Why do some houses suffer from gigantism?

[Phil Deakins]

---

TDD123 wrote:

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

 

Next.

 

:robottongue:

---

LMAO!

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Coby Foden wrote:

Phil in blue:

Coby again in green:

 

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

So, then we are talking about different things. :smileyhappy:

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.

But have have gone for it.

You have.

Thanks to Google, I found a definition:

:smileyvery-happy:

 

"

Gigantism

, also known as giantism, is a condition characterized by

excessive growth and height significantly above average.

In humans, this condition is caused by over-production of growth hormone[1] in childhood resulting in persons between 2.13 m (7 feet or 84 inches) and 2.74 m (9 feet or 108 inches) in height."

 

Aplied to SL it could read:

:smileywink:

"Gigantism, also known as giantism, is a condition characterized by excessive growth and height significantly above average. In avatars, this condition is caused by tall default avatar, the default camera location and in some cases the need to look taller that the next avatar, resulting in avatars between 2.13 m (7 feet or 84 inches) and 2.74 m (9 feet or 108 inches) in height."

 

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.

But that is exactly what

you are

constrained to. Very big furniture, houses and rooms. You are constrained to BIG.

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.

Why would 1:1 scale require

significantly

larger rooms? Doesn't your gigantism require even more larger 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

Nobody is going to make a law about it.

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

Perfect reply. Thanks.  :matte-motes-smile:

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

And your BIG has no 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.

Debating about are they really exactly 1:1 or slightly different like 1:1.05 or 1:1.01? C'mon Phil. :smileywink:

---

 

---

 

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Tari Landar wrote:

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

I'm pretty sure that I did mention consistent sizing, at least once, in one long thread.

Phil participated in that thread too.

---

I know you did, I'm pretty sure one of the threads you started was in the list of ones I'd found too, lol. I also know Phil participated in some of the threads discussing consistent sizing being a concern (hence why I figured he was deliberately being obtuse just to argue, lol)

---

But I'm not being deliberately obtuse. I'm being perfectly genuine. I'm sure I've never participated in a discussion about consistent sizing. I've participated in discussions about whether or not RL sizes work well enough in SL, and in discussions about why houses and furniture are larger in SL than in RL, but that's all I remember. As I've just written to Coby, I don't even know what is meant by 'consistent sizing'. As far as I know, furniture creators create their stuff with consistent sizing, as I did until, after some years, 

I made a few smaller pieces as I saw more smaller avatars

.

---

You just said...

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

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.

---

---

So why are you making furniture for RL scaled avs if it wont sell? I would guess if it looks so terrible in an SL home it wont sell, so why make it?

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

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.

---

Now and then I have seen some pictures of women with very long legs compared to their upper torso. But is not very common, in fact that body type is quite rare. The more common is the body proportion type as shown in my picture. So the lines in the picture are not merely generalisation. That is the most common body proportion type. Your avatar shape is way off from this average body type.

Instead of just talking and talking, make Wicked's body proportionate with the picture. Keep her total height as it is now. Then make her arms proportionate too. Can you really make them long enough? I doubt it. Post a picture here. Picture tells it all about her, words are just words.

No I'm not saying that the 6 ft tall woman and 7 feet tall man are giants. What they are is that they are very tall compared to average human heights; and they are rare sight in RL. But not giants.

 

[ETA]

I noticed on Wicked that she has quite small head compared to her overall height. Very common symptom in SL avatars; especially so in the tall ones.

[Pussycat Catnap]

Women with "very long legs" actually don't have so much disproportionate legs as very thin frames that lead to an appearance of being long legged. In some older people the issue does develop when the spine beings to collapse due to lack of calcium.

And in some malnurished populations, short legs occur - such as in Asia in regions with diets that lack proper nutrients. This creates an appearance of 'super long legs' among younger generations that do get good diets, and then stand near their older or more 'country bumpkin' peers...

 

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

TDD123 wrote:

---

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.

 

---

Yeah. That we can go this long without a flame war or nastiness - is a good sign.

But we're also circling the same topic we keep circling so often and with the people all on the same points...

 

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

PerrieJuran 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.

---

I have spoken to quite a number of new users in various groups trying to help with various issues they have.. and i asked the ones i spoke with how they moved around in SL.. The majority of them said "In mouselook, how else?" Most Video games now a days use first person or mouselook view. Seeing as a lot of new users of SL have come from Steam and other gaming communities, i would guess they have no issue using mouselook.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

---

TDD123 wrote:

---

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.

 

---

Yeah. That we can go this long without a flame war or nastiness - is a good sign.

But we're also circling the same topic we keep circling so often and with the people all on the same points...

 

---

C'mon Pussycat, we can be civil or we can be interesting. To ask for both is just plain greedy.

;-).

[LlazarusLlong]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

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

:smileywink:

 

---

For goodness sake somebody give those anorexics a sammich!

[Coby Foden]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

 

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.

---

 

---

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.

---

Theresa's observation is correct. I tested that too, with my normal small avatar shape and very tall avatar shape.

I wore alternately each shape and observed what happens to the view. It is indeed so that the camera height location changes with avatar height; for the tall avatar it is higher than for the small avatar. And as we can further adjust the camera location along X (distance) and Z (height) axis we can get an excellent view with small avatar. The nice result is that it will be easier for small avatar to move in small places than it is for tall avatar.

 

Phil's idea that "bigger satisfies everything - even female arms" is not a fact. It's Phil's imagination. :smileytongue:

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

TDD123 wrote:

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

---

If that correlation holds in reverse, I'll extrapolate that Carole Franizzi's jeans were completely hidden by her belt, and that her bellybuttonline was obscured by her bangs.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

Phil's idea that "

bigger satisfies

everything

" is not a fact. It's Phil's imagination. :smileytongue:

---

Phil's a guy, Coby. What do you expect?

;-).

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

 

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.

---

 

---

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.

---

Theresa's observation is correct. I tested that too, with my normal small avatar shape and very tall avatar shape.

---

As a 1:1 avatar, my biggest issue on this particular point is how often places put interesting signs up above where my camera can see.

"You mean there's stuff to buy here, we're in a shop? I thought this was just somebody's spammy living room."

"Yeah, cam up a bit, its up in the cloud layer."

And yes - because of this it becomes very easy for me to move around in small places. And n big places, there's no real difference other than a failure to notice advertising... (which is not always a bad thing)...

 

[irihapeti]

i just add on here to what you and Theresa are mentioning

is true what is said about the camera position

on the Linden Realms is lots of new people using tinies. Little teddy bears, insects, robots, dolls, cars, animals, etc. It lowers the cam way down closer to the ground. And then they go like they are playing a  obstacle game

also for some bc of the low height they have moved their camera pos to just above their head. Simulating mouselook while retaining the full use of the HUD. meaning they can quick scroll mousewheel to get a wide view. Esc key to snap back

[Pussycat Catnap]

I had no idea there were people who took Linden Realms gaming that serious that they'd optimize their avatar and camera for it.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

I had no idea there were people who took Linden Realms gaming that serious that they'd optimize their avatar and camera for it.

---

Some people will do anything to earn a Linden Dollar. 

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Coby Foden wrote:

Phil in blue:

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 in to know, here it is:

GAH (General Avatar Heights) method

---

 

---

Phil, I'll refresh your memory with your own post about the GAH method, which method I so eloquently laid out, by first recording carefully in my mind what you said how you create content.

 

 

In: http://community.secondlife.com/t5/General-Discussion-Forum/Dimensions-Avatars-Content-some-thoughts/m-p/2185367#M126601

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Ah. Thank you Coby. Did you make it up (GAH) or is it something that used in general?

Yes, I'm a GAHist

but you know that anyway.

---

You used the term GAH, and GAH'ist (except for the ' symbol).  :matte-motes-nerdy:

 

[ETA]

Removed distracting, extraneous, superflous smileys, leaving only four. lol

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

Phil in blue:

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 in to know, here it is:

GAH (General Avatar Heights) method

---

I like how you use the word 'consistent' in that post from 2013 there. Way back when and such.

I also lke the reply right after... which sounds like some of my replies today - that even back then... this argument was already old and getting nowhere...

 

I also thought I would toss into here that this quote by colors system is seriously confusing and its really hard for me to tell who is typing what in some of this...

 

[Suspiria Finucane]

I still chuckle at the people who feel their way is the only way. I seem to recall something that said, "your world, your imagination".  If people want giant homes who are these people to say they can't?

Give it up already, SL will never be standardized by a few people's limited imaginations.

 

 

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

Suspiria Finucane wrote:

I still chuckle at the people who feel their way is the only way. I seem to recall something that said, "your world, your imagination".  If people want giant homes who are these people to say they can't?

Give it up already, SL will never be standardized by a few people's limited imaginations.

---

Ah here it is, after all these pages. The flame war post.

What about the people who keep saying we have to have giant homes? Or else. Because their "limited imaginations" cannot believe we can handle it on the small-side.

Note: I do NOT think Phil has that "limited" position. He's actually been quite articulate in his stance - but you just accused everyone else of having its reverse.

 

[irihapeti]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

I had no idea there were people who took Linden Realms gaming that serious that they'd optimize their avatar and camera for it.

---

Some people will do anything to earn a Linden Dollar. 

---

i try answer you both here

is all kinds of reasons why they do it

first like I say already is bc is how they are used to playing in other games. FPV (mouselook). So when they work out they can do the same on here then they do

some of them have quite original avatars that arent for sale. Like not on MP for instance. Like they make themself for themself and maybe their friends. So they go on the Realms to get some game tokens to just be able to upload their meshes and textures and that

others have little creatures that can get for free on MP and inworld shops. but then have to buy potions, injections, food, etc regularly to keep your energy up. if want the full range of powers for your little guy. So go on the Realms to get the tokens to do that

 

 

 

[Perrie Juran]

---

Suspiria Finucane wrote:

I still chuckle at the people who feel their way is the only way. I seem to recall something that said, "your world, your imagination".  If people want giant homes who are these people to say they can't?

Give it up already, SL will never be standardized by a few people's limited imaginations.

 

 

---

Unless I missed I don't believe that any one has said in this thread no one can have giant homes.

Nor have I read any paranoia.

So why bring it into this thread?**

But I see that you still have tape over your lips.

Are you paranoid that you might still get censored?

 

**Oh yes, I know it's a general discussion Forum so your free to ask a question too.  If your question is in response to the discussion so far in this thread, there is no paranoia here, just your misinterpretation or lack of understanding of what we are talking about.

[Coby Foden]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

 

I also thought I would toss into here that this quote by colors system is seriously confusing and its really hard for me to tell who is typing what in some of this...

---

Yes I do agree to that. It's also very hard to reply back if there are three or four colours used in one post.

 

I think Phil has invented it, so he can drop his comments all over the place, exactly next to the relevant word or sentence to which he wants his 'smart / witty / disagreeing / or anything else' reply.

 

Hey Phil, let's lose the colours. Yes? Thanks.

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 

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

---

That was only so far.

Let me kindly remind you that we might be only somewhere one fourth through this particular discussion. :matte-motes-big-grin:

(And there are already many posts eagerly waiting for your comments....)

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

 

I also thought I would toss into here that this quote by colors system is seriously confusing and its really hard for me to tell who is typing what in some of this...

---

Yes I do agree to that. It's also very hard to reply back if there are three or four colours used in one post.

 

I think Phil has invented it, so he can drop his comments all over the place, exactly next to the relevant word or sentence to which he wants his 'smart / witty / disagreeing / or anything else' reply.

 

Hey Phil, let's lose the colours. Yes? Thanks.

---

I wanna claim co-inventorship of multi-color posts, along with Phil. Here's my prior-art...

http://community.secondlife.com/t5/General-Discussion-Forum/It-happened-again/m-p/2055523#M112699

;-).