Jump to content
Sean Heavy

Mesh Body Onion Layers RFC?

Recommended Posts

I have recently released a very basic, single layer, open source, female mesh body, (Ruth Too RC3), with a basic skin applier HUD and alpha-cut HUD. (Available on the MarketPlace for free.)

I am looking at making it Omega capable for access to a lot more clothes. Since BoM appears to still be quite a ways off, I'm assuming I will need to create onion layers for the mesh body to accommodate skin, tatt, undies and clothes. Is there a more or less standard or recommended way of doing layers? I have seen at least one mesh body have all the layers combined as one attachment, but I am considering creating separate attachments for each layer to avoid unnecessary complexity if you don't need a tatt layer and/or underwear layer, (just don't attach it).

I am also looking for recommendations as to the best way to create appliers to be most compatible with clothing makers/skin makers/Omega/etc. (Perhaps another forum focusing on LSL might be better for this?) I am pretty capable at LSL. So, I should be able to implement a decent applier interface, but I have no clue how most creators do their appliers for mesh bodies. The skin applier I have for Ruth is open source, uses UUIDs and a Config notecard. Since this is completely open, it obviously won't work for commercial skins, but it shows how I implemented it for Ruth. Any recommendations for implementing a creator friendly applier interface would be appreciated.

~Sean

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not possible as Omega won't work on transferable bodies (I guess to protect skin designers's intelectual property). You can however try to make it BoM (Bakes on Mesh) compatible ;) so when BoM finally arrives it could just apply old system skins onto Ruth. Lots of designers will start releasing BoM compatible skins (basically 1024 system skins without painted on nails) once it exits betatesting and hits the main grid. In fact I was already considering doing a BoM applier for Ruth 2.0 myself as that would greatly improve her usefullness to starters once there is a BoM capable Linux viewer.

Edited by Fionalein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Sean Heavy said:

Since BoM appears to still be quite a ways off

Have you heard something official that hasn't been announced? The last official word is that it is on track for "before the end of the year" - and even with the benefit of doubt, I would suspect before the end of January.

I guess my point is: noooo to onion layers. I am seriously fidgeting with impatience for BoM to arrive and then for my body creator to begin supporting it. Even if free, I (personally, of course) wouldn't even bother looking at it if it were just another onion-skin-layered mesh. I know I don;t speak for everyone, but surely many. :)

Just some friendly feedback from a nobody. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Fionalein said:

Not possible as Omega won't work on transferable bodies (I guess to protect skin designers's intelectual property). You can however try to make it BoM (Bakes on Mesh) compatible ;) so when BoM finally arrives it could just apply old system skins onto Ruth. Lots of designers will start releasing BoM compatible skins (basically 1024 system skins without painted on nails) once it exits betatesting and hits the main grid. In fact I was already considering doing a BoM applier for Ruth 2.0 myself as that would greatly improve her usefullness to starters once there is a BoM capable Linux viewer.

My Ruth Too RC3 is not transferable; so it could be Omega compatible. (You can get DAE's to upload and do what you want, but then it wouldn't be *my* Ruth.) I am already getting requests for the Omega skin applier, and I only released my Ruth Too RC3 2 weeks ago, (Nov. 28, 2018). Maybe I'll just do a skin only Omega applier that only uses the one layer.

I am planning to create a BoM applier for my Ruth Too RC3, but from what I've been reading on the BoM forum, I'm not confident it will be available anytime soon.
(I realize "soon" is a relative term; so, I'm thinking it won't be available for a few months. I've written code and of course debugged it; so I don't have confidence that the bug mentioned below will be an easy fix or the last bug found.)
https://community.secondlife.com/forums/topic/430696-any-updates-on-bom/?tab=comments#comment-1829762
I suppose it wouldn't hurt to start on the BoM applier now since I have yet to hear back from Omega about my request.

~Sean
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

speaking as a product user then I am with Alyona on this

any new body introduced at this time that is the same as the products currently on the market, same meaning onion-skinned, is not going to excite me into wanting it. What excites me as a product user is what I can do with new products. BOM is exciting to me as a new product technology

what I would like is for BOM-targeted bodies to be released with Copy-Modify permissions. When Modify then I don't need an applier. I can edit add layers of textures to my own body myself. Edit add being no more hassle for me than it is now to add texture layers to the LL classic avatar body

this is not to say that an applier cannot be useful. It is useful for people who have limited time to learn how to edit and texture objects and prefer a simpler Wear and One Click method

i am not one of those people. I personally will not bother with any BOM body from any maker that is No-Modify. I want to be able to buy the textures and edit-add apply them myself. Same as I can now with any other texture on any other inworld object

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ellestones said:

any new body introduced at this time that is the same as the products currently on the market, same meaning onion-skinned, is not going to excite me into wanting it.

Ruth is not intended for people who have already spent big L$s on fancy mesh bodies like Maitreya. To start with, Ruth is free. So, it is primarily intended as a decent mesh body for people not wanting to spent 1000's of L$s on a commercial mesh body. Ruth is also fairly simpler than the fancy mesh bodies, having a reasonably low Avatar Complexity.

14 minutes ago, ellestones said:

what I would like is for BOM-targeted bodies to be released with Copy-Modify permissions.

Ruth Too RC3 is already copy/mod. You could even download Ruth Blender files and/or the DAE files for uploading to your own account to do what you want with, (on SL or OpenSim).

15 minutes ago, ellestones said:

i am not one of those people. I personally will not bother with any BOM body from any maker that is No-Modify. I want to be able to buy the textures and edit-add apply them myself. Same as I can now with any other texture on any other inworld object

You can do this now with the free Ruth Too RC3.

My questions primarily had to do with making Ruth Too RC3 more compatible with what is out there now. But all I seem to be getting in response is don't do it, wait for BoM. I haven't done it yet; my Ruth Too RC3 is currently only available, (for free), with a single layer mesh body, a skin applier HUD and alpha cut HUD, all open source copy/mod including the scripts. (Even some mesh clothes available for existing other mesh bodies fit Ruth fairly well.)

~Sean
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Sean Harvey

thanks for the further info

i suggest something else :) clothing mesh and how I think this will go. It might not but it might

when Modify BOM bodies become widely available then this is going to bleed into a Modify mesh attachments market. What you could do now is start making Copy, Mod, No-transfer mesh attachments (clothes, shoes, hair, etc). The sell these with full perms uv maps. So that texture makers can make textures and sell them to the people who have bought the meshes

i think the way the BOM market is going to go is that mesh objects and textures will come to be seen as separate things. Buy the meshes, buy the textures. Mix n match as we like

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sean Heavy said:

My Ruth Too RC3 is not transferable; so it could be Omega compatible. (You can get DAE's to upload and do what you want, but then it wouldn't be *my* Ruth.) I am already getting requests for the Omega skin applier, and I only released my Ruth Too RC3 2 weeks ago, (Nov. 28, 2018). Maybe I'll just do a skin only Omega applier that only uses the one layer.

It would make sense to do an Omega for the body. I did one and it's not hard. The end user has a small cost  to buy the vendor you set up, but the process itself is very simple.

We will likely see BOM before June 2019, so doing an onion skin might not be worth it.

If any one using your body ask for tattoos advide they can apply the tattoo to a second body and wear 2 copies. This does work, I used the technique for ages. It's just manual onion-skinning :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/12/2018 at 9:50 PM, Sean Heavy said:

I am considering creating separate attachments for each layer

The hero we need but don't deserve. 

But also, @ellestones,  I'm confused about why you would demand for BOM bodies be modifiable. BOM doesn't require modify permissions. I don't like no-modify stuff either, but any body that has an applier system will support BOM by default, so mentioning BOM and perms together makes little sense as there's no connection..

Edited by Wulfie Reanimator
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Callum Meriman said:

It would make sense to do an Omega for the body.

Chellynne Bailey got back to me on Omega today. She will not support any mesh body derived from Ruth 2.0, which mine is. She says she cannot disclose her reasons. I guess I'm waiting for BoM for sure now.
~Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

 I'm confused about why you would demand for BOM bodies be modifiable. BOM doesn't require modify permissions. I don't like no-modify stuff either, but any body that has an applier system will support BOM by default, so mentioning BOM and perms together makes little sense as there's no connection..

is not a technical posit I am making, I am making a consumer market posit. Going back to the Alexa Linden April post where she said:

"Benefits
    Avoid the need for appliers -> easier customization workflow
    Avoid the need for onion avatars -> fewer meshes, fewer textures at display time
    Avoid the need to sell full-perm meshes. You can customize any mesh you have modify permissions for simply by setting the flags and equipping the appropriate wearables."

what I think is. Body and clothing makers who continue with no-modify applier-only mesh in the new BOM market will lose out to modify applier-optional mesh makers. There are a whole heap of bodies and clothes makers in the market now. And more new body and clothes makers joining them every day. Sean for example, is one of the latest new

current established brands may retain their existing market share going into this new future. For the non-established and new-entrant brands the consumer market question is: Other than price, what else you got ? Maybe you have low-poly. So does every other new entrant. As the established brands will have when they make the conversion to BOM

for every new entrant to this market my suggestion is to fully embrace the benefits above and realise them in your products. These are what else you got, over those who do not

fully realising these benefits for the consumer isn't a technical decision per se, is a policy decision. Do I restrict my customers in what they can do with the stuff they buy from me, or do I not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sean Heavy said:

Chellynne Bailey got back to me on Omega today. She will not support any mesh body derived from Ruth 2.0, which mine is. She says she cannot disclose her reasons. I guess I'm waiting for BoM for sure now.
~Sean

with the recent kerfuffle over UV maps for Catwa (potential copyright issues due to derivative works) then it kinda makes sense to me for Omega (being a commercial enterprise) at this time to avoid potentially similar issues with Ruth 2.0 and its derivatives. Ruth 2.0 assets being AGPL licensed

and also given that Ruth 2.0 is typically distributed with modify perms, then from a commercial applier maker's pov it doesn't make a lot of sense to expend resources on creating a nice to have applier capability for what is essentially a freebie body

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, ellestones said:

Body and clothing makers who continue with no-modify applier-only mesh in the new BOM market will lose out to modify applier-optional mesh makers.

What I predict is that one creator alone can make the BoM project succeed or just become another entry in the obscure unused tech register. If the holder of the biggest marketshare will not adapt to BoM (and we know their update speed) a lot won't even bother to get "BoM to Omega"/"BoM to specific body" converters. Then nothing will happen and the project will go the way of the Sansar...

Edited by Fionalein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Fionalein said:

What I predict is that one creator alone can make the BoM project succeed or just become another entry in the obscure unused tech register. If the holder of the biggest marketshare will not adapt to BoM (and we know their update speed) a lot won't even bother to get "BoM to Omega"/"BoM to specific body" converters. Then nothing will happen and the project will go the way of the Sansar...

this is potentially true as well

what holds back the adoption of new bodies is a scarcity of fitted accessory meshes (clothes, shoes, jewellery, etc)

so I said to Sean, concentrate on making accessory templates, as many as he can, and as quickly as he can. Take advantage of the current myriad of quality texture makers to grow his market share. Is not whose body is marginally technically better that wins the consumers' eyes. Is who has the widest supply of available accessories and the quality of same   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ellestones said:

with the recent kerfuffle over UV maps for Catwa (potential copyright issues due to derivative works) then it kinda makes sense to me for Omega (being a commercial enterprise) at this time to avoid potentially similar issues with Ruth 2.0 and its derivatives. Ruth 2.0 assets being AGPL licensed

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Ruth is pure LL/SL UV maps, which is what is *required* for Omega. Also, if you *add* something to go along with Ruth, but not derived from Ruth, then the AGPL does not apply to it; that's why I can include EE skins and clothes made by others without worrying about AGPL.

 

1 hour ago, ellestones said:

also given that Ruth 2.0 is typically distributed with modify perms, then from a commercial applier maker's pov it doesn't make a lot of sense to expend resources on creating a nice to have applier capability for what is essentially a freebie body

I thought some mesh bodies had to be modify to allow the end user to insert the Omega script? In any case, permissions can be modified for use with Omega at their request. The Ruth 2.0 team even made an exception for permissions because of skin/clothing appliers just like Omega. Omega has also worked with mesh body appliers instead of directly with the body, which could easily be done with Ruth Too to for sure avoid any issues with AGPL.

Agreed about Ruth being freebie, but I would assume her cut is going to be the same either way. And someone who gets a freebie body will have more L$s to spend on clothes. Why would she pass up more income? Also, I would have to pay her for any scripting she has to do to support an Omega for Ruth. Just because Ruth is free doesn't mean she gets less L$s.

I'm not expecting you to know her actual reasons; I realize that you are just giving your idea of why she might not want to work with Ruth, (and I also realize you may very well be correct about her reasons). What confuses me is why she won't tell anyone her actual reasons.

The whole purpose of creating Ruth is to provide a low poly, decent quality, freely available, and usable mesh body. If the creators knew the issue that prevents Omega from working with Ruth, then they might have used, (or now change to), a different copyright that is more compatible with SL/OS clothing industries like Omega. There is no point in creating a brand new mesh body if nobody wants to use it because they can't get clothing for it. The Ruth creators knew that.

And, I do plan on creating what I can for mesh clothing/mesh bases for Ruth Too, but I'm not very efficient or quick with Blender. It won't happen overnight.

~Sean
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sean Heavy said:

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Ruth is pure LL/SL UV maps, which is what is *required* for Omega. Also, if you *add* something to go along with Ruth, but not derived from Ruth, then the AGPL does not apply to it; that's why I can include EE skins and clothes made by others without worrying about AGPL.

yes this is true. I am just speculating about what might be the reason for Omega not doing it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sean Heavy said:

someone who gets a freebie body will have more L$s to spend on clothes

the most number of people who get freebie bodies also trend toward getting free or really inexpensive clothes and accessories. 0L mostly, some dollarbies, and the odd shop sale item up to like 20-25L

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, ellestones said:

is not a technical posit I am making, I am making a consumer market posit. Going back to the Alexa Linden April post where she said:

"Benefits
    Avoid the need for appliers -> easier customization workflow
    Avoid the need for onion avatars -> fewer meshes, fewer textures at display time
    Avoid the need to sell full-perm meshes. You can customize any mesh you have modify permissions for simply by setting the flags and equipping the appropriate wearables."

The problem with those supposed benefits of BakeFail are simple...

Avoid appliers... Unless you want to use Materials for normal/specular mapping, because BakeFail is failed tech that does not support Materials...

Avoid onions... Unless you want to wear applied clothing that doesn't look like flat matte body paint from 2008...

Avoid Full Perm... This is my real favorite in the BakeFail lies list...

The retailers who BUY Full Perm Template Mesh, need it MOD so they can link it to their store brand root prim and /or rename it to their chosen product name and add their texture hud receiver scripts.

Then need it Copy, so they can sell it retail to LOTS of people, without having to buy a separate copy of the template FOR EVERY CUSTOMER.

They need it TRANS so they can ACTUALLY deliver their products to their customers.

Clothing Retailers who use Full Perm Template are not going to stolp buying FPT because of BakeFail, nor are FPT makers going to stop selling it to them wholesale.

Those FPT Wholesalers who WANT to become fashion retailers, have already done so

In addition, when that worthless crap was written and posted, BakeFail only did the 6 standard system avatar bakes, so, it was no bloody use for texturing worn mesh clothing as the uv template of the dress in no way matches the uv template of your mesh body under it so that using BakeFail on body and clothing would result in half the dress texture being displayed sideways on those parts of your body not covered by the dress...

Even now, with additional kludge fixes to BakeFail, only a fool would try to use it to texture mesh clothing.

13 hours ago, ellestones said:

Avoid the need to sell full-perm meshes.

We know who originally posted that rubbish, what I'd like to know is who originally wrote that piece of fraudulent marketing copy, and why they were allowed to make claims that are totally out of sync with the realities of the clothing market in SL.
 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Klytyna said:

Avoid appliers... Unless you want to use Materials for normal/specular mapping, because BakeFail is failed tech that does not support Materials...

Agreed. Fortunately they have said it is likely to be implemented in phase 2.

3 hours ago, Klytyna said:

Avoid onions... Unless you want to wear applied clothing that doesn't look like flat matte body paint from 2008...

Using a multi-layers mesh body, i.e. onions, for clothing will still look like the clothing that was painted on.  Most only use it for clothing intended to be close to the body, like lingerie, leggings, tight fitting Ts and tanks, and other very tight fitting clothes. BoM is intended to alleviate the need for a multi-layered body, not the need for full mesh clothing like a coat or dress or loose fitting sweatshirt. True, adding a coat or sweatshirt could technically be considered layering, but it's more like layering clothes in the real world and less like an onions' layers.

4 hours ago, Klytyna said:

Avoid Full Perm... This is my real favorite in the BakeFail lies list...

This statement is about release to the end user, not developers creating content for other developers/retailers. The end user doesn't have to do any of those things you mentioned about full perm.

4 hours ago, Klytyna said:

In addition, when that worthless crap was written and posted, BakeFail only did the 6 standard system avatar bakes, so, it was no bloody use for texturing worn mesh clothing as the uv template of the dress in no way matches the uv template of your mesh body under it so that using BakeFail on body and clothing would result in half the dress texture being displayed sideways on those parts of your body not covered by the dress...

1) BoM has nothing to do with the UV template; it only bakes textures and sends it as is to the mesh, which then uses that texture with it's own UV template.

2) It is not intended to be used for mesh clothing other than skin tight fitting clothes. Yes, it could be used for a big fancy dress, but that is not the intent. The number of avatar bakes is appropriate for replacing mesh body onion layers.

 

Using your assumption that BoM is intended to replace texturing for anything and everything that is attached to an avatar, you are right, it failed. Using the assumption that it's primary use case is to replace multi layered onion skin mesh bodies, most of your critiques don't really apply. The one critique I think you are right on is Materials; there are some skins that take full advantage of Materials. Fortunately, that should be resolved soon.

~Sean

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sean Heavy said:

Agreed. Fortunately they have said it is likely to be implemented in phase 2.

Believe it when and indeed IF you see it...

3 hours ago, Sean Heavy said:

Most only use it for clothing intended to be close to the body, like lingerie, leggings, tight fitting Ts and tanks, and other very tight fitting clothes

Yes, tight fitting layers, that SPAN across cleavage and butt crack, whereas BakeFail will look like paint IN your cleavage and butt crack.

3 hours ago, Sean Heavy said:

BoM is intended to alleviate the need for a multi-layered body

Actually, the whole "we wont need onions anymore" spiel was deamed up AFTER the BakeFailers demanded this feature, as a way of justifying it, after others said negative things about the ORIGINAL publicly stated idea... "Wear all your 10-15 year old system layers again on your mesh".

3 hours ago, Sean Heavy said:

BoM has nothing to do with the UV template; it only bakes textures and sends it as is to the mesh, which then uses that texture with it's own UV template.

Yes I know, but the Bakefailer liars did try claiming we could use this crap to texture clothes, and helicopters, until some cynical people pointed out the whole "your ass on the side of your helicopter, and camo painted hull plating on your boobs thing, whereupon they shut the hell up about that.

3 hours ago, Sean Heavy said:

Using your assumption

Correction: Using the fraudulent propaganda crap spewed by Bakefailers over the last 20 months since the who shebang started after one of the Beta Grid Clique meetings early last year.

4 hours ago, Sean Heavy said:

Using the assumption that it's primary use case is to replace multi layered onion skin mesh bodies

Speaking of correcting fraudulent propaganda... You do know the plan was to revive the business of system skin and clothing makers right?

4 hours ago, Sean Heavy said:

The one critique I think you are right on is Materials; there are some skins that take full advantage of Materials. Fortunately, that should be resolved soon.

BakeFail is behind schedule and over budget, and still has major problems, if/when they finally roll this giant leap backwards in rendering technology out, they will just forget the vague promises about "materials" and leave you hanging...


 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Klytyna said:

[ "Avoid the need to sell full-perm meshes. - Alexa Linden"]

... what I'd like to know is who originally wrote that piece of fraudulent marketing copy, and why they were allowed to make claims that are totally out of sync with the realities of the clothing market in SL.
 

i have no idea who other than Alexa Linden might have wrote similar

what you say is true in part of the existing market. Buy full perm mesh template kits, texture them and sell the completed article. This will continue while mesh kit makers are prepared to continue making and selling full permissions mesh kits

BOM doesn't preclude this from continuing to happen. What it does is provide an alternate way to supply templates, like clothes, shoes, hair (shells for houses, vehicles, etc also) to texture makers who can make and sell texture packs for the no-transfer template assets that a customer already has

in the same way skin and makeup packs for existing mesh bodies are created and sold now. We also see this happening now with some clothing providers. Buy a mesh skirt with a single fabric texture.  Buy a fabric texture pack extra.  BOM just adds an additional channel for doing stuff like this

i get that you Kytyna don't like how BOM is intended to be implemented in the first instance. I do agree with you that materials bakes is a very desirable thing, and I would like that as well. However, material or not materials is a LL resourcing decision, not a technical decision.  So what you, me and everybody else will do is use BOM as it is, or not, as we decide for ourselves

personally I would rather have BOM without materials than not have BOM at all. You seem to prefer not at all until materials are included. And if so then is all good that you feel this way 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...