Jump to content
Scylla Rhiadra

What's a Good, Functional Height for a Female Avatar?

Recommended Posts

The problem with very tall female avatars is clearly shown here. Even avatars in the vendor pictures at the back have the same problem.

If they could make their arms longer they perhaps might do so. But they cannot. Arm length slider is already at 100 or very close to it.
(Or they might think "97 is enough for me, I don't want my arms to be 100!") 😉

(This has nothing to do with being against tall avatars. Just stating the problem what comes with being very tall female avatar.)

Avatar-sizes_2018-02-16.thumb.jpg.fd0aedc67503786d369a8ec828e6349a.jpg

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

Skell, I wasn't talking about the height of an avatar. What I said was avatar body proportions. For male avatar it's possible to be tall and have good proportions. For female avatar it's impossible to be very tall and have good body proportions. I assume that you too like good body proportions, right? Looking at your snapshots of your avatar I do get that impression.

The thing is that weird body proportions do look strange and thus look wrong on human avatar. At least for me.
But if somebody likes it, then go for it, disregard what others think about it. Everybody have their likes and dislikes.
- - - -
If I wanted to say something about height, it would be that SL looks quite weird because the avatar heights differ extremely much. There is no coherent scaling of things because of that fact. We can blame LL that in the very beginning they didn't pay enough attention for consistent scaling of things in SL. And now we have the situation what we have now.

My apologies, Coby. I have been told far too many times in my SL existence that I am "wrong" or "not right" or "not normal" - be that for being in a same-sex relationship, or for the clothing that I sometimes wear, or for my avatar's height. Seeing the words "wrong", "real people", "realistic", and a look that is "excellent and right on avatars" in a post that was created to ask about avatar height is like something of a red rag to me. I'm sorry that I jumped on your post, which was - as you said - more about proportion than height. There are other posts, such as those that mentioned the following -

  • there is a trend toward more realistic female avatars but men are remaining giants
  • reference to a height that is "proportionately right"
  • several references to "giants/giantesses" (which, apparently, is not at all derogatory)
  • multiple references to a height that is "realistic"
  • reference to "huge" avatars in correlation with reference to height-related home items (eg: doors) that cause problems for "badly proportioned" avatars

- which would have merited my words more than yours did.

We do have resident "height police" whom we tend only to see in this forum when the topic of avatar height is mentioned (I'm surprised we've not yet seen those people in this thread, in fact) and they can turn a relatively reasonable thread into what amounts to a haranguing session that many of us who have spent years on the receiving end of are heartily sick of seeing. It would be nice if others could agree to be like Scylla:

2 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

But I also recognize that those are personal aesthetic choices -- like preferring a particular hairstyle, or dress colour, or type of footwear. And those are individual choices that are, appropriately, made by each of us as individuals. I will "judge" them, in the same way that each and every one of us judges what we see others wearing in both RL and SL, but I don't feel the need to articulate that aloud to them, nor is it the same as wanting them to conform to my sense of style, anymore than I'd be happy with them wanting me to conform to their preferred paradigms for avatar height.

Posting in a thread is articulating one's thoughts aloud. We all judge privately (I'll admit that I do, too) but while we probably wouldn't dream of going up to someone in SL and calling them "giant", "fat ass", "T-Rex arms", or "invisible pony-rider" to their face because of their avatar height/proportion choice, some don't realise that they are telling those people directly that is what they think of them if they post those words on a public forum where those people can read it.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Skell Dagger said:

Posting in a thread is articulating one's thoughts aloud.

This is a fair point, and I'll concede that I have not, in the post you've cited, been careful enough about how I have couched my words.

That said, I think you are eliding some pretty important and significant distinctions here. There IS a difference between stating personal preferences (clearly and carefully characterized as such) in one's own post, without attaching judgements to particular names, and responding negatively to someone's particular look. And there IS a difference between stating personal preferences, and "advocating" for a particular style or look in others, even generally.

You are always pretty careful to be non-judgmental in your own comments here: I respect that in you. But there is some danger here, maybe, of crossing a line whereby any statement of personal preferences, likes or dislikes, can be interpreted as hurtful.

I actually value the personal opinions of others: I learn from them. I am, within reason, happy to hear reasoned criticisms of my look, my photography, etc. I don't post here, and I don't think others do either, merely to collect "likes," or to gaze at myself adoringly onscreen. I don't want to live in a bubble where my tastes and opinions are unchallenged because no one ever articulates any others.

There is, surely, a balance that can be struck here?

Edited by Scylla Rhiadra
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

There is, surely, a balance that can be struck here?

Indeed there is. None of the examples that I gave appeared to express a personal preference, nor were they phrased in such a manner. That's why I mentioned them. The words "right", "wrong", "correct", and "bad" are all judgemental ones, hence the mentions.

12 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I'll concede that I have not, in the post you've cited, been careful enough about how I have couched my words

You have, in fact, couched your words in this thread as I expected you would: carefully and thoughtfully. None of my examples came from you. Your thread title asked about a "functional height" - which leads to queries about the compatibility of furniture and housing and pose props relative to height. If you'd asked about the "right height" then I would have been side-eyeing you, but I know enough of you from your posting history over the years to understand that you're sensitive to the more subtle nuances and meanings of words that others may use without thought or consideration.

13 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

there is some danger here, maybe, of crossing a line whereby any statement of personal preferences, likes or dislikes, can be interpreted as hurtful.

As I agreed, there is indeed a balance that can be struck, and I'm going to strike it on my part by bowing out of this thread in the hope that I haven't managed to derail it completely by being over-sensitive myself. Back to the topic of functional height it shall (hopefully) go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Skell Dagger said:

We do have resident "height police".

Some sims do police height. New Berlin pushes hard on that. They give out the widely used avatar height measuring pole. New Babbage isn't as strict about it, but if you take a 2.5m height avatar to New Babbage, you won't get through some doors. Cocoon has an avatar size check box at their entry portal, like the box at the airport into which your carry-on luggage must fit. Older sims tend to be way oversize; newer builds closer to real world sizing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is very simple - back in the days everything was prim based. The smallet detail was limited by minimum prim size -> you had to adapt all your avatars to the smallest gadget they were wearing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Skell Dagger said:

I know enough of you from your posting history over the years to understand that you're sensitive to the more subtle nuances and meanings of words that others may use without thought or consideration.

Not always. Not sufficiently, in any case.

I was very genuine in conceding that I might have expressed myself better in my post. In particular, there is a really unnecessary expression of personal opinions there regarding a whole lot of not-very-relevant stylistic choices. If I thought it was constructive or contributed anything meaningful to the post, I'd keep it. As it is, it doesn't: the world really doesn't need or probably want to hear what I think about these things, so I'm removing it.

i admire how you generous and considerate you are in the opinions you express here and elsewhere. I am really very happy that we seem to be on the same page about this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

There are two ways to think of "realistic" arm lengths. The one most used among the "realistic proportions" set is that the arm span equals height.

Another rule of thumb is that the arm length should place the wrist at the crotch height with arms at the sides - in other words, it's only in relation to the body and not the legs. This also matches human proportions, but it allows legs to be lengthened compared to human proportions. This is the way fashion illustrations are often done (often the standard is ten heads high instead of 8 heads, with the extra two heads of height used to stretch the legs.) This is also the way Barbie is proportioned. 

I was 6 years old in 1959 when I got my first Barbie. She was the original and this is exactly how she looked. You can see from the photo and head count that she does not fit the example you set of being 10 heads tall.

barbie.png.a83f787b20775d22719d3a425ff9fe2c.png

Her arms are actually pretty close to normal length. The reason her fingertips don't reach down the thigh as far as they should is that the hands are much too small. The hand should be only slightly shorter than the measurement from the bottom of the chin to the middle of the forehead.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Blush Bravin said:

I was 6 years old in 1959 when I got my first Barbie. She was the original and this is exactly how she looked. You can see from the photo and head count that she does not fit the example you set of being 10 heads tall.

 

I didn't say that she was, just that her arm length was based on her body dimension and not her overall height.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Skell Dagger said:

The words "right", "wrong", "correct", and "bad" are all judgemental ones, hence the mentions.

I will completely agree that there is no "right" height. My argument has never been about the rightness of a certain height. But there is a "right" when it comes to proportions. If you are modeling your avatar after a human then there are "rights" and "wrongs". As an art teacher it was my job to teach my students how to draw the human form using the correct proportions. So I'm very aware and I am sure I notice it far more than someone who does not share my background. But I do not go around telling people their avatar shape is wrong. I do offer tools that help people to proportion their shapes correctly. I also state in my instructions that rules are made to be broken. That there is the ideal but then who is really ideal. So if a person wants long legs go for it. But I also caution if you go too far when breaking the rules you will begin to look alien rather than human.

In SL female avatars are restricted by the sliders as to how tall they can be and still fit within the range of normal human proportion. So in that regard my comments can be applied to height, but that is not the intent. The intent is in regard to proportion. And since females are restricted then it follows that the correctly proportioned height range for the females would be the height used for creating homes and furniture. Of course this is my opinion. But I think it's a perfectly logical conclusion. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

I didn't say that she was, just that her arm length was based on her body dimension and not her overall height.

Her arm length does seem to be based on overall height. Her hands are the problem not the arms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Blush Bravin said:

Even looking at fashion illustration you can see the arms are still well proportioned based on overall height. 

 

Theresa Tennyson sighs.

In those pictures is the arm span (fingertip to fingertip) equal to the overall height ("Vitruvian" standard) or is it based on having the wrist at the crotch (alternate standard which I mentioned)?

BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I SAID IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Share this post


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

Theresa Tennyson sighs.

In those pictures is the arm span (fingertip to fingertip) equal to the overall height ("Vitruvian" standard) or is it based on having the wrist at the crotch (alternate standard which I mentioned)?

BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I SAID IN THE FIRST PLACE.

fashion2.thumb.png.d17369d60f3c4aeb5e0eb2b5391b52dc.png

In those pictures is the arm span (fingertip to fingertip) equal to the overall height ("Vitruvian" standard)... yep it pretty much does meet the requirement. 

We had to learn all models in human drawing, fashion included. The rules still follow no matter which model you are using. Proportion is proportion. The fact that the wrists typically align with the crotch doesn't negate the rule. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Blush Bravin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So much of the argument about height and proportion -- "realistic" vs. "exaggerated" -- still seems to me to be premised on the idea that "realism" is some sort of Gold Standard against which we are to measure the validity of an avatar's shape. And the underlying assumption of that argument is either that 1) SL should look as much like RL as possible, or 2) that "realistic" proportion is more aesthetically pleasing precisely because it is "realistic". It's a kind of visual analogue of the old and tired augmentationist vs. immersionist argument, is it not?

I think I still want to argue that many people choose to "violate" a realistic proportion because, aesthetically, they like the look. If Bratz or Barbies have odd proportions, it's not because the toy makers "got it wrong"; it's because they liked a particular look. Similarly, the Mannerists in the 16th century deliberately violated realistic proportion not because they were incompetent, but because they were making a point (probably about the relationship between art and nature). So, this famous Mannerist painting by Parmigianino:

 

Parmigianino Madonna.jpg

Parmigianino wasn't a poor painter. He was rejecting nature, which is to say "realism," as an infallible guide. Is it not possible that people who consciously choose to create avatars with very long legs, tiny heads, etc., are doing so because, at some level at least, they are rejecting the idea that SL must be a slavish imitation of RL?

Edited by Scylla Rhiadra
To Insert image correctly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Is it not possible that people who consciously choose to create avatars with very long legs, tiny heads, etc., are doing so because, at some level at least, they are rejecting the idea that SL must be a slavish imitation of RL?

It is possible, but my experience in helping dozens of people to correct their proportions, tells me that it's not intentional. The most common response I get after helping a person with the avatar is, "I knew something was wrong but I didn't know how to fix it."

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Blush Bravin said:

It is possible, but my experience in helping dozens of people to correct their proportions, tells me that it's not intentional. The most common response I get after helping a person with the avatar is, "I knew something was wrong but I didn't know how to fix it."

I'm sure that's often the case.

But take for instance the popularity of the "hourglass" shape for women. It's probably not as prevalent as the more conventional shape, but it's popular enough that, for instance, there is more clothing made for Slink's Hourglass mesh body than there is for its more "realistic" Physique. The hourglass shape is, of course, a reflection to some degree of very contemporary tastes in feminine form, but it's also pretty clearly an exaggeration of these. And, surely, a deliberate one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I may?

climbs up on the soapbox

Second Life is a world teeming with free expression. A lot of people tend to forget that and are so quick to judge others while forgetting that in their screams of, "I AM A REAL PERSON AND I WANT TO BE TREATED WITH RESPECT!" that they too forget to treat their fellow Avatar with the same demands they make.

It's the one thing I hate most about Second Life: The Hypocrisy.

steps down

To answer your question OP, if you're still here/check this thread...My Laoise is 6.33 feet/1.93 meters. That, however, is personal preference. IRL I enjoy coming up to my partner's shoulders and so that feeling also transcends into SL. I come up to my Boyfriend's shoulders in SL and he may be a few numbers taller. (I had a magnificent post going but every time I would type something or go to another line with my mouse to add to the post would vanish...So...)

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think many people make the mistake of conflating observing/criticising an overall trend in a population, with judging and abusing individuals. It's a fallacy, and it would be wrong to attribute malice where there clearly is none.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/21/2018 at 6:37 AM, AyelaNewLife said:

I think many people make the mistake of conflating observing/criticising an overall trend in a population, with judging and abusing individuals. It's a fallacy, and it would be wrong to attribute malice where there clearly is none.

I wish everyone thought this way. Granted, none of us do at first because we are always learning, but sadly not everyone grows.

Years ago I was a part of a Fugly SL group on Flickr. I even posted there with my own finds! But now I look back and cringe because I was ignorant.

 Sure, it's fun to poke at the avatars with the odd proportions, or the over-muscled men, or the avatars with their, um... poles...out in the open and sometimes even dripping, but who am I to judge?  If someone has their parts tinted wrong (for example, the skin around my horns, and even my mesh ears) I need to remember that their windlights may be different than the ones I am using. Where I am lost is when I wonder...Is it right for me to bring it up? What if they need help?

I know I sure as heck wouldn't appreciate someone coming up to me saying that, "Your shoes are (so many) years old, you need to change them and--"

shrugs.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bumping this thread because I had a relevant observation.

I've been helping a new friend make the plunge to mesh recently. I grabbed copies of the same demos as him, as he's using different brands to me and I might actually be able to help troubleshoot if I know how stuff works. Walking him through the process, I noticed one thing:

All the shapes that come with his mesh body/head and skin are 7' 4" - 7' 6". These giant guys aren't making themselves tall. They're tall by default, and see tall as the average. And all of those shapes had biceps so big they almost perma-clip into his ribs. I didn't make myself 6' 2", that's (roughly) the height of the base shape I used to create mine; so I just assumed that the male sample shapes would be only slightly taller than mine. Nope! Over a foot taller. Certainly explains the trend in height.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, AyelaNewLife said:

All the shapes that come with his mesh body/head and skin are 7' 4" - 7' 6". These giant guys aren't making themselves tall. They're tall by default, and see tall as the average

Included shapes in female bodies have the same problem I recently decided to turn my tree alt, human and try out some very cheap bodies used one of the shapes included in the free eBody curvy and when I went to adjust the arm length for a "Maitreya compatible" body it's trying out I saw the height was well over 7ft and the height slider had been maxed out. I did modify the height to be a little over 6ft 

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...