Jump to content
Elinah Iredell

Land impact of mesh head

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

Sure a head/body that has layers will always have more complexity than the same thing without but with all concerns on the table, if your complexity is good then having layers is a good compromise if compatibility is preserved, in my opinion

I still strongly disagree that avatar rendering complexity is of any real value in its current state. Not even as a "rough estimate." It is way too easy to manipulate the value, knowingly or not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

I still strongly disagree that avatar rendering complexity is of any real value in its current state. Not even as a "rough estimate." It is way too easy to manipulate the value, knowingly or not.

It's only value is in us knowing what ours is in those cases when we want to go somewhere that restricts access based on the freakin complexity value.  

But, yeah, best I can gather, the value is mostly broken and thus not worth much.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

I still strongly disagree that avatar rendering complexity is of any real value in its current state. Not even as a "rough estimate." It is way too easy to manipulate the value, knowingly or not.

I'll admit that I am not qualified to say technically that their heads are good examples of mesh head geometry though I am sure we would have heard about it if they were really terrible as they are a well known brand.
One further observation, you can tell on a busy region whether someone is using a higher or lower complexity product because their heads are the last to appear. The heads I talk about are one of the fastest to appear, always.

Please also bear in mind that I was using this brand as an example.  Let's talk in more abstract terms to get my point across:

Should there be perfect example of good mesh head geometry that had to use extra layers to achieve usefulness as a product before BoM then it's impact on the viewer would not get any worse post-BoM and retaining those layers would be an acceptable compromise to retain for compatibility.  In my opinion this is a practical solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

I'll admit that I am not qualified to say technically that their heads are good examples of mesh head geometry though I am sure we would have heard about it if they were really terrible as they are a well known brand.
One further observation, you can tell on a busy region whether someone is using a higher or lower complexity product because their heads are the last to appear. The heads I talk about are one of the fastest to appear, always.

Please also bear in mind that I was using this brand as an example.  Let's talk in more abstract terms to get my point across:

Should there be perfect example of good mesh head geometry that had to use extra layers to achieve usefulness as a product before BoM then it's impact on the viewer would not get any worse post-BoM and retaining those layers would be an acceptable compromise to retain for compatibility.  In my opinion this is a practical solution.

There actually have been several threads on this topic. I am not sure if it was this creator or another that was discussed -- but it wasn't one of the "top two". If you are a good forum sleuth you can probably find them. I am VERY bad at that. 

It really IS very simple. Use ONLY the geometry that you NEED to make an asset look good. I have seen the head posted here and I have seen my head (with approximate a quarter of the triangles used -- just an educated guess) and I think they are very comparable in look. So just like with hair and jewelry (and everything else really) it is "better" to go with the low poly models than the high poly models which really have no place in a platform that needs GAME ASSETS (which they are most certainly not). 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Chic Aeon said:

There actually have been several threads on this topic. I am not sure if it was this creator or another that was discussed -- but it wasn't one of the "top two". If you are a good forum sleuth you can probably find them. I am VERY bad at that. 

It really IS very simple. Use ONLY the geometry that you NEED to make an asset look good. I have seen the head posted here and I have seen my head (with approximate a quarter of the triangles used -- just an educated guess) and I think they are very comparable in look. So just like with hair and jewelry (and everything else really) it is "better" to go with the low poly models than the high poly models which really have no place in a platform that needs GAME ASSETS (which they are most certainly not). 

 

Respectfully, I don't think it is that simple.  I think it is that simple only if you are looking purely at a performance point of view, which most people don't.  From a buyers point of view, the best geometry isn't the most important thing to consider.  I would argue that support (both from the creator and ancillary product creators), features, add-ons, compatibility and how many other people use the product are far more important for most people.

Many will not want the most efficient mesh head available that has no skins/make-up/animations etc. to buy, nor a wealth of user base support available when they don't understand what has gone wrong or has upgrades available when necessary.

If people gravitate to more efficient mesh heads it will be because they have captured the mass market and if they have managed that then it is because they have brought other significant benefits that don't exist in today's offerings.  The power of being an entrenched product especially where there are further add-on products is not to be overlooked and to take over that mass market segment is very hard.  Just being more a more efficient mesh probably isn't going to be how it is done.

Lots of people were asking for a higher-poly count version of the classic body for years before mesh support even came out because the classic body was looking dated.  I have no idea what you consider low poly but people clearly can see a qualitative difference between the classic avatar and newer mesh bodies and heads.  Are the popular ones too high-poly?  Perhaps. I have no idea if there is a middle ground where the difference is invisible or where it is.  For the purpose of my points about BoM backwards compatibility, it doesn't matter.

BTW, I truly do not know what mesh head you make or how comparable it is against other products and what they offer and I don't know if you know for sure what head brand I am taking about (unless @Wulfie Reanimator  DM'd you) so I don't know how you are doing your comparison.  However, none of that matters because I was using that brand as an example because they have brought out a BoM head that preserves appliers compatibility to make my point about sacrificing a small amount of efficiency that the product never had anyway (therefore less important overall) for compatibility (way more important at this point in time for existing products).

Edited by Gabriele Graves
corrections

Share this post


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

BTW, I truly do not know what mesh head you make or how comparable it is against other products and what they offer and I don't know if you know for sure what head brand I am taking about (unless @Wulfie Reanimator  DM'd you) so I don't know how you are doing your comparison.  However, none of that matters because I was using that brand as an example because they have brought out a BoM head that preserves appliers compatibility to make my point about sacrificing a small amount of efficiency that the product never had anyway (therefore less important overall) for compatibility (way more important at this point in time for existing products).

I DON'T MAKE MESH HEADS.  Not sure where you got that idea at all. Did I say that?

 

I make furniture and decor items and houses. The rules for mesh are the same for all assets.   I have NO idea who Wulfie is and I received  no message from him/her.  I am simply looking at both the head in the OP and the head that I WEAR (not make).  It is a Letluka -- I may have not said that as trying not to mention brands. 

I am not arguing BOM at all. I really know little about it. You have made a lot of assumptions which are incorrect. A LOT of people know me - LOL.  Look at those posts and kudos ratings.  I am just  SIMPLY saying that TO ME the head mentioned in the OP is WAY too dense a mesh to be practical in Second Life. Many other items are also too dense -- this is not new news. 

There have been other threads on this subject as I said with people having issues with heads not rezzing quickly etc. I actually have a head (not by the maker in the OP) that takes a long time to rez. Hence I don't use it. Simple as that.

You of course can choose to use whatever head you want. That was NOT the question asked by the OP. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Chic Aeon said:

I DON'T MAKE MESH HEADS.  Not sure where you got that idea at all. Did I say that?

 

I make furniture and decor items and houses. The rules for mesh are the same for all assets.   I have NO idea who Wulfie is and I received  no message from him/her.  I am simply looking at both the head in the OP and the head that I WEAR (not make).  It is a Letluka -- I may have not said that as trying not to mention brands. 

I am not arguing BOM at all. I really know little about it. You have made a lot of assumptions which are incorrect. A LOT of people know me - LOL.  Look at those posts and kudos ratings.  I am just  SIMPLY saying that TO ME the head mentioned in the OP is WAY too dense a mesh to be practical in Second Life. Many other items are also too dense -- this is not new news. 

There have been other threads on this subject as I said with people having issues with heads not rezzing quickly etc. I actually have a head (not by the maker in the OP) that takes a long time to rez. Hence I don't use it. Simple as that.

You of course can choose to use whatever head you want. That was NOT the question asked by the OP. 

 

You said this "I have seen the head posted here and I have seen my head (with approximate a quarter of the triangles used -- just an educated guess) and I think they are very comparable in look."  I read that to mean "my head" == one you make.  Easy mistake to make.

Well, I *WAS* talking about BoM though and I wasn't responding to the OP in my first post either but to the BoM post by @loverdag and @Wulfie Reanimator.  I wasn't even talking about the OP's topic at all and so assumed when you responded to my post that it was to do with the conversation with @Wulfie Reanimator at that point.

LET ME BE CLEAR - I HAVE NOT DISAGREED WITH YOU ON THE DENSENESS OF THE MESH YOU WERE SHOWING OR DISCUSSING IN THIS TOPIC.  I DIDN'T EVEN READ ANY OF YOUR PREVIOUS POSTS UNTIL YOU RESPONDED TO ME AND THAT RESPONSE IS ALL I RESPONDED TO YOU ABOUT.  HOPEFULLY THAT IS CLEAR TO YOU.

I know that you know what you are talking about with regards to making mesh, I have definitely not suggested otherwise, ever.

"You have made a lot of assumptions which are incorrect." Really? because apart from the one about the interpretation of "my head" I actually think you are the one making some incorrect assumptions here.  Please point out these "lot of assumptions that are incorrect" with your reasons.

Seriously, I suggest you re-read the conversation I have had here with the proper context.

Edited by Gabriele Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Gabriele Graves I don't think Chic meant a head she's making, just a head she uses.

23 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said:

BTW, I truly do not know what mesh head you make or how comparable it is in against other products and what they offer and I don't know if you know for sure what head brand I am taking about (unless Wolfie DM'd you) so I don't know how you are doing your comparison.  However, none of that matters because I was using that brand as an example because they have brought out a BoM head that preserves appliers compatibility to make my point about sacrificing a small amount of efficiency that the product never had anyway (therefore less important overall) for compatibility (way more important at this point in time for existing products).

Right-click and Inspect, mostly. I'm going to use two of my heads as examples to compare and hopefully give some perspective of how different heads spend their resources for appearance. They will have almost identical features (appliers, alpha toggle, Omega, etc) I'll highlight some things at the end.

Catwa Steffi (bento rigged): Land Impact 8, Complexity 3662
The head has over 80K triangles and uses 19 different textures (40MB video memory including mesh, A LOT!)

0e79e83759.png

Utilizator Normie (bento rigged): Land Impact 17, Complexity 9160
The head has little over 2K triangles and uses 6 textures (10MB video memory including mesh.)

c13bfcf801.png

Paws Maned Wolf (unrigged mesh, several mouth/eye states): Land Impact 8, Complexity 2120
The head has 62K triangles and uses 3 textures (5MB video memory including mesh.)

fd70c0c672.png

I threw in the Maned Wolf head for a third point of view of a more outdated/unusual head, as it's for furries unlike the first two, which are entirely human heads. I have more heads on another account but it's already very uncomfortable navigating with a laptop and a trackpad.

Before I go further, just look at the numbers and the given complexity. Steffi uses 40 times the amount of triangles and 3 times the amount of textures, but somehow manages to have only 40% of the complexity of Normie. Does that make sense?

Here's what the heads actually look like:

Steffi only uses the High and Medium levels of detail, Low and Lowest are set to a minimum, eg: 15912, 15912, 5, 5 and 23790, 23790, 93, 8
Normie uses more stepped levels of detail, eg: 5598, 1398, 350, 176 and 1722, 861, 214, 54

So my point is, when people say "less tris" or "lower poly," they probably (hopefully) don't mean as low as the LL system body. (I think most can agree that it is outdated and lacks a lot of polish, like that sharp belly!) They just mean "reasonably low." Even if you were to go in and remove every other edge loop in Steffi's topology (mesh form), the difference would be indistinguishable to the plain eye.

There is so much unnecessary (unnoticeable) detail in a lot of mesh that could be safely and easily reduced. Things like the teeth on the inside of a mouth do not need to be individually modeled for everyday use. That kind of detail should only exist for people who want extreme closeups in their SL photography with real intent on showing the teeth.

The problem is, even if you made two versions of the head, one optimized and one with "ultra realistic detail," the uneducated masses (the average consumer) will probably want the one with more detail, because it's prettier, right? They're probably not wrong to think that either, especially when SL doesn't have a restricted camera distance like almost any regular game, but the trade-off is that everybody suffers when anybody is using it outside of its intended context.

Not even a full-body character in a modern (major) game with all of its clothing and accessories is going to use as many triangles as most bald heads in SL. There are lots of numbers on many recent-ish releases to cross-reference, even if they are kind of unspecific.

And now that I got started, I could keep going into hair, props, and texture use, but... I don't want to spend my vacation writing an essay on a pretty boring subject.

Edited by Wulfie Reanimator
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Wulfie Reanimator Yes I realised that afterwards.

I think what was missed is that I came here to respond to the BoM post here and none of what I wrote was about the main OP.

I am afraid if you are interested in whether my claims of decent geometry on the head I referred to are generally true then you will have to get the demo and play with it yourself.  It's a bit too involved for me to go making in depth comparisons like you suggest.  Although again I stress that I made those comments based on a lay-persons knowledge and they were really were just an example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gabriele Graves said:

@Wulfie Reanimator Yes I realised that afterwards.

I think what was missed is that I came here to respond to the BoM post here and none of what I wrote was about the main OP.

I am afraid if you are interested in whether my claims of decent geometry on the head I referred to are generally true then you will have to get the demo and play with it yourself.  It's a bit too involved for me to go making in depth comparisons like you suggest.  Although again I stress that I made those comments based on a lay-persons knowledge and they were really were just an example.

I understand, and I'm not going to start trashing any products. I regularly use the Steffi myself. I just want to give out some perspective on how significantly the SL performance could be changed if everybody was well educated on the importance of performance alongside actual features. And trust me when I say this, almost all of the "human head market" is in a similar state to Steffi, so there's no point in me trying to specifically pick it apart.

Without even having looked at the Genus head, I guarantee that the same applies, especially with all that @Elinah Iredell said in the opening post.

  • Thanks 2

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...