I've ever seen are preferences, and preferences are not good reason when it's only a very small minority preference.

 It's not a 'thing' with me, it's not almost a principle. It's just a fact.

Content creators create for the majority if they can, because they want to sell to the majority, and they can with homes and furniture. In very recent times, there are more shorter avs than there used to be, and it would benefit content creators to cater for both, as I do in a small way. But the old avatar heights are still the majority as far as I know. Whenever I go to a place where there are plenty of avatars, I'm never noticably taller than the others, but there is the occasional avatar that is significantly and very noticably shorter than the rest. That's the RL-sized one.

I understand that lots of content creators do it for the income, it is natural to make content for major customer group. But this majority thing does not invalidate in any way what I have been saying here about RL sizes.

True. But you haven't offered any reasons why 1:1 is desireable. You've only said that it works - provided that the rooms are big.

 

Being the majority does not mean that the majority is right. In SL the majority just has followed the wrong path, due to Linden Lab made mistake early in the beginnings of SL.

What the reason was is irrelevant as far as house and furniture creators are concerned. If it was an LL mistake, the mistake still exists and has to be dealt with.

---

---

---

Now I'm going to repeat something. SL is not RL. The reason I've repeated it is because you keep on about RL sizes. It's you who promotes RL in SL. Why? What does it matter if things are generally bigger in SL? Why do you want to equate SL with that other world, RL?

It's interesting to note that you have completely abandoned any discussion on 'consistent sizing'. Y'know, the topic that you said had been discussed many times in the past, and eventually admitted that you mentioned it once in a long thread I've no idea what the idea behind consistent sizing is, and I'm interested to know, but it looks like you've dropped it

[Phil Deakins]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

Mattress sizes, U.S.

 

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Aethelwine wrote:

None of this is a big issue but I think the picture illustrates why builders building to a scale based on their perceptions of the scale they think people want and not a prim sized scale causes such huge confusion.

---

Imo, the person who made that bottle of wine and the glasses you described, has no concept of the scale that people want. Either that or you are a

very

small avatar

Most creators have a realistic idea of scale that suits the majority of avatars in SL.

 

---

But that's the problem.  Everyone is using random scale based on their idea of what looks good.  And it doesn't take much variance to wind up with a bed that is too small or too large. 

I could start posting pictures of all my beds with me on them and from creator to creator the differences can be huge actually.  And what we've done is suffer through it.  We've gotten to putting out of our minds just how bad some things really look.

---

I suppose it may be a bit different with beds because of the variety of animations in them. I've always made them big enough to take all the animations without various limbs hanging much over the sides It was suitable though, because they did need to be bigger than RL beds so that a bedroom with a typical set of bedroom furniture in it would look reasonably normal.

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Now I'm going to repeat something.

SL is

not

RL

. The reason I've repeated it is because you keep on about RL sizes. It's you who promotes RL in SL. Why? What does it matter if things are generally bigger in SL? Why do you want to equate SL with that other world, RL?

It's interesting to note that you have completely abandoned any discussion on 'consistent sizing'. Y'know, the topic that you said had been discussed many times in the past, and eventually admitted that you mentioned it once in a long thread

I've no idea what the idea behind consistent sizing is, and I'm interested to know, but it looks like you've dropped it

---

In order of importance:

Land Impact.

Animation - motion capture animation works better if the figures are proportioned like human beings - like the actors. Otherwise you need complex capture systems to adjust the capture to your non-human figure.

An ability to forge a consistent experience. If the actual number values on objects in SL had meaning - it would make everything consistent. The people pushing to use the 1:1 ratio are largely doing it for this reason.

An ability to be proportional - because a scant few but critical shape dials like arm length max out too early. While I am not as big on 1:1 size (I desire it, but its not my main 'battle'), proportionability (made up word maybe) is vital to being able to represent...

Things that are not proportional.

- There is no such thing as an artisticly deformed shape until the artist knows how to do it undeformed, and so deforms it in a way that creates an intentional effect. This is the difference between a Salvador Dali or Picasso and a 4-year child. Other examples abound.

 

No one has abandoned consistency - you just choose to pretend they have.

 

[Phil Deakins]

I'll go back to blue this post

 

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Now I'm going to repeat something.

SL is

not

RL

. The reason I've repeated it is because you keep on about RL sizes. It's you who promotes RL in SL. Why? What does it matter if things are generally bigger in SL? Why do you want to equate SL with that other world, RL?

It's interesting to note that you have completely abandoned any discussion on 'consistent sizing'. Y'know, the topic that you said had been discussed many times in the past, and eventually admitted that you mentioned it once in a long thread

I've no idea what the idea behind consistent sizing is, and I'm interested to know, but it looks like you've dropped it

---

In order of importance:

Land Impact.

I disagree. To my way of thinking, the #1 priority is usability.

Animation - motion capture animation works better if the figures are proportioned like human beings - like the actors. Otherwise you need complex capture systems to adjust the capture to your non-human figure.

Proportions are down to shapes, not scale. My experience with animations is that they work fine whether or not the avatars are bigger or smaller. I have no experience of huge avatars or of tiny ones, so i can't speak about those. I don't see that mocap ones would be any different.

An ability to forge a consistent experience. If the actual number values on objects in SL had meaning - it would make everything consistent. The people pushing to use the 1:1 ratio are largely doing it for this reason.

I don't know why they are doing it, but I do know that what they push won't work in SL. There are very few of them, anyway.

An ability to be proportional - because a scant few but critical shape dials like arm length max out too early. While I am not as big on 1:1 size (I desire it, but its not my main 'battle'), proportionability (made up word maybe) is vital to being able to represent...

I completely agree about arms. It was one of my things some years ago. Some, maybe all, of the system shapes had arms that were too short. However, I don't think that RL-sizing will help there. If the arms are maxed, and the rest of the av is proportional to them, then I'm sure we'd still have larger than RL avatars. I'd need to check that, but I think it's right.

[..] 

No one has abandoned consistency - you just choose to pretend they have.

Coby was big on 'consistent sizing', and I queried it a lot, but in her last 2 long posts to me, it didn't get a mention. She completed her responses to me at the time, so I have to assume that she's abandoned discussing it here, which is clearly what was meant. You can see that by my inclusion of the words, "

any discussion

". Perhaps you are

pretending

that I meant something different, but what I meant was as clear as a bell 

Read it again, if you don't believe me. She didn't even tell me what is meant by the phrase, and I would genuinely like to know.

---

 

[Pussycat Catnap]

My least was in the usual order of least to most. I think you might have read it backwards priority.

In order to more promote "proportionate shapes" in SL, and take OUT my 'financial interest' in the topic so I cannot be accused of some bias there, I've now made my "Proportionate Woman in Standard Sizes" product a freebie both inworld and on MP:
https://marketplace.secondlife.com/p/FREE-Proportionate-Woman-in-Standard-Sizes/3584715
- that should greatly help people get their own looks proportional.

 

Proportions is somewhat linked to size due to the dial limits. And animation is linked ot proportion. I spelled that out in my points - but you're hyper focusing on one point at a time and not seeing the connections.

As for it not working in SL - we who are on a 1:1 scale are a rapidly growing movement. I see more and more of us everytime I wander out in SL.

It is working just fine for a whole lot of us.

 

Just because someone doesn't repeat a point in every post doesn't mean they have abandoned it. After all - the rest of us know SL is not RL, and don't need to say it in every post on the subject.

 

If the arms are at 100 and the rest of the avatar is proportionate to them - most female shapes would be from 4'8" to 5'3" or so, give or take a little. Most (or some key ones) of the dials that adjust height do not also stretch the limbs. The height dial itself does, but not at the same rate as the rest of the body. This quickly becomes an issue.

Penny Patton claims you can get up to just over 6' without loosing the arms - but I have only managed this by using the trick of super wide shoulders - which means they will look right in a T-pose, but actually be too short.

 

 

[Perrie Juran]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

---

---

---

Now I'm going to repeat something.

SL is

not

RL

. The reason I've repeated it is because you keep on about RL sizes. It's you who promotes RL in SL. Why? What does it matter if things are generally bigger in SL? Why do you want to equate SL with that other world, RL?

It's interesting to note that you have completely abandoned any discussion on 'consistent sizing'. Y'know, the topic that you said had been discussed many times in the past, and eventually admitted that you mentioned it once in a long thread

I've no idea what the idea behind consistent sizing is, and I'm interested to know, but it looks like you've dropped it

---

And I am going to repeat again what Coby has said, "We know SL is not RL."

What we are talking about here is what would be best practices. 

When we all started SL we were presented with a standard to build from, an around seven foot tall Ava.  Starting from that standard people made themselves taller, shorter, fatter, skinnier, etc, etc.  And many things were built with a degree of randomness trying to adjust to that Ava.  Sizing things became a Wild West in SL not because people wanted to be taller or shorter but because they were all trying to adapt to that Ava.

I've no survey to back this up but I doubt if most people come into SL thinking that they want to represent themselves as a 7 foot tall giant.  I know I didn't.  Basically, as you look around SL, what most people are trying to represent themselves as being is simply trim, fit, and handsome or beautiful but otherwise average compared to everyone else.  That is how I believe the majority want to be percieved. 

ETA, another unkown here is which came first, the camera angle or the Ava.  Did they settle on the default angle because the hight of the Ava 'forced' it' or did they set the camera angle and then build the Ava.

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 

Now I'm going to repeat something.

SL is

not

RL

. The reason I've repeated it is because you keep on about RL sizes. It's you who promotes RL in SL. Why? What does it matter if things are generally bigger in SL? Why do you want to equate SL with that other world, RL?

It's interesting to note that you have completely abandoned any discussion on 'consistent sizing'. Y'know, the topic that you said had been discussed many times in the past, and eventually admitted that you mentioned it once in a long thread

I've no idea what the idea behind consistent sizing is, and I'm interested to know, but it looks like you've dropped it

---

We're running out of colours, so I don't care to comment all your comments.

(Still containing some erroneuos thinking by you.) :smileywink:

 

 

Phil, nobody is trying to equate SL with RL. Nobody. It is just you pushing that meaningless phrase here over and over again.This is about sizing content. Nothing more, nothing less. You can drop the silly phrase, we've had enough of it.

Ok then, here is something about consistent sizing, to relieve you from the sad face.

(Funny you being a designer that you don't understand what is meant by it.)

consistent:

- uniform, undeviating, unvarying; marked by harmony, regularity, or steady continuity, free from variation or contradiction, expected, constantly adhering to the same principles, course, form, etc.

 

synonyms:

- coherent, compatible, concordant, harmonious, nonconflicting

 

antonyms:

- incompatible, inconsistent, unfitting, varying, irregular

 

For example, one can ask: "Does adidas have a consistent sizing across the world? Is adidas clothing sizing the same around the world?"

 

About Second Life we can ask: "Is the sizing of content the same across the grid?" We know it isn't; sizing is not consistent across the grid.

 

Next, the benefits of RL-sizing.

 

The benefits of RL-sizing have been discussed earlier. Maybe you have skipped all those posts in earlier threads because they don't support your 'bigger works better' view? Even in this thread one person gave one very good reason to go small. Still you say in this same thread: "I've never seen anyone write an actual reason". Why Phil? Debating for the debate's sake, I guess. Even I have mentioned some benefits earlier. You just disregard all. Why, I wonder.

 

 

If you have forgotten about the benefits, I give here some benefits/reasons for RL-sizing:

 

• It is impossible for female avatar to tall correctly proportionate avatar, if the avatar is tall you cannot stretch the arms long enough, so they look too short

 

• The big one is this: in RL all the content sizing is pretty consistent, there are some variations but the variations are not huge. All content in RL is perfect for the majority of adult population. RL is perfect reference how content looks, why not use it in SL?

 

• When RL content is used in SL there is no guesswork about what size an object should be. No eyeballing and 'guesstimations'. Just measure an object in RL, and use those measurements 1:1 in SL.

 

• Using RL sized avatars and content in SL saves land space, you don't need so huge houses as you need with giants and their giant content. Besides filling your land with a huge house, you can put a garden too by using smaller house.

 

• You can use more RL sized content on your parcel than what you can use with big content (thanks to mesh).

 

I don't really understand what is your point to constantly refer to what is typical in SL and what is typical room size in RL? You know very well that my point of view has nothing to do with 'typical'. It has nothing to do how the masses have their camera 'locked' in the default setting. It has nothing to do with the giant rooms in giant houses made for the giants. It has nothing to do with Jo Yardley's very tiny RL-sized rooms in SL. It's just plain silly that you are trying prove your point by referring to those things.

Please, at least try to be sensible in your replies. You know definitely well what I'm talking about. This comes tedious if you debate just for the sake of debate. Thank you. :smileyhappy:

What I'm talking here is not about 'typical'. :matte-motes-big-grin:

 

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Coby Foden wrote:

 

If the avatar is RL sized it does not need so huge rooms as the very tall avatars will need. The result is that the RL sized avatar's house works well with RL sized furniture, there is no need to upsize them.

Phil Deakins wrote:

 

I completely disagree. Since we won't come to agreement on that, perhaps you'd care to join me in experimenting with it. Remember, though, that the default cam position can't be changed.

---

ROFLOL, Phil!

You want to lock the camera. Would you like to use 2.6 m tall avatars too to 'win' your case?

And should I perhaps work with only one hand and with a very tiny screen?

Any other requirements?

:smileysurprised: :smileytongue:

 

 

As I said in my other post:

This is not about what is 'typical'. So why do you want typical surroundings for the experiment?

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

And I am going to repeat again what Coby has said, "We know SL is not RL."

Basically, as you look around SL, what most people are trying to represent themselves as being is simply trim, fit, and handsome or beautiful but otherwise average compared to everyone else.  That is how I believe the majority want to be percieved. 

---

SL is exactly like RL, in that it's populated by humans who do not suddenly shed their evolutionary preferences (nor their RL driven expectations) when stepping across the threshold. For that reason a good many of us do want to appear average, as outliers are often not as genetically fit.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2435688/The-average-woman-revealed-Study-blends-thousands-faces-worlds-women-look-like.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2132896/Florence-Colgate-Girl-Britains-beautiful-face.html

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2011/april-11/beauty-is-in-the-mind-of-the-beholder.html

Note that in the third link, research shows we prefer average in everything, not just potential mates. This means we'll prefer RL proportions for SL things, as our "averages" were learned in RL.

And note the role symmetry plays in beauty, and that SL makes asymmetry difficult. I think there are only four asymmetries allowed in the shape editor and they're all in the face:

• Face Shear
• Eye Pop
• Crooked Nose
• Shift Mouth

I suspect there's less deviation from default in those slider settings than for all the others.

We're going to try to fit in. It's what we do. So if we're given an oversized starter avatar and are surrounded by oversized avatars, we're going to conform. And if furniture looks too small for the ceiling height (which I hope we've determined was driven by camera placement), as compared to our RL experience, we might be inclined to create larger furniture. There's a tug of war going on between all the conflicting scales here. There should be no surprise that yields a mess.

[Coby Foden]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

 

What we are talking about here is what would be

best practices

.

---

Yes indeed. That's a very good definition for this discussion. That's what I'm talking about.

But Phil, for some strange reason, keeps repeatedly returning to what is 'typical'. He's done that same thing in some earlier discussion too. And then he continues to 'prove' that other things would not work in SL because of this 'typical' thing. Camera is locked, need bigger rooms, need bigger furniture, need bigger avatars... on and on he goes.  :smileysad: :smileywink:

 

Phil, this is not about 'typical'. Please join us to discuss about what is not 'typical'. :smileyhappy:

The things what I, for example, have said here. You know that they work if you drop the 'typical'.

[irihapeti]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

 

No need to enlarge the furniture, no need to enlarge the room, no need for bigger avatar. Works fine just as it is. :smileyhappy:

---

Yes, buildings can be made with rooms large enough to accomodate RL-sized furniture so that an avatar can move around and see ok. But that's not typical of rooms in RL homes.

You may be convinced that those 2 pictured rooms can be made successfully in SL, and I agree with you. But I don't agree that avatars could move around in them all that easily, and that's always the problem. For instance, the one with the wooden floor looks to be about 12 or 13 feet from the window to the back, and I know for certain, from my actual experiments, that that's simply too small to move around in easily and actually see everything you would see in RL; i.e. to avoid walking into or over things. The camera is the problem. I tested it for a previous discussion about RL sizing.

---

i just pick up on this part

in the RL we are in mouselook view. We are not in camera (3rd person) view. bc we are in mouselook view in the RL we can navigate small spaces. When go into mouselook view in SL then we can also navigate small spaces

we can do mouselook view in the RL bc we have spent a lifetime functioning this way. Spend a SL lifetime in mouselook view and the same result

however bc we dont use mouselook view in SL often it is disconcerting for many/some of us when we do. We end up not being able to judge the distances all that well and often bump in to things. get stuck in corners, etc

+

depth perception

there is this in SL. So is no difficulty with this. The difficulty with SL mouseview is that we dont have peripheral vision. We are blinkered. Like we have to turn our view (?head) more often when in mouselook. Which we have to do as well in the RL when wear blinkers that block our peripheral vision, turn our head (?view). When we turn our head when blinkered in the RL then we can navigate small spaces. Like watch where you going

so is not that we cant do this

is mostly just that is a major effort for most/some us to have to learn how. A majorly unnecessary effort for most of us. given that we do have 3rd person camera as a substitute for peripheral vision in SL. And in the RL we dont have to wear blinkers

so most people dont bother. By the rule: When is unnecessary then is unimportant in terms of time allocation to learn how

 +

eta. just on peripheral. SL viewport is about 60 degs. RL viewport is about 180 deg

[Phil Deakins]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

My least was in the usual order of least to most. I think you might have read it backwards priority.

My apologies. It looks like it's from the top down - top priority to least priority.

[...] 

As for it not working in SL - we who are on a 1:1 scale are a rapidly growing movement. I see more and more of us everytime I wander out in SL.

I can't disagree with that. I said earlier that I see more smaller avs that there used to be.

It is working just fine for a whole lot of us.

Good. But it can't be done without moving the camera position, and that can't be moved for sellers. Even, then it's

very

unusable in a typical RL-like 1:1 home., although a person can make/force themselves to do it

Just because someone doesn't repeat a point in every post doesn't mean they have abandoned it. After all - the rest of us know SL is not RL, and don't need to say it in every post on the subject.

I asked Coby about it. She didn't answer it. She chose to be silent about it (unless, as a result of these last few posts, she's picked it up again it in a following post that I haven't read yet).

 

If the arms are at 100 and the rest of the avatar is proportionate to them - most female shapes would be from 4'8" to 5'3" or so, give or take a little. Most (or some key ones) of the dials that adjust height do not also stretch the limbs. The height dial itself does, but not at the same rate as the rest of the body. This quickly becomes an issue.

I don't agree with that. From my own experiences, arms can be in good proportions with a taller than RL body, although I haven't done it with a female avatar.

 

---

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

---

---

---

Now I'm going to repeat something.

SL is

not

RL

. The reason I've repeated it is because you keep on about RL sizes. It's you who promotes RL in SL. Why? What does it matter if things are generally bigger in SL? Why do you want to equate SL with that other world, RL?

It's interesting to note that you have completely abandoned any discussion on 'consistent sizing'. Y'know, the topic that you said had been discussed many times in the past, and eventually admitted that you mentioned it once in a long thread

I've no idea what the idea behind consistent sizing is, and I'm interested to know, but it looks like you've dropped it

---

And I am going to repeat again what Coby has said, "We know SL is not RL."

Tell that to Coby. She is the one who keeps wanting things in SL to be the same as they are in RL. Not me.

What we are talking about here is what would be

best practices

. 

When we all started SL we were presented with a standard to build from, an around seven foot tall Ava.  Starting from that standard people made themselves taller, shorter, fatter, skinnier, etc, etc.  And many things were built with a degree of randomness trying to adjust to that Ava.  Sizing things became a Wild West in SL not because people wanted to be taller or shorter but because they were all trying to adapt to that Ava.

I've no survey to back this up but I doubt if most people come into SL thinking that they want to represent themselves as a 7 foot tall giant.  I know I didn't.  Basically, as you look around SL, what most people are trying to represent themselves as being is simply trim, fit, and handsome or beautiful but otherwise average compared to everyone else.  That is how I believe the majority want to be percieved. 

Yes, and there's no reason at all to match RL sizes to achieve it, especially when RL-sized everything doesn't work anywhere well enough.

ETA, another unkown here is which came first, the camera angle or the Ava.  Did they settle on the default angle because the hight of the Ava 'forced' it' or did they set the camera angle and then build the Ava.

I've no idea. I would guess that they came up with the camera position because everything else used that sort of position. Every ad for 3D games I see on TV these days use the same sort of position.

---

 

[Perrie Juran]

---

irihapeti wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

 

No need to enlarge the furniture, no need to enlarge the room, no need for bigger avatar. Works fine just as it is. :smileyhappy:

---

Yes, buildings can be made with rooms large enough to accomodate RL-sized furniture so that an avatar can move around and see ok. But that's not typical of rooms in RL homes.

You may be convinced that those 2 pictured rooms can be made successfully in SL, and I agree with you. But I don't agree that avatars could move around in them all that easily, and that's always the problem. For instance, the one with the wooden floor looks to be about 12 or 13 feet from the window to the back, and I know for certain, from my actual experiments, that that's simply too small to move around in easily and actually see everything you would see in RL; i.e. to avoid walking into or over things. The camera is the problem. I tested it for a previous discussion about RL sizing.

---

i just pick up on this part

in the RL we are in mouselook view. We are not in camera (3rd person) view. bc we are in mouselook view in the RL we can navigate small spaces. When go into mouselook view in SL then we can also navigate small spaces

we can do mouselook view in the RL bc we have spent a lifetime functioning this way. Spend a SL lifetime in mouselook view and the same result

however bc we dont use mouselook view in SL often it is disconcerting for many/some of us when we do. We end up not being able to judge the distances all that well and often bump in to things. get stuck in corners, etc

+

depth perception

there is this in SL. So is no difficulty with this. The difficulty with SL mouseview is that we dont have peripheral vision. We are blinkered. Like we have to turn our view (?head) more often when in mouselook. Which we have to do as well in the RL when wear blinkers that block our peripheral vision, turn our head (?view). When we turn our head when blinkered in the RL then we can navigate small spaces. Like watch where you going

so is not that we cant do this

is mostly just that is a major effort for most/some us to have to learn how. A majorly unnecessary effort for most of us. given that we do have 3rd person camera as a substitute for peripheral vision in SL. And in the RL we dont have to wear blinkers

so most people dont bother. By the rule: When is unnecessary then is unimportant in terms of time allocation to learn how

 

---

Excellent points about Mouseview.

I've only recently began using it.  And it does present challenges like you said.

Like you said, lack of peripheral vision. 

And when you are looking through a window your focus is locked straight ahead.   Their is no way to just roll your eyes to look up or down or to the sides. 

[Perrie Juran]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

I've no idea. I would guess that they came up with the camera position because everything else used that sort of position. Every ad for 3D games I see on TV these days use the same sort of position.

---

 

---

And I'll guess that all those 3D games also do something that SL doesn't do.  They all scale accurately.

But I'd need to ask people who build content for those games to know for sure so I'll allow I could be wrong on that.

But as to your claim that it doesn't work in SL, I've been to Jo Yardley's Berlin.  And yes, actually it does work. 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 

Now I'm going to repeat something.

SL is

not

RL

. The reason I've repeated it is because you keep on about RL sizes. It's you who promotes RL in SL. Why? What does it matter if things are generally bigger in SL? Why do you want to equate SL with that other world, RL?

It's interesting to note that you have completely abandoned any discussion on 'consistent sizing'. Y'know, the topic that you said had been discussed many times in the past, and eventually admitted that you mentioned it once in a long thread

I've no idea what the idea behind consistent sizing is, and I'm interested to know, but it looks like you've dropped it

---

We're running out of

c

o

l

o

u

r

s

, so I don't care to comment all your comments.

(Still containing some erroneuos thinking by you.)

:smileywink:

 

 

Phil, nobody is trying to equate SL with RL

. Nobody.

Then why do you want RL-sizes in SL?

It is just you pushing that meaningless phrase here over and over again.This is about sizing content. Nothing more, nothing less. You can drop the silly phrase, we've had enough of it.

I'll drop it when you stop trying to persuade me that

RL

sizes are better in SL, when even you agree that they are not - not for rooms. And to make your point you offer large rooms that are not typical in RL. What if I want to live in a nice town house, or a nice country cottage with a thatched roof, or a typical RL house with RL-sized rooms etc. etc. etc.? Drop trying to get SL sizes to match RL sizes and I'll stop reminding you that SL is not RL.

Ok then, here is something about

consistent

sizing, to relieve you from the sad face.

(Funny you being a designer that you don't understand what is meant by it.)

consistent:

- uniform, undeviating, unvarying; marked by harmony, regularity, or steady continuity, free from variation or contradiction, expected, constantly adhering to the same principles, course, form, etc.

 

synonyms:

- coherent, compatible, concordant, harmonious, nonconflicting

 

antonyms:

- incompatible, inconsistent, unfitting, varying, irregular

 

For example, one can ask: "Does adidas have a consistent sizing across the world? Is adidas clothing sizing the same around the world?"

 

 

Coby. I know what the word 'consistent' means, and I know about standard RL sizes of clothes etc. I also know that such sizes are not consistent even in the same country. That's not what I asked.

About Second Life we can ask: "Is the sizing of content the same across the grid?" We know it isn't; sizing is not consistent across the grid.

Aha. An answer. There are no such things as sizes in SL. What would you like to do about it? It wouldn't affect me anyway, because there are no such things as sizes for furniture anywhere in RL, except for beds, and they vary from place to place. So what can be done in SL to correct the situation. Nothing.

Next, the

benefits of RL-sizing

.

 

The benefits of RL-sizing have been discussed earlier. Maybe you have skipped all those posts in earlier threads because they don't support your 'bigger works better' view? Even in this thread one person gave one very good reason to go small. Still

you say

in this same thread: "

I've never seen anyone write an actual reason

". Why Phil? Debating for the debate's sake, I guess. Even I have mentioned some benefits earlier. You just disregard all. Why, I wonder.

 

I'm sorry, Coby, but I don't recall any reason for RL sizing being put forward. I don't read every post, of course.

If you have forgotten about the benefits, I give here some benefits/reasons for RL-sizing:

 

• It is impossible for female avatar to tall correctly proportionate avatar, if the avatar is tall you cannot stretch the arms long enough, so they look too short

I'll test that. It works for male avs but I've never tried it with female ones.

 

• The big one is this: in RL all the content sizing is pretty consistent, there are some variations but the variations are not huge. All content in RL is perfect for the majority of adult population. RL is perfect reference how content looks, why not use it in SL?

Consistency is fine. I've no objections to that. I doubt that it can be achieved though. RL sizing is not fine, not fine at all, because of its usability in all but large rooms, even with the camera position changed, and, of course, we can't change the camera position because the majority use the default.

 

• When RL content is used in SL there is no guesswork about what size an object should be. No eyeballing and 'guesstimations'. Just measure an object in RL, and use those measurements 1:1 in SL.

Fine. But it's unusable when rooms are also RL-sized. You have to make large rooms to accomodate the camera.

 

• Using RL sized avatars and content in SL saves land space, you don't need so huge houses as you need with giants and their giant content. Besides filling your land with a huge house, you can put a garden too by using smaller house.

I've only ever seen one house made for giants, and that was only a picture - earlier in this thread. So land space doesn't come into it.

 

• You can use more RL sized content on your parcel than what you can use with big content (thanks to mesh).

Maybe so, but you can't use it very well. You can'ty walk round very easily within a room, because you can't see where you are very well. It works in RL because we move our heads to see what's where, but not in SL.

I don't really understand what is your point to constantly refer to what is typical in SL and what is typical room size in RL? You know very well that my point of view has nothing to do with 'typical'. It has nothing to do how the masses have their camera 'locked' in the default setting. It has nothing to do with the giant rooms in giant houses made for the giants. It has nothing to do with Jo Yardley's very tiny RL-sized rooms in SL. It's just plain silly that you are trying prove your point by referring to those things.

So what you're saying is let's settle on very large rooms with RL-sized furniture and avatars. Right? You can do that if you want, but not everybody wants it. Jo Yardley, for instance. You can't do it if you want a nice country cottage either. You can't do it with most RL-type rooms. But it's alright if you want to be restricted like that.

Please, at least try to be sensible in your replies. You know definitely well what I'm talking about. This comes tedious if you debate just for the sake of debate. Thank you. :smileyhappy:

I'm always sensible in what i write. I do enjoy a good debate, but I don't get into them if what I have to say isn't sensible. I'm sometimes wrong, of course, but not on this topic.

---

What you've said is fine. I've nothing against it. If you want your SL to be like that, I don't have any problems with it. But you haven't shown me any good reason why SL should be like that in general - for everyone. More especially, you haven't shown me any good reason (except perhaps for female arms, which I will test) why larger than RL is bad. With larger than RL, you can have rooms of sizes that are typical of the whole of RL, together with furniture and avatars that fit them. Apart from the female arms, which I'll test, significantly larger than RL measurements is ideal for SL, whereas RL sizes at best very limiting as to the kind of home a person can have.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Coby Foden wrote:

 

If the avatar is RL sized it does not need so huge rooms as the very tall avatars will need. The result is that the RL sized avatar's house works well with RL sized furniture, there is no need to upsize them.

Phil Deakins wrote:

 

I completely disagree. Since we won't come to agreement on that, perhaps you'd care to join me in experimenting with it. Remember, though, that the default cam position can't be changed.

---

ROFLOL, Phil!

You want to lock the camera. Would you like to use 2.6 m tall avatars too to 'win' your case?

And should I perhaps work with only one hand and with a very tiny screen?

Any other requirements?

:smileysurprised: :smileytongue:

 

 

As I said in my other post:

This is not about what is 'typical'.

So why do you want typical surroundings for the experiment?

---

For creators, it's essential that the cam position is the default, because that's what the majority uses. If you don't want to experiment with it, it's fine.

By typical, I really mean 'most'. Most people in RL don't have houses with very large rooms. It's about choice in SL. If everyone in SL is happy in very large rooms, that do need extra stuff in them, fine. But that's very limiting, whereas if sizes are larger, which they generally are, then everyone can have the home s/he prefers.

[irihapeti]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

 

And when you are looking through a window your focus is locked straight ahead.   Their is no way to just roll your eyes to look up or down or to the sides. 

---

in mouselook use the mouse to roll your eyes. Walk/run/fly with arrow (WASD) keys. takes a bit of practice coordinating this. looking with mouse and moving with wasd/arrows

After a time soon work out that dont need to turn your avatar to see around. Like how we do mostly in 3rd person camera view

[Phil Deakins]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

 

What we are talking about here is what would be

best practices

.

Best practises doesn't come into it. Best practises is approaching a moral aspect, but morality isn't involved in this. If you really want best practises, it can be said that the best practises for a creator/sleer is to creat/sell for the majority, which is what happens.

---

Yes indeed. That's a very good definition for this discussion. That's what I'm talking about.

But Phil, for some strange reason, keeps repeatedly returning to what is 'typical'. He's done that same thing in some earlier discussion too. And then he continues to 'prove' that other things would not work in SL because of this 'typical' thing. Camera is locked, need bigger rooms, need bigger furniture, need bigger avatars... on and on he goes.  :smileysad: :smileywink:

I can't help it if it's true, and it is true. You and a small minority are the ones who buck the trend and choose to be too smaller for much or most of the stuff that's made in SL.

 

Phil, this is not about 'typical'.

Please join us to discuss about what is not 'typical'. :smileyhappy:

The things what I, for example, have said here. You know that they work if you drop the 'typical'.

I don't know what you mean by that. I do know for an absolute certainty that a room of a typical (live with it) RL size, together with RL-sized furniture and an RL-sized avatar doesn't work. I know it because, during an old thread, I actually created it to try it out. I actually used my RL bedroom's measurements, and I made a bed and other bedroom furniture for it, all of RL sizes. Plus I reduced my avatar's height to an average RL male height. It was impossible to have a bedroom in SL like that, and use it even reasonably well. It just doesn't work in SL. So the room would need to 3 or 4 times as big, which necessarily means more furniture, or it would look wrong.

I'll make the offer again. Test it with me without changing the camera position from the default.

---

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

I've no idea. I would guess that they came up with the camera position because everything else used that sort of position. Every ad for 3D games I see on TV these days use the same sort of position.

---

 

---

And I'll guess that all those 3D games also do something that SL doesn't do.  They all scale accurately.

But I'd need to ask people who build content for those games to know for sure so I'll allow I could be wrong on that.

But as to your claim that it doesn't work in SL, I've been to Jo Yardley's Berlin.  And yes, actually it does work. 

---

It works if you make or force it to work, like Jo has (with a greatly changed cam position). I went there too - quite a long time ago during one of these discussions, and I found that wandering around the stairs, corridors and bedrooms was just too cramped for what I could actually see. When I say it doesn't work, I don't mean that it's absolutely impossible to wander round those stairs, corridors and bedrooms. You can get from A to B, by bumping into things, and not really seeing where you are. Remember the default cam position can't be changed. In that way, it doesn't work when compared to larger environments and stuff.

[Perrie Juran]

---

irihapeti wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

 

And when you are looking through a window your focus is locked straight ahead.   Their is no way to just roll your eyes to look up or down or to the sides. 

---

in mouselook use the mouse to roll your eyes. Walk/run/fly with arrow (WASD) keys. takes a bit of practice coordinating this. looking with mouse and moving with wasd/arrows

After a time soon work out that dont need to turn your avatar to see around. Like how we do mostly in 3rd person camera view

---

I may not be explaining clearly what I mean. I'll try to do some screen shots later but don't really want to insert a threadjack into this thread.

Phil is doing an admirable job of that already.