Jump to content

BOM needs to auto-calculate Normal and Spectral layers like Sansar


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 304 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

If you're planning where you should assign labor for a complicated new project in an elaborate system like Second Life, it most assuredly is about how many people need it.

And nothing about this project "removes" the ability of the handful of people doing what you say from continuing to do what they want to do with the bodies they already have.

I disagree, especially when a good majority at the beginning were asking for multiple material adaption into the system and were completely mystified as to why it wasn't. Like I said get it right the first time and it is easier to implement rather than having to rework code to add other things in later. If it can't be done programming wise fine I could understand that, but the fact they have said it is possible in the future then it should have been done from the get go.

As to the labor side of things, how many people in this instance is irrelevant considering the vast majority of people do use the mesh bodies and therefore all possibilities should have been considered and implemented as best as possible. It would be like me saying that they shouldn't bring back last names when many people couldn't care less about whether it comes back or not (if they even know about it etc. which I would dare say those that don't visit the forums don't know about it).

Also it's far more than a handful of people. The whole BoM system was and always has been a method to simplify the skin/mesh applying system (half done) as well as remove onion bodies from second life or at least make a drastic reduction in them. This is evident from the LL opening post of the feedback thread and only 1/3 of that has been achieved.

Seems anyway we are at an impasse so rather than filling a thread up with "no I'm right, no you're wrong" rhetoric I think it's best for me to leave it here.

Edit: didn't see your edit, so ill just say the vast majority of non-human avatars use the human bodies and mod those. Hence why there are far more mods for those bodies than the ones like solarian (anime being the exception with Avatar 2.0 which also ironically look as flat texture wise as the system avatar). Whilst the one I posted for the solarian body may be for that body, the same seller sells it for the human body. The fact that you think that the vast majority of furry's or non human avatars don't use human bodies as a base says it all... When you include the robot, mermaid, demon etc. avatars as part of the non-human (which I do) then the figure goes even higher.

Edited by Drayke Newall
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Exactly what @Klytyna and I have been saying all along in the main feedback thread time ago, and why BoM should have been dropped in favor of a materials layering system. It isn't nice when a piece of

Mesh that is using BOM can still have normal and specular maps, only that multiple normals/speculars won't be combined nor applied by system layers. Edit: I agree that it's inconvenient to say th

And in typical LL fashion one step forward, 2 steps back. Whilst what you said may be the case, why release BoM at all if it will not improve on what we already have? Sure it may reduce onion layered

Posted Images

 

 

6 hours ago, Drayke Newall said:

Edit: didn't see your edit, so ill just say the vast majority of non-human avatars use the human bodies and mod those. Hence why there are far more mods for those bodies than the ones like solarian (anime being the exception with Avatar 2.0 which also ironically look as flat texture wise as the system avatar). Whilst the one I posted for the solarian body may be for that body, the same seller sells it for the human body. The fact that you think that the vast majority of furry's or non human avatars don't use human bodies as a base says it all... When you include the robot, mermaid, demon etc. avatars as part of the non-human (which I do) then the figure goes even higher.

I'm sorry, I thought when you said "non-human bodies"...

9 hours ago, Drayke Newall said:

90% of non human bodies now days have multiple layers and normal maps to account for all this.

...you were talking about bodies that weren't - well - human. My mistake.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

why can't a bom mesh maker assign a spec and norm map t their object? obviously they can and do......why is baked on mesh a step back, but leaving the system as it was is better, was spec values baked into the the applier textures? no. so it was not any better prior to BoM. now applier are not needed.......the entire community is not beholden to one regular user in creating they own commercial Avatar if they want wide spread compatibility. more people can now create a lot easier...........i know because i am a creator who has benefited. it automatically put my own commercial avi on par with maitreya/ slink and the rest...........because now a person can wear any sl skin or tattoo on my avi where before they couldn't because i did not make it omega compatible..... before for you to where any sl skin on my avatar, either you or i had to pay a 3rd party or tough. creators, like me can put spec maps in our products just as it has always been.......and that takes care of that. why would something that is "live" be baked at all? after the spec info is baked into the composite texture, all that has been eliminated is the map..........what gain is that and how would someone change the map, by setting another map and then that map gets baked into the composite?

the only accomplished 1 out of 3 things? while that is debatable,still one thing is more than 0 thing. 

it was not better before and nothing has been lost only functionality has been gained and the best news of all is EVEN MORE can be added as life goes forward.

if baking specs is really a better way to go, then it will happen. really all we are talking about is time.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem I see here is that "baking specs" done right would be unfathomably complex. Materials Science complex, not merely videogame graphics hackery complicated. Different layers of normalmap may represent very different substances that don't merely layer but interact in ways specific to the pair of substances, not adequately represented by either individually. (E.g.: Suppose one normalmap represents a gel and the other a fabric; stack them; then add a liquid on top. There is nothing about how that liquid visually interacts with that fabric that informs how it would interact with the underlying gel if the fabric were removed.)

So the choice is to punt it down to the "videogame graphics hackery" level of representation, or to do that compositing by hand for each combination to be painted on the surface.

Of course before BoM there wasn't even a meaningful way to talk about this problem. Just slather the materials on successive layers and watch it all render like Campbell's Chunky Chicken Noodle Soup.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, shaniqua Sahara said:

why can't a bom mesh maker assign a spec and norm map t their object? obviously they can and do......why is baked on mesh a step back, but leaving the system as it was is better, was spec values baked into the the applier textures? no. so it was not any better prior to BoM. now applier are not needed.......the entire community is not beholden to one regular user in creating they own commercial Avatar if they want wide spread compatibility. more people can now create a lot easier...........i know because i am a creator who has benefited. it automatically put my own commercial avi on par with maitreya/ slink and the rest...........because now a person can wear any sl skin or tattoo on my avi where before they couldn't because i did not make it omega compatible..... before for you to where any sl skin on my avatar, either you or i had to pay a 3rd party or tough. creators, like me can put spec maps in our products just as it has always been.......and that takes care of that. why would something that is "live" be baked at all? after the spec info is baked into the composite texture, all that has been eliminated is the map..........what gain is that and how would someone change the map, by setting another map and then that map gets baked into the composite?

the only accomplished 1 out of 3 things? while that is debatable,still one thing is more than 0 thing. 

it was not better before and nothing has been lost only functionality has been gained and the best news of all is EVEN MORE can be added as life goes forward.

if baking specs is really a better way to go, then it will happen. really all we are talking about is time.

Sorry, but what's at hand is not having a baked in shininess of the texture, rather a combined set of material layers, where for example the specular map of, say, a scar is baked on top of the skin, and obviously so for its normal map. At current state of functionality, just the scar diffuse texture gets baked on top of the skin, leaving whatever specular and normal map underneath basically unvaried. Now, if for a scar might not be a problem, guess the look of a texture bra that has skin pores normal map and the same specularity that the skin has. Nice. Leave alone that people would rather wear a mesh bra, but the principle is the same. Whereas a suit might have a bakes on mesh shirt under the jacket to avoid mesh poking through, I certainly doubt that a fabric would have any semblance of a skin's specularity, not to mention skin pores and defined nipples from the normal map. 

Edited by OptimoMaximo
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, OptimoMaximo said:

Sorry, but what's at hand is not having a baked in shininess of the texture, rather a combined set of material layers, where for example the specular map of, say, a scar is baked on top of the skin, and obviously so for its normal map. At current state of functionality, just the scar diffuse texture gets baked on top of the skin, leaving whatever specular and normal map underneath basically unvaried. Now, if for a scar might not be a problem, guess the look of a texture bra that has skin pores normal map and the same specularity that the skin has. Nice. Leave alone that people would rather wear a mesh bra, but the principle is the same. Whereas a suit might have a bakes on mesh shirt under the jacket to avoid mesh poking through, I certainly doubt that a fabric would have any semblance of a skin's specularity, not to mention skin pores and defined nipples from the normal map. 

let me understand something.....are you saying that for example, a person makes an undershirt layer bra........the body itself has a spec map to give the skin gloss..........the user wears the bra, the bra gets baked into the texture and in so doing gets the same gloss values as the skin because the skin and bra are baked together and the spec is not?

if i understand that correctly then i do see your point and i concede that scenario did not occur to me............still i think over all it is a step forward.......and that depends on how much value one places on the different aspects. for me the fact that applier are no longer needed is huge and so i am grateful they implemented at least this much and can live with the shortcomings for now . i know LL is often very slow to move on things, but that seems to have improved over the last year, i would bet the real issues being brought up will be addressed by LL within 6 months. obviously i am guessing.

Edited by shaniqua Sahara
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, shaniqua Sahara said:

.the user wears the bra, the bra gets baked into the texture and in so doing gets the same gloss values as the skin because the skin and bra are baked together and the spec is not?

The thing is that BoM wearables do not take any normal or specularity at all, they aren't even aware of such a feature. So basically the baking happens only on the color texture, while normal and specular stay the same. Not to mention that alphas do not work on all channels, making the whole system usable only by avatars that comply to the basic avatar uv layout / materials arrangement, cutting out custom avatars by doing so. 

 

3 hours ago, shaniqua Sahara said:

and that depends on how much value one places on the different aspects. for me the fact that applier are no longer needed is huge

And I convene with you about appliers no longer needed, but I don't give much value to something that is incomplete for a wider variety of content that goes well beyond a mere human avatar that uses the legacy uv maps. 

 

3 hours ago, shaniqua Sahara said:

i would bet the real issues being brought up will be addressed by LL within 6 months. obviously i am guessing

Don't bet too much money, you're most likely gonna lose it. Instead, I bet LL won't do anything else on this project and leave it as it is, calling the day, for at least the next two-five years, when the outcry will be so loud that they can't really play deaf anymore, after content creators have established a set of work arounds that will break or need updating. 

Edited by OptimoMaximo
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OptimoMaximo said:

The thing is that BoM wearables do not take any normal or specularity at all, they aren't even aware of such a feature. So basically the baking happens only on the color texture, while normal and specular stay the same. Not to mention that alphas do not work on all channels, making the whole system usable only by avatars that comply to the basic avatar uv layout / materials arrangement, cutting out custom avatars by doing so. 

 

There is, of course, no such thing as a "BoM wearable" at all. They are system wearables designed for the system body and date back to 2003. The thing that made Bakes-on-Mesh practical is that most of the work was already done. There was very little that needed to be done to use the existing baking service to composite diffuse textures from the existing system wearables and then apply that to a worn mesh instead of the system body. When it comes to materials, none of that work was already done, either on the baking service side or the system wearables side. That means a lot of work would need to be done from scratch. Now factor in this, which I've been saying over and over again:

On 10/12/2019 at 6:11 AM, Theresa Tennyson said:

With the old system avatars with their matte, comparatively cartoony/"arty" skins, clothing painted on them wasn't a jarring difference in realism.

However, I'm arguing that when you have a modern mesh avatar with a highly detailed and realistic skin/look including materials, drawn-on clothing will look like crap even if it's drawn on using materials. Even clothing drawn on a stand-off layer doesn't look that great. (Let's be honest: a latex bodysuit on a clothing onion layer doesn't look like a latex bodysuit; it looks likr someone was bathing in tool-handle dip.) Not having that stand-off will just make things worse. That's not something that a normal map will really help in Second Life because in Second Life lighting is highly variable and we can see things close-up from many angles - it won't be able to make the clothing item appear to be above the surface of the skin like real clothing is.

 

Or, you may prefer how this person put it:

4 hours ago, OptimoMaximo said:

 Leave alone that people would rather wear a mesh bra

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, OptimoMaximo said:

making the whole system usable only by avatars that comply to the basic avatar uv layout / materials arrangement, cutting out custom avatars by doing so. 

This is unture. BOM can be used by any avatar/attachment with any kind of UV layout. The system is UV-agnostic, it just bakes.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, OptimoMaximo said:

The thing is that BoM wearables do not take any normal or specularity at all, they aren't even aware of such a feature. So basically the baking happens only on the color texture, while normal and specular stay the same.

i don't understand how that can be the case. regardless the layer worn, in the end the result is one (composited) texture. that is the diffuse texture the avi ends up wearing.

separately the spec map that is set for the body works as it always does......it can't tell the composited bra section from the rest of the skin, it will apply the spec values across the entire diffuse texture, including the bra, certainly the the bra will be glossy.

now to me, that actually sounds like something that should not be, the body spec and norm maps should exclude the bra section because obviously a bra is different material than organic skin, it should not be reflecting light the same.....i should be testing these things.

in any case though. you say "BoM wearables do not take any normal or specularity at all, they aren't even aware of such a feature"

that doesn't make any sense to me....they can't be aware of any such feature. why would a diffuse map be aware of a spec map, it's illogical.......all "BoM wearables"  are is a series of texture layers, that's all. those layers are in essence texture layers..........you can't add a spec map to another map...........and that is essentially what you are saying...........what logic can allow an underwear layer to be given spec values? the underwear "layer" is a diffuse texture itself, you can't add a texture to a texture. uni/aux layers are the same thing as original clothing layers..............there is no way to add spec and norm maps to those original layers, hence they cannot be applied to any of the other layers(BoM wearables).

EDIT- it seems to me the only case you can be making is that a whole completely brand new system of texturing be invented, rather than implementing features in a pre-existing system.

 

Edited by shaniqua Sahara
Link to post
Share on other sites

BoM= assign a tag to an object and now all the functionality ruth has will be directed to that object..........oh and here about a dozen or so extra layers............that's all folks.

nothing more than that..........it is that simple.

now what can be done with that....a lot and a lot still unknown i'm sure...........but one thing that cannot be done is to somehow magically add speculate values to diffuse layers. to add specular reflection, sl system requires a map..............but BoM is already maps. so it can't be done.......only revamping the texturing system could such a thing be entertained.

those are facts. regardless any potential claims to the contrary.

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

This is unture. BOM can be used by any avatar/attachment with any kind of UV layout. The system is UV-agnostic, it just bakes

Sure, like if I have another uv arrangement that goes far beyond the 3 materials of a system avatar that forces to use, say, 10 materials, with the auxiliary channels not supporting alphas, BoM is very usable... 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, shaniqua Sahara said:

hat doesn't make any sense to me....they can't be aware of any such feature. why would a diffuse map be aware of a spec map, it's illogical

It makes sense if you implemented the very same system also for the normals and specular maps, taking the alpha from the diffuse, and bake a composite specular and normal map. But who cares, BoM had to revive the old dead stuff from the times when materials did not exist, so why go through the effort? 

 

7 hours ago, shaniqua Sahara said:

EDIT- it seems to me the only case you can be making is that a whole completely brand new system of texturing be invented, rather than implementing features in a pre-existing system

That's what I've been advocating for in the main feedback  thread long ago already, keep the development of materials and don't revive a dead feature. If you have the patience to go back in that thread to find my posts, you'll see that I've been saying this all along. And the same fan boys that are pointing out how I'm wrong just above were there to defend this necro-feature the same way, with the same blind argumentations.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OptimoMaximo said:

Sure, like if I have another uv arrangement that goes far beyond the 3 materials of a system avatar that forces to use, say, 10 materials, with the auxiliary channels not supporting alphas, BoM is very usable... 

but Optimo what you are failing to bare in mind is that all LL did was flip a switch, polished up a few things, tossed in a dozen skittles and that's it. they didn't plan a big project. what you want was outside the scope of what they planned. changing how things work is a majoring undertaking, BoM was not. BoM was already there, they just had to touch it up.

you making the case for a better texturing system is irrespective to BoM because BoM is merely a logical step given the way actual system currently in place works.

and how one also can know this is true is because you could make your case before BoM was even conceived and you can still make the same case after BoM has been implemented.

that demonstrates your argument is independent of BoM and so you can't criticize BoM itself because it is just a part of the system you want to replace. 

to put it another way..........if your argument is to replace the current texturing system with a new one, then that is a criticism of the system itself, so criticizing BoM is redundant.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, OptimoMaximo said:

Sure, like if I have another uv arrangement that goes far beyond the 3 materials of a system avatar that forces to use, say, 10 materials, with the auxiliary channels not supporting alphas, BoM is very usable... 

Yup, you got it.

You don't need to use just alphas with BOM, alpha cuts still work (unless I've missed the memo), and BOM supports 11 textures even for those that go far beyond the norm. We figured them out and they're just another technique for creating, with its own downsides.

Alpha cuts shouldn't be bismissed just because something slightly "better" exists, because obviously BOM has pretty big downsides of its own, but excessive texture usage is not one, which is why it's a good iteration over what currently existed.

You can combine the two features and you don't have to use it exactly as intended.

 

Edited by Wulfie Reanimator
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

Alpha cuts shouldn't be bismissed just because something slightly "better" exists, because obviously BOM has pretty big downsides of its own but excessive texture usage is not one, which is why it's a good iteration over what currently existed.

absolutely.  i've had people convey to me the impression they believe BoM is in part meant to replace alpha cuts.

that is thinking that BoM is something much more than it actually is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, OptimoMaximo said:

Sure, like if I have another uv arrangement that goes far beyond the 3 materials of a system avatar that forces to use, say, 10 materials, with the auxiliary channels not supporting alphas, BoM is very usable... 

Using 10 channels for a single avatar is smart, but wearing a mesh bra is dumb? And it seems to me that if your new avatar and clothing were rigged properly you wouldn't need alphas on your other channels.

Bear in mind that prior to BoM people could buy applier clothing that had materials and will look more realistic than the same textures directly on the avatar skin because it's above the skin, and they still bought mesh bras.

Edited by Theresa Tennyson
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, shaniqua Sahara said:

what you want was outside the scope of what they planned.

what i wanted? what a development team worth that name would have done, you should say. As i pointed out already in the thread i referred you to previously, is that LL always chooses the easiest and labor unintensive route, no matter what, instead of moving on and keep developing existent features (like materials) and expand on those. Considering the exaggerated amount of time wasted spent on BoM, they might have as well chosen to extend materials, but the geniuses advocating for system layers revival insisted so much in their lack of understanding the implications...

1 hour ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

Yup, you got it.

You don't need to use just alphas with BOM, alpha cuts still work (unless I've missed the memo), 

And that's what needs to be avoided and ditched. Yup, you didn't get that.

1 hour ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

and BOM supports 11 textures even for those that go far beyond the norm. We figured them out and they're just another technique for creating, with its own downsides.

with the problem of alpha masking wearables not working on the auxiliary channels. Uh-oh... see above... slices can't be worked to keep a reasonable LoD degradation... slices are as bad as onion layers, each tiny slice piece is a waste of resource if, say an arm, could be worked with an alpha layer on a single piece. Of course that system can't be deprecated, it's a scripted user-created system, not an inherent feature of SL itself.

1 hour ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

Alpha cuts shouldn't be bismissed just because something slightly "better" exists, because obviously BOM has pretty big downsides of its own, but excessive texture usage is not one, which is why it's a good iteration over what currently existed.

yeah, sure...whatever. Read below, that goes well with this statement of yours

1 hour ago, shaniqua Sahara said:

i've had people convey to me the impression they believe BoM is in part meant to replace alpha cuts.

that is thinking that BoM is something much more than it actually is.

At current state of functionality, it can't, obviously. But it's what a necro-feature like BoM is supposed to deliver, if it was delivered in its entirety instead of being left partially working. You think that slicing is needed because alphas don't work properly fully across the feature-set,  because its current working order is not a feature, it's a shortcoming.

1 hour ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Using 10 channels for a single avatar is smart, but wearing a mesh bra is dumb?

because you think small and narrow in your fashionista human-centric environment, it doesn't mean everyone has as well. If i make avatars that are 3 times or more as big as a default avatar, the texture coverage in number of pixels per unit, aka texel density, needs more texture surface than a puny human to deliver the same resolution quality. So yes, having 10 channels for such type of avatar is smart, and wearing a mesh bra is dumb since those are wasted polygons (and textures) laying unseen under garments, sitting there for what reason?

1 hour ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Bear in mind that prior to BoM people could buy applier clothing that had materials and will look more realistic than the same textures directly on the avatar skin because it's above the skin, and they still bought mesh bras.

And you're still in your tiny environment, when you talk about clothing as if it were the only use for such a feature. More avatar customization doesn't imply fashion only. Circuitry exposed through the skin, for example? Don't tell me that specular, environment, normal and glossiness maps of copper and metals can be the same of a skin. Minorities needs? Perhaps, but as developers LL should see the entire range of applications for the entire userbase. That's why i always advocated for a material layering system instead of this crippled necro-feature, left with shortcomings because short-sighted individual feedback saw it fit for their tiny use so who cares about the other uses, and Da Lab rubs their hands seeing how much work they can just neglect spare. As per "they still bought mesh bras", creators sell what customers ask for even if that makes no sense, just for the buck. And the request comes from the dumb claim that everything has to have 3D depth, no matter what the cost is under any other standpoint. Then the sheeps folllow the flow set by the first one in the herd.

With all this said, i know you all will jump all over me trying to prove me wrong with your non-sensical argumentations, that's fine, i don't care. I'm done, i won't post anymore in here even if you'll be quoting me, so don't bother. The reader who can measure up to these reasonings will understand. You guys certainly won't. Have a good day! :)

 

Edited by OptimoMaximo
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, OptimoMaximo said:

i know you all will jump all over me trying to prove me wrong

I'm sorry you have to be on the defensive on three different fronts, but anyway.

The point I'm making is that what you suggest is not possible yet. Until it is, it's not unreasonable to concede that BOM does some things better than before, so it's okay to take advantage of those aspects until we can ditch the old system entirely. Yes, alpha cuts are bad, I've said as much. But before, we had alpha cuts AND excessive textures. One problem at a time, yeah?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, OptimoMaximo said:

OH sure, like the universal wearable with auxiliary channels wasn't made for BoM, right. 

And about wearing a mesh bra, it's just outright dumb. 

 

This thread is a bit over my head, but...

My first rule in dressing is go mesh, all the way. If I can find a mesh bra to go under my top, even if I don’t like it all that much, that is what I will wear.

My second rule in dressing is use appliers if materials are used. To me materials are very important for appliers. That is my major dislike of BoM, no materials. I saw someone say that someone has a workaround but I have not been able to find it, so I’ll believe it when I see it, and I haven’t.

And my third rule in dressing that overrides all other rules is, if it needs an alpha look for something else to wear.

Granted I’m just a dumb user, but I have rules and I attempt to follow them.

 

To the tune ‘War’...

BoM, huh, what is it good for, absolutely nothin.

 

Well maybe not that bad, I do see some good to it, but only in addition to what we have and not as a replacement. Not that that is the intention, I don’t know, but if it is I will never update my avatar ever again. And if that is not possible then I’m back the Linden Lab Classic avatar, if I’m going to look bad at least it will be free.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Teagan Tobias said:

That is my major dislike of BoM, no materials.

please understand that does not make any sense. it is the same as saying "Silk or cotton or leather.....has no light". it does not make sense.

BoM flattens diffuse textures together, that's all. how can anyone make demands of something that doesn't have that capability?

BoM sucks because if can't cook my dinner. that is basically what is being said.

all you critics and complainers of BoM cannot state or explain how things could have been done different working under the constraints of the actual system in use.......how do you fix the car that you actually drive to work, not some theoretical car that maybe one day you can have........ not one person is going to saying anything that speaks to how BoM could otherwise have been implemented without changing the entire !@#$$  system that sl uses, because there is nothing to be said. they can only confuse and obfuscate the issue by saying all kinds of things should have been done with BoM but don't make it clear that those things could only be done in a system that doesn't actually exist.

 

the logic of the naysayers here is this: SL's texturing system has a carburetor, sl changed the gas filter surrounding the carburetor so it could breath easier. people then come along and say "that was stupid, that gas filter is worthless, instead of changing the filter, you should have rebuilt the engine to use fuel injection.............so you see now why changing the gas filter is a stupid thing to do?"

the title of this thread is "

BOM needs to auto-calculate Normal and Spectral layers like Sansar"

 

let the OP explain how "BoM" can do that? he said BoM needs to do something.........explain how that can be done OP.

he can't. he can only explain how it can be done without "BoM". because BoM, like so many other things in sl, doesn't have anything to do with materials at all.

it's true. read this entire thread carefully, you'll see it is all there.

the whole problem is, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what BoM is.

Edited by shaniqua Sahara
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, shaniqua Sahara said:

please understand that does not make any sense. it is the same as saying "Silk or cotton or leather.....has no light". it does not make sense.

BoM flattens diffuse textures together, that's all. how can anyone make demands of something that doesn't have that capability?

BoM sucks because if can't cook my dinner. that is basically what is being said.

all you critics and complainers of BoM cannot state or explain how things could have been done different working under the constraints of the actual system in use.......how do you fix the car that you actually drive to work, not some theoretical car that maybe one day you can have........ not one person is going to saying anything that speaks to how BoM could otherwise have been implemented without changing the entire !@#$$  system that sl uses, because there is nothing to be said. they can only confuse and obfuscate the issue by saying all kinds of things should have been done with BoM but don't make it clear that those things could only be done in a system that doesn't actually exist.

 

the logic of the naysayers here is this: SL's texturing system has a carburetor, sl changed the gas filter surrounding the carburetor so it could breath easier. people then come along and say "that was stupid, that gas filter is worthless, instead of changing the filter, you should have rebuilt the engine to use fuel injection.............so you see now why changing the gas filter is a stupid thing to do?"

the title of this thread is "

BOM needs to auto-calculate Normal and Spectral layers like Sansar"

 

let the OP explain how "BoM" can do that? he said BoM needs to do something.........explain how that can be done OP.

he can't. he can only explain how it can be done without "BoM". because BoM, like so many other things in sl, doesn't have anything to do with materials at all.

it's true. read this entire thread carefully, you'll see it is all there.

the whole problem is, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what BoM is.

 

Your first sentence, your right, makes no sense.

 

Your second sentence, I am making no demands, I am saying that is something I don’t like about it, I’m demanding nothing. As of right now I can just not use it, and if that does not change...

 

Your third sentence, well, now you get it, if it can’t make my dinner, what good is it. /s

 

Your next paragraph, I’m not saying anything about how it should have been done or how it should work, only that it is appearing to me to be very invasive into what does work, and I would regret that.

 

And next, naysayer, I did say “I do see some good to it, but only in addition to what we have”, I just don’t want to be forced into using it. It does fix some problems, alphas clashing I hear, if I don’t half to use it then its a good thing.

 

And the last part, you appear to be addressing the OP. (?)

But your last line, “the whole problem is, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what BoM is”.

Don’t stop there.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Teagan Tobias said:

 

Your first sentence, your right, makes no sense.

 

Your second sentence, I am making no demands, I am saying that is something I don’t like about it, I’m demanding nothing. As of right now I can just not use it, and if that does not change...

 

Your third sentence, well, now you get it, if it can’t make my dinner, what good is it. /s

 

Your next paragraph, I’m not saying anything about how it should have been done or how it should work, only that it is appearing to me to be very invasive into what does work, and I would regret that.

 

And next, naysayer, I did say “I do see some good to it, but only in addition to what we have”, I just don’t want to be forced into using it. It does fix some problems, alphas clashing I hear, if I don’t half to use it then its a good thing.

 

And the last part, you appear to be addressing the OP. (?)

But your last line, “the whole problem is, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what BoM is”.

Don’t stop there.

 

 

that wasn't all directed at you. only the first line.

the "demand" thing was a general statement meaning people complaining about BoM, ask for functions that aren't capable of being delivered by BoM.

if you re-read it without thinking it applies to you, you will see i was not insulting you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 304 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

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...