A Matter of Scale - How scale affects content creation and land ownership in Second Life.

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

Did you read everything he wrote? I think it's clear he does understand what is going on. I basically said the same thing in less inflammatory words... oh wait, that might have been that other thread.

---

I read his inflamatory, hostile, and juvenille remarks - and what more needs to be read beyond that? If he can't conduct himself in good manners, he needs to say it elsewhere.

The only person on the attack in all of this seems to be him. Not the ones he's calling names.

EDIT: well nvm, the thread got much worse right after it seems...

 

[Solar Legion]

I sure as heck hope you meant to reply to Prok on that one, as I'm in agreement with Penny.

[Josh Susanto]

Yes, sorry for the bad threading.

I understand you agree with Penny.

[Drongle McMahon]

"Or, should I use colours?  Like 1 = 1,"

All very well, but the real question is: does 1 = 1 ?

 

This is supposed to be a joke, nothing else implied.

[Imnotgoing Sideways]

It does, but, I bet it would confuse anyone with 3D glasses on. =^-^=

[Torley Linden]

Is there a compilation of inworld locations that demonstrate the correct proportions Penny describes? I see some examples, but a list in the original post to expand "Existing sims..." — or something others can contribute to like a wiki page — would:

1. Help Resis who agree with these ideas to support each others' firsthand work, and
2. Demonstrate to the curious who don't "get it" yet why it matters, hands-on.

Like precedent of other cultural trends/movements that've become wider adopted over time despite initial resistance (as Seth Godin said, it's the lizard brain), it seems like there's big potential here for an advocacy & awareness group, if something like that hasn't already been established. (And I know Penny's done much previous explaining about proper scaling.)

[Jo Yardley]

1920s Berlin is build in semi-realistic scale.

I had to make some concessions here and there, mostly because when I started building I had been in SL for just a few weeks and was not yet sure about scale and going totally realistic.
So it is an ongoing process and my 83924795739 next sims will be more and more 'up to scale'

And having over 70 tenants in one region I have to keep in mind that it is not good to have tenants running around with big bumps on their heads.

But we've had cars made scale 1:1, streets, allyways, houses, clubs, they are all generally a lot smaller then we're used to in SL.

I have to confess I made many doors a little larger then I wanted to and not all rooms are tiny and as small as I would like but it really does work rather well.

We notice many visitors who after a few times decide to make their avatar smaller and love it.

It is really odd but most people in SL live in huge villas, apartments, palaces, castles, etc.

People live in luxery, looking like models.

And I offer them tiny, often 1 room apartments where they can barely swing a cat, live very close to their neighbours, often have factories nearby with annoying sounds all day, thei have dirty walls, rarely a bath room and often they even have to share a toilet.

People told me nobody would ever want to live like that, I myself wondered if anyone would ever want to live there.

We are celebrating our 2nd anniversary next month and we've had a full occupancy rate almost since the beginning and a very exciting well working community.

 

We also have a little plot at the SL8 regions, also in our semi-realistic scale.

It has a dance club and a show room apartment above it.

So you can freely have a look there without having to change your appearance, just in case I made the bits above the doors phantom so even taller avatars have no problem going inside.

http://slurl.com/secondlife/SL8B Dazzle/53/245/22

 

[Dresden Ceriano]

Thanks for reminding me. I ran across a couple of inworld groups the other day quite by accident that might be of interest.

League for normally scaled Avatars

Built To Scale

...Dres

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

Torley Linden wrote:

Is there a compilation of inworld locations that demonstrate the correct proportions Penny describes?

I see some examples, but a list in the original post to expand "Existing sims..." — or something others can contribute to like a wiki page — would:

---

Scale maybe, but proportion is avatar dependant. Proper proportion will differ for every avatar. So there -was- one on top of the roof of one of my skyboxes where I'd set up stacks of prims to measure 3 of my avatars - but each sets of stacks was different as the three all have different size heads and thus heights.

See this: http://catnapkitty.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/getting-good-body-proportions-in-second-life/

- For how avatar dependant proportion gets.

As for scale of building - which is what this thread was about before it got derailed. I hear 1920s Berlin is a hood example. I don't know of any others offhand and have never been to 1920s Berlin for prior stated reasons. (and if you're looking for a place to showcase this info - any location that does not allow non-humans would not suffice, other concerns aside. They wouldn't like the flood of non-humans, and the flood would not feel welcomed. After all, even nekos and furries benefit by getting to know scale of builds. )

 

[Jo Yardley]

We're having a relaxed dresscode rules day on the 17th next month, on that day EVERYONE is welcome as long as they are not naked, a nazi or a naked nazi.

So feel free to come and have a look then, without having to change a bit.

Also our plot in SL8 (around till the 2nd of next month I think) will give you some idea of our sims scale.

We do allow non-humans by the way, as long as they are realistic.

Plenty of animals in Berlin.

I wouldn't have a problem with anything being showcased that wouldn't allow realistic human avatars btw.

To each its own.

 

[Penny Patton]

---

Torley Linden wrote:

Is there a compilation of inworld locations that demonstrate the correct proportions Penny describes?

I see some examples, but a list in the original post to expand "Existing sims..." — or something others can contribute to like a wiki page — would:

1. Help Resis who agree with these ideas to support each others' firsthand work, and
2. Demonstrate to the curious who don't "get it" yet why it matters, hands-on.

Like precedent of other cultural trends/movements that've become wider adopted over time despite initial resistance (as Seth Godin said, it's the

lizard brain

), it seems like there's big potential here for an advocacy & awareness group, if something like that hasn't already been established. (And I know Penny's done much previous explaining about proper scaling.)

---

I included Doomed Ship, 1920's Berlin and my own shop in the Wastelands as examples people could explore and see for themselves.I probably should have included a list at the end, but in my past few edits of the original post I've been bumping my head against the character limit.

I'd love to see more examples, I'm not aware of too many "built to scale" places in SL. I believe once the SL starter avatars are scaled down and SL's default camera placement improved a lot more people will be encouraged to take advantage of scale in their builds.

 Also, the Viewer 2 appearance editor still displays incorrect height. That really needs to be fixed, either by fixing AgentHeight directly, or by applying a math fudge to get it to display close to accurate height. Nyx Linden said they  wanted to correct the root of the problem rather than overlaying a math correction to fix it, but if that is not going to happen anytime soon I'd think a math correction approach would be acceptable until such time as the root problem, AgentHeight, can be corrected.

[Magnek Fang]

You do know that if you redefine what the meter is in-grid, you'd break nearly every animation and scripted object there is, right?

LL dosn't have to do a damn thing, except tweak the camera a bit. Best we can do is educate, educate, educate. Oh and patronize certain shape/skin makers that make the height you like. To be frank though, as long as they aren't pinheads with T-rex arms, I don'r care what height someone is.

It's interesting that furries tend to have shorter avis on average than humans. But I think I'm just rambling at this point.

[Jo Yardley]

I think it would be great for EVERYONE if LL let us set our camera where we want it to be and then lock it.

I think it would be great for those of us interested in realistic avatars and all future people who join SL if at least some of the standard starter avatars are realistically scaled.

Let people CHOOSE to be bigger then normal, give them the freedom to be realistic from the beginning onwards.

You can always change your avatar, make it bigger, smaller, etc.

But now you are send into SL thinking you are just a normal realistic avatar and only realise you're not when someone tells you.

THAT would change a lot WITHOUT forcing anyone to be smaller, taller, or change their avatar in any other way.

[Penny Patton]

No one suggested redefining the SL metre.

I did cover the problems for animations and other existing content under the current circumstances in the article.

[Josh Susanto]

[No one suggested redefining the SL metre.]

I have previously suggested redefining the meter as 2.5 English feet, 2 Chinese feet or 2 Egyptian cubits.

ANY of these things would allow some of the problems of scale to be more efficiently eliminated, but I think it's a less complete and elegant solution than simply opening resize permissions on all objected owned.

Penny-  to you has been attributed the terminology "correct", rather than "optimized" or "normalized" (for example).

Please clarify whether you're OK with people saying you want scale "corrected", which I understand may never have been your ultimate intention.

I personally think that "correct" is not precisely the right word, and that it fails to convey the essence of the scale problem.

The problem is not that things are not "correct" in scale; the problem is that things are not compatible in scale, neither on an optimum scale (about which people may disagree, even if they agree on the basic problem) nor on some arbitrary but consistent scale (which would solve the core problem, even if not optimally).

Officially setting the Linden meter either at 1 meter or at 2.5 English feet would allow everyone to discuss things more fairly as being "to scale" or "not to scale", but it would not allow any remedy for objects already existing which are neither moddable nor "to scale". That is: setting the meter at 2.5 English feet would match more current use than would setting the meter at 1 meter, but it would not allow people to resolve scale issues between buildings, cars, furniture, etc., which is not set to mod; it would just leave a smaller class of objects out of scale than under the meter/meter option. OTOH, setting the meter would be considered an automatic "correction" by people not interested in empirical considerations, but it would only leave a larger bunch of objects out of scale.

The meter/meter may be the better standard for new objects, and I think Penny makes a reasonably good argument for that, but the compelling part of the argument has nothing to do with incidental terminological consistency between SL and RL. The compelling part of the argument is utility; moreover: it is quite possible to disagree about whether the meter needs to be a meter, and still agree that the meter needs to be something more specific than what it currently is.

Focusing on whether ANY standard is the "correct" standard just allows the discussion to stay bogged down in disagreements about what is "correct"; the stated scale or the prevailing scale of use. In order to get enough popular support to make any progress on the scale problem, I think we need to stop thinking in terms of things being "correct" in scale and start thinking in terms of things being more useful at one scale than at another. 

Right now, more things are more useful at the 2.5 English feet scale, because more other things exist at a similar scale. But there is a downside to this slightly greater utility which Penny has explained compellingly enough that I (for one) no longer think that simply defining the meter as 2.5 English feet is necessarily the best solution if Linden can be persuaded to get involved. By contrast, the meter/meter standard has numerous advanatges inside any sim where it can be consistently applied, but any effort to apply it more broadly will leave users in a position to have to abandon many existing things which are quite functional at some other scale.

The self-appointed Size Police seem want a meter standard because they want a meter standard, and not for the reasons that Penny explains. 

It's my hope that people on both sides of the scale question will consider Penny's arguments. Not so that everyone will instantly agree on everything, but so that they will have a clearer idea of why the argument matters. Getting sucked into arguments about whether something is "correct" isn't going to help, and allowing the Size Police to go around trying to "correct" people on their height is not going to encourage people to consider the scale problem with an open mind; it merely reinforces the idea that there is no better reason to consider the meter/meter, which there is.

The scale solution I currently support (open resize permissions) would allow most existing objects to be brought into local scale, regardless of that scale. Thus, if implemented, this solution would not require any official position on scale, and would not require people to massively rebuild or refurnish sims in compliance with some new standard, and would allow a more gradual and democratic shift to some more consistent range of scale (mostly up or mostly down isn't the point; users can collectively decide that by their millions of specific decisions).

An additional advantage to open size mod is that avatar attachments would practically always be able to fit buyers or other recipients. 

What are the practical objections to getting the size mod opened up by LL?

Are there any?

 

[Penny Patton]

@Josh - Probably bad wording on my part. When I say correct, I mean that if someone is aiming for 6'1" tall, then their avatar being 6'1" tall would be "correct" to them. If they are deliberately aiming for 8' tall, then an avatar height of 8' would be "correct" for them. Incorrect would be an avatar where the person believes their avatar to be 6'1", but is actually over 8' tall.

My intention is what it's always been, LL providing more realistically average/idealized avatars to new users, correcting the height displayed in the appearance editor, and fixing SL's camera placement. I do not wish LL to forcibly re-size anyone, redefine the SL metre, or any other drastic action which limits our creative freedom.

I would like it very much if no-mod items were at least made re-sizable but I do not see LL doing this, and I would expect a lot of opposition. One actually reasonable argument against it is that re-sizing a scripted object with moving parts can, if the item was not scripted to take this into account, actually break the object.

[Josh Susanto]

Thank you.

I accept your use of "correct" as meaning "consistent with the intended result".

And I thank you for acknowledging possible semantic/lexical confounds.

The broken script thing is a serious problem.

Could that hypothetically be mitigated simply by having the resize permission restricted to objects that show no scripts?

I realize that maybe that sounds complicated, but, really, it should not be. 

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

Jo Yardley wrote:

 

We do allow non-humans by the way, as long as they are realistic.

Plenty of animals in Berlin.

I wouldn't have a problem with anything being showcased that wouldn't allow realistic human avatars btw.

To each its own.

 

---

Yeah um...

Furry is not animal.

If anything's going to get showcased for scale, it needs to be all inclusive.

I can't think of any place that bans humans though - but I'm sure they exist.

 

[Jo Yardley]

Yes but you said "not allow non-humans", but we do, we allow animals.

That's what I meant.

[Kris Messmer]

I've been building large city builds for 4 years and this drives me absolutely nuts. I'm pretty sure LL couldn't care less though. 

 

You don't really know how much land is wasted with current avatar sizes until you compensate for it everyday.

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

Jo Yardley wrote:

Yes but you said "not allow non-humans", but we do, we allow animals.

That's what I meant.

---

You could be Bill Clinton's lawyer with logic like that.

Taking my statements and twisting around their intent to find the narrow exception and suddenly declare yourself inclusive. You can set whatever exclusion standards make sense to you - but you're still barring large sections of the SL population which makes you a bad choice for any showcase example.

 

[Jo Yardley]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

---

You could be Bill Clinton's lawyer with logic like that.

Taking my statements and twisting around their intent to find the narrow exception and suddenly declare yourself inclusive. You can set whatever exclusion standards make sense to you - but you're still barring large sections of the SL population which makes you a bad choice for any showcase example.

 

---

I'm not twisting anything around, you said we don't allow non-humans, I say we do.

And I reckon we'd be a good choice for a realistic historical roleplay example.

 

[Solar Legion]

Ahem ..... There's a difference between non-humans and animals.

Animals are critters, usually naturally occuring ones. Non-humans are generally the various fantasy races.

You allow animals, not fantasy races, thus you do not allow non-humans. 

[Jo Yardley]

To me animals are non-humans.

Anyway, we're getting a bit off topic.

[Annie Ibanez]

I would like to add to the list of sims built beautifully to scale the Mediterranean village outside of the shop "illusions" -- region name Carnivale.