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

[Drayke Newall]

Does BoM have a use? Sure it does, but the main issue is that for 5 years the userbase as well as content creation has gone down one path expanding on possibilities and brining SL to a reasonable quality standard, yet all BoM has done is taken it a step back from there. The very fact Teagan posted someone has a work around for non-features in BoM doesn't surprise me at all and even predicted it in my first post of the thread. It will only get worse and 5 years down the track another quick fix from Lab will be introduced to deal with some unfriendly workaround just like onion bodies now.

6 hours ago, shaniqua Sahara said:

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

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

You basically answered your own question, albeit very basically. If as you say all BoM does is flattens diffuse textures together, why didn't LL look at the same process for Normal and Specular Maps. Theoretically they are the same, just a texture, so why didn't they just apply the same process to the Normal and Specular Channels as they did to the diffuse channel.

Would the above work, no idea (can't see why not though), I'm not that tech savvy, though it does make me wonder if it was even looked into. From what I can see all LL did is move one old system to a new completely incompatible system, gave themselves a pat on the back and said done.

Quote

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

No, I don't believe there is a misunderstanding. BoM is a method implemented to reduce appliers, make content creation easier across different mesh bodies and reduce or remove onion layer bodies. Has this been achieved? No, but in part it has.

I don't have a problem with the idea of BoM. I want it to work, I want to use it. The problem I have with BoM is that it doesn't keep the status quo with what is currently available (step backwards) and therefore means that people who use multiple material layers currently are forced to either live with laggy mesh onion bodies that will now never be updated (that many of us want to be removed) or downgrade to an inferior (yet newer) mesh body that will make their 'look' drastically flat or different.

OptimoMaximo's scar example is a perfect one where multiple materials would be a necessity. To expand it further given the month we are in, a Halloween makeup for the face with stitches etc. All possible to make look realistic with materials however with BoM-v1 not possible unless the entire skin and scar/makeup is made by the same skin maker. This then means that you are back to square one of having to only select and support one creator vs the current (or is it now older?) and better system of having the ability to buy a really cool skin, then go to a store that sells Halloween makeup and apply that over your skin. The later creating far more possibilities, user creation and income for all.

 

EDIT: Should have looked at the other threads prior to this one after not looking at the forums for so long. Laughable that now those same content creators hailing the new and improved mesh bodies with a reduced ARC and being onion layer free have now (or considering) introduced applier layers and material layers etc. Says it all and is how onion layer bodies started 1 layer turned to multiple. Wish there was a 'told you so' emoji.

Edited October 30, 2019 by Drayke Newall

[shaniqua Sahara]

please don't take offensive to how i may word some things, my intent is only to be as clear as possible, not to talk down to you or insult you.

 

 

3 hours ago, Drayke Newall said:

Does BoM have a use? Sure it does, but the main issue is that for 5 years the userbase as well as content creation has gone down one path expanding on possibilities and brining SL to a reasonable quality standard, yet all BoM has done is taken it a step back from there. The very fact Teagan posted someone has a work around for non-features in BoM doesn't surprise me at all and even predicted it in my first post of the thread. It will only get worse and 5 years down the track another quick fix from Lab will be introduced to deal with some unfriendly workaround just like onion bodies now.

this literally means nothing.

BoM does not lack any feature, it can't, because it is only a collection of preexisting processes. this indicates you don't understand what BoM is. you think you do, but you don't.

i swear this is a case of people being so close to something they are not seeing what is right under their nose.

3 hours ago, Drayke Newall said:

You basically answered your own question, albeit very basically. If as you say all BoM does is flattens diffuse textures together, why didn't LL look at the same process for Normal and Specular Maps. Theoretically they are the same, just a texture, so why didn't they just apply the same process to the Normal and Specular Channels as they did to the diffuse channel.

Would the above work, no idea (can't see why not though), I'm not that tech savvy, though it does make me wonder if it was even looked into. From what I can see all LL did is move one old system to a new completely incompatible system, gave themselves a pat on the back and said done.

no i did not answer my own question and what you wrote shows you do not understand BoM or maps. 

you said "Theoretically they are the same, just a texture,"............no, that is faulty understanding. they are not the same. first the use of the word "texture" is just a label sl choose to use to refer to images. so while they are all "textures" they are not all equal, they do not carry the same information and actually are "maps". these "maps" are made to work in conjunction with one another, seperately. these maps called "diffuse", "Specular" and "normal". they all work together by laying one on top of another, then the entire "stack" of textures is rendered as one composite texture, which is a JPG.2000 image format.

now when the stack is rendered in sl, as it has been before and after BoM, the diffuse maps get flattened together because they are of the same type. the normal and spec maps are not and have never been rendered as part of the composite texture. sl simple does not have the framework to render the specular and normal maps as part of that composite texture. in sl's frame work, you need maps to hold the information. those maps can be composited of their own kind, but while you can flatten green with purple, you can't flatten purple with a brick, just as you cannot flatten a brick with sunlight. they are 3 separate maps that work separately and apart from each other. all this thing called "BoM" is doing is flattening the diffuse maps. that's it. BoM a name so we can refer to a process. that is where is ends. diffuse maps have nothing to do with spec or normal maps....... BoM is only a process that pertains to how diffuse textures behave. so can you now also understand why "BoM"  cannot be lacking features? it's just squashing paint together.

you see when you open a model in a 3d program and you automatically see highlights and shadows, that is what everyone wants........you think that BoM could have been that?

no, because merging a paint layer down just like you do in photo shop is just a process of merging down a paint layer.

it does not have any other magic or code or tags that can be used and are not.

now that i have explained that. can you see a way for the spec maps be flattened into the color maps and have it work as expected? i don;t meae give me code. i mean can you see, in some way, a .jpg can hold that information and sl's current engine can render it?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TLDR: textures are not all the same. sl works with 3 separate textures. these 3 types of textures cannot be merged together, think of them as 3 different entities that do their own thing. that is how sl set it up to work. BoM is just the act of flattening the color textures and directing the functionality of Ruth to a custom object. period.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ok so lets say BoM had never been done.........none of the things you people want could have been done anyway. the only way to get what you want to write a new texturing system. so whether BoM was done or not, still you'd never get what you want. BoM effects nothing.

this is no step back Drayke........ you actually are just saying that because you contradict yourself, you said it was a step back because mulit-material creators are either stuck with onion bodies or "flat" as you say, bodies.........so if they are "stuck" with, then their is no step back. nothing is lost. everything thing is exactly the same.........only better.

none of the things you want, is sl capable of doing and BoM did not prevent any of them from happening. sl is making the best of it's current system, you can want it to cook your dinner, but there simple is no apparatus to do it..........you want to calculate baked specularity........then build a new system, but why are you complaining about what is being done with the old system?.......oh and btw.........they did not "drag" "any" system" into anything else. ruth could already do what she could do..............THAT is the system, all they did was let your object now be ruth. that is all........the texturing engine and framework remains the same and in that framework spec maps and color maps cannot be merged.

if you car only has 4 gears, you can never put in 5th gear no matter how much you beg or complain. you simply have to build a new car with 5 gears.........so why beat up on the the 4th gear when it's not it's fault?

the big thing about BoM. the best and coolest thing, is that it lets your object be ruth. that is a big deal and should be seen in that light, because that is what it is.

i know you did not read my earlier posts.

anyhows..........i am tired of writing............if someone doesn't get it by now, i will never be able to explain it better. so i am pretty much going to leave it here.

 

Edited October 30, 2019 by shaniqua Sahara

[Drayke Newall]

1 hour ago, shaniqua Sahara said:

now that i have explained that. can you see a way for the spec maps be flattened into the color maps and have it work as expected? i don;t meae give me code. i mean can you see, in some way, a .jpg can hold that information and sl's current engine can render it?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TLDR: textures are not all the same. sl works with 3 separate textures. these 3 types of textures cannot be merged together, think of them as 3 different entities that do their own thing. that is how sl set it up to work. BoM is just the act of flattening the color textures and directing the functionality of Ruth to a custom object. period.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wouldn't take offence at all with what you wrote.

I never said they should merge as one whole texture nor has any person for that matter. Give us some credibility, it isn't like some of us use diffuse, normal or specular maps everyday for our RL professions or anything... 🙄

Code can be written so that you can 'merge' all diffuse, all normal and all specular maps as separate diffuse, normal and specular maps. I mean come on, the normal maps and specular maps are currently independent of the diffuse texture which would mean that it couldn't be that hard to keep them separate whilst applying the same system they did to diffuse texture to the others. Not sure if I can explain it any different other than the aforementioned or by saying if we have 11 diffuse texture spots now why cant we have 11 normal and 11 specular spots to use as well all independent of each other?

Like I said, I'm no coding genius but surely that isn't to much to ask for?

Quote

ok so lets say BoM had never been done.........none of the things you people want could have been done anyway. the only way to get what you want to write a new texturing system. so whether BoM was done or not, still you'd never get what you want. BoM effects nothing.

this is no step back Drayke........ you actually are just saying that because you contradict yourself, you said it was a step back because mulit-material creators are either stuck with onion bodies or "flat" as you say, bodies.........so if they are "stuck" with, then their is no step back. nothing is lost. everything thing is exactly the same.........only better.

Firstly, it is only code of which the texture system has already been re-written before to introduce materials and even BoM on modern mesh. If we couldn't have anything the users want because of the system not being able to handle it, we wouldn't have mesh, materials, pathfinding, animesh, bento, the list goes on. All of these didn't exist before but do now because the userbase wanted them so the code was re-written or new code implemented. Also BoM is nothing more than a fancy name of a system that existed from day one in SL. I.E. 2002 adapted to new mesh.

You say it cant be done? I highly doubt its that issue. As has been said many times, LL have stated that they will be looking into and possibly introducing material updates to BoM in the future. That alone should be evidence enough that it could never be, all it says is that the implemented a half done idea as they have with all their releases.

As to being a step back, it is, as it means the multi material system we have had for 5 years now (of which many products on marketplace rely on) is irrelevant on BoM mesh bodies. I never said it was a step backwards because people get stuck with anything. What I did say is that it was one of LL primary goals of BoM to remove or drastically reduce onion layered mesh bodies from SL due to lag (its stated right in the first post on the feedback thread) this hasn't happened and all arrows point to even BoM bodies now re-introducing onion layers due to not having applier or material layers.

Quote

none of the things you want, is sl capable of doing and BoM did not prevent any of them from happening. sl is making the best of it's current system, you can want it to cook your dinner, but there simple is no apparatus to do it..........you want to calculate baked specularity........then build a new system, but why are you complaining about what is being done with the old system?.......oh and btw.........they did not "drag" "any" system" into anything else. ruth could already do what she could do..............THAT is the system, all they did was let your object now be ruth. that is all........the texturing engine and framework remains the same and in that framework spec maps and color maps cannot be merged.

Actually if I wanted SL to cook me dinner I'm sure the right coding could do it. I mean, xCite made an external *blank* do "pleasurable" things to people in RL when avatars '😉woohoo'd😉' in SL at the same time...

It's not that we are complaining about LL using and old system. We know that they used old baking systems with BoM. What we are complaining about is the fact they used it without modernising it to current SL standards (to include multiple materials) that we have an issue with. We're complaining they haven't changed the onion layer lag issue or the applier issue as it has come to light with even Slink's body now having an additional onion layer because of this very issue raised in this thread.

Quote

anyhows..........i am tired of writing............if someone doesn't get it by now, i will never be able to explain it better. so i am pretty much going to leave it here.

We understand where you are coming from and I am sure all in this thread want BoM, I certainly do (mainly to remove onion layered bodies and lag), but not a half done system with promises from LL to improve it later with material support. They should get it right the first time then release it otherwise all you will get is workaround by the userbase, flooding of the marketplace of user creations that will be obsolete in a few years and content creator and userbase frustration due to having to convert or buy new items.

Edited October 30, 2019 by Drayke Newall

[shaniqua Sahara]

15 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

I never said they should merge as one whole texture nor has any person for that matter. Give us some credibility, it isn't like some of us don't use diffuse, normal or specular maps everyday for our RL professions or anything... 🙄

Code can be written so that you can 'merge' all diffuse, all normal and all specular maps as separate diffuse, normal and specular maps. I mean come on, the normal maps and specular maps are currently independent of the diffuse texture which would mean that it couldn't be that hard to keep them separate whilst applying the same system they did to diffuse texture to the others. Not sure if I can explain it any different other than the aforementioned or by saying if we have 11 diffuse texture spots now why cant we have 11 normal and 11 specular spots to use as well all independent of each other?

Like I said, I'm no coding genius but surely that isn't to much to ask for?

Firstly, it is only code of which the texture system has already been re-written before to introduce materials and even BoM on modern mesh. If we couldn't have anything the users want, we wouldn't have mesh, materials, pathfinding, animesh, bento, the list goes on. All of these didn't exist before but do now because the userbase wanted them so the code was re-written or new code implemented. Also BoM is nothing more than a fancy name of a system that existed from day one in SL. I.E. 2002 adapted to new mesh.

You say it cant be done? I highly doubt its that issue. As has been said many times, LL have stated that they will be looking into and possibly introducing material updates to BoM in the future. That alone should be evidence enough that it could never be, all it says is that the implemented a half done idea as they have with all their releases.

As to being a step back, it is, as it means the multi material system we have had for 5 years now is irrelevant on BoM mesh bodies. I never said it was a step backwards because people get stuck with anything. What I did say is that it was one of LL primary goals of BoM to remove or drastically reduce onion layered mesh bodies from SL due to lag (its stated right in the first post on the feedback thread) this hasn't happened and all arrows point to even BoM bodies now re-introducing onion layers due to not having applier or material layers.

Actually if I wanted SL to cook me dinner I'm sure the right coding could do it. I mean, xCite made an external *blank* do "pleasurable" things to people in RL when avatars '😉woohoo'd😉' in SL at the same time...

It's not that we are complaining about LL using and old system. We know that they used old baking systems with BoM. What we are complaining about is the fact they used it without modernising it to current SL standards (to include multiple materials) that we have an issue with. We're complaining they haven't changed the onion layer lag issue or the applier issue as it has come to light with even Slink's body now having an additional onion layer because of this very issue raised in this thread.

We understand where you are coming from and I am sure all in this thread want BoM, I certainly do (mainly to remove onion layered bodies and lag), but not a half done system with promises from LL to improve it later with material support. They should get it right the first time then release it.

sags my shoulders........basically you are saying sl has not done enough................so what does that have to do with "BoM"?

i mean jeez.........that is the point..........the project was just a little thing wit the goal of letting a cutom object be ruth..........people are saying that is not ggod and then using the aurgment that sl has not done more to revamp their textering system, but that is a problem you have with LL. why does that make the functionality we do have not worth having?

explaining about the texture and all is to give context to the point and because other will read this also that may not know somethings. not that i thought you didn't know things like sl uses 3 maps.

you are making me repeat myself.please read my earlier posts.

Edited October 30, 2019 by shaniqua Sahara

[Drayke Newall]

1 hour ago, shaniqua Sahara said:

sags my shoulders........basically you are saying sl has not done enough................so what does that have to do with "BoM"?

i mean jeez.........that is the point..........the project was just a little thing wit the goal of letting a cutom object be ruth..........people are saying that is not ggod and then using the aurgment that sl has not done more to revamp their textering system, but that is a problem you have with LL.

Yes, that is precisely what I and others are saying LL has not done enough in this case and it has everything to do with BoM. It was never started as a small project to solely allow baked on texturing to the new mesh body and that is only its basic feature. Below is a quote from Alexa Linden outlining the benefits of baked on mesh:

Quote

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. 

Baked on Mesh was entirely derived from users and Linden Lab wanting to reduce lag caused by onion layered bodies and the no mod issue the bodies had, as well as different skins not being possible on different bodies. That is why the above quote posted by a Linden in the bakes on mesh feedback thread highlights ONLY those as benefits. The goal was never about just "here you go we thought you would like to have this feature back". Its necessity and implementation was the direct result of Linden Labs failure, upon releasing mesh into SL, of not realising people wanted a better looking avatar (system avatar) despite the evidence showing otherwise forcing users to create mesh onion bodies.

Out of all those listed by the Linden Lab themselves as a benefit for BoM which has been achieved? None - not a single one of those touted benefits has been shown to have been achieved in full.

• Appliers are being shown as still needed due to make-up issues looking weird and flat. Now they are adding/keeping onion layers to BoM avatar meshes meaning those very appliers will still be needed. Skins are also still going to need to be made for specific bodies due to texture aligning issues (unless all bodies are to be the same shape), muscle definition areas, etc.
• Onion layered avatars are still going to be around due to no material or applier support (proven by even Slink who initially released the first BoM no onion layer body and now finding the need to add them due to the lack of BoM implementation).
• full-perm meshes for bodies were never an issue and cant recall any mesh body being full perm. On the contrary, many were specifically no-mod and I would dare say will remain so. Additionally because of BoM and system tattoos being no-mod you can no longer change their colour without changing the entire skin colour via the body hud. Where is this so called easier customization?
• You still require a scripted body to set alpha's despite that alpha system proven to be an issue with both script and texture lag. The alpha layer you need to remove now to allow BoM to work used to be the way of 'alphaing' the system bodies... Did they look into that as an option as part of BoM to remove the necessity of HUD script driven alpha cutting? probably not.

That is why BoM exists today and also why the current release of BoM by many is considered half done or sub-par. As I've said before with BoM, I am all for it, but it has to be done right from the get go not in stages confusing and annoying the userbase.

I have read all of your posts and you don't need to repeat yourself. Its just that whilst yes, BoM is a good thing and yes even now has its uses, you seem to be missing the point on why it was created and how that hasn't been achieved despite early warnings from people far more knowledgeable than I dare say you or I saying right from the beginning "it wont work".

[shaniqua Sahara]

22 minutes ago, Drayke Newall 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. 

well i guess here is the departure point.............i think those things have been achieved, by and large. it says  "avoid the NEED for ....", it has done that. but realize "need" is not synonymous with "obsolete". to me it is a fact that these things have been achieved. and no where in there do i see "calculate baked materials" and it sounds like a small project to me.

i'm guess you are from the UK or Aussie, in America there is an odd phenomena of actually not being able to agree on senator's attendance records, even though it is a matter of record.

i think it's the same thing here......how are we going to decide whether those stated objectives have been reached? it's not likely we'll find common ground beyond we all seem to want sl to always be better than it is.

Edited October 30, 2019 by shaniqua Sahara

[Drayke Newall]

16 minutes ago, shaniqua Sahara said:

well i guess here is the departure point.............i think those things have been achieved, by and large. it says  "avoid the NEED for ....", it has done that. but realize "need" is not synonymous with "obsolete". to me it is a fact that these things have been achieved. and no where in there do i see "calculate baked materials" and it sounds like a small project to me.

i'm guess you are from the UK or Aussie, in America there is an odd phenomena of actually not being able to agree on senator's attendance records, even though it is a matter of record.

i think it's the same thing here......how are we going to decide whether those stated objectives have been reached? it's not likely we'll find common ground beyond we all seem to want sl to always be better than it is.

Whilst I would agree with you that it doesn't say obsolete, avoidance still does imply some form of acceptance that onion bodies or appliers aren't needed and at least some bodies would indeed adopt a no onion layer system. That being said currently all of the bodies that have the most market saturation are even now stating the need for onion bodies to continue and even Slink specifically adding another layer to a BoM body that initially didn't have one.

The only way those stated objectives would be considered achieved is if it is proven that creators are actively avoiding onion layers. Instead we have one that tried (Slink) and is now adding them in and the other major body makers now looking to keep onion bodies albeit in a simplified form for now. Due to this I would consider it a failure as it hasn't "avoided the need" at all as they still exist and aren't being avoided at all but actively re-introduced.

Sure you are going to have some that will just do full BoM avatars with no onion layers or the need for appliers, however when the competition is offering a better looking product which real life look is what people try to achieve, they will win all the time.

[Theresa Tennyson]

40 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

Yes, that is precisely what I and others are saying LL has not done enough in this case and it has everything to do with BoM. It was never started as a small project to solely allow baked on texturing to the new mesh body and that is only its basic feature.

Baked on Mesh was entirely derived from users and Linden Lab wanting to reduce lag caused by onion layered bodies and the no mod issue the bodies had, as well as different skins not being possible on different bodies. That is why the above quote posted by a Linden in the bakes on mesh feedback thread highlights ONLY those as benefits. The goal was never about just "here you go we thought you would like to have this feature back". Its necessity and implementation was the direct result of Linden Labs failure, upon releasing mesh into SL, of not realising people wanted a better looking avatar (system avatar) despite the evidence showing otherwise forcing users to create mesh onion bodies.

 

This is the exact, user-developed recommended specification for Bakes on Mesh:

https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/BUG-214631

[shaniqua Sahara]

16 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

Whilst I would agree with you that it doesn't say obsolete, avoidance still does imply some form of acceptance that onion bodies or appliers aren't needed and at least some bodies would indeed adopt a no onion layer system. That being said currently all of the bodies that have the most market saturation are even now stating the need for onion bodies to continue and even Slink specifically adding another layer to a BoM body that initially didn't have one.

The only way those stated objectives would be considered achieved is if it is proven that creators are actively avoiding onion layers. Instead we have one that tried (Slink) and is now adding them in and the other major body makers now looking to keep onion bodies albeit in a simplified form for now. Due to this I would consider it a failure as it hasn't "avoided the need" at all as they still exist and aren't being avoided at all but actively re-introduced.

Sure you are going to have some that will just do full BoM avatars with no onion layers or the need for appliers, however when the competition is offering a better looking product which real life look is what people try to achieve, they will win all the time.

 

you mentioned reading my posts........you might have read i have an avatar i sell and that BoM instantly leveled the playing field for me, a small, nobody creator...........can you please put a weighted value on that? what is that worth in your opinion?

if sl implemented everything you wanted............wouldn't invariably want more............wouldn't it still be "yeah they did that and it's good but they didn't do yadda yadda yadda"?

BoM is good as it is and sl can continue to improve things and add the things you want eventually................since eventually we'll want more anyway-it always feels the same...... why can't it be like that?

[Blush Bravin]

23 minutes ago, shaniqua Sahara said:

you might have read i have an avatar i sell and that BoM instantly leveled the playing field for me, a small, nobody creator.

The only playing field BoM leveled for you is making more skins available. Until your body is widely adopted by creators making rigged mesh clothing the field is far from leveled. I understand your optimism though.

[shaniqua Sahara]

33 minutes ago, Blush Bravin said:

The only playing field BoM leveled for you is making more skins available. Until your body is widely adopted by creators making rigged mesh clothing the field is far from leveled. I understand your optimism though.

not really, the selling point of my avatar is that you can wear maittreya clothing. but even so. it leveled the field in that there is now an opportunity for that to happen for small creator.

edit- i also mean though, a level field technologically........having to go to omega was not a level field for everyone............to me BoM as we know it today should have been released when mesh was. then everyone would have been happy with it.

 

Edited October 30, 2019 by shaniqua Sahara

[OptimoMaximo]

On 10/29/2019 at 12:39 PM, Wulfie Reanimator said:

One problem at a time, yeah?

Hhhhmmmm... Nope. As I see it, it's all belonging to the same problem: onion layers, slices and excessive textures. The excess of textures is going to stay, along with a lesser number of onion layers, still bad, and all of the slices we had before, bad again. All BoM did was introduce a system where the excess of polygons was partially reduced and the same for the excess of textures, so appliers are to remain, meanwhile some degree of customization was removed with wearables being either no-mod, or requiring the user work to modify (see color changes in tattoos). I would gladly trade off this way, like in the old days when final customization was normally handled by the end user as a common practice, if BoM were to handle all materials and alpha masking needs from the get go, effectively dumping onion layers and slices in the sewers, were they belong. If BoM started like that, then we could talk about polygons, assets and texture memory load reduction. As it stands, it just skims some of the problems on the surface, so what's the point? 

[Theresa Tennyson]

39 minutes ago, OptimoMaximo said:

Hhhhmmmm... Nope. As I see it, it's all belonging to the same problem: onion layers, slices and excessive textures. The excess of textures is going to stay, along with a lesser number of onion layers, still bad, and all of the slices we had before, bad again. All BoM did was introduce a system where the excess of polygons was partially reduced and the same for the excess of textures, so appliers are to remain, meanwhile some degree of customization was removed with wearables being either no-mod, or requiring the user work to modify (see color changes in tattoos). I would gladly trade off this way, like in the old days when final customization was normally handled by the end user as a common practice, if BoM were to handle all materials and alpha masking needs from the get go, effectively dumping onion layers and slices in the sewers, were they belong. If BoM started like that, then we could talk about polygons, assets and texture memory load reduction. As it stands, it just skims some of the problems on the surface, so what's the point? 

BOM already has everything it needs to eliminate alpha cuts for the channels all popular mesh bodies use, and Slink has done just that. It's the end users who are asking for them to remain. Yes, ideally alpha wearables should be extended to the new channels, but that's not critical to the vast majority of bodies. 

[OptimoMaximo]

27 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

, ideally alpha wearables should be extended to the new channels, but that's not critical to the vast majority of bodies. 

And again, without quoting myself from this very same page, as I said that's not something a development team worth such name can afford to think as, narrow and closed. When implementing any features, the overall working order is the thing that takes priority, and only then what's most popular takes the final efforts, not the reverse. 

 

32 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

and Slink has done just that.

Neglecting the fact that onion layers have been reintroduced because of the missing functionalities that BoM should had have from the get go, because as it is, it is a downgrade: it dumps years of avatar customization development making use of materials, the avatar appearance customers were used to is gone, so, once again, what's the point? 5 years ago you give the users materials to get enhanced detailing through textures instead of polygons, struggled to see the materials system adoption to enhance content, and then you withdraw it because of performance issues, not caused by materials theirselves, rather by workarounds to implement them in lack of a built in system, releasing a half functional feature dragged back to life from the old gen system, basically unvaried, just partially extended with additional channels that don't even work on their entirety? If in your mind it's right that things work so, I'm grateful that you're not a developer and, if you are, I'm even more grateful that I don't own any of your software. 

[Theresa Tennyson]

14 minutes ago, OptimoMaximo said:

If in your mind it's right that things work so, I'm grateful that you're not a developer and, if you are, I'm even more grateful that I don't own any of your software. 

And I'm glad you're not a project manager if you think you should increase labor and time commitments 400% for 4% of the market.

Yes, materials can do a lot with a controlled setup, but that's not what Second Life is. Let's say a mesh body maker wants to show, say, a pair of boxer shorts on a body by using the Magic of Materials instead of actually modeling them. Then he'll run into the problem of not being able to have the boxer shorts appear to behave like cloth stretched over anatomical structures instead of being painted onto the body without including extra geometry in the body that will be there whether the boxer shorts are being worn or not. Not to mention that if he were to take a picture of his avatar from the side it would instantly be obvious that the boxer shorts have no depth at all.

He'd probably just make a pair of mesh boxer shorts instead, wouldn't he? Then the owner of the body would only wear them when they would be visible.

 

[OptimoMaximo]

1 minute ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

He'd probably just make a pair of mesh boxer shorts instead, wouldn't he? Then the owner of the body would only wear them when they would be visible.

Or maybe add them to the package in order to get something to link, no mod, to the demo so it actually stays a demo without floating circles or boxes like other mesh bodies have? At that point use them to take a picture so that the adult bits stay covered and the listing can appear in general category. As you say, why go through an unnecessary 400% more work to make them texture too? You should be glad to have me as a project manager, because at least I know where more labor resources NEED to be deployed and where not. 

[Theresa Tennyson]

37 minutes ago, OptimoMaximo said:

Or maybe add them to the package in order to get something to link, no mod, to the demo so it actually stays a demo without floating circles or boxes like other mesh bodies have? At that point use them to take a picture so that the adult bits stay covered and the listing can appear in general category. As you say, why go through an unnecessary 400% more work to make them texture too? You should be glad to have me as a project manager, because at least I know where more labor resources NEED to be deployed and where not. 

Is anything I've said about the limitations of using materials directly on avatar skin to represent clothing incorrect?

[OptimoMaximo]

1 hour ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Is anything I've said about the limitations of using materials directly on avatar skin to represent clothing incorrect?

Agaaaaaaaiiiiinnnnn, the point is that CLOTHING IS NOT THE ONLY TYPE OF TEXTURE THAT THE BAKING SERVICE IS MEANT TO ADDRESS!!!!!!!!

There's no worse deaf than who doesn't want to hear. I'm outta here. 

[Theresa Tennyson]

12 hours ago, Drayke Newall said:

Whilst I would agree with you that it doesn't say obsolete, avoidance still does imply some form of acceptance that onion bodies or appliers aren't needed and at least some bodies would indeed adopt a no onion layer system. That being said currently all of the bodies that have the most market saturation are even now stating the need for onion bodies to continue and even Slink specifically adding another layer to a BoM body that initially didn't have one.

The only way those stated objectives would be considered achieved is if it is proven that creators are actively avoiding onion layers. Instead we have one that tried (Slink) and is now adding them in and the other major body makers now looking to keep onion bodies albeit in a simplified form for now. Due to this I would consider it a failure as it hasn't "avoided the need" at all as they still exist and aren't being avoided at all but actively re-introduced.

Slink did nothing of the kind. All they did was allow the single surface of the Redux body to take materials from other types of applier than skin appliers - i.e. bodysuits, etc. Because (wait for it...) materials are completely separate from the diffuse texture that BoM provides.

[Theresa Tennyson]

2 hours ago, OptimoMaximo said:

Agaaaaaaaiiiiinnnnn, the point is that CLOTHING IS NOT THE ONLY TYPE OF TEXTURE THAT THE BAKING SERVICE IS MEANT TO ADDRESS!!!!!!!!

There's no worse deaf than who doesn't want to hear. I'm outta here. 

Indeed - however, clothing and tattoos (which have no need for their own materials) combine for probably a good 96% of the body layers out there. So once again, materials layering is 400% more work for 4% of the market. Heads are a little different with makeup

 

16 hours ago, Drayke Newall said:

Code can be written so that you can 'merge' all diffuse, all normal and all specular maps as separate diffuse, normal and specular maps. I mean come on, the normal maps and specular maps are currently independent of the diffuse texture which would mean that it couldn't be that hard to keep them separate whilst applying the same system they did to diffuse texture to the others. Not sure if I can explain it any different other than the aforementioned or by saying if we have 11 diffuse texture spots now why cant we have 11 normal and 11 specular spots to use as well all independent of each other?

The normal and specular maps in Second Life have no alpha channels which would indicate they only are meant to cover part of a surface or are transparent. - those channels of the textures are used for other information. With an ordinary surface the rendering engine uses the information from the diffuse channel for showing transparency. If there was a way of combining the specular maps and normal maps they'd need to use the diffuse textures for masking/transparency and then you start getting flaky things happening, especially with normal maps. For example - "scar over pores." You'd either have the scar normal values added to the pore values (meaning your scar would have pores) or you'd have a masking situation where there would be a sudden change between two sets of normals that have no idea the other exists.

Edited October 30, 2019 by Theresa Tennyson

[Drayke Newall]

7 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

And I'm glad you're not a project manager if you think you should increase labor and time commitments 400% for 4% of the market.

I am, as part of my RL career and as a business owner and I can tell you now that you usually do just that if it benefits the system not the user which in this case it does. You keep talking about only 4% of people want this or that, so what. I could argue that 4% of people is not a sufficient number of the community to warrant the complete rewrite of code for lastnames to be re-introduced that were removed and really now irrelevant. Yet as it stands, that is exactly what LL are doing. Why don't LL just treat the resident name as the username, permanently hide it from view in world and let display names be the manner in which you are shown in world. It's how every other gaming and software company do things where you have a hidden username and a display name shown in all other areas, yet LL are diverting much needed resources into bringing back something that is meaningless to all but a few and, completely against the current trend both in functionality as well as security of modern software. 🙄

On the other hand, here we have a system, BoM, that should have the potential to keep the status quo as well as increase optimisation, yet instead we get a half done fix removing already accepted, used (for 5 years) and implemented features (albeit workaround) to achieve something that benefits only those that don't care about changing tattoo colors, or having deformations in the skin for scars etc., raised areas of the skin for other features or even wearing under clothes that despite what people say look as realistic using materials as any mesh product.

As to the jira post you showed, what's your point? I wasn't referencing that at all and even if it is relevant, LL Official feedback thread specifically states the benefits yet none of those are achieved. The jira of the original premise is meaningless (despite talking about materials and onion layers being an important consideration) as that was posted at the beginning of which an evolution of the idea to the finished product happened resulting in its final stage. LL specifically have stated the benefits that's all that matters.

Quote

The normal and specular maps in Second Life have no alpha channels which would indicate they only are meant to cover part of a surface or are transparent. - those channels of the textures are used for other information. With an ordinary surface the rendering engine uses the information from the diffuse channel for showing transparency. If there was a way of combining the specular maps and normal maps they'd need to use the diffuse textures for masking/transparency and then you start getting flaky things happening, especially with normal maps. For example - "scar over pores." You'd either have the scar normal values added to the pore values (meaning your scar would have pores) or you'd have a masking situation where there would be a sudden change between two sets of normals that have no idea the other exists.

Again, as I said, I'm no code genius. But I do know that there is a solution based on all LL's responses stating that such things will be looked into and possibly implemented later. Even if that wasn't the case, I'm sure there would be a way for them to achieve it if they actually went into BoM with the mentality of optimisation e.g. make it so normal maps and specular maps have alpha channels or whatever.

Quote

Slink did nothing of the kind. All they did was allow the single surface of the Redux body to take materials from other types of applier than skin appliers - i.e. bodysuits, etc. Because (wait for it...) materials are completely separate from the diffuse texture that BoM provides.

I stand corrected then and they have gone to far in reducing the body. That said It still doesn't support any argument for not having material implementation when other creators are considering onion layers due to all this as well as many users in the forums calling for a more minimal hybrid onion body.

Quote

Yes, materials can do a lot with a controlled setup, but that's not what Second Life is. Let's say a mesh body maker wants to show, say, a pair of boxer shorts on a body by using the Magic of Materials instead of actually modeling them. Then he'll run into the problem of not being able to have the boxer shorts appear to behave like cloth stretched over anatomical structures instead of being painted onto the body without including extra geometry in the body that will be there whether the boxer shorts are being worn or not. Not to mention that if he were to take a picture of his avatar from the side it would instantly be obvious that the boxer shorts have no depth at all.

Easy. Body maker has a toggable by hud flatten button that smooths out areas like the butt etc. so you don't get those issues and, do what they should be doing already, using the "Magic of bones" and adjust the 'package' of the body or a togglable bulge in those areas. That said considering boxers are shorts and would be offset from the body loose, if that is all you are wearing you would use mesh boxers anyway. Material clothing should only be used if it is against the body tight or under other mesh clothing like a shirt under a jacket.

Edited October 31, 2019 by Drayke Newall

[OptimoMaximo]

4 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

For example - "scar over pores." You'd either have the scar normal values added to the pore values (meaning your scar would have pores) or you'd have a masking situation where there would be a sudden change between two sets of normals that have no idea the other exists.

This shows your lack of understanding. The first situation you refer, the scar with pores added for an alleged normal blending, is only possible using layer blending like in photoshop, thing that BoM doesn't do on the diffuse, so I can't see why that should happen for the normal. The second case is even more ignorant, as you yourself state that the alpha channel that should be used comes from the diffuse, which can, of course, have a blending alpha edge, making the transition smooth from a surface to another, while you attempt to make it look like it would be a harshly cut out texture. Sure you can do so, but nobody would finalize that. 

For the rest of your intervention... Sheesh, I'm done with your utter BS. 

[Theresa Tennyson]

4 hours ago, OptimoMaximo said:

This shows your lack of understanding. The first situation you refer, the scar with pores added for an alleged normal blending, is only possible using layer blending like in photoshop, thing that BoM doesn't do on the diffuse, so I can't see why that should happen for the normal. The second case is even more ignorant, as you yourself state that the alpha channel that should be used comes from the diffuse, which can, of course, have a blending alpha edge, making the transition smooth from a surface to another, while you attempt to make it look like it would be a harshly cut out texture. Sure you can do so, but nobody would finalize that. 

For the rest of your intervention... Sheesh, I'm done with your utter BS. 

Yes, technically I should have said "combined" instead of "added." But the diffuse textures in a bake are most certainly combined, if an upper layer has transparency.

[Kyrah Abattoir]

EH... As someone pointed out, mixing normal & specular is a non-trivial operation.

As for whether BoM is useful or not, I only have my own experience to pull from, all I can say, is that when I moved to a mesh head & body, I pretty much kept my skin modifications to a minimum.

Now that my head & body are bake on mesh ready, i've been making all kinds of tats & makeup arrangements for my own use. You could say I'm easily entertained.

I couldn't care less about anyone's need for glistening skin pores to be honest...

Edited October 31, 2019 by Kyrah Abattoir

[steeljane42]

49 minutes ago, Kyrah Abattoir said:

I couldn't care less about anyone's need for glistening skin pores to be honest...

But it's also true for the other way around. Lots of people (myself included) couldn't care less about anyone's need to use some ancient skin (even less so about ancient system clothes) on their mesh body/head, that also need a 3rd party or own (if you can make it) "fix" for the nails. Yet LL spent forever to implement exactly this. I've seen arguments in this thread (or related ones) how "easily" they did it and how implementing materials would be way more difficult and it's not as easy as 'flick the switch". But here's a thing, LL announced BoM around spring 2017, feebdack thread on forums exists since spring 2018. So not like it was a few months to implement BoM the way it is now vs years for proper version with materials. it were years for this half baked way it is now.

I'm not gonna guess how long it would have been if they did add materials support, but it's still years for what we've got. For something that is a pure sidegrade, rather than an upgrade. And onion bodies/heads won't go anywhere either, because while you might not care about "fancy body shine" with different effects and other material related things that can be used on body/head, lots of people do, it's pretty obvious if you check the big events, market etc. I think it's pretty safe to assume that almost all of these people couldn't care less about optimisation too, so they'll continue to happily use their non BoM stuff.

I guess that's my main grip with this whole BoM thing. Sure, I may (and will) skip using it, because it's not something I need and you can say it's fine too and would be right. But it's so much wasted development time, in a company that already struggles to add new features and when they do they take forever. And that's exactly the same as their previous big project - animesh. Years of work on something that is barely used because they chose to implement stupidly high li "tax" for it, so despite being way better it just can't replace ancient content because of it.

At least Bento they did right more or less, from heads to bodies to fantasy things, almost everything did benefit from it one way or another. Even ones who care about performance are (probably) happy, since it did phase out attachents that were animated frame-by-frame and were unreasonably heavy.