Mesh Bounding Box?

[Chic Aeon]

I am deleting this post as I think it might start a "dangerous" trend ^^ which was not my intent.  

 

 

Edited October 4, 2020 by Chic Aeon
deleting info

[Mollymews]

i have some jewellery made like this. I think the idea was to make it easier to select and resize the object and/or Touch the object when is touch script enabled

with a choker I have then i have to zoom the camera inside the outer cube to select a face as is all one object

with some animesh ears I have I can edit link the outer container and move it out the way because is 5 linked objects 

[Profaitchikenz Haiku]

57 minutes ago, Chic Aeon said:

Is this to  keep the land impact low as in putting small squares at the corners of small items so they will hold their LODs?

This came up at one of the server user group meetings I used to attend, avatars were shown walking around with massive 5 or 10-metre square objects fully transparent over their heads. At the time, the only logical explanation was as you have surmised, it was a way to make tiny jewellery attachments such as ear-rings or possibly mesh hair remain visible and not decompose into triangles.

I don't know if this has ever received further attention. Avatar attachments don't count against region object counts,  so it wasn't seen as an immediate problem. The instance you have shown also might be a clever way of getting around the combined LOD/LI issue as well?

Edited October 4, 2020 by Profaitchikenz Haiku

[Chic Aeon]

Deleted   

Edited October 4, 2020 by Chic Aeon

[Wulfie Reanimator]

5 hours ago, Chic Aeon said:

The creator is NOT NEW so it is most likely not a "mistake of not knowing".  HMMMMM.

Ignorance, laziness, or just an actual mistake (exported the cage by accident). The small triangles typically used to increase the bounding box have no negative effect on land impact or complexity, compared to these solid sides. Mathematically speaking, the small triangles are more efficient since the pictures you've shown have two triangles per all 6 sides, which is twice the amount needed.

It shouldn't even affect the LOD distance, because the box is exactly the size of the visual object itself. It's not increasing the size of the bounding box.

No matter the reason, it's pointless and bad design.

Edited October 4, 2020 by Wulfie Reanimator

[Profaitchikenz Haiku]

6 hours ago, Chic Aeon said:

I am deleting this post as I think it might start a "dangerous" trend ^^ which was not my intent. 

I fully understand your reasoning, but on the other hand, it is educational for people to know that something like this can happen, and would suggest also that you're shutting the door long after the horse has bolted.

[Chic Aeon]

37 minutes ago, Profaitchikenz Haiku said:

I fully understand your reasoning, but on the other hand, it is educational for people to know that something like this can happen, and would suggest also that you're shutting the door long after the horse has bolted.

LOL.   I agree somewhat but since I have personally only seen ONE creator doing this (this thread wasn't about attachments) I am going to keep my mouth shut.  If this becomes rampant then I am sure comments will show up here on the forums and I will of course chime in. I still have my screenshots in my "forums and misc" folder *wink*.  

Thanks for your comment.  

[Wulfie Reanimator]

2 hours ago, Chic Aeon said:

LOL.   I agree somewhat but since I have personally only seen ONE creator doing this (this thread wasn't about attachments) I am going to keep my mouth shut.  If this becomes rampant then I am sure comments will show up here on the forums and I will of course chime in. I still have my screenshots in my "forums and misc" folder *wink*.  

Thanks for your comment.  

Wouldn't pointing out bad practices before they popularize be better?

Telling people to start optimizing their mesh after the market is filled with literally everyone's unoptimized mesh is much harder than talking about it preemptively.

Edited October 4, 2020 by Wulfie Reanimator

[Chic Aeon]

6 minutes ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

Wouldn't pointing out bad practices before they popularize be better?

Telling people to start optimizing their mesh after the market is filled with literally everyone's unoptimized mesh is much harder than talking about it preemptively.

Well my experience along with a few others here that have TRIED  to explain "better practices" (I know I am not perfect there) has been that the people that are making the "bad mesh" keep on making it. I think that our oh so long threads of the past pointing out bad LODs, 1024 textures on matchheads (yes honestly) and half a million triangle furniture (again yes really) did little good.  I think we changed one of those creators methods; I haven't checked recently.   

 

All that unoptimized mesh is getting worse rather than better with some of my favorite creators of old sliding over to the heavy texture arena and sometimes heavy mesh -- and I suspect some are now buying "render" mesh files from the web.   So my experience has me leaning towards "don't pass around the bad info that those folks can (and likely will) pick up and use to their advantage".  NOT to the advantage of shoppers however.   

 

Feel free though to start a thread.  Just not going to be me and sorry I even brought it up while puzzling the "why" :D. 

[Mollymews]

10 hours ago, Profaitchikenz Haiku said:

This came up at one of the server user group meetings I used to attend, avatars were shown walking around with massive 5 or 10-metre square objects fully transparent over their heads. At the time, the only logical explanation was as you have surmised, it was a way to make tiny jewellery attachments such as ear-rings or possibly mesh hair remain visible and not decompose into triangles.

I don't know if this has ever received further attention. Avatar attachments don't count against region object counts,  so it wasn't seen as an immediate problem

aha! I hadn't thought of that. Makes sense to me as another reason why

[Wulfie Reanimator]

1 hour ago, Chic Aeon said:

Well my experience along with a few others here that have TRIED  to explain "better practices" (I know I am not perfect there) has been that the people that are making the "bad mesh" keep on making it. I think that our oh so long threads of the past pointing out bad LODs, 1024 textures on matchheads (yes honestly) and half a million triangle furniture (again yes really) did little good.  I think we changed one of those creators methods; I haven't checked recently.

Talking about mesh problems on this forum is basically preaching to the choir. All of us regulars are almost always in agreement about how to improve something, with the occasional newbie coming in to ask questions. None of the popular brands are coming here looking for advice, and lord help you if you try going to them.

2 hours ago, Chic Aeon said:

So my experience has me leaning towards "don't pass around the bad info that those folks can (and likely will) pick up and use to their advantage".  NOT to the advantage of shoppers however.

I can kind of see how you would come up to that conclusion, but I strongly disagree that showing bad examples (in conjunction with explaining that it's a bad example) makes people do bad things. In fact, "here's an example, do you see what's wrong with it?" and evaluating work that has been done poorly is a common teaching method.