Why do some houses suffer from gigantism?

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

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.

---

Is the body of your female alt proportionate? The crotch halfway in the body? No grasshopper like long legs?

Why don't you post a good frontal picture here? Use a telephoto lens when taking the snapshot to avoid perspective distortion, keep the camera at the height ofthe middle of the body when taking the snapshot. Take the snapshot of your alt beside real woman's body picture (you can take the woman from my image here). Put the picture on a prim, strech the picture to the same height as your alt avatar is. Put the prim with the picture and you alt side by side. Take snapshots, post it here.

Your words mean nothing without a picture.

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

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?

Coby replies: Your big scale 'GAH + eyeballing' system is not far more suitable. It's very stupid system. Your system has many disadvantages in it. For one, it's random dimensioning system. And it shows in SL. Not consistent in sizes.

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.

Coby replies: When we had new 3D sofware implemented in our offices we had intensive training for it. Among other things the instructor taught us

best practices

how to use the software effectively to create good content. It had nothing to do with morals nor ethics. :smileyhappy:

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.

 

Coby replies: Amazing! If the majority of SL was created in 1:1 scale you would accept it. It appears that your talk here is all about majority, not what other alternatives would work besides what is the majority.

:smileytongue:

---

 

---

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.

---

 

---

Because the camera location is not locked, we can move it to better location.

Then we don't need gigantic rooms, no gigantic furniture, no gigantic avatars to match the furniture. :smileyhappy:

 

The thing is:

• Very tall avatars need very big furniture.

• Very big furniture and very tall avatars need very big rooms.

 

• RL sized avatars need RL-sized furniture.

• RL-sized furniture and RL-sized avatars don't need so big rooms as is with case of big furniture and very tall avatars.

I think that you fail to see and understand this: small does not need as big as the big does.

 

PS.

Out of interest I browsed through some of the earlier similar discussions and I found that you even you have said this:

 

"You are right that larger rooms don't necessarily need large furniture. ;-)"

... and this ...

"Because the camera location cannot be changed big rooms are needed. Big rooms require big furniture. Big furniture require big avatars."

 

 

You see? Because the camera location can be changed there isn't any technically forced reason to go for very big rooms, and very big everything else. Going big is just an acquired habit in SL.

 

 

[LlazarusLlong]

As an aside, you know what big feet REALLY means?

Big Shoes!

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

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

---

But extremely perfect and efficient way for better setup. :smileyhappy:

Why should we lock ourselves to the inefficient default one? It's silly because there is possibility for better one.

[Phil Deakins]

Yes, you are right. I wasn't thinking straight when I suggested a 1:1.15 scale. The rooms still need to be quite a lot larger.

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

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.

---

Is the body of your female alt proportionate? The crotch halfway in the body? No grasshopper like long legs?

Why don't you post a good frontal picture here? Use a telephoto lens when taking the snapshot to avoid perspective distortion, keep the camera at the height ofthe middle of the body when taking the snapshot. Take the snapshot of your alt beside real woman's body picture (you can take the woman from my image here). Put the picture on a prim, strech the picture to the same height as your alt avatar is. Put the prim with the picture and you alt side by side. Take snapshots, post it here.

Your words mean nothing without a picture.

---

She has long legs but not overly long. Even shortening them by a few inches would still make her a lot over 6' tall.

Instead of posting a pic, why don't you go and see her. It's so much easier, and she's still there in the store building. She's called Wicked. I'll stand the prim next to her so that you can see her height. (I'm not sure that you can see the dimensions on other people's objects though. If you can't, IM her and she'll let you rez your own prim. I'll try to keep an eye open for IMs.)

[Phil Deakins]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

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?

Coby replies: Your big scale 'GAH + eyeballing' system is not far more suitable. It's very stupid system. Your system has many disadvantages in it. For one, it's random dimensioning system. And it shows in SL. Not consistent in sizes.

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.

Coby replies: When we had new 3D sofware implemented in our offices we had intensive training for it. Among other things the instructor taught us

best practices

how to use the software effectively to create good content. It had nothing to do with morals nor ethics. :smileyhappy:

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.

 

Coby replies: Amazing! If the majority of SL was created in 1:1 scale you would accept it. It appears that your talk here is all about majority, not what other alternatives would work besides what is the majority.

:smileytongue:

---

 

---

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.

---

 

---

Because the camera location is not locked, we can move it to better location.

But that's the whole point. The magority of people don't change it, and I'd bet that the majority don't know how to change it - including me. I'd need guidance again.

There's nothing wrong with people using a 1:1 scale for stuff if they want to. By all means, do it. I'm only interested in the majority.

Then we don't need gigantic rooms, no gigantic furniture, no gigantic avatars to match the furniture. :smileyhappy:

Nobody has disagreed with that.

 

The thing is:

• Very tall avatars need very big furniture.

• Very big furniture and very tall avatars need very big rooms.

 

• RL sized avatars need RL-sized furniture.

• RL-sized furniture and RL-sized avatars don't need so big rooms as is with case of big furniture and very tall avatars.

I think that you fail to see and understand this: small does not need as big as the big does.

I don't fail to see and understand it. Nothing I've written even suggests that I don't understand it. I do see and understand it. My only objection has always been the default camera position, which the majority of people use. We are stuck with that, so stuff allows for it. That's all.

 

PS.

Out of interest I browsed through some of the earlier similar discussions and I found that you even you have said this:

 

"You are right that larger rooms don't necessarily need large furniture. ;-)

"

... and this ...

"

Because the camera location cannot be changed big rooms are needed. Big rooms require big furniture. Big furniture require big avatars.

"

The two are not mutually exclusive

Part one: Of course you can have 1:1 furniture in big rooms, as long as you include more of it or will look somewhat empty. You might want it to look quite empty, of course.

Part 2: If you don't want to use more prims by having more furniture, even though you don't particularly want more, then bigger furniture is needed. You can't have nice country cottages though, or anything like that.

 

You see? Because the camera location

can be changed

there isn't any technically forced reason to go for very big rooms, and very big everything else. Going big is just an acquired habit in SL.

But creators create for the majority, and that means creating for the default camera position. I've said that many times in this discussion but you haven't yet ackowledged that you understand it. I assume you do, because it's so blatantly obvious.

---

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

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

---

But extremely perfect and efficient way for better setup. :smileyhappy:

Why should we lock ourselves to the inefficient default one? It's silly because there is possibility for better one.

---

You don't have to lock yourself into anything. I'm not suggesting that you do. If you read all my posts, you'lll see that I'm talking about what creator-sellers need to do. You are free to do what you want.

If everyone only used 1:1 furniture and avs, it would greatly limit the sort of homes they could have. Why would you want to place that constraint on everyone? Why don't you just accept that every individual - big, small, medium - does what they want to do. You talk about RL-sizes with the fervour of a morality. I talk about not locking people to that scale or to anything, and I've explained why. You don't even suggest creating furniture for all sizes - different sizes so that people can choose which size to buy. Instead you talk about "consistent sizes" throughout the grid. You have an idea of how you would like it to be throughout SL, and you're arguing in favour of it. I say it's the wrong way to go, and I've explained why. Leave people to choose for themselves. Creations will follow the majority because the creators want to sell as much as they can. If, over time, the majority av is on a 1:1 scale with RL, then you'll find that the majority of furniture changes accordingly. If you don't see that happening, it's because not many avs are RL-sized yet.

So why not leave it alone and let people decided what is best for themselves?

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

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.

---

Why you are speaking about the majority Phil? I'm not talking here about the majority, I'm talking about an alternative. What I'm against of is that you try to 'prove' that other alternatives, besides what the majority is using now, would not work. You keep referring that the default camera prevents anything else to work. For heavens' sake I'm not locked to that silly camera location. :smileyvery-happy:  Why you try to disprove 1:1 scaling with some locked camera? The default camera, the majority, has nothing to do what I'm talking in support for 1:1 scale.

Your 1:1.5 scale idea for everything would not work with the default camera location. Nor with any other camera location, for ease of movement. You would need somewhat bigger rooms than 1:1.15 scale. You can try it and you will find this is true.

If you scale everything to or 1:2 or 2:1 or 3:1 or any other scale you will find that you need somewhat bigger rooms than the general scale for everything else is.

Same way if we scale everything to 1:1 the rooms will be too small for easy avatar movement. For the ease of movement the rooms need to be somewhat bigger, but they need not be extremely large as is the case for very tall avatars. What you need to understand that your preferred 'GAH' system is not the ultimate sweet spot in sizes that would be the only sweet spot in sizes that will work.

The major problem with the GAH + eyeballing method is that it is random sizing method, causing inconsistent sizing of content in the grid. There is no common reference for the sizes in the GAH method, it's based on guesstimations and eyeballing, the sizes vary between different creators, thus the wild variation in content sizes in SL. Sticking to 1:1 scale, the reference being RL sizes, the content accross the grid would be coherent in sizes.

Naturally we cannot suddenly magically turn the existing SL to 1:1 scale. It's not possible, due to the vast existing randomly sized content, and most likely it will never happen. What I'm talking here is that if the 1:1 scale was adopted in SL from the very beginning it would be working extremely well. And the world would be more beautifil with this consistent, coherent sizing of content.

Anyway if somebody wants to use 1:1 content in their lands it will work very well for them. Yes, the rooms need to be somewhat bigger than the general scale for other content, whatever the general scale. It's also possible to use large RL rooms with 1:1 scale with 1:1 scale furniture. :smileywink:

[Coby Foden]

Ok Phil, it's good to see that you agree that 1:1 scale works well for anybody who chooses to use it. :smileyhappy:

What baffles me is that why are you often flashing the majority card and the default camera card in front of my nose in these discussions? They have nothing to do with what I'm talking here.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

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.

---

Why you are speaking about the majority Phil?

Because I'm talking about why creators create larger-than-RL furniture, and why avs are generally larger than RL people.

 I'm not talking here about the majority,

I am. I'm talking about SL in general.

 I'm talking about an alternative.

It comes across like an alternative you want the whole SL world to change to.

 What I'm against of is that you try to 'prove' that other alternatives, besides what the majority is using now, would not work.

The only thing that I've said doesn't work is 1:1 scales for homes, furniture and av. Together they don't work anywhere near well enough.

You keep referring that the default camera prevents anything else to work.

Nope. I keep referring to the def-cam-pos as the reason why avs are large, and why 1:1 all round doesn't work anywhere near well enough. I've agreed that 1:1 works fine as long as the rooms are not 1:1. But that limits the sort of homes that can be used.

 For heavens' sake I'm not locked to that silly camera location. :smileyvery-happy:  Why you try to disprove 1:1 scaling with some locked camera? The default camera, the majority, has nothing to do what I'm talking in support for 1:1 scale.

Have I ever suggested that you don't change your cam's position? Ever? I haven't. Have I ever suggested that nobody should use 1:1 scaling for anything? Nope, not that either. I'm arguing that the majority don't change  the cam-pos and, therefore, creator-sellers must cater for those larger avs, and that means larger furniture, etc.

Your 1:1.5 scale idea for

everything

would not work with the default camera location. Nor with any other camera location, for ease of movement. You would need somewhat bigger rooms than 1:1.15 scale. You can try it and you will find this is true.

I already addressed that in a reply to the first person who pointed it out.

If you scale everything to or 1:2 or 2:1 or 3:1 or any other scale you will find that you need somewhat bigger rooms than the general scale for everything else is.

Yep. Is there a reason why you wrote that?

Same way if we scale everything to 1:1 the rooms will be too small for easy avatar movement. For the ease of movement the rooms need to be somewhat bigger, but they need not be extremely large as is the case for very tall avatars. What you need to understand that your preferred 'GAH' system 

(my preference? I've forgotten what GAH means)

 is not the ultimate sweet spot in sizes that would be the only sweet spot in sizes that will work.

But they do need to be bigger. We've agreed on that several times. It's fine if that's what you want, but, as I keep saying, it puts constraints on the type of homes you can use.

The major problem with the GAH + eyeballing method is that it is random sizing method, causing inconsistent sizing of content in the grid. There is no common reference for the sizes in the GAH method, it's based on guesstimations and eyeballing, the sizes vary between different creators, thus the wild variation in content sizes in SL. Sticking to 1:1 scale, the reference being RL sizes, the content accross the grid would be coherent in sizes.

Yes it would, but, again, it puts constraints of the type of homes you can have. Don't forget that there are large differences in the sizes of RL sofas and chairs. Some sofas are long, some are short, some are high to sit on, some are low to sit on, etc. What we don't have in SL are knees that bend so that the feet reach the floor regardless of how low or high a seat is. We do in RL, of course.

Naturally we cannot suddenly magically turn the existing SL to 1:1 scale. It's not possible, due to the vast existing randomly sized content, and most likely it will never happen. What I'm talking here is that if the 1:1 scale was adopted in SL from the very beginning it would be working extremely well. And the world would be more beautifil with this consistent, coherent sizing of content.

Perhaps so, provided that the camera was positioned accordingly. We still wouldn't be able to live in nice country cottages and such, because rooms would still need to be significantly larger. There would still be that serious constraint so, on the whole, I still think bigger is better. Bigger satisfies everything - even female arms

Smaller leaves some things unsatisfied. Bigger, with grid-wide reasonably consistent sizing, would be ideal.

Anyway if somebody wants to use 1:1 content in their lands it will work very well for them. Yes, the rooms need to be somewhat bigger than the general scale for other content, whatever the general scale. It's also possible to use large RL rooms with 1:1 scale with 1:1 scale furniture. :smileywink:

As I've aleady said, everyone can choose what they want. I haven't said anything against that. Even Jo Yardley, with her head covering between a quarter and a third of her viewer, is free to have it that way

---

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

Ok Phil, it's good to see that you agree that 1:1 scale works well for anybody who chooses to use it. :smileyhappy:

I've never suggested anything different.

What baffles me is that why are you often flashing the majority card and the default camera card in front of my nose in these discussions? They have nothing to do with what I'm talking here.

It's because I've undertsood you to mean that 1:1 sizing (with larger rooms) ought to be grid-wide, and I disagree with that idea. I point to the majority of users. They don't change their def-cam-pos. Those are the ones who creators create for. I think I said that, if and when the majority of avs are 1:1, then furniture will change accordingly. Maybe it was never necessary for me to point to the majority. Maybe all I needed to do was point out why bigger is better if it's for everyone, because it doesn't impose constraints on types of homes.

---

 Is this where we cuddle and declare our undying friendship with each other? :heart:

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Coby Foden wrote:

 

But extremely perfect and efficient way for better setup. :smileyhappy:

Why should we lock ourselves to the inefficient default one? It's silly because there is possibility for better one.

---

You don't have to lock yourself into anything. I'm not suggesting that you do. If you read all my posts, you'lll see that I'm talking about what creator-sellers need to do. You are free to do what you want.

If everyone only used 1:1 furniture and avs, it would greatly limit the sort of homes they could have.

....

So why not leave it alone and let people decided what is best for themselves?

---

And I'm not talking here about "what creator-sellers need to do". I wonder why you keep using those references when you reply to my posts? They have nothing to do what I'm talking here. :smileytongue:

Fevour of a morality? LOL Phil. I could say the same about you with your gigantism, but i'm not saying. :smileywink:

So you prefer an ugly world with haphazard extremely random sizing instead of beautiful consistent world?

Go touring the ugly mainland areas and enjoy your visit. (There are beautiful areas too there.)

I don't understand why 1:1 scale furniture and avatars would limit the choices of homes in any way. The only thing it would limit is the extremely random sizing of things. There would still be sensible variations with size, just like in RL there is. It wuold not limit the artistic creativity in any way. And if anybody would like to create a monster sized avatar and house, they could do it. And as the majority would be 1:1 sized, those big avatars would look very big in comparison. In present state of things one can not do that because the majority is already big.

I'm not forcing anybody to do anything, I let people to decide for themselves. :smileyhappy:

I'm just talking about an alternative, which IMO is better than the present one.

I see a growing number of people who have adopted the same view.

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Coby Foden wrote:

Phil in blue:

What you need to understand that your preferred 'GAH' system 

(my preference? I've forgotten what GAH means)

 is not the ultimate sweet spot in sizes that would be the only sweet spot in sizes that will work.

Naturally we cannot suddenly magically turn the existing SL to 1:1 scale. It's not possible, due to the vast existing randomly sized content, and most likely it will never happen. What I'm talking here is that if the 1:1 scale was adopted in SL from the very beginning it would be working extremely well. And the world would be more beautifil with this consistent, coherent sizing of content.

Perhaps so, provided that the camera was positioned accordingly. We still wouldn't be able to live in nice country cottages and such, because rooms would still need to be significantly larger. There would still be that serious constraint so, on the whole, I still think bigger is better. Bigger satisfies everything - even female arms

Smaller leaves some things unsatisfied. Bigger, with grid-wide reasonably consistent sizing, would be ideal.

---

 

---

Funny that you have forgotten your loved GAH system, even though you have used it all over the years. You even have said that you are a GAH'ist. To refresh your memory, and for anybody interested in to know, here it is:

GAH (General Avatar Heights) method  :smileyhappy:

Hey, your favoured bigger does not satisfy everything, it's not ideal. You cannot have those nice country cottages and such. Small avatars would get much closer in an attempt to live in those places. Your preferred very tall avatars are totally out of luck, they would not get in because of the size of the door. :matte-motes-big-grin:

 

 

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Coby Foden wrote:

 

But extremely perfect and efficient way for better setup. :smileyhappy:

Why should we lock ourselves to the inefficient default one? It's silly because there is possibility for better one.

---

You don't have to lock yourself into anything. I'm not suggesting that you do. If you read all my posts, you'lll see that I'm talking about what creator-sellers need to do. You are free to do what you want.

If everyone only used 1:1 furniture and avs, it would greatly limit the sort of homes they could have.

....

So why not leave it alone and let people decided what is best for themselves?

---

And I'm not talking here what "

what creator-sellers need to do

". I wonder why you keep using those references when you reply to my posts? They have nothing to do what I'm talking here. :smileytongue:

Buit they have a great deal to do with what

I'm

talking about

Fevour of a morality? LOL Phil. I could say the same about you with your gigantism, but i'm not saying. :smileywink:

I've never gone in for gigantism. Larger than real life, yes, but never gigantism.

So you prefer an ugly world with haphazard extremely random sizing instead of beautiful consistent world?

Go touring the ugly mainland areas and enjoy your visit. (There are beautiful areas too there.)

I didn't say that. I did say that I prefer a world where people are not constrained to live in certain types of homes - big roomed ones, to be specific.

I don't understand why 1:1 scale furniture and avatars would limit the choices of homes in any way.

It's because it would require significanly larger rooms, and a great many RL houses, probably most of them, don't have large rooms.

The only thing it would limit is the extremely random sizing of things.

It would - if 1:1 sizing became the law. But nothing would be limited if there is no such law, as your next paragraph points out

There would still be sensible variations with size, just like in RL there is. It wuold not limit the artistic creativity in any way. And if anybody would like to create a monster sized avatar and house, they could do it. And as the majority would be 1:1 sized, those big avatars would look very big in comparison. In present state of things one can not do that because the majority is already big.

I'm not forcing anybody to do anything, I let people to decide for themselves. :smileyhappy:

Good

 

I'm just talking about an alternative, which IMO is better than the present one.

We don't agree about it being better. Imo, it would be worse because of the homes constraints

 

I see a growing number of people who have adopted the same view.

Growing, maybe. But are those who you think are 1:1 avatars, really 1:1, or just people who don't want to be very tall? I'd guess that what is growing is the number of shorter avs and not specifically 1:1 avs. I've noticed it myself, and I mentioned it at least once in this discussion.

---

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Coby Foden wrote:

Phil in blue:

What you need to understand that your preferred 'GAH' system 

(my preference? I've forgotten what GAH means)

 is not the ultimate sweet spot in sizes that would be the only sweet spot in sizes that will work.

Naturally we cannot suddenly magically turn the existing SL to 1:1 scale. It's not possible, due to the vast existing randomly sized content, and most likely it will never happen. What I'm talking here is that if the 1:1 scale was adopted in SL from the very beginning it would be working extremely well. And the world would be more beautifil with this consistent, coherent sizing of content.

Perhaps so, provided that the camera was positioned accordingly. We still wouldn't be able to live in nice country cottages and such, because rooms would still need to be significantly larger. There would still be that serious constraint so, on the whole, I still think bigger is better. Bigger satisfies everything - even female arms

Smaller leaves some things unsatisfied. Bigger, with grid-wide reasonably consistent sizing, would be ideal.

---

 

---

Funny that you have forgotten your loved GAH system, even though you have used it all over the years.

Not with that acrtonym though

You even have said that you are a GAH'ist.

Not using that acronym though

 To refresh your memory, and for anybody interested to, here it is:

GAH (General Avatar Heights) method

  :smileyhappy:

Hey, your favoured bigger does not satisfy everything, it's not ideal. You cannot have those nice country cottages and such. Small avatars would get much closer in an attempt to live in those places. Your preferred very tall avatars are totally out of luck, they would not get in because of the size of the door. :matte-motes-big-grin: 

You are mistaken, Coby. Small avatars like you need significantly bigger rooms unless they change the def-cam-pos, and we know why the def-cam-pos has to be catered for. So small country cottages would be out.

On the other hand, significanly larger avatars and furniture would look ok in a larger than 1:1 country cottage, because the def-cam-pos doesn't change its distance behind the avatar when the avatar gets taller. I don't know what the ideal scale might be, but experimenting would reveal it.

---

 

[Perrie Juran]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Coby Foden wrote:

 

But extremely perfect and efficient way for better setup. :smileyhappy:

Why should we lock ourselves to the inefficient default one? It's silly because there is possibility for better one.

---

You don't have to lock yourself into anything. I'm not suggesting that you do. If you read all my posts, you'lll see that I'm talking about what creator-sellers need to do. You are free to do what you want.

If everyone only used 1:1 furniture and avs, it would greatly limit the sort of homes they could have.

....

So why not leave it alone and let people decided what is best for themselves?

---

And I'm not talking here about "

what creator-sellers need to do

". I wonder why you keep using those references when you reply to my posts? They have nothing to do what I'm talking here. :smileytongue:

Fevour of a morality? LOL Phil. I could say the same about you with your gigantism, but i'm not saying. :smileywink:

So you prefer an ugly world with haphazard extremely random sizing instead of beautiful consistent world?

Go touring the ugly mainland areas and enjoy your visit. (There are beautiful areas too there.)

I don't understand why 1:1 scale furniture and avatars would limit the choices of homes in any way. The only thing it would limit is the extremely random sizing of things.

There would still be sensible variations with size, just like in RL there is.

It wuold not limit the artistic creativity in any way. And if anybody would like to create a monster sized avatar and house, they could do it. And as the majority would be 1:1 sized, those big avatars would look very big in comparison. In present state of things one can not do that because the majority is already big.

I'm not forcing anybody to do anything, I let people to decide for themselves. :smileyhappy:

I'm just talking about an alternative, which IMO is better than the present one.

I see a growing number of people who have adopted the same view.

---

"There would still be sensible variations with size, just like in RL there is."

I know I used the term earlier, "best practices."  Perhaps it would have been better if I had said, "Better Practices."  Because yes there will be limitations caused by the limits of what we can see on our computer screens.

Because everyone has been guesstimating we've wound up with extremes that to many of us when we really look, it makes things look bad.  If we could at least get some standardization it could help everything to look and work better.

 

[Pussycat Catnap]

This thread is basically nothing but 15 pages (as of my typing this, probably another dozen by the time most people see it) of everyone on the same side of the topic - with only minor disagreements about little details or slight differences in personal preference versus Phil.

15 pages of everyone trying to get Phil to change his stance in the slightest possible way, to move from 8.736789 on the dial of opinion to 8.736790

...

All of us are basically in agreement here, except for Phil.

Usually that kind of situation turns into a flame war or gets abusive towards the one outlier , on more SLUniversal forums... but we've remained civil it seems.

But is there any point to it?

This isn't the first time this exact same path has been followed on this exact same subject with the exact same results of what everyone is trying to convince one individual of.

We didn't get anywhere in convincing him last time either.

 

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 

She has long legs but not overly long. Even shortening them by a few inches would still make her a lot over 6' tall.

Instead of posting a pic, why don't you go and see her. It's so much easier, and she's still there in the store building. She's called Wicked. I'll stand the prim next to her so that you can see her height. (I'm not sure that you can see the dimensions on other people's objects though. If you can't, IM her and she'll let you rez your own prim. I'll try to keep an eye open for IMs.)

---

Phil, you know what? Your alt Wicked has grasshopper like very long legs. That is not how real woman is proportioned. Unfortunately her arms are not in relaxed downward position. Anyway, if you make her legs shorter so that her body proportions are close to the real woman it is very likely that you cannot make her arms long enough if she is a lot over 6 feet tall.

Look at how high Wicked's crotch is. :smileysurprised:

Picture tells it all. :smileyhappy:

One proof how the gigantism and default camera location has ruined you visual sense.

You cannot reliably tell any more how a real thing would look in SL.

 

[Ted McGregor]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

But is there any point to it?

 

---

Honestly ... to me it shows, unlike many who'd say differently, how this forum has changed for the good.

I hope you see thát too.

 

[Coby Foden]

Phil, maybe you should train your eyes to see how real women look at their best before attempting to make proportionate female avatar?

:smileywink:

 

[Ted McGregor]

I can conclude at first glance : women with short jeans and highest bellybuttonline have biggest boobies.

 

Next.

 

:robottongue:

[Phil Deakins]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 

She has long legs but not overly long. Even shortening them by a few inches would still make her a lot over 6' tall.

Instead of posting a pic, why don't you go and see her. It's so much easier, and she's still there in the store building. She's called Wicked. I'll stand the prim next to her so that you can see her height. (I'm not sure that you can see the dimensions on other people's objects though. If you can't, IM her and she'll let you rez your own prim. I'll try to keep an eye open for IMs.)

---

Phil, you know what? Your alt Wicked has grasshopper like very long legs. That is not how real woman is proportioned. Unfortunately her arms are not in relaxed downward position. Anyway,

if you make her legs shorter so that her body proportions are close to the real woman it is very likely that you cannot make her arms long enough if she is a lot over 6 feet tall.

Look at how high Wicked's crotch is. :smileysurprised:

Picture tells it all. :smileyhappy:

One proof how the gigantism and default camera location has ruined you visual sense.

You cannot reliably tell any more how a real thing would look in SL.

 

---

Sorry about the arms being behibnd her. If I'd seen you, I would have turned her AO off so that they would be down near he thighs. You did make it know you were there However...

I said she has long legs. Some girls do have long legs. Have you never heard of a girl having legs right up to her bum? lol The lines you drew on her are merely generalisation. But, as i said, I could a few inches off heer legs and she'd still be almost 6½' tall, with arms as long as your drawings.

The part I highlighted in red is interesting. Not many posts ago, someone said the tallest you can make the female avatar, with correctly proportioned arm length, is a lot less that you're saying now According to that red part, if a female is a bit over 6' and a male is not much less than 7' (a reasonable difference), then the arms will be fine. But then you'll say that they are both giants lol.

[Phil Deakins]

That's because this topic attracts those of you who have a 'thing' about avatar heights. Not everyone in this thread has a thing about it but some of you do, including you

The reason it'd remained very civil is because there's nobody in this thread who enjoys winding things up just for the fun of it, like there used to be in this forum.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

 

You are mistaken, Coby. Small avatars like you need significantly bigger rooms unless they change the def-cam-pos, and we know why the def-cam-pos has to be catered for. So small country cottages would be out.

On the other hand, significanly larger avatars and furniture would look ok in a larger than 1:1 country cottage, because the def-cam-pos doesn't change its distance behind the avatar when the avatar gets taller. I don't know what the ideal scale might be, but experimenting would reveal it.

---

 

---

It would be beneficial to understand what the "default camera position" actually is. It may not work the way you think it does. I also did experimenting on this earlier. The camera actually has a fixed-focal-length and rides on an invisible "rail." The mouse scroll wheel, etc. doesn't "zoom" the lens, it slides it back and forth along this rail (what a cinematographer would call a "dolly.")

One end of this "rail" is in front of your avatar; this is the point that the camera rotates around (not your avatar itself, this point in front of your avatar.) The other end of this "rail" is higher than your avatar and defaults to being behind it, so the rail runs diagonally down to the pivot. The "reset" position just slides the camera to the far end of this rail - it can stay at any position along it until you hit the escape key.

The defaults set the location of the front pivot and the length and angle of the rail. These values can be changed semi-permanently through settings. The entire "pivot and rail" assembly moves higher as your avatar becomes taller. This means that a shorter avatar can both move in lower-ceilinged rooms and see more of the floor in front of them than a taller avatar at any given camera position.

Meanwhile, I believe we've already established that bumping up the scale until a "country cottage" will look like its real-life equivalent will mean that it will be scaled larger than it's possible to make a vaguely human-looking avatar so avatars will look too small when seen in it.