38 attachment points are not enough

[Modulated]

15 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Not really, the problem is the creators who put the high arc items for sale, not the unknowing customers who buy and then wear it. The Lab could just prevent high arc items from being uploaded and put for sale in the first place. Another option is that instead of the Complexity scale defaulting to 350,000, SL gives the option of a viewer to limit the avatar viewing distance. If one could limit themselves to only viewing the 5-10 closest people, the arc thing wouldn't be much of a deal.

Whether they prevent the upload or force a lower complexity, what's the difference? The end result would pretty much be the same.

[Arielle Popstar]

1 minute ago, Modulated said:

If you keep up with the third party viewer meetings, Beq, the developer of FS, is in favor of forced complexity limits. This was brought up at the most recent meeting, by Beq.  I know what I am talking about, thank you.

Thing is that complexity has a minimal impact on the FPS compared to viewing a room half full of grey jelly dolls.

[Arielle Popstar]

1 minute ago, Modulated said:

Whether they prevent the upload or force a lower complexity, what's the difference? The end result would pretty much be the same.

Because it puts the onus on the creators rather than the consumer. A good percentage of residents don't even have the Complexity number turned on.

[Modulated]

4 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Because it puts the onus on the creators rather than the consumer. A good percentage of residents don't even have the Complexity number turned on.

Even more reason to force a limit on complexity.

[Modulated]

6 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Thing is that complexity has a minimal impact on the FPS compared to viewing a room half full of grey jelly dolls.

I think Beq knows what is problematic and what is not, being a dev and all.

[Arielle Popstar]

Just now, Modulated said:

Even more reason to force a limit on complexity.

Force it on the creators upload is the only way it makes sense. Otherwise we just get more creators selling stuff that is not suitable for SL. It is easy enough for a Creator to upload an item with a lower LoD setting that will lower the complexity of a product.

[Modulated]

Just now, Arielle Popstar said:

Force it on the creators upload is the only way it makes sense. Otherwise we just get more creators selling stuff that is not suitable for SL. It is easy enough for a Creator to upload an item with a lower LoD setting that will lower the complexity of a product.

The consumer should shoulder some responsibility too, ignorance is not an excuse.

[Arielle Popstar]

3 minutes ago, Modulated said:

I think Beq knows what is problematic and what is not, being a dev and all.

I'm sure too Beq knows and she has in fact stated it on her blog if you had read it. Problem is that as head of FS she is now forced into a political role with the Lindens who'd like nothing more then to dictate the TPV's to be exactly the same as their sh1t viewer. She is pushed into situations of having to offer best case solutions to some of the cockamamie ideas the Lindens come up with even when there are better solutions.

[Theresa Tennyson]

17 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

It is easy enough for a Creator to upload an item with a lower LoD setting that will lower the complexity of a product.

It's interesting how everything that you would do yourself appears to be difficult but everything that somebody else would do is easy.

[steeljane42]

8 minutes ago, Modulated said:

If you keep up with the third party viewer meetings, Beq, the developer of FS, is in favor of forced complexity limits. This was brought up at the most recent meeting, by Beq.  I know what I am talking about, thank you.

I do keep up with that, and I did read/listen to the parts of that last TPV meeting I was curious about. She knows the current complexity formula is useless (and given her remarks in chat it was obvious) there's no way she'd want any limits until it's all redone, and then it would be a whole different story than trying to force it now. The rest of that part of the discussion? Lots of yelling, especially by a certain person in chat, and a lot of "wishful thinking".

And yeah, given how it's one of the main sources of income for LL, the whole avatars ecosystems, there's no way they'd shoot themselves in the foot and enforce new limits on the old types of content. "Yesterday you could buy and wear 38 things, and today it's 20, or less." Pretty obvious how much less people would spend on their avatars customization. And that's mainstream stuff, fantasy community would just die as they need a lot more room already.

So it can only work with new types of content, e.g. animesh. It was released like this already, 1 only (2 for premiums), and a heavy li "tax" if it's rezzables. I'd argue all that made it far less popular than it would be otherwise, though, especially rezzable ones as some bigger/heavier ones are too much for tiny plots where they'd take half of li. But even then, it's a new content, with its own set of rules, and not quite breaking 21 (soon) years worth of stuff because "complexity purists" can't be bothered to use provided tools to avoid seeing those that don't fit their idea of a "good avatar".

[Modulated]

19 minutes ago, steeljane42 said:

I do keep up with that, and I did read/listen to the parts of that last TPV meeting I was curious about. She knows the current complexity formula is useless (and given her remarks in chat it was obvious) there's no way she'd want any limits until it's all redone, and then it would be a whole different story than trying to force it now. The rest of that part of the discussion? Lots of yelling, especially by a certain person in chat, and a lot of "wishful thinking".

And yeah, given how it's one of the main sources of income for LL, the whole avatars ecosystems, there's no way they'd shoot themselves in the foot and enforce new limits on the old types of content. "Yesterday you could buy and wear 38 things, and today it's 20, or less." Pretty obvious how much less people would spend on their avatars customization. And that's mainstream stuff, fantasy community would just die as they need a lot more room already.

So it can only work with new types of content, e.g. animesh. It was released like this already, 1 only (2 for premiums), and a heavy li "tax" if it's rezzables. I'd argue all that made it far less popular than it would be otherwise, though, especially rezzable ones as some bigger/heavier ones are too much for tiny plots where they'd take half of li. But even then, it's a new content, with its own set of rules, and not quite breaking 21 (soon) years worth of stuff because "complexity purists" can't be bothered to use provided tools to avoid seeing those that don't fit their idea of a "good avatar".

Still no good arguments for not enforcing a complexity cap, but I appreciate the long read.

[Rowan Amore]

Beq did also say this in the thread quoted... "Compare that to your typical rigged mesh hair which will frequently show low complexity but can easily be the slowest rendering part."

I recently showed a hair I demoed which didn't raise my complexity all.that much but had almost 1.5M triangles.  1.5M triangles are going to take longer to render than hair with 250K or less.  My complexity can easily be under 50K yet with that hair, my triangles were almost 2M.  My normal cut off is under 1M usually between 400K-800K.

Stop checking complexity and start checking triangle or render times.

[Nalates Urriah]

Beq is smart and understands the viewer. However techy types tend to have their interests and opinions heavily weighted for technical perfection.

I find it interesting that the word "forced" is used so often.

The ideas of freedom and tolerance are quickly forgotten. Forget personal choices and preferences. Do it my way...

The JellyDoll solution was a good solution because it allows everyone to do what they want with minimal impact on those that do not want to render high cost avatars and those that want to wear them.

 

[Arielle Popstar]

8 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

The JellyDoll solution was a good solution because it allows everyone to do what they want with minimal impact on those that do not want to render high cost avatars and those that want to wear them.

Choice would have been to render those high cost avatars as a cloud or some sort of 0 complexity marker to  signify their presence without loading all their junk anyway but then still shows them as gray, which the viewers do according to the testing I've done. The Jellydoll makes little difference to the FPS of the viewer in comparison to doing a ctrl+shift+alt+4. Better would have been to render only the nearest avatars vs having to render a whole club including those at the far end.

[Rowan Amore]

I simply derender the higher ones.  

18 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Better would have been to render only the nearest avatars vs having to render a whole club including those at the far end.

Isn't that an option in the graphics speed floater?

[Wulfie Reanimator]

7 hours ago, Modulated said:

If you keep up with the third party viewer meetings, Beq, the developer of FS, is in favor of forced complexity limits. This was brought up at the most recent meeting, by Beq.  I know what I am talking about, thank you.

Beq did not do that. She said the opposite during the TPV meeting on March 15th. When she's talking about limiting avatar complexity, she's not talking about "Complexity."

Quote

Beq Janus: Complexity is nonsense and should be removed from the viewers, we've had that discussion before.

She even reiterates (multiple times) that she's talking about something entirely different.

Quote

Beq Janus: If we ever have dreams of getting to Fortnite scale events, then avatar complexity needs to be dealt with.

Beq Janus: I use the complexity term in an ill-advised way there.

Beq Janus: We need a vocabulary that avoids "complexity."

Edited March 19 by Wulfie Reanimator

[Modulated]

7 minutes ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

Beq did not do that. She said the opposite during the TPV meeting on March 15th. When she's talking about limiting avatar complexity, she's not talking about "Complexity."

She even reiterates (multiple times) that she's talking about something entirely different.

 

Still its limits. LIMITS.

[Wulfie Reanimator]

Just now, Modulated said:

Still its limits. LIMITS.

Of course avatar complexity should be limited, but you were responding to (and arguing for) the most useless metric we currently have, while misinterpreting Beq and pretending you know what you're talking about. You're just moving the goal post now.

[Modulated]

1 minute ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

Of course avatar complexity should be limited, but you were responding to (and arguing for) the most useless metric we currently have, while misinterpreting Beq and pretending you know what you're talking about. You're just moving the goal post now.

[Arielle Popstar]

2 hours ago, Rowan Amore said:

I simply derender the higher ones.  

Isn't that an option in the graphics speed floater?

My understanding according to the testing I did is that it "optimizes" the further avatars by basically freezing them, not derendering them. The quick preferences slider for Max Avatars dictates how many avatars you can set to show as moving, the rest will just slide if they change location. AO poses and bento face animations will be frozen. It does not derender the avatars like the ctrl+shift+alt+4 does nor the Render Only Friends option. 

It would be nice to have the option of rendering just the nearest 10 avatars or maybe only rendering avatars you are speaking with for example. I've seen it happen too often where someone I was chatting with in a busy club was lagging to a point they had to leave. Would have been nice for that resident to derender all except self and who they talking to.

[Cackle Amore]

On 3/13/2024 at 2:26 PM, AyelaNewLife said:

Then you add in accessories that are almost always on. For me, that's my glasses, earrings, nose piercing and wedding ring, for 4 more attachments.

While it might only be a bandaid, if those are all attached to the head, then they could probably be linked together, unless one of the items are from one of those weird no mod sellers

[Jennifer Boyle]

2 hours ago, Cackle Amore said:

While it might only be a bandaid, if those are all attached to the head, then they could probably be linked together, unless one of the items are from one of those weird no mod sellers

That's not a very practical solution for things like earrings and glasses, of which one usually has many different ones that are mixed and matched in different outfits.

[AyelaNewLife]

19 hours ago, Cackle Amore said:

While it might only be a bandaid, if those are all attached to the head, then they could probably be linked together, unless one of the items are from one of those weird no mod sellers

This (and other suggestions made in earlier posts) describes a band-aid workaround to partially mitigate a problem.

I am saying fix the problem.