Why does it cost serious money to own a sim?

[Coby Foden]

3 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

Yes, consistent sizing of stuff would be good - at least within chunks of SL (I'm thinking of a novelty Lilliput-type and/or Giant-type chunk). But I see no reason at all for it to be RL sizes. The default camera position doesn't suit it, and that's what we're stuck with.

I have learned that you are stuck with the default camera position, and possibly many others too.
But many have also learned about the benefits of the better camera position. And RL sized content works perfectly for them.

Categorically claiming that RL sized things do not work in SL due to the camera is plain wrong.
Second Life is flexible, it suits well for many purposes. Content creation is not stuck to one specific default setting.

[Phil Deakins]

1 hour ago, Coby Foden said:

I have learned that you are stuck with the default camera position, and possibly many others too.
But many have also learned about the benefits of the better camera position. And RL sized content works perfectly for them.

Categorically claiming that RL sized things do not work in SL due to the camera is plain wrong.
Second Life is flexible, it suits well for many purposes. Content creation is not stuck to one specific default setting.

No, Coby. WE are stuck with the default camera position - all of us. It's the default and it will stay the default. It's stuck as the default. We've already been through the fact that the individual can change their own camera position. There's no need to repeat it. But when we are talking about SL as a whole, the default camera is what there is, and it's no good at all for the smaller RL-sized enclosed spaces, such as furnished rooms in homes.

I admit that years ago, when I tested an RL-sized furnished room, I wasn't aware of the 2-handed method of moving and changing views. Nobody who was supporting RL sizes even suggested it. I promise you that, without changing the camera position and moving in that manner, RL sizes do. not. work.

Of course SL is flexible and suits many purposes. That goes without saying. But it does not suit RL-sized furnished rooms, unless those who use them alter their camera positions, and move in a way that isn't the normal way in SL. And, even then, I strongly doubt that the result is anywhere near as convenient as just doing it the default way with normally sized rooms and furniture.

Coby, the defaults are what we have. It means that the defaults are used en-masse. There are exceptions, of course, because some people do alter their camera positions, but we're not taking about some people. We're talking about SL as a whole, and, as a whole, RL sizes do not work. And, of course, RL sizes is nothing but an arbitrary choice. There's no reason at all create SL in those sizes. SL is a different world.

Edited May 28, 2018 by Phil Deakins

[Wulfie Reanimator]

4 hours ago, Phil Deakins said:

If that's the way it's done, it's a 2-handed job, and, for a right-handed person, either requires getting used to using the wasd keys

My mind = Obliterated

Today I learned there are right-handed people actually using the arrow keys to move and unfamiliar with the WASD keys! (Off-topic I know, I'll go back to my corner.)

Edited May 28, 2018 by Wulfie Reanimator

[Phil Deakins]

LOL.

Not unfamiliar with them - just never found a use for them when the cursor keys are so convenient. I've never been a gamer, of course

[Coby Foden]

1 hour ago, Phil Deakins said:

WE are stuck with the default camera position - all of us. It's the default and it will stay the default. It's stuck as the default. We've already been through the fact that the individual can change their own camera position.

Why you keep repeating that we all are stuck to the default? Then you continue that all are not. You're just playing with words, going round and round.

1 hour ago, Phil Deakins said:

Of course SL is flexible and suits many purposes. That goes without saying. But it does not suit RL-sized furnished rooms, unless those who use them alter their camera positions, and move in a way that isn't the normal way in SL.

It has been explained to you already many times over that the requirement is to change the camera to better position.
So why you keep always repeating that RL-sized things do not work in the default camera position? WE DO KNOW THAT.
Anyway, the fact is that the default camera position does not work well for any content. It gives distorted perspective view.
You can test it in RL with you camera. Raise it high, tilt it downwards to some degree and keep snapping photos. Not looking good? Weird, isn't it?

It funny that you seem to think that the only normal way to move in SL is by using the arrow keys. You're wrong of course.
The viewer provides a way to move by other means. They are normal too because they are a standard feature of the viewer.
If you or somebody else does not use those other convenient ways to move does not make them in any way a non-normal way.

[Phil Deakins]

36 minutes ago, Coby Foden said:

Why you keep repeating that we all are stuck to the default? Then you continue that all are not. You're just playing with words, going round and round.

It has been explained to you already many times over that the requirement is to change the camera to better position.
So why you keep always repeating that RL-sized things do not work in the default camera position? WE DO KNOW THAT.
Anyway, the fact is that the default camera position does not work well for any content. It gives distorted perspective view.

It funny that you seem to think that the only normal way to move in SL is by using the arrow keys. You're wrong of course.
The viewer provides a way to move by other means. They are normal too because they are a standard feature of the viewer.
If you or somebody else does not use those other convenient ways to move does not make them in any way a non-normal way.

Coby. What's wrong with you today?

We ARE all stuck with the default; i.e., since you haven't seemed to grasp it yet, the default isn't going to change, so we're stuck with it as the default. Never, anywhere, have I even hinted that we can't change the position. I've said that we can - multiple times. What we can't change is the default. That's what we're stuck with and that's what I said. So that is what people in SL use on the whole. Is it any clearer now?

You are not reading very well. Not only has it been "explained many times" but I've been one who explained it, and it is WHY RL sizes do not work in SL, possibly, and only possibly, unless a user changes the camera position AND uses the view-changing method of movement, but I seriously doubt that it worls well enough even then. How many times must I explain that to you? The reason I have to repeat something is because you haven't understood it. If you have, why do you keep going back over it? If you know that it doesn't work with the defaults, as you now say you do, why do you keep arguing when I say that it doesn't work with what people use en-masse?

I've said more than once that RL sizes don't work in SL in small spaces such as furnished rooms. I've also included that we are talking about SL on the whole - what people use en-masse. I've also said that I seriously doubt that it works well enough to be satisfactory even with a camera change and view-changing movement. There's nothing wrong with anything of that.

Rubbish! The defaults work perfectly well. Great Scott!, we've used them for long enough, and they've performed perfectly well throughout. Alright, you do seem to have a bee in your bonnet about the default camera position, but you're in a tiny minority. The rest of us manage perfectly well with the defaults. If we didn't, we wouldn't see people finding fault with the sizes of things, and occasionally trying to persuade us to change our camera positions.

No I'm not wrong. Why? Because I haven't said that the only normal way to move in SL is to use the cursor keys. You're making things up now, and that's not very good. However the cursor keys are the most normal way.

I never said that other  ways were non-normal. I said that cursor keys are THE normal way. It's still up there in my post if you want to read it. I do wish you'd stop making things up. The most normal way is the cursor keys. Please stop twisting things and making things up. It doesn't help any discussion.

But I think you're being argumentative just for the sake of it, and that's disappointing.

 

Edited May 28, 2018 by Phil Deakins

[Theresa Tennyson]

56 minutes ago, Coby Foden said:

It has been explained to you already many times over that the requirement is to change the camera to better position.
So why you keep always repeating that RL-sized things do not work in the default camera position? WE DO KNOW THAT.
Anyway, the fact is that the default camera position does not work well for any content. It gives distorted perspective view.
You can test it in RL with you camera. Raise it high, tilt it downwards to some degree and keep snapping photos. Not looking good? Weird, isn't it?
 

Any camera in a virtual world that we view on a screen is going to cause perception problems compared to our normal vision. Here's why:

Human vision is made up of two parts - the center portion, where we see things clearly and normally use if we want to really look at something, and the peripheral vision portion, which shows us a much larger area with much greater distortion and less detail. We're used to how things look with the perspective of the center field of vision, which is about the way things look with a 50 mm lens on a 35 mm camera, but our peripheral vision is vital as we're moving around so we can identify hazards and have a general idea of where our feet are going to fall. This peripheral vision would have the field of view of a very wide-angle lens.

When we're looking at things through a screen we normally expect everything to look like is being viewed by a fixed-perspective camera lens. If we use a camera lens at the position of our avatar, if we use one with the focal length of our center field of vision things will have the perspective we expect but our field of view will be much less because it will lack the peripheral field and we won't see obstacles near us. If we use a camera lens with the full field of view of our normal vision it will need to be a very wide-angle lens and things will look wildly distorted.

So, one way to get both the perspective and the field of view we're used to is to move the camera behind our avatar, which is what the default camera does. If it was at head level and pointed straight ahead we still wouldn't see the space our avatar has to maneuver in closely though, so it is tilted down to make this more important area more visible without taking up half the screen with useless sky. With the tilted camera, though, we'd see only floor level if it was at head level so the camera is raised.

Aaaannnddd that's why the default camera is set up the way it is. Any other camera other than a pair of virtual reality goggles is only going to exchange one problem for another.

Edited May 28, 2018 by Theresa Tennyson
"Are" and "our" ARE not the same.

[Coby Foden]

5 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

But I think you're being argumentative just for the sake of it, and that's diappointing.

Phil, I thought that you liked debating. I just tried to give you a chance to enjoy one.
Maybe this didn't go the way you wanted it to go. So,  I'll stop here.

Anyway, it's useless to continue as I tell how I see things, and you tell how you see things.
You speak about en-masse, how in your opinion most use and observe SL.
I speak about my personal experience what works really well. A lot better than your "default".
Our different views are so far apart that they will never meet and get into agreement.

[Coby Foden]

1 hour ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Aaaannnddd that's why the default camera is set up the way it is. Any other camera other than a pair of virtual reality goggles is only going to exchange one problem for another.

I have to disagree with that (the sentence I underlined in your post).
Here I have an example snapshot inside a house. On the top with default camera view, at the bottom with better camera view.
See how distorted the view is with the default camera location. All vertical lines are not actually vertical, they are tilted.
On the better camera view the verticals are vertical. Even the avatar looks better there.
I definitely prefer the better camera location. I have never ever encountered the "exchange one problem to another" thing you mentioned.

[LittleMe Jewell]

4 hours ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

Today I learned there are right-handed people actually using the arrow keys to move and unfamiliar with the WASD keys!

Never having been a gamer, I've never gotten use to using the WASD keys for movement.  I either use the mouse or the arrow keys. 

[LittleMe Jewell]

4 minutes ago, Coby Foden said:

I have to disagree with that (the sentence I underlined in your post).
Here I have an example snapshot inside a house. On the top with default camera view, at the bottom with better camera view.
See how distorted the view is with the default camera location. All vertical lines are not actually vertical, they are tilted.
On the better camera view the verticals are vertical. Even the avatar looks better there.
I definitely prefer the better camera location. I have never ever encountered the "exchange one problem to another" thing you mentioned.

What setting values do you use?

[Phil Deakins]

1 hour ago, Coby Foden said:

If I could fix the title above the lower picture for you, I would. So I'll just have to type the correction here:-

Different camera position. (not better)

[Coby Foden]

1 hour ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

What setting values do you use?

Debug settings: CameraOffsetRearView
X = -3.700
Y = 0.000
Z = -0.200

Might be needed a bit different depending on your avatar height (if you want to see the whole avatar).

 

[Theresa Tennyson]

1 hour ago, Coby Foden said:

I have to disagree with that (the sentence I underlined in your post).
Here I have an example snapshot inside a house. On the top with default camera view, at the bottom with better camera view.
See how distorted the view is with the default camera location. All vertical lines are not actually vertical, they are tilted.
On the better camera view the verticals are vertical. Even the avatar looks better there.
I definitely prefer the better camera location. I have never ever encountered the "exchange one problem to another" thing you mentioned.

 

Then use it.

However, note that you're indoors, and you slid the camera a significant distance further behind you (i.e. your avatar is smaller.) Everything outside will appear smaller and the view will have a great deal of empty sky. If you move the camera closer you'll lose more close-up information of your avatar's surroundings.

[Coby Foden]

7 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Then use it.

However, note that you're indoors, and you slid the camera a significant distance further behind you (i.e. your avatar is smaller.) Everything outside will appear smaller and the view will have a great deal of empty sky. If you move the camera closer you'll lose more close-up information of your avatar's surroundings.

Of course I use it, always.

Amazingly, my mouse has a scroll wheel. Guess what it does?
Just by scrolling the wheel I can easily move the camera closer and further from the avatar.
I can grab the avatar with left clicking and move the avatar, in what ever distance the camera might be from the avatar. The camera just stays in the distance where I have put it with the scroll wheel. It just returns to my preference setting location after I press once the ESC-key.
I can look up and down sliding the mouse. I don't miss any information, close or far.

All this works perfectly for me. And I'm sure it would do so for anybody else too if they cared to learn it. Which isn't difficult at all. Naturally provided that the person has two hands and well working fingers.

[KanryDrago]

4 hours ago, Coby Foden said:

Of course I use it, always.

Amazingly, my mouse has a scroll wheel. Guess what it does?
Just by scrolling the wheel I can easily move the camera closer and further from the avatar.
I can grab the avatar with left clicking and move the avatar, in what ever distance the camera might be from the avatar. The camera just stays in the distance where I have put it with the scroll wheel. It just returns to my preference setting location after I press once the ESC-key.
I can look up and down sliding the mouse. I don't miss any information, close or far.

All this works perfectly for me. And I'm sure it would do so for anybody else too if they cared to learn it. Which isn't difficult at all. Naturally provided that the person has two hands and well working fingers.

You prefer it which is great and it works personally for you. That does not make it a better camera position. It makes it a camera position more suited to your preferences is all. Frankly I prefer the top picture but I am not arrogant enough to assert it is better and everyone should use it.

[Coby Foden]

10 minutes ago, KanryDrago said:

You prefer it which is great and it works personally for you. That does not make it a better camera position. It makes it a camera position more suited to your preferences is all. Frankly I prefer the top picture but I am not arrogant enough to assert it is better and everyone should use it.

I'm glad to hear that you have found what works best for you.
So have I. The setting what I use is best suited for me and thus it definitely is a better camera position for me.
Don't interpret the word "better" in my post to mean that I'm trying to force it to everybody.
I'm not arrogantly telling that every body should use it.
It is just that in my opinion it is a better view than the default view, that's all.

Naturally all can use whatever they feel is the best for them.
If you like the look of tilted "verticals" I have nothing against it (I just might wonder, why you like that kind of view?).
Everybody's "best" can be different from anybody else's "best".

All this debating came from:
"RL sized content does not work in SL. - Yes it will work. - No it will not.  - But it will. - Not... etc. etc.
(It's weird, it's the same platform we are using, but still - for some RL sizing works well, for some it does not.) 

[Theresa Tennyson]

11 hours ago, Coby Foden said:

Naturally all can use whatever they feel is the best for them.
If you like the look of tilted "verticals" I have nothing against it (I just might wonder, why you like that kind of view?).
Everybody's "best" can be different from anybody else's "best".

 

That's the way we normally see most of the world in RL, particularly tall objects. We just don't notice it consciously. If you want to photograph a tall building with completely vertical lines you need a very specialized perspective-control lens.

If someone reads your posts as an outside observer, they'll quickly pick up a strong desire for "correctness" that doesn't necessarily apply in a virtual world - avatars should be naturally proportioned, objects should be scaled to real-life sizes, vertical lines should be true verticals, the default avatars should be updated so everyone starts with a "correct" base, etc. You might not even realize this yourself, but trust me - it's there.

Edited May 29, 2018 by Theresa Tennyson

[Coby Foden]

49 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

That's the way we normally see most of the world in RL, particularly tall objects. We just don't notice it consciously. If you want to photograph a tall building with completely vertical lines you need a very specialized perspective-control lens.

If someone reads your posts as an outside observer, they'll quickly pick up a strong desire for "correctness" that doesn't necessarily apply in a virtual world - avatars should be naturally proportioned, objects should be scaled to real-life sizes, vertical lines should be true verticals, the default avatars should be updated so everyone starts with a "correct" base, etc. You might not even realize this yourself, but trust me - it's there.

I do agree what you say here. It's often a bit difficult to convey the message in writing so that people wouldn't make their own interpretation of it.
Anyway, I personally feel that SL would be more beautiful if all content was consistently sized. Perhaps most everybody would feel the same way.
In many places Second Life is a big mess. The good thing is that there are vast number of awesomely beautiful places too. Which is really great.

However, I'm not trying to force anybody to do anything. I'm just telling what I see as nice and what works for me.
(Perhaps in the future I should start every post with: "NOTE: This works the best for me personally, your mileage may vary.")

[Macrocosm Draegonne]

Because it costs real money to run the SIMs, gobs of it for infrastructure, surely an enormous chunk of LL revenue must go towards it, and staff, bandwidth, storage, and everything else it takes to run the most successful virtual world in history lol.  Im actually amazed the price isn't double for private SIM's, but with the new transaction fee's it seems LL has stemmed off and even decreased SIM cost which is brilliant.  I am very tempted to buy one right now and I have to keep stopping myself to wait for the new price announcements. 

Once the marketplace is more modernized (Dear Gods, why aren't they using Drupal?), and animesh/meshbakes/grid wide gaming mechanics come in their revenues will increase moreso than land would have ever done alone. 

The increased transaction fees and land allowance are brilliant, one of the first goodies to come over to big mammas side from baby Sansar.  Ive had two  adjacent 1024 double prim mainland lots in Horizons for about a year, and my bill has actually gone down monthly since I bought it, really damn awesome move by LL!  ?  But soon I want whole sims to do all the crazy things I have planed heheheh.

Edited September 15, 2018 by Macrocosm Draegonne

[Jo Yardley]

On 5/26/2018 at 11:49 AM, Phil Deakins said:

Your arguments about sizes do hold water, Penny, and what you say would work perfectly if everyone did it. But the reality is that we people want to be pretty much like everyone else sizewise. For instance, who would want a house that other people couldn't walk into?, and would feel like a human in a doll's house if they managed to get in? Even a small size reduction would make it difficult. I once came across a house that didn't look too small but I still could get through the door without crouch-walking, and I wasn't a giant.

I don't want to be like everyone else.
I'm fine with living in a house that people who are giants can't walk into.
I don't feel like a human in a dolls house.

Quote

It's true that the default camera position has a lot to answer for, but it's the default and, unless the default changes, we residents won't change it to accomodate things. As you know, there are places that make things smaller than usual, such as Berlin, but it simply doesn't work because people have to change the camera position - and manage without being able to see what's around you well enough. Perhaps we could get used to such things, but, as things are now, we donlt need to get used to anything. It just works.

It works fine, it hasn't been an issue in Berlin for almost a decade, it is one of the things people, once they actually get used to it, love about the sim.
It is cozy, crowded and uncomfortable to be in a busy little basement bar, as it should be!
It just works.

By the way things in berlin are not smaller than usual, they are just right, they are just bigger than usual in other places.

[Love Zhaoying]

1 hour ago, Jo Yardley said:

I don't want to be like everyone else.
I'm fine with living in a house that people who are giants can't walk into.
I don't feel like a human in a dolls house.

It works fine, it hasn't been an issue in Berlin for almost a decade, it is one of the things people, once they actually get used to it, love about the sim.
It is cozy, crowded and uncomfortable to be in a busy little basement bar, as it should be!
It just works.

By the way things in berlin are not smaller than usual, they are just right, they are just bigger than usual in other places.

I love how you resurrected a thread  to argue with PD. I hope he responds!

[LittleMe Jewell]

8 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

 I hope he responds!

It's in his blood - how can he resist.

[Jo Yardley]

I'm a time traveller, I often have no idea posts are old

[Blush Bravin]

Since the adoption of mesh (well the new SL mesh, since everything has always been mesh) there's been a substantial move toward more realistic sizing of avatars, buildings and furniture. I for one am very happy that people are changing. I haven't used the default camera position for years and years. I fixed that problem even before mesh was an issue. I never liked feeling as though no matter how high a ceiling was I always felt like I was going to hit my head. Fortunately, I read an article explaining the issue and how to fix it with the debug settings. That one improvement made my SL so much more enjoyable. 

I really have to chuckle when I see super tall avatars these days. It's typically someone who just can't drag themselves into the present but tend to live in their memories of the "good old days".  Now if I offended you with that remark, I'm sorry, but maybe it's time to reconsider why you really want to be a giant.