Why do some houses suffer from gigantism?

[Madelaine McMasters]

If you were to grab 100 people off the street and have them sketch DaVinci's Vitruvian man, I doubt many would get the proportions right. Although we're deeply wired to care about proportion and symmetry, we're not generally aware of it. So we have to be taught, and not everybody is interested. When we come to SL, we just do what feels right.

As you've noted, SL eyes do not work like RL eyes. Perspective is shifted, as is field of view. For new residents, this change, coupled with the already whacked out proportions of a world created by people off the street, make it hard to expect any kind of consistency and reasonable to expect that SL will exert interesting new pressures on creation.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

If you were to grab 100 people off the street and have them sketch DaVinci's Vitruvian man, I doubt many would get the proportions right. Although we're deeply wired to care about proportion and symmetry, we're not generally aware of it. So we have to be taught, and not everybody is interested. When we come to SL, we just do what feels right.

As you've noted, SL eyes do not work like RL eyes. Perspective is shifted, as is field of view. For new residents, this change, coupled with the already whacked out proportions of a world created by people off the street, make it hard to expect any kind of consistency

and reasonable to expect that SL will exert interesting new pressures on creation.

---

Can you clarify that last phrase?  The grammar seems awkward to me.

[Ted McGregor]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

 When we come to SL, we just do what feels right.

---

Excuse me for picking out this one line out of the whole context, but the other discussions are running slightly out of hand *cough* for me personally and I'd like to focus on the bigger picture.

But I find you are pointing at the crux of the discussion. It's very subjective.

A lot of creation relies on concessions that are made for various reasons that are specified here in lengthy wordings. But many reasons are not.

The OP 'blames' certain creators for constructing like certain creators have, but not everybody is a RL-architect with sense of proportion supplied by data ( SL supplies enough information to build to scale eventhough technically speaking avatar size is variable beyond RL size or not. ). Good builds show character of the builder. Bad builds do too.

I trust there are as many instances of correct proportioned builds to be found to prove the contrary of the facts that are subjective to the OP.

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote

(in blue)

:

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

 

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, try with female avatar then you will know the truth.

In the picture below is my avatar on the left, on the right is outline of real woman taken from from RL photo. (I gave a copy of the avatar's hair to her.)

Avatar height is very close to 1.79 m (5 ft 10.5 in). The arm length slider is at 100. Cannot make the arms any longer. If you want to make taller avatar the result is that arms will be too short, to be proportionate, to that taller body.

 

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

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.

Coby replies to Phil:

Making things the same

size

in SL as they are in RL does not equate that SL = RL.

So, you can stop using that silly phrase by now.

I'm not trying to make SL the same as RL. This is just about sizes.

Making the sizes the same does not magically turn SL into RL, and I'm not after that transformation at all.

What we are talking about here is what would be

best practices

.

. . .

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.

Coby replies to Phil:

RL sizes work well and there are good reasons for it. But of course you like to discredit any reasons given. You are just blinded by your years of experience in making

big content

for

very tall avatars

. Your mind is geared for the big, it seems to be impossible for you to get used to the idea that small works as well, and even better.

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.

---

 

---

Phil, no need to reply something like "but the rooms need to be big because of the camera, etc, etc..." :smileywink:

[Coby Foden]

---

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. 

---

While in mouselook use the WASD keys to move about. While walking you can steer the avatar with the mouse, you can also look up and down with the mouse while walking. Perfect for tight places, and going down and up steep stairs, you can see where to step. Can also avoid the clumsiness what Phil feels in small places as he cannot see what is in front of him with deafault camera setting.

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 

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

---

Phil, I know that the default camera location does not work well with small content. I know also that it is not very good for big content either. It is really a very, very bad location for the camera. A relic from the past history, that's what it is. It distorts the perspective of the world.

So what's the point for me to test, a thing what I already know, with you? So that you can happily yell: "See, I told you!"? :smileyvery-happy:

I know Phil, thanks for the offer anyway. :matte-motes-big-grin:

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 

Remember the default cam position can't be changed. In that way, it doesn't work when compared to larger environments and stuff.

---

Rubbish Phil. You are again confusing any newbie who might suddenly drop into your post.

 

You know that it can be changed. Stop confusing people.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

there are no such things as sizes for furniture anywhere in RL, except for beds, and they vary from place to place. 

---

That just ain't so. Check any building code book. There are countless standards for things like counter height, table and chair seat height, handrail height, stair tread depth and riser height, minimum door height and width, etc. Material and labor costs and standardization of building materials guide the proportions of structural elements towards standard sizes.

Standard US interior doors are 80 inches tall. The minimum width for an interior room door is 32 inches. Furniture manufacturers know this, and largely avoid making furniture that can't be moved through a 32" door from a 36" hallway (44 for handicap accessible structures).

Appliances are built to standardized dimensions as well. There are variations, but you are assured of finding dishwashers 30 inches wide and 35 inches tall (to fit under those code mandated counter heights), refrigerators 36 inches wide and less than 70 inches tall, etc. Absent some kind of standarization, the appliance industry would be a mess.

;-).

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Coby Foden wrote:

Phil replied in blue:

 

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.

---

 

---

Ok, you start to play with terminology now. You are nitpicking about my word of choice, the "size". I'm very sorry to confuse you with my bad choice of word. Sure there are no such sizes (numbers for size) for furniture as there are for clothes, shoes, etc. If we go to a shop to buy a chair saying "I want chair, size number 15 would fine for me, thanks." they will be wondering what we want.

Well anyway there actually are 'sizes' in SL as well as in RL for furniture. They come in certain dimensions, those define what size the funiture is. (I think you understand, you're just nitpicking the word 'size' which I used.)

The general dimensions for furniture are pretty established thing all over the world. There are slight variations in the dimensions (in the size of the furniture) :smileywink:, but not anything very big (expect for the American beds, perhaps :smileyvery-happy:).

The dimensions in the pictures below definitely define the sizes of the kitchen units. No question about it.

(Enough for word play?)

 

 

 

[irihapeti]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

If you were to grab 100 people off the street and have them sketch DaVinci's Vitruvian man, I doubt many would get the proportions right. Although we're deeply wired to care about proportion and symmetry, we're not generally aware of it. So we have to be taught, and not everybody is interested. When we come to SL, we just do what feels right.

As you've noted, SL eyes do not work like RL eyes. Perspective is shifted, as is field of view. For new residents, this change, coupled with the already whacked out proportions of a world created by people off the street, make it hard to expect any kind of consistency and reasonable to expect that SL will exert interesting new pressures on creation.

---

yes I agree with this

in the RL most things most common to us are of a reasonably consistently relative size. Furniture, vehicles, knives, forks, stuff. Is some outliers within the groups on a individual item basis, but generally the things we use/see in everyday use fall within some consistent sizing parameters for the group as a whole

as you say we dont really think about it and can often not be able to describe it accurately when asked. We just accept that it is and we deal with it in a motory motion kinda way

are eyes learn this motory motion way and our brains the same. Like we use size (depth/height perception) according to our acceptance/understanding of consistency, to judge how far or close the object is from us. Is our main no. 1 sensor/signal I think

like you say in SL this is quite often not the case (sizing consistency). So it baffles our senses a little bit more. And we quite often need a little bit more time to process what it is we are seeing in terms of depth, scale and distance. Which can make things a little bit difficult sometimes. Like if we running say

run. run. run. table coming up. Smack! Ok that was close. Need to turn faster next time. Table again. Turn fast. Ok. Table again but further away. Smack! waaah!!

+

just on avatar speed

i been keeping up with news on Occulus Rift in SL. I dont have myself. Just follow the blogs

people who have been using in SL say that the most noticeable thing with the Rift is how fast SL avatars move. Seems that avatars walk and turn really fast. relative to our general walking and turning speeds in the RL. Like little motobikes one person said

so that has to have some bearing as well I think on why SL floor areas need to be larger and why more space is needed between furnishings and walls say. Needed to walk/navigate smoothly like we do in RL. and not walk in stop/start style like we often do in SL. Like for example:

make a corridor. say 16m long and 2m wide. Then see how easy/difficult it is walk down it (no stop/start) without brushing the walls

+

which raise a interesting question

would what we make get smaller (and stuff placed closer together) meaning consistent with RL as a general rule, if the avatar walked/turned at a speed consistent with RL pace and not whizz round like it do now?

 

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

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.

---

Also in the average 3D game, I need to be looking from some odd above angle so I can shoot all those pesky elves and humans in a wide arc with my level 347 catnap blaster of doom. Or something.

Frankly... I don't need to same perspective to bounce on the pink poseball in 'weird-XXX-japanese-word' sim's club house... or whatever it is noobs do these days.

 

What 3D games do do is scale consistently. Maybe not accuratel, but consistently. If my character gets a giant Freudian gun thingy. Youre going to get one equally Freudian and um... something... if you're at the same 'level' or whatever.

- And building furniture... will have a proper scale for the avatar to see 1:1 by the metrics of the game. BUT the buildings will have high cielings so I can look at the situation from above and behind and zap all the elves in room with my portable Freudian gizmo...

Its basically the same as a Barbie house. The house has a chair and tea set to-scale for the doll. But its missing the walls on one side, and the rooms are oddly tall so you can get Ken in there to hit him over the head with a plastic pan or something...

[Coby Foden]

---

irihapeti wrote:

 

just on avatar speed

i been keeping up with news on Occulus Rift in SL. I dont have myself. Just follow the blogs

people who have been using in SL say that the most noticeable thing with the Rift is how fast SL avatars move. Seems that avatars walk and turn really fast. relative to our general walking and turning speeds in the RL. Like little motobikes one person said

so that has to have some bearing as well I think on why SL floor areas need to be larger and why more space is needed between furnishings and walls say. Needed to walk/navigate smoothly like we do in RL. and not walk in stop/start style like we often do in SL. Like for example:

make a corridor. say 16m long and 2m wide. Then see how easy/difficult it is walk down it (no stop/start) without brushing the walls

+

which raise a interesting question

would what we make get smaller (and stuff placed closer together) meaning consistent with RL as a general rule, if the avatar walked/turned at a speed consistent with RL pace and not whizz round like it do now?

 

---

I have always perceived that the avatars walk too fast, a lot faster than what we generally use to do in RL. Naturally this fast walking and fast turning increases avatar clumsiness in small places.

We would need variable walking speeds for variable purposes. Naturally also proper sutable walking animations for those various speeds. That would be really super cool enhancement.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

If you were to grab 100 people off the street and have them sketch DaVinci's Vitruvian man, I doubt many would get the proportions right. Although we're deeply wired to care about proportion and symmetry, we're not generally aware of it. So we have to be taught, and not everybody is interested. When we come to SL, we just do what feels right.

As you've noted, SL eyes do not work like RL eyes. Perspective is shifted, as is field of view. For new residents, this change, coupled with the already whacked out proportions of a world created by people off the street, make it hard to expect any kind of consistency

and reasonable to expect that SL will exert interesting new pressures on creation.

---

Can you clarify that last phrase?  The grammar seems awkward to me.

---

SL affords several things that will "push" us to create things we'd not do in RL.

First, it affords a method for body modification that's just not possible in RL, where I'm stuck at 5'2". I often wear heels in RL, so I can see further (yeah, that's the reason), but in SL I can give myself longer legs and still wear heels. The pressure to be taller exists in both RL and SL, but I've got more latitude to respond to it here. I like for men to be taller than me (as the research says I should), but not ridiculously so. Even with my ability to change my height here, I've never felt as comparatively short in RL as I sometimes do in SL. That feeling is ameloriated when the hulk of a man standing next to me at a dance club has a head half the size of mine. (Don't you dare say my head is twice the size of his, I'll bite you).

Second, SL provides a much wider range of object proportions. The reasons for that are varied, but a good bit of the variety stems from the fact that people off the street, with no design training, are creating like mad here. Many of us are thrilled to be able to create anything at all, let alone proportion it properly. And absent any practical requirements (a wine glass the size of my head is as easy to lift as something more demure and costs no more to mass produce) whimsy plays a far bigger role here than in RL.

Third, our view of SL is unlike our view of RL. That shift in perspective may affect our perceptions of the relative scale of things. How many of us know that we're actually floating above the ground, rather than walking on it? We only consider the strange nature of apparent avatar height when we're digging our shoes out of the pavement with the hover slider. Notice it's called the hover slider? We don't stand on anything here.

So, given these differences between RL and SL,  and the sameness of our desire to be and have the average in either place, there will be different pressures on us the moment we create or even select something here. The average of SL's variety will not be the same as the average of RL's.

If we continue this discussion of "pressure" to its logical conclusion, we'll be discussing free-will.

;-).

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

irihapeti wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

If you were to grab 100 people off the street and have them sketch DaVinci's Vitruvian man, I doubt many would get the proportions right. Although we're deeply wired to care about proportion and symmetry, we're not generally aware of it. So we have to be taught, and not everybody is interested. When we come to SL, we just do what feels right.

As you've noted, SL eyes do not work like RL eyes. Perspective is shifted, as is field of view. For new residents, this change, coupled with the already whacked out proportions of a world created by people off the street, make it hard to expect any kind of consistency and reasonable to expect that SL will exert interesting new pressures on creation.

---

yes I agree with this

in the RL most things most common to us are of a reasonably consistently relative size. Furniture, vehicles, knives, forks, stuff. Is some outliers within the groups on a individual item basis, but generally the things we use/see in everyday use fall within some consistent sizing parameters for the group as a whole

as you say we dont really think about it and can often not be able to describe it accurately when asked. We just accept that it is and we deal with it in a motory motion kinda way

are eyes learn this motory motion way and our brains the same. Like we use size (depth/height perception) according to our acceptance/understanding of consistency, to judge how far or close the object is from us. Is our main no. 1 sensor/signal I think

like you say in SL this is quite often not the case (sizing consistency). So it baffles our senses a little bit more. And we quite often need a little bit more time to process what it is we are seeing in terms of depth, scale and distance. Which can make things a little bit difficult sometimes. Like if we running say

run. run. run. table coming up. Smack! Ok that was close. Need to turn faster next time. Table again. Turn fast. Ok. Table again but further away. Smack! waaah!!

+

just on avatar speed

i been keeping up with news on Occulus Rift in SL. I dont have myself. Just follow the blogs

people who have been using in SL say that the most noticeable thing with the Rift is how fast SL avatars move. Seems that avatars walk and turn really fast. relative to our general walking and turning speeds in the RL. Like little motobikes one person said

so that has to have some bearing as well I think on why SL floor areas need to be larger and why more space is needed between furnishings and walls say. Needed to walk/navigate smoothly like we do in RL. and not walk in stop/start style like we often do in SL. Like for example:

make a corridor. say 16m long and 2m wide. Then see how easy/difficult it is walk down it (no stop/start) without brushing the walls

+

which raise a interesting question

would what we make get smaller (and stuff placed closer together) meaning consistent with RL as a general rule, if the avatar walked/turned at a speed consistent with RL pace and not whizz round like it do now?

 

---

Yep. We're barely aware of all the cues we process to make sense of the world around us. I noticed long ago that any attempt to navigate SL gracefully results in both mental stress and repetitve strain pain. For that reason, I generally jump on the nearest poseball.

I suspect there's an uncanny valley for motion, just as there is for faces. Right now, SL is so goofy that our brains dismiss the view as cartoonish. The moment the motion becomes more lifelike, I wouldn't be surprised if hairs start to stand up on the back of our necks. I actually feel a bit of that now with mo-cap animations. Some of them are creepy.

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

I suspect there's an uncanny valley for motion, just as there is for faces. Right now, SL is so goofy that our brains dismiss the view as cartoonish. The moment the motion becomes more lifelike, I wouldn't be surprised if hairs start to stand up on the back of our necks. I actually feel a bit of that now with mo-cap animations. Some of them are creepy.

---

Walt Disney started the process in animation whereby you exagerate everything just a tad - because animation based on actual motion came across as stiff at the time.

[Madelaine McMasters]

I just looked up "uncanny valley" and see that motion is included. I should have known that! I probably did know it, once. Well, I knew it in my bones.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

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. 

---

Since I replied to your post, I remembered something. Even Jo Yardley admitted that, to make it work, she has her own head covering at least a quarter of the viewer. For me it was about a third of the viewer. Yes, people can make themselves accept that, but really it doesn't work. The only way it can work is in mouselook, and it would take a person quite some time for that to become acceptable as the norm. The bottom line is that the SL system is not favourable to, or geared to, 1:1 scales all round.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote

(in blue)

:

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

 

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, try with female avatar then you will know the truth.

In the picture below is my avatar on the left, on the right is outline of real woman taken from from RL photo. (I gave a copy of the avatar's hair to her.)

Avatar height is very close to 1.79 m (5 ft 10.5 in). The arm length slider is at 100. Cannot make the arms any longer. If you want to make taller avatar the result is that arms will be too short, to be proportionate, to that taller body.

 

---

I've done the test with my female alt, using a prim to measure her height.

I maxed the arms and the fingertips are pretty much in the same position on the thighs as in your diagrams.

I altered nothing else.

According to the prim, she is 2.02 meters tall. That's 6' 7½" tall.

The result is that I don't accept the fermale arms argument.

I'll leave her as she is, and I'll leave the prim as well - just in case you, or anyone else, wants to have a look.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

there are no such things as sizes for furniture anywhere in RL, except for beds, and they vary from place to place. 

---

That just ain't so. Check any building code book. There are countless standards for things like counter height, table and chair seat height, handrail height, stair tread depth and riser height, minimum door height and width, etc. Material and labor costs and standardization of building materials guide the proportions of structural elements towards standard sizes.

Standard US interior doors are 80 inches tall. The minimum width for an interior room door is 32 inches. Furniture manufacturers know this, and largely avoid making furniture that can't be moved through a 32" door from a 36" hallway (44 for handicap accessible structures).

Appliances are built to standardized dimensions as well. There are variations, but you are assured of finding dishwashers 30 inches wide and 35 inches tall (to fit under those code mandated counter heights), refrigerators 36 inches wide and less than 70 inches tall, etc. Absent some kind of standarization, the appliance industry would be a mess.

;-).

---

I said furniture - not fittings and house parts. Furniture is things like sofas, chairs, tables and such.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

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.

Coby replies to Phil:

Making things the same

size

in SL as they are in RL does not equate that SL = RL.

So, you can stop using that silly phrase by now.

I'm not trying to make SL the same as RL. This is just about sizes.

Making the sizes the same does not magically turn SL into RL, and I'm not after that transformation at all.

If it just about size, then why not adopt a scale that is

far

more suitable for the SL system instead of a scale that requires people to force themselves to accept because the SL system doesn't suit it?

What we are talking about here is what would be

best practices

.

There are no best practises concerning the sizes of things in SL. The phrase 'best practises' is akin to morals and ethics, which have nothing to do with the sizes of things in SL. Perrie introduced that phrase into this discussion, but he was mistaken.

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.

Coby replies to Phil:

RL sizes work well and there are good reasons for it. But of course you like to discredit any reasons given. You are just blinded by your years of experience in making

big content

for

very tall avatars

. Your mind is geared for the big, it seems to be impossible for you to get used to the idea that small works as well, and even better.

That's not true. My mind is that of a creator who creates for the majority. If the majority decided to use 1:1 scales, I'd go along with it. because of the SL system, I'd think they were mad, but, as a creator, I'd go along with it.

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.

---

 

---

Phil, no need to reply something like "

but the rooms need to be big because of the camera, etc, etc...

" :smileywink:

Why not? The camera is the reason.

---

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Coby Foden 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. 

---

While in mouselook use the WASD keys to move about. While walking you can steer the avatar with the mouse, you can also look up and down with the mouse while walking.

Perfect for

tight places, and going down and up steep stairs, you can see where to step. Can also avoid the clumsiness what Phil feels in small places as he cannot see what is in front of him with deafault camera setting.

---

But extremely imperfect for the default setup

[Phil Deakins]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 

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

---

Phil, I know that the default camera location does not work well with small content. I know also that it is not very good for big content either. It is really a very, very bad location for the camera. A relic from the past history, that's what it is. It distorts the perspective of the world.

So what's the point for me to test, a thing what I already know, with you? So that you can happily yell: "See, I told you!"? :smileyvery-happy:

I know Phil, thanks for the offer anyway. :matte-motes-big-grin:

---

So why are you arguing about it? I've only ever spoken about the majority, and you've against everything I say.

Let's just think about something. Suppose it is found that a 1:1.15 scale for avatars, homes and furniture works perfectly with the default camera position. Why not scale it all to 1:1.15? That way, rooms don't need to be bigger, and people can have nice country cottages or whatever. That limitation would disappear. My female alt shows that the female arms are ok at that scale. Why push the arbitrary 1:1 with its limitations when a slightly bigger scale would work perfectly?

I'm interested in your answer to that.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Coby Foden wrote:

Phil replied in blue:

 

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.

---

 

---

Ok, you start to play with terminology now. You are nitpicking about my word of choice, the "size". I'm very sorry to confuse you with my bad choice of word. Sure there are no such sizes (numbers for size) for furniture as there are for clothes, shoes, etc. If we go to a shop to buy a chair saying "I want chair, size number 15 would fine for me, thanks." they will be wondering what we want.

Well anyway there actually are 'sizes' in SL as well as in RL for furniture. They come in certain dimensions, those define what size the funiture is. (I think you understand, you're just nitpicking the word 'size' which I used.)

The general dimensions for furniture are pretty established thing all over the world. There are slight variations in the dimensions (in the size of the furniture) :smileywink:, but not anything very big (expect for the American beds, perhaps :smileyvery-happy:).

The

dimensions

in the pictures below definitely define the

sizes

of the kitchen units. No question about it.

(Enough for word play?)

 

 

 

---

I wasn't thinking kitchen furniture when I said that there are no sizes for furniture in RL, except beds. I was thinking of sofas and chairs and sideboards, etc. You are right about kitchen furniture. I dispute the seats and desk thoughs. Seats vary in the height of the horizontal (sitting) surface. The heights of tables, which includes desks, also vary. The heights and widths of kitchen units are standardised though - at least within each country.

ETA: Good! When I saw the number of unread posts in this this thread this morning, I thought I'd be here all day replying to you lol. Fortunately, most of them were discussions between other people, and i've now come to the end of replying to your posts to me

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

---

So why are you arguing about it? I've only ever spoken about the majority, and you've against everything I say.

Let's just think about something.

Suppose it is found that a 1:1.15 scale for avatars, homes and furniture works perfectly with the default camera position. Why not scale it all to 1:1.15?

That way, rooms don't need to be bigger, and people can have nice country cottages or whatever. That limitation would disappear. My female alt shows that the female arms are ok at that scale. Why push the arbitrary 1:1 with its limitations when a slightly bigger scale would work perfectly?

I'm interested in your answer to that.

---

Yes, that would be fine if it would work. And if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his butt when he jumped. Neither of those are likely possibilites because of structural considerations...

One of the last times we had this discussion I decided to try to determine what the de facto scale of SL WAS by comparing objects in SL that were based on real objects with their real-world models.

I found that objects meant for direct use by avatars (i.e. a guitar, a pinball machine, vehicles, etc.) tended to have a scale factor of 1.2 to 1.25) This kept coming up for things built over a long span of years, and if you have an avatar scaled to 1.2/1.25 human scale the heights will be pretty similar to the "typical" older avatar (bearing in mind that most avatars seem to be modeled on athlete/model body types that are taller than average in RL.) This also means that those avatars are getting near the top end of height possible with sliders even if we do not require Catnap-level proportional accuracy.

However, rooms scaled up by a factor of even 1.25 will be nowhere near the required "three to four times real life scale" which you mentioned yourself and won't be significantly more usable - most buildings are quite a bit larger, especially older ones.

So, if room furniture was built at 1.25 scale (for the avatars) it would still be dwarfed by the rooms. I found that much furniture, especially older furniture, was quite a bit larger than 1.25 scale. Older furniture designed primarily for display in rooms (including some of yours) tend to scale around 1.5-1.7 times larger than the largest real-world equivalent furniture, making them substantially oversized even for old megatars. However, they still don't look realistic in the old huge houses - I had a house with a bedroom that would comfortably hold two beds that were each 1.7 times the size of a RL king-sized mattress with room to spare, and six-foot tall avatars looked like children on the beds.

If you still maintain otherwise, please tell us a scale factor that will work consistently with the default avatar and camera position so we can give it a proper test.