Tattoo's on Alpha layer

[Debbi Demina]

Hi all,

I have someone wishing for a tattoo to be made but i have a dilema they use the tattoo layer for makeup and use phoenix which doesn't support multiple clothing layers, soooo I was curious can you make a tattoo/texture and place it on the alpha layer and if so how...or how is it best done i should say...

Thanks in advance.

Debbi x

[Marianne Little]

Where do they want the tattoo? If they don't want it on the head/face, you can use the normal clothing layers. 

As I understand it, it's not possible to use the alpha layer for a tattoo. And I guess they use the alpha layer for shoes or boots now.

 

[Gryphon Ronas]

Won't work at all.  That isn't what the alpha layer is for. All it is, is as the name implies, an alpha channel. And a very basic one at that.

For body tats, clothing layers is the only remaining option for them. 

Actually, I didn't realize that anybody ws still running anything that didn't support multiple tattoo layers. It sounds like what your customer wants is probably something they have chosen to make not available by their decision to not keep up with the current technology.

[Jennifer Boyle]

I think the passage of time will solve the prioblem.  Being able to wear multiple otems of the same layer is so useful that I cannoty imagine a viewer that lacks that feature remaining viable for the long term.  Would it be possible to add the tattoo to the makeup tattoo layers?

[Gryphon Ronas]

Adding the tattoos to the makeup tattoo would be very possible, if the makeup tattoo is modifiable, and as long as it didn't use the same area - since we're referring to makeup, I would assume the head.  But, this is SL, so no assumption is totally safe.  LOL

( and yes - Alpha layers are used for shoes and boots - and anywhere else the old fashioned invisiprims were used, without the undesirable effects the invisi's brought with them. )

[Debbi Demina]

Hiya everyone,

thanks for all the replies, I didn't think it was possible but thought it better to seek the proffesionals advice ;-)

I know that phoenix doesn't support multiple clothing layers, but firestorm does its just converting customers to use it hehe

for now i guess i will go down the route of using the clothing layers, i did warn her that it might be the way to go, but I will also as her if she knows if her make up is modifiable as that could work too...

thankyou all once again for your excellent answers

Debbi x

[melody Swashbuckler]

If you are gong to switch to Firestorm to wear multiple tattoo layers at once, please keep in mind that there is a glitch right now with wearing multiple tattoo layers. It will cause your body to become fuzzy or black in the areas with the tattoo layers. The only fix unfortunately is to reapply your tattoos every time you change clothes. PITA if you ask me cos i have my tattoo, eyeshadow and breast reducer tattoos to wear all at once.There is a JIRA on it, so soon it will be fixed, hopefully.

[Chosen Few]

I really wish they'd stop calling it "alpha layer".  It causes so much confusion.  It's not a layer.  It's a data channel.  They should call it "alpha channel" or "alpha map".

To be even more specific, they really aught to go with "transparency map".  Alpha maps are used for all kinds of things besides just transparenc, after all.

[leliel Mirihi]

The official documentation refers to is as an alpha mask. But nobody reads the manual so...

[Void Singer]

we'll to be fair, in the instance of application to clothing/avatar it's grouped with the clothings "layers" (appropriate use), and in that instance it's being used as a layer mask of the alpha (or as leliel points out an alpha mask, I wasn't aware of the documentation)

alpha layer alpha layer alpha layer >=) j/k

[Chosen Few]

---

Void Singer wrote:

we'll to be fair, in the instance of application to clothing/avatar it's grouped with the clothings "layers" (appropriate use), and in that instance it's being used as a layer mask of the alpha (or as leliel points out an alpha mask, I wasn't aware of the documentation)

---

OK, so if it's a layer mask, call it a layer mask.  Don't call it a layer.  A layer mask is not a layer any more than a pencil eraser is a pencil.  Just because one may be attached to the other doesn't mean they're the same thing.

But I guess if it were just called "alpha mask", people would probably think it's got something to do with the avatar's face, and they'd be even more confused than they are now.

I don't think we can accurately define it as a layer mask anyway.  It affects the entire layer stack, not just one layer.  It's much simpler to define it as a channel.

If we were working in any 3D platform besides SL, there would be lots and lots of channels to work with, and they'd all be defined as what they are.  There would be a bump channel, a spec channel, a reflectivity channel, an incandescence channel, etc., etc., etc., and yes, a transparency channel.  All would be individually controlled by alpha maps.

Only in SL do the words "alpha" and "layer" get thrown together so haphazardly.  It used to be confined to the forums, but now it's right there in the viewer, which makes it even harder to educate people on how nonsensical it is.

Just because it's labeled as such doesn't make it real.  I could glue a lunchbox to the back seat of my car, string a few lights on it, and slap the words "Flux Capacitor" across the bottom of it.  But that wouldn't mean my car's gonna travel through time.  There's no such thing as a flux capacitor, no matter what the sign says.  And there's no such thing as an alpha layer, no matter what that little label slot in the avatar editor says.

We already know the Lindens are screwy when it comes to labeling things.  Profile vs. path, anyone?  They got those two terms backwards years ago, and it's been that way in the viewer ever since.  That mislableling caused a lot of people, including myself, to believe prims were constructed in an entirely different manner from how they actually are put together.  It took quite a bit bit of convincing from well educated people on this forum (and I think you were one of them, Void, if I remember correctly) to get me to realize how mistaken I'd been.  I can only imagine how many people are now equally entrenched in their belief that there is in fact such a thing as an "alpha layer".

 

---

Void Singer wrote:

alpha layer alpha layer alpha layer >=) j/k

---

 

[Void Singer]

=D

not I, though I do remember dropping in on that discussion, and how schizo some of the construction decisions were.

you know me though, I do like clear concise definitions, I'm just a little more fatalistic about it