Optimized, low resource usage clothes? And recommendations thereof?

[Cinos Field]

Hello, dear SL.

I realize this is extremely niche, but after gasping in horror when I realized just how many 1024x1024 textures every single button on my beautiful new top had, I'm looking for clothiers that... well, don't do that.

Any recommendations for ladies' clothing that's built a little more... economically? As in, ideally no scripts or deletable ones, not max resolution texture overload, perhaps on the lighter side of triangles? I'm not looking for any style in particular, at least - I can always change that.

Yours truly,

some otter

[LittleMe Jewell]

Stick with system layers / BOM and you won't have to worry about any of those things.  

[animats]

Let us know what you find. Tell us triangle counts. I'm always looking for low-LI clothing for animesh.

For my animesh NPCs, I had a low-LI hoodie and sneakers made for me by Duck Girl. These are low-LI rigged mesh. Animesh are charged 1 LI for each 666 triangles. Typical SL shoes with 20,000 triangles each are just not on. So if you do animesh, you really need such low-LI clothing.

4 LI sneakers. You don't need 20,000 triangles for shoes. That's 4 LI for both.

Edited September 7, 2020 by animats

[Nalates Urriah]

Designers are not static. Most grow and change. So a list would go out of date quickly.

Most of the big names are reasonably efficient in their design. The only way to know who is doing reasonably optimized content is to find clothes you like then get the demo and look to see. Maybe make a note card with the names of those shops you want to avoid.

We have Avatar Complexity Index (ACI) numbers. While not the best measure of optimization for an easy to use tool it is the best we have. The tool is being reworked to use a new algorithm and provide a better measure.

[Wulfie Reanimator]

34 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

Most of the big names are reasonably efficient in their design.

Name three? I'll make a mental note of them.

[Cinos Field]

One of the big names is, of course, why I started this topic. The one with a colorful, edible name certainly doesn't optimize much at all.

[Penny Patton]

On 9/7/2020 at 1:45 PM, Nalates Urriah said:

We have Avatar Complexity Index (ACI) numbers. While not the best measure of optimization for an easy to use tool it is the best we have. The tool is being reworked to use a new algorithm and provide a better measure.

We need much better tools as far as optimizing our avatar's render weight is concerned.

How about being able to select an object and see exactly how many textures are on it, and the size/memory of each?

Being able to see our avatar's triangle count and texture use would be super useful, too. (Jelly dolling avatars based on these numbers is more efficient than relying on ARC, too.)

What about being able to open a panel and see the texture/triangle count of all your currently worn attachments, so you can easily spot problematic attachments?

Right now people are mostly fumbling in the dark even if they're aware of the problems unoptimized content causes.

[Wulfie Reanimator]

[insert rant about how not-useful Complexity is as a metric]

18 hours ago, Penny Patton said:

How about being able to select an object and see exactly how many textures are on it, and the size/memory of each?

Being able to see our avatar's triangle count and texture use would be super useful, too. 

These are all possible, especially on Firestorm. Firestorm's inspector shows exact triangle/texture counts and memory usage, and all viewers (even the official one) is able to list what resolution each texture on each face has. I believe all viewers are also able to list at least the "Estimated Tris."

Edited September 13, 2020 by Wulfie Reanimator

[Rabid Cheetah]

Firestorm has an option for showing complexity of outfits, when using the "Wearing" function.  It even lists the complexity of each item.  So that helps for figuring out which outfits and items are slowing you down.  It would be nice if clothing makers would try on their outfits, toggle complexity on, write down the number, and display it in the Details section of their wares on the Marketplace.  Until this becomes standard procedure, I'm very hesitant to buy expensive clothing no matter how good it looks.  If I have to risk an outfit being unwearable due to excessive complexity, I'm only willing to shell out a few hundred lindybucks, tops.  Which stinks, given the efforts of creators who deserve more for their hard work.  I don't have the slightest idea how they could track complexity while working, other than my example of putting on the final product and saying, "aw, crap.  Back to the drawing board on this one."

As to a list of stores or outfits that are low complexity?  I really can't say.  It's been hit or miss with every outfit.  Some of the classic ones have very high complexity.  Some are very low.  Same deal with mesh, each outfit differs.  There's simply no way to know save rolling the dice and buying it, or contacting the creator to ask questions before you buy.

[Penny Patton]

1 hour ago, Rabid Cheetah said:

It would be nice if clothing makers would try on their outfits, toggle complexity on, write down the number, and display it in the Details section of their wares on the Marketplace.

My understanding is that complexity is not a universal metric. By which I mean, an avatar will have a differently ARC score depending on the computer you're viewing it from. I imagine this goes for individual attachments as well.

I know this was the case at some time, at least, is this still the case?

[Marianne Little]

I wonder how people can see texture sizes? I understand it is probably some setting in edit that I do not know. I can imagine that it's possible in modify items.

How is it possible to see texture sizes in no mod items?

How is it possible to see texture sizes in demos I have not bought?

I have heard that about 1024 size textures in buttons before, but unless I hear that a store does it, I have no idea how to find out. Word of mouth can be inaccurate. Maybe a store is using smaller textures in new releases, but how can I know?

 

[LittleMe Jewell]

7 minutes ago, Marianne Little said:

I wonder how people can see texture sizes? I understand it is probably some setting in edit that I do not know. I can imagine that it's possible in modify items.

How is it possible to see texture sizes in no mod items?

How is it possible to see texture sizes in demos I have not bought?

I have heard that about 1024 size textures in buttons before, but unless I hear that a store does it, I have no idea how to find out. Word of mouth can be inaccurate. Maybe a store is using smaller textures in new releases, but how can I know?

 

In Firestorm, right click an item of clothing that you are wearing and select More and then Inspect.

[Lewis Luminos]

1 hour ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

In Firestorm, right click an item of clothing that you are wearing and select More and then Inspect.

I've just tried that but I can't find texture sizes in the results there. Are there more steps after this?

[LittleMe Jewell]

22 minutes ago, Lewis Luminos said:

I've just tried that but I can't find texture sizes in the results there. Are there more steps after this?

You're right - the exact size of the textures are not given.  The Inspect will tell you the  total number of textures and total Texture Memory being used, which could give you an idea of the load on the system. 

Under the Developer menu / Render Metatdata, there is an option for Texture Size, but it is somewhat difficult to attribute all of the things shown to specific items, because of the display overlap. 

I'm not sure there is an easy way to get the info on a per object basis.

[Candide LeMay]

Select an object/face in edit mode and hit ctrl-shift-alt-t (requires developer menu active - it's under Rendering -> Selected Texture Info Basis), you'll get result in the chat window like:

Texture info for: (Object name)
1024x1024 opaque on face 0

note that the reported texture size can change (increase) if the texture is still loading.

[Marianne Little]

1 hour ago, Candide LeMay said:

Select an object/face in edit mode and hit ctrl-shift-alt-t (requires developer menu active - it's under Rendering -> Selected Texture Info Basis), you'll get result in the chat window like:

Texture info for: (Object name)
1024x1024 opaque on face 0

note that the reported texture size can change (increase) if the texture is still loading.

Great that it even works on demo items that are no modify. It is then possible to see before I buy.

[12:20] Texture info for: xxx Bento Long Gloves
1024x1024 opaque on face 0 1
[12:20] Texture info for: xxx Bento Long Gloves
1024x1024 opaque on face 0 1
[12:20] Texture info for: xxx Bento Long Gloves Maitreya ~ Demo
32x32 alpha on face 0 1 2 3 4 5

I am a bit confused, is it two 1024 textures, one on face 1 and one on face 2?

Next:

[12:23] Texture info for: yyy
1024x1024 opaque on face 3
1024x1024 opaque on face 0
1024x1024 opaque on face 1
1024x1024 opaque on face 2
512x512 opaque on face 4
512x512 opaque on face 5
[12:23] Texture info for: yyy - Capri Jeans - Maitreya

This over is textures on my capri jeans. 4 /1024 textures and 2 / 512 textures. Speaking generally, is it very much?

My hair have 8 / 1024 textures. Is that because it is one of those fancy hairs where I can decide if it lays over my chest, left, right or back? If some of these textures are identical, it is as much as loading one? I always thought the hair was light to wear, since it has a complexity of 2630.

[12:31] Texture info for: zzz
128x128 opaque on face 0
[12:31] Texture info for: 2
1024x1024 alpha on face 0 1
[12:31] Texture info for: 1
1024x1024 opaque on face 0 1
[12:31] Texture info for: 7
1024x1024 opaque on face 0
[12:31] Texture info for: 8
1024x1024 alpha on face 0 1
[12:31] Texture info for: 5
1024x1024 opaque on face 0 1
[12:31] Texture info for: 6
1024x1024 alpha on face 0 1
[12:31] Texture info for: 3
1024x1024 opaque on face 0
[12:31] Texture info for: 4
1024x1024 alpha on face 0 1
[12:31] Texture info for: zzz Hairstyle [M]
256x256 opaque on face 0 1 2 3 4 5

If I should follow this and use only wearable items with fewer textures... I could not use at least 90% of my stuff. It is not a happy thought. I could try to find an outfit that is very light and use it in situations where it is many other textures.

 

[LittleMe Jewell]

1 hour ago, Candide LeMay said:

Select an object/face in edit mode and hit ctrl-shift-alt-t (requires developer menu active - it's under Rendering -> Selected Texture Info Basis), you'll get result in the chat window like:

Texture info for: (Object name)
1024x1024 opaque on face 0

note that the reported texture size can change (increase) if the texture is still loading.

 

The shirt I'm wearing shows:

 

How does that line up with the Inspect info?  The number of prims & number of faces do match, but not number of textures:

 

 

[Candide LeMay]

If you see more faces listed on the same line it means the same texture is applied to all those faces. The ctrl-alt-shift-t output only counts diffuse textures, not normal or specular  textures. So I suspect your shirt also uses 2 normal textures, for 4 textures total. I have not found a good tool to get the info about those.

It would be nice if the inspect tool could drill down to face level (it can do individual links in a link set).

[Candide LeMay]

As for the texture sizes - a typical laptop/computer display has around 2 megapixels* - a 1024x1024 texture is 1 megapixel by itself. So unless you zoom in close enough so that the texture fills at least half of your screen it's impossible to see all the details anyway. Many objects in SL have textures that are too large for no visible benefit. Texture reuse also seems to be more rare with people baking things in blender etc, while it was very common in the prim days.

 

*4K displays have around 8 megapixels but I have no experience with running SL in 4k

[FairreLilette]

On 9/7/2020 at 3:43 AM, Cinos Field said:

Hello, dear SL.

I realize this is extremely niche, but after gasping in horror when I realized just how many 1024x1024 textures every single button on my beautiful new top had, I'm looking for clothiers that... well, don't do that.

Any recommendations for ladies' clothing that's built a little more... economically? As in, ideally no scripts or deletable ones, not max resolution texture overload, perhaps on the lighter side of triangles? I'm not looking for any style in particular, at least - I can always change that.

Yours truly,

some otter

I make almost all of my Dinkie clothes optimized with 512x512 textures and even lower on jewelry with 256x256 for the bits and pieces but those are in storage currently and not in my store because of having to move out quickly due to the coronavirus pandemic.  

I don't make ladies clothes but have some shoes.  If you'd like any of my shoes with smaller textures, send me a notecard and I will make one pair with textures smaller for you.  I could do one pair to see how you like the shoes at 512.  Some of my furniture sets and Halloween stuff is optimized at 512 texture size to reduce lag because I added special effects plus I really only add a 1024 IF the 512 isn't cutting it and doesn't look good but in my experience, I've found 512 looks great on about 85% of items so I am surprised more don't use smaller textures.  It could be because of the MATERIALS that so many are using large textures.  I'm not a MATERIALS fan but I have to think of the other's who do like materials.  

I make a bit of everything.... so my best advice is 1) Learn to make your own OR 2) Place an add in the WANTED section for a personal designer so to speak; someone who would make your items personally with smaller textures for you.  I could do one pair of shoes for you but I'm otherwise busy and taken plus I don't do ladie's clothes.  I may do fairy stuff and lingerie in the future for humans, but not now....I'm too busy.  

Edited September 14, 2020 by FairreLilette

[Pussycat Catnap]

On 9/13/2020 at 12:41 PM, Marianne Little said:

[12:31] Texture info for: 3
1024x1024 opaque on face 0
[12:31] Texture info for: 4
1024x1024 alpha on face 0 1
[12:31] Texture info for: zzz Hairstyle [M]
256x256 opaque on face 0 1 2 3 4 5

Taking these 3. Is my understanding of this correct?

The first item has a texture on face 0

The second item has a texture that is used on two faces, 0 and 1

The third items re-used a texture on 6 faces; 0 through 5 - all sharing a common texture with each other.

 

Which means that third item is well optimized.

 

[Wulfie Reanimator]

2 hours ago, Pussycat Catnap said:

Taking these 3. Is my understanding of this correct?

The first item has a texture on face 0

The second item has a texture that is used on two faces, 0 and 1

The third items re-used a texture on 6 faces; 0 through 5 - all sharing a common texture with each other.

 

Which means that third item is well optimized.

 

When you select a linkset and get the texture info on it, you'll get a breakdown of the individual links. It does not tell you how many textures are on any linkset. If you use a single texture on a linkset of 10 objects, it'll list the same info 10 times.

1 linkset, 3 objects with the same texture:

1 object with multiple same-size textures:

Combination of the above:

Edited September 15, 2020 by Wulfie Reanimator

[Rabid Cheetah]

On 9/13/2020 at 1:27 AM, Penny Patton said:

My understanding is that complexity is not a universal metric. By which I mean, an avatar will have a differently ARC score depending on the computer you're viewing it from. I imagine this goes for individual attachments as well.

I know this was the case at some time, at least, is this still the case?

Wow.  Didn't know that.

[LittleMe Jewell]

10 hours ago, Rabid Cheetah said:

On 9/13/2020 at 2:27 AM, Penny Patton said:

My understanding is that complexity is not a universal metric. By which I mean, an avatar will have a differently ARC score depending on the computer you're viewing it from. I imagine this goes for individual attachments as well.

I know this was the case at some time, at least, is this still the case?

Wow.  Didn't know that.

Not only will different computers give different values, but you'll also get different values from different viewers on the same computer -- or at least it used to be that way.

[MoiraKathleen]

23 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

Not only will different computers give different values, but you'll also get different values from different viewers on the same computer -- or at least it used to be that way.

I do remember discussions about this when it was first being introduced,  and it made sense to me, if the readings are supposed to be an indicator of the impact on your own computer, given your computer's capabilities, and the rendering processes of the viewer in use.   I don't now if it's still that way or not, but might be an interesting thing to check out further on a day I'm really bored.