Jump to content
Qie Niangao

Where's my free Bakes-on-Mesh avatar update?

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Gabriele Graves said:

If those zoomed in features have lowres textures then it will show

if the object is small, even when zoomed in close it will be that relatively small on the screen that an accurately sized texture won't show any pixellation, that's where you fail understanding. It's called texel density, the amount of pixels per square unit. if a button on your shirt would take 30X30 pixels on your screen, a correctly UV mapped object of that size using a 128x128 pixels texture would go well beyond the necessary resolution to look good. What you don't know, however, is that a lot of creators don't give half a s**t about their UV size on the image. I've been teacher and advisor to many creators in the past and I've seen this happening a lot... a awful LOT. But they have to rush the release to earna da bigg maney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, OptimoMaximo said:

if the object is small, even when zoomed in close it will be that relatively small on the screen that an accurately sized texture won't show any pixellation, that's where you fail understanding. It's called texel density, the amount of pixels per square unit. if a button on your shirt would take 30X30 pixels on your screen, a correctly UV mapped object of that size using a 128x128 pixels texture would go well beyond the necessary resolution to look good. What you don't know, however, is that a lot of creators don't give half a s**t about their UV size on the image. I've been teacher and advisor to many creators in the past and I've seen this happening a lot... a awful LOT. But they have to rush the release to earna da bigg maney

I might have been more willing to discuss this with you and perhaps learn something I don't know but frankly I find your elitist tone offensive.

Edited by Gabriele Graves

Share this post


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

but frankly I find your elitist tone offensive.

sure, in the lack of argumentations the topic gets ditched. Way to go, good job. Exactly like those creators i was mentioning above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Optimo's approach might be a bit rough sure, but not exactly wrong, there is WAY too much stuff on SL with 1024x textures that shouldn't be 1024x sized textures, and in some cases, even 512x would still be too big for them. 1024x should be saved for the biggest parts. Buildings for example can reasonable get away with a couple of 1024 for the major parts of it. And for avatars, that would be the body, unless that body is split apart into multiple UV's like the ol "standard" which is split into threes, then go lower.

The face, while contributing to a smaller portion of the overall size is an exception to the rule since it's arguably the main "star of the show" in a way with character models, so it staying somewhat close in size to the body isn't entirely unreasonable, otherwise for the SL body, the ideal sizes would be 512x for the upper/lower body sections, and 256x for the head, but as I said, since the face is a main attraction, it can stay at 512x as well, but for any other parts of it's size compared to the rest, it should normally go smaller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is way beyond a bit rough in my opinion.

I never said he was wrong about inappropriate use of large textures where there is no need.  I am as aware of this as a non-expert can be but the definition of "where there is no need" is very subjective I feel.  I realise this is a bad example but someone who wants to zoom in on a locket around someone's neck and see a detailed portrait when it is larger on their screen, a 128x128 for the portrait isn't going to satisfy.  Maybe you can somehow make that seem as sharp and as good as a 1024 when it is made bigger but I doubt it.  Of course the response to this is, why would you want to do this?  It doesn't matter, they do and they want it to look great like in real life.  That is the part that gets missed.  There are lots of little things like this that some people feel it is important enough that they want to see them up close in glorious detail.

If I am still wrong about this then fair enough, I will be wrong - it was never about not being wrong, it was about the attitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, like I said, there can be exceptions to the rules, the rest of the texture for the locket itself probably won't need more than the 128x range, but the face for the picture can be just left as a big plain square sized face to let peeps put what ever pic they like on it, course me personally, I'd probably try to keep what ever picture I'd put there still within the 512x at max.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well that at least is a better position for discussion.  I have no desire to flog any dead horses over this.  All I wanted to know is that if everything had to end up going down to 128x128 for performance reasons would it all end up look cartoony and stylised where logos and pictures on things look like splotches, etc.  I mean they just upped the texture back to 1024 for BoM layers and avatars are part of the landscape after all.  Can we go down to 128x128 for skins and it still be indistinguishable from a highly detailed 1024?  If so then LL hasn't done themselves any favours presumably by allowing them.

Edited by Gabriele Graves

Share this post


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

Can we go down to 128x128 for skins and it still be indistinguishable from a highly detailed 1024?  If so then LL hasn't done themselves any favours presumably by allowing them

How can an avatar be even remotely compared to the tiny objects you were referring to?! Consistency in context? Of course an "hero" object like a character gets an higher texture size allocation, it's the button on the jacket that gets the lowest texture coverage! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 8/30/2019 at 4:42 PM, Gabriele Graves said:

I might have been more willing to discuss this with you and perhaps learn something I don't know but frankly I find your elitist tone offensive.

He's more than likely tired of repeating himself and being asked time and time again to justify his stance.

 

People don't really understand that keeping a consistent texel density improve the look of the scene, they just see that it's 10L$ for a 16x16 and 10L$ for a 1024x1024 and figure out they will just get the most bang for their buck.

Edited by Kyrah Abattoir
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In an ideal world, the viewer would do a better job of maintaining a consistent texel density and make uploaded texture size irrelevant. 

There is a software solution to this problem. 

There is also an expectation that in SL you should be able to shove your camera right up to everything and see hero detail, and the perception that if something isn't loaded at the highest possible resolution then something wrong.

Edited by CoffeeDujour
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/29/2019 at 12:07 PM, AyelaNewLife said:

People are inherently irrational, sadly.

That's what you get by starting with apes and adding stupidity.

  • Haha 1

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...