Jump to content

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Pussycat Catnap said:

This is an interesting aside. Catwa 4.5 - with all it's layers, was lower triangles than Lelutka 2.0:

908e7ebfd58d8bf5a28c9cdd26521cb3.png

That's all deformed because I don't know how to 'undeform' myself in the Black Dragon viewer...

Native BOM influenced my decision to switch brands - but the ability to have a head that was made for the ethnicity I wanted to look like was also big - and the HDPro switch for Catwa meant they were making a big push towards 'high lag'. he 2.0 to 2.5 switch Lelutka made is a push towards more lag, but a smaller one.

 

It is interesting but for me it isn't ALL about the triangles as such.  I am happy to use my existing Lelutka Origins heads even and I have never bought a Catwa head.  The triangle count of the Evolution heads is better than the Origins heads, I believe, so I am OK with that inefficiency.  I am not generally happy with it increasing with a newer update or product though.

What I am expecting though is that heads from any brands to lose complexity and get more efficient as the product lines are improved.  So when it is heading the other way, like with adding more and more non-optional gimmicky HD layers, that is a concern.  Add in the confused message over BoM/non-BoM and it is more concerning as it is counter to the BoM messaging out there.  Many people now have the impression that appliers are bad and have had the virtues of BoM extolled so much that they believe that the creator community is mostly united in moving towards BoM and way from appliers.  Clearly HD is counter to that.

Edited by Gabriele Graves
added quote.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Thought I'd share pics of the new Blush and Debi with the Erin head. Same head for both but different skins and shapes. Here's Blush and Debi Both utilize system layers for

I have both heads and have been very impressed with them. I have been wearing one or the other since I bought them, and that is saying something for me. I switch heads a lot! A couple things of note a

I wasn't completely happy with Erin, but its still a good head. I'll keep playing around with it though. This is a shot with Lelutka Nuri feel a little better with this one:  

Posted Images

8 minutes ago, steeljane42 said:

If you check more closely the majority of the increase is actually not from the HD layers. Head itself is ~6k triangles heavier than before, eyes are exactly the same. So the rest comes from the teeth with extra (and I'm going to assume - useless for most people) options. Those beast/vampire/etc teeth could be separate attachment like piercing is.

Still not a big change in my opinion anyway, hair I have on right now are 297k triangles alone and that's pretty "modest" by styled hair standards, I've seen some over 700k triangles. But I never cared about "optimization" anyway and my region would probably give certain users a stroke with how many extra 1024x1024 (including normals and speculars) textures there is.

This is a good point.  The head, teeth and eyes form part of a system though and except in some special cases aren't really optional parts.  The question becomes, should everyone have to carry around the inefficiencies of all the many options available to all people if they only want one of those options.  Isn't part of being more efficient separating these things out so that you only carry what you use and not the sum of it all?

Edited by Gabriele Graves
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Overall I'm happy with the update but I agree that adding more applier layers when the head is supposed to be BOM oriented seems a little off to me. 

Personally I like more the new rig for the eyes and nose but not the chin, I prefer the "softer" look of 2.0, so far I think I'm pretty close to replicate my 2.0 shape: 

LakeDifs.thumb.png.7de2ad671ac965d761fae77197b2c124.png

43 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

Many people now have the impression that appliers are bad and have had the virtues of BoM extolled so much that they believe that the creator community is mostly united in moving towards BoM and way from appliers.  Clearly HD is counter to that.

This is interesting to me, among other Spanish speakers I hear often that appliers are better than BOM and praise Omega a lot, this version removed Omega support for everything but the eyes, I'm sure this is going to be mayor concern for many. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

It is interesting but for me it isn't ALL about the triangles as such.  I am happy to use my existing Lelutka Origins heads even and I have never bought a Catwa head.  The triangle count of the Evolution heads is better than the Origins heads, I believe, so I am OK with that inefficiency.  I am not generally happy with it increasing with a newer update or product though.

What I am expecting though is that heads from any brands to lose complexity and get more efficient as the product lines are improved.

I tend to look at triangle count because the official complexity formula has built in cheating, and many brands reduce complexity scores with that rather than actually reducing the impact the item has on your GPU.

I really don't know how to tell if someone is using a cheat or not.

Triangle count however, just is. It is a solid metric that you cannot hide and every triangle is a tiny hit to your GPU. It just cannot be cheated over.

Likewise with script metrics - I look at script time. Memory and script counts are not reliable and can be hacked around or even (especially memory) show numbers much higher than what is actually being used. Script time however - is an actual metric of how much time it's using up from the region's CPU - not cheatable or even not 'wrong on accident' like memory.

Textures would be the third metric - the one I think we are both on the same page over. Every use of a 1024x1024 texture instead of a 512x512 is 4x more GPU memory being used...

- At least this one however, I can avoid by just shoving a transparency into that HD layer...

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pauck said:

but not the chin, I prefer the "softer" look of 2.0

Agree actually and was just searching for the right way to state this.

I got around it a lot by going into the 'Head' tab of the shape and dialing it to be 'more round' on the dial named 'Head Shape'. You can't get all the way there with this, but you can get about 80% of the way.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Pussycat Catnap said:

I tend to look at triangle count because the official complexity formula has built in cheating, and many brands reduce complexity scores with that rather than actually reducing the impact the item has on your GPU.

I really don't know how to tell if someone is using a cheat or not.

Triangle count however, just is. It is a solid metric that you cannot hide and every triangle is a tiny hit to your GPU. It just cannot be cheated over.

Likewise with script metrics - I look at script time. Memory and script counts are not reliable and can be hacked around or even (especially memory) show numbers much higher than what is actually being used. Script time however - is an actual metric of how much time it's using up from the region's CPU - not cheatable or even not 'wrong on accident' like memory.

Textures would be the third metric - the one I think we are both on the same page over. Every use of a 1024x1024 texture instead of a 512x512 is 4x more GPU memory being used...

- At least this one however, I can avoid by just shoving a transparency into that HD layer...

 

 

I agree with everything you said and I am aware of all those things too.  I just meant that I am not too concerned that brand A has more triangles than brand B as long as brand A is keeping roughly the same or improving their triangle count for the same product as updates are released and that for new products of a brand that the amount of triangles used is appropriate for efficient mesh.  I am speaking in general terms of course.

Edited by Gabriele Graves
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Pussycat Catnap said:

- At least this one however, I can avoid by just shoving a transparency into that HD layer...

To add to this note.

I mean by that to use the actual 'default transparency' texture found in the library. NOT setting transparent to 100 in edit or with a HUD. Make an applier and actually apply that library texture.

Why that one? Because it's basically a super small texture that is EVERYWHERE in SL. If you log in you've already cached that sucker... so use the heck out of it. That's my thinking and I put it all over the place on my land and when I edit things on my avatar that I have control over and want to hide a part of.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Pussycat Catnap said:

I tend to look at triangle count because the official complexity formula has built in cheating, and many brands reduce complexity scores with that rather than actually reducing the impact the item has on your GPU.

I really don't know how to tell if someone is using a cheat or not.

Triangle count however, just is. It is a solid metric that you cannot hide and every triangle is a tiny hit to your GPU. It just cannot be cheated over.

Likewise with script metrics - I look at script time. Memory and script counts are not reliable and can be hacked around or even (especially memory) show numbers much higher than what is actually being used. Script time however - is an actual metric of how much time it's using up from the region's CPU - not cheatable or even not 'wrong on accident' like memory.

Textures would be the third metric - the one I think we are both on the same page over. Every use of a 1024x1024 texture instead of a 512x512 is 4x more GPU memory being used...

- At least this one however, I can avoid by just shoving a transparency into that HD layer...

Yeah... pretty much. But, triangle count in SL isn't that simple, which is why people are able to cheat. To understand the cheat one needs to understand how SL, and other 3D video 'games', use LoD (Level of Detail) and what it is.

When you are zoomed in and the avatar head fills the screen lots of detail is needed. When you zoom out and the entire avatar is an inch (2cm) tall on the screen very little detail is needed. Realizing that, game designers  developed LoD. SL uses four levels of LoD. The viewer changes which LoD it uses based on camera distance from the object, thing or avatar.

LoD #1 has the most polygons/triangles. The poly count should decrease in each level with #4 having the fewest. The LoD poly count from level #1 is what we usually see or talk about. But the Avatar Cost Index (ACI) takes all levels into account. The final level #4 should still render the shape of the item, but with way fewer polys or in other words, with less detail. Why draw a blouse button's shape if it only takes up one pixel on screen? We can't change the shape of a single pixel.

The cheat is to take levels 4 and 3 down to 1-poly or a very low number and use all the poly count in #1 and may be #2. If a designer uses it all  in #1 and radically reduces #2 and #3 counts to the point the item loses its shape as you zoom out then the designer is likely to tell you to set your viewer's LoD to 4 or more. Bad for SL.

You figured out that poly count at #1 is a better metric to look at than just ACI. But, modern video cards render tens of BILLIONS of polygons per second. The numbers for polys per second get so ridiculous video card makers stopped using the metric and moved on to more meaningful numbers. So in SL digging out the poly count for a decision is a bit out of date. Ten avatars wearing 300k-poly bodies require about 0.000167 sec or less to render or 1.67ms out of the 22ms seconds available per frame, which is a lot but not disastrous.

A better and easier measure of quality is to get the demo, set your viewer's LoD to the default* and zoom out to see if if the shape of the item degrades as the avatar (or whatever) gets smaller. If it doesn't, the ACI is an OK metric to decide on.

  *Firestorm has an LoD Factor setting in their Quick Preferences. Other viewers often do not give access to the setting and you'll have to look for it in the Debug Settings

The two significant performance killers are, as you pointed out, script weight and texture load. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a note, you can still use 2.5 update, there is a bound/dated version inside the folder, just unpack it, all updates still apply with the exclusion of boundless sliders so your old shape will work just fine..

HD make up or regular BoM layers is up to 3rd party creators. HD layers have same mapping but are cut away from the rest of the head and enlarged (to explain it in simple words).  Best to contact your favorite make up creator and suggest they provide regular BoM layers, I`m sure they would if there is enough interest,  it wouldn`t require too much extra work...HD eyeshadow and lips really do not add that much geometry since those are not full layers (not the entire head, just portion corresponding to particular region)

I just wanted to add one more reason that makes me want to support LeLutka, they were the first to make proper Legacy fit and shared those files with other head creators, that kind of solidarity was great to watch and I only wish everyone acted so selflessly. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Pussycat Catnap said:

That's all deformed because I don't know how to 'undeform' myself in the Black Dragon viewer...

Like in every other Viewer nowadays.

Right-Click yourself - Reset Skeleton (or Reset Skeleton and Animations if you really have to go nuclear)

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MaxMare said:

I just wanted to add one more reason that makes me want to support LeLutka, they were the first to make proper Legacy fit and shared those files with other head creators, that kind of solidarity was great to watch and I only wish everyone acted so selflessly. 

I'm not a fan of Legacy but the 'shared those files' thing is very much an honorable deed worth remembering.

I will note that the fit I am currently seeing between Lelutka Evo 2.5 and Maitreya 5.3 in 'Type 1, button 0' is the best neck fit I've had on a mesh body / head connect. They seem made to go together.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am struggling with Lake 2.5. I don't have to duplicate it 100%, but it has a hard, older and stern look now.

The neck fit is so good that I will continue to try. For the chin, I made the head shape rounder and filled in lower cheeks. But the eyes have a something about them that gives me a cold look. I have tried to make the eye opening bigger for a more youthful look and lifted the brows and did other adjustments to get the eyes look less stern. But it is something. Have LeLutka placed the eyes itself differently?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Marianne Little said:

The neck fit is so good that I will continue to try.

The neck fit is no different than 2.0 had, it's just not separated between the "normal" and (SL) heads anymore (the new fit is what used to be called (SL) fit in 2.0). So if it's the neck you're worried about you can use "dated" version with an old shape. The rest (hud, animations, features) should be identical between boundless and dated versions.

34 minutes ago, Marianne Little said:

Have LeLutka placed the eyes itself differently?

They redid rigging on pre-Fleur heads for the boundless update, so lots of things are different. In some way it's like entirely new heads. For better or worse is depending on how much you like new rigging and changes.

And I think you're on point about the older look. With certain skins it's even more noticeable. Could be nice for some people, but it's not the look I like on my avatar. So I personally do not like new Nova as much as I did like the original, thankfully option to use "dated" version is there, but I ended up getting Fleur anyway.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the key is to take your time. Grab the demo/demos of the heads that interest you, and once you've narrowed it down, work on the shape. It will initially feel not great because you are used to the sliders reacting differently. What I discovered with the new Boundless heads when I first started trying to recreate my look was that I had a heavy jaw I couldn't seem to get rid of in the normal ways. I ended up having to tweak egghead and other face shape sliders which I normally never touched with previous versions of the head. Basically I had retrain myself, and in the end I was really happy with my results. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Alexander Huntsman said:

Is that just my imagination, or do the new Lelutka 2.5 (not dated) Heads have this strange look that the inner sides of the eyes kinda pulled down a way to weird? Also with compatible shapes?

There is setting for that in "Edit shape" --> "Eyes, Inner Eye Corner". You can pull the eye corner up and down - if the shape you are using is modifiable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On 11/7/2020 at 8:56 AM, MaxMare said:

Just a note, you can still use 2.5 update, there is a bound/dated version inside the folder, just unpack it, all updates still apply with the exclusion of boundless sliders so your old shape will work just fine..

HD make up or regular BoM layers is up to 3rd party creators. HD layers have same mapping but are cut away from the rest of the head and enlarged (to explain it in simple words).  Best to contact your favorite make up creator and suggest they provide regular BoM layers, I`m sure they would if there is enough interest,  it wouldn`t require too much extra work...HD eyeshadow and lips really do not add that much geometry since those are not full layers (not the entire head, just portion corresponding to particular region)

I just wanted to add one more reason that makes me want to support LeLutka, they were the first to make proper Legacy fit and shared those files with other head creators, that kind of solidarity was great to watch and I only wish everyone acted so selflessly. 

Lelutka Evolution HD mapping is very different from the SLUV.   They cannot easily be made to fit for use on BOM layers.   I have tried it....I won't keep messing with it.   If I make an HD set, that is all it will be.  Same for a BOM set...it will never be made for HD.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...