How tall are you?

[Baloo Uriza]

Vanity sizing works exactly the opposite on men's sizes.  Go ahead, try to find a men's large that can fit any male larger than a beanpole of a teenager.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Baloo Uriza wrote:

Vanity sizing works exactly the opposite on men's sizes.  Go ahead, try to find a men's large that can fit any male larger than a beanpole of a teenager.

---

Agreed completey.  I find myself buying XL on a regular basis and I am not that tall nor am I heavy.

I do have to get my dress shirts tapered because when I buy to fit my neck, the rest of the shirt is a tent on me. 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I've no idea how tall my av is but, for SL, avs have to be significantly taller that RL people. It's because of the camera that's behind the av. 

---

This is not true.

 

Room and other things are built bigger, but with 3D cameras and barbie doll houses, that actually works better when the doll placed inside is smaller.

- You will notice this in dolls and in all other 3D apps as well. Wander through an MMO sometime.

The walls need to be about 1.5 to 2x taller than they are in RL, in -comparrision- to the avatar. So if you make your avatar bigger, the walls just get even bigger.

The default camera ONLY impacts walls and cielings. NOTHING else needs to scale up for it.

---

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. You agree that walls and ceilings have to scale up because of the camera/viewing position. I'll assume that you also agree that floor space has to scale uyp too, otherwise being in an RL-sized living room, say 4x4m, would be ridiculous for actually seeing. That being the case, furniture also has to scale up or it looks way too small in a room. And, since furniture has to scale up, avatars also have to scale up unless they want to look way too small on the furniture.

Try putting an RL-sized sofa against a scaled-up wall that has a scaled up window in it. The sofa looks so small that it looks positively silly.

Because the 'eyes' (camera) are way behind the avatar, and avatars need to be, and see, inside rooms, everything has to scale up to look and work reasonably right. There's no getting away from it and, as long as the eyes are way behind the head, there's no good reason not to have it that way.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Baloo Uriza wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I've no idea how tall my av is but, for SL, avs have to be significantly taller that RL people. It's because of the camera that's behind the av.

---

No, that doesn't mean that avs have to be significantly taller.  Or even that architecture needs to be.  Just that the camera default position needs to be more configurable and perhaps lower.  It's kind of unfortunate that the default position isn't first-person view and that functionality is severely limited in first person view compared to the flycam.

---

It's the default camera/viewing position that matters though, so everything simply has to scale up - which is how SL actually is.

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Baloo Uriza wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I've no idea how tall my av is but, for SL, avs have to be significantly taller that RL people. It's because of the camera that's behind the av.

---

No, that doesn't mean that avs have to be significantly taller.  Or even that architecture needs to be.  Just that the camera default position needs to be more configurable and perhaps lower.  It's kind of unfortunate that the default position isn't first-person view and that functionality is severely limited in first person view compared to the flycam.

---

It's the default camera/viewing position that matters though, so everything simply has to scale up - which is how SL actually is.

---

default meshmault

whatever that means

[Phil Deakins]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

default meshmault

whatever that means

---

I think it means that, by default, mesh is malt flavoured - without the "u", which must be a typo

[China Yuheng]

6'7 1.997309 m  with height detector here and 5'9 in rl lol

[Nova Convair]

A bit shorter than 2m (female) and thats average in SL from my point of view.

The default camera setting encourages larger builds.

I've been in small builds - comparable to RL and I don't like it. I don't want to spend time at a place like that. Walking around is best done in mouselook there. Setting the camera close to the avatar is a must when navigaing there in 3rd person view.

When I build the minimim ceiling height is 4m - i prefer 5m though and plenty of space horizontally. Moving around, turning, rotating the camera and not running into prims all the time - thats nice, luxury and comfortable.

SL is not RL - there are differences

So if the builds get taller the avatars follow? Or people just want to be taller and exaggerate? I don't know.

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I've no idea how tall my av is but, for SL, avs have to be significantly taller that RL people. It's because of the camera that's behind the av. 

---

This is not true.

 

Room and other things are built bigger, but with 3D cameras and barbie doll houses, that actually works better when the doll placed inside is smaller.

- You will notice this in dolls and in all other 3D apps as well. Wander through an MMO sometime.

The walls need to be about 1.5 to 2x taller than they are in RL, in -comparrision- to the avatar. So if you make your avatar bigger, the walls just get even bigger.

The default camera ONLY impacts walls and cielings. NOTHING else needs to scale up for it.

---

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. You agree that walls and ceilings have to scale up because of the camera/viewing position. I'll assume that you also agree that floor space has to scale uyp too, otherwise being in an RL-sized living room, say 4x4m, would be ridiculous for actually seeing. That being the case, furniture also has to scale up or it looks way too small in a room. And, since furniture has to scale up, avatars also have to scale up unless they want to look way too small on the furniture.

---

You called -me- wrong, I called your -point- wrong... consider the difference in tone there.

What we have here is a dollhouse scenario. In problem and solution.

Walls need to scale up, that's about it.

The moment you scale up the avatar to so-called match, you defeat the entire purpose by crowding out the camera again, and then have to scale the walls up -even more-...

Don't blame apples for a problem with oranges - which wil never quite solve the orange problem.

A cursory examination of any other MMO will show this. SL gets it wrong, others get it right.

The SL camera by default is badly placed. There are two good solutions to this:

1. The individual user can adjust their camera.

-OR-

2. Walls can scale up beyond the ratio normal for an MMO/3D world (roughly 1.5-2x) to as much as 3-4x avatar - which only works if the avatar is -not- scaled up as well. The bigger the avatar, the -more- one needs to scale up to 'look over or around it'. Because it is the -ratio- between walls and avatar that needs to expand when the camera gets messed up. Not the independant objects themsevles. Just the ratio.

 

Most of SL uses solution 2, but because they solve a -DIFFERENT ISSUE- by scaling up the avatar, they end up having to scale up walls even more...

But other MMOs use solution 1: a better placed camera. However the dollhouse problem still requires scaling walls up by 1.5-2x normal for height (12-foot to 16-foot tall walls instead of the real world 8-foot).

 

The different issue solved with avatar scale is one of e-peenery... its a social issue, not a design issue. Freudian in nature...

 

[Dresden Ceriano]

Ack!!  Are you guys really bitching about this same exact thing once again?  How many horses need to be beaten to death over this?

...Dres

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

Ack!!  Are you guys really bitching about this same exact thing once again?  How many horses need to be beaten to death over this?

...Dres

---

If someone claims avatars -must- be big, I'm going to call that the talking smack that it is.

Size is a choice people make, not a requirement of the system, no matter it going up or down.

Camera -does- impact scale. but not scale independant. It impacts the ratio needed in scale between walls and the 'doll' or avatar.

If you want to question why this debate is popping up -again- you should reply to the one provoking it again, not the one responding to them... unless one side should be allowed to spout off opinions without the other being given space to respond... The issue was -not- part of this topic, until Phil decided to make it the topic issue...

 

 

[Baloo Uriza]

Regardless of camera prospective, 1m = 3 feet 3⅜ inches, no excepions.

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

Ack!!  Are you guys really bitching about this same exact thing once again?  How many horses need to be beaten to death over this?

...Dres

---

If someone claims avatars -must- be big, I'm going to call that the talking smack that it is.

Size is a choice people make, not a requirement of the system, no matter it going up or down.

Camera -does- impact scale. but not scale independant. It impacts the ratio needed in scale between walls and the 'doll' or avatar.

If you want to question why this debate is popping up -again- you should reply to the one provoking it again, not the one responding to them... unless one side should be allowed to spout off opinions without the other being given space to respond... The issue was -not- part of this topic, until Phil decided to make it the topic issue...

---

Sorry... I didn't mean to respond to you directly, but this horse died a long time ago... it's starting to stink.

...Dres

[Phil Deakins]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

You called -me- wrong, I called your -point- wrong... consider the difference in tone there.

---

I didn't call you "wrong". I said you are mistaken, and I used that word specifically because there is a difference between telling someone they are wrong and telling them that they are mistaken. The word "mistaken" is much more gentle way of saying that someone got something wrong - which they did. You were mistaken about the scaling up and you were mistaken that I called you wrong. People do get things wrong and they do make mistakes, and there's nothing wrong with pointing it out in a friendly spirit, which I did.

Again you said that "walls need to scale up", which they do. What you omitted (again) was the most important part of scaling up - the floor area. If the floor area isn't scaled up, there is no point at all in raising the height of the walls. The problem that the camera position creates is mostly horizontal and only a little vertical.

So, assuming that by "the walls need to scale up", you meant both horizontally and vertically, we agree that the floor area needs to scale up. And, as I said previously, that being the case, the furniture needs to scale up to look right in the wider, longer, and higher room. And, if the furniture scales up, the avatars need to scale up if they don't want to look like dolls on the furniture.

---

The moment you scale up the avatar to so-called match, you defeat the entire purpose by crowding out the camera again, and then have to scale the walls up -even more-...

---

That's simply not true. With the camera in the default position, and buildings, contents and avatars scaled up, people can see reasonably well when walking around inside rooms, whereas, if everything was made to match RL sizes, everyone would have problems seeing inside buildings. Scaling everything up solves the camera problem and it doesn't "crowd out the camera".

The way you said that scaling up avatars means that walls, funiture, and everything else needs to scale up even further sounds like a never ending up-scale, which simply isn't true. The up-scaling only needs to accommodate the default camera position and stop there.

 

If you think about it, though, this whole discussion is pointless - to the point of being ridiculous nonsense. I mean on both sides - not just you. All you have to do it ignore what SL calls a metre and use your own measurements - say 1 SL metre = 1 RL foot. Who cares whether or not an SL metre is the same as an RL metre? The only thing that matters is that avatars can move around inside buidlings with contents that match the size of the building, and see what they are doing. If you think of SL metres as feet, then you can have a 12' x 12' living room, in which avatars can move and see reasonably well. It's only the unfortunate SL use of the word "metre" that causes this discussion, and that's totally unnecessary.

Another way of looking at it is to think of the SL metre as an RL metre, and that everything in the SL world is simply bigger than in the RL world. If we land on a populated RL planet sometime in the future, why should the sizes of things and its inhabitants match ours? There's no reason at all, and it probably won't. After all, SL is another world, isn't it? The idea that SL sizes should match RL sizes is a non-starter, but if that's what's wanted, think of an SL metre being the equivalent of an RL foot.

With both of those ways of thinking, the idea of scaling anything doesn't even occur.

[Phil Deakins]

In view of my previous post, I'm gojng to reply to the OP's post again.

Does it matter how tall SL avatars are? SL and RL are completely different worlds, and the heights of their inhabitants can't be compared.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

Ack!!  Are you guys really bitching about this same exact thing once again?  How many horses need to be beaten to death over this?

...Dres

---

I've never had a discussion on this topic before.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

Ack!!  Are you guys really bitching about this same exact thing once again?  How many horses need to be beaten to death over this?

...Dres

---

If someone claims avatars -must- be big, I'm going to call that the talking smack that it is.

Size is a choice people make, not a requirement of the system, no matter it going up or down.

Camera -does- impact scale. but not scale independant. It impacts the ratio needed in scale between walls and the 'doll' or avatar.

If you want to question why this debate is popping up -again- you should reply to the one provoking it again, not the one responding to them... unless one side should be allowed to spout off opinions without the other being given space to respond...

The issue was -not- part of this topic, until Phil decided to make it the topic issue... 

---

Yet again, you are mistaken. I didn't make any sort of issue out of it - you did. I posted a short observation in reponse to the OP's post - y'know, like you do in forums. It was an observation of mine, based on my years of making and selling furniture, and having to deal with scale. That was post #3 of this thread. It wasn't an "issue" at all and it wasn't even being discussed by anyone. Then on page #3 you decided to write a long post, arguing against that observation. You made it an issue, not me.

Judging by Dresden's post, is sounds like it's one of your favourites topics, so you jumped into it and made it an "issue" in this thread.

[Coby Foden]

What Second Life would need is:

• 1. Good natural default third person view
• 2. Good default first person view (mouselook does not serve as a good first person view)
• 3. Both should be easily adjustable on the fly by the user without needing to go to Debug Settings
• 4. User should be able to switch between third person view and first person view easily by pressing a key
• 5. And finally, realistically sized default avatars

It is silly that the bad default camera view is compensated by making everything bigger. With good third person view and good first person view there would be no need for this sillyness. As can be seen in many games. For some odd reason the good default views and consistent scale have not been implemented in Second Life. Which is very strange.

(Yes, beating the so called "dead horse" again.. which is far from dead untill this is issue is resolved, by the way..)

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Kelli May wrote:

According to the Firestorm appearence editor, I am 1.78m, or a little over 5'10" tall.

Measuring by prim, I make it 1.76m in a straight upright posture - so slightly under 5'10".

All measurements excluding shoes and hair.

In RL, that would make me taller than average, even among the tallest human ethnic groups. Even a man of this height would be around average height in most ethnicities. In SL, I see more adult female avs who are taller than me than are shorter, although I think the average is probably shorter than it used to be. Seeing a male adult av shorter than me is incredibly rare, and usually done for a specific effect (furry, fae, neko etc.). 

Many prim clothes I buy are both too large on the height axis and too small on the width, especially waist, bust and limb circumference. So by SL standards I'm not only short but also fat! Note that I don't have a huge bust, but having non-zero body-fat and width sliders makes me too big for many outfits. In RL terms, larger band size, smaller cup size. Clearly my avatar is some kind of distorted freak

In fact, I consider my avatar to be realistically proportioned:

 

---

i just want to see  how far off i am..some reason stomething seems off about my body..i just can't pin point it ..maybe looking at yours and then looking at mine i can spot my deformity if there is one ..because yours looks great  =)

 

[Perrie Juran]

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

Ack!!  Are you guys really bitching about this same exact thing once again?  How many horses need to be beaten to death over this?

...Dres

---

I do cringe a little now whenever I see the subject come up again.  I pretty much know by memory every pro, con, why, why not, etc, etc, this discussion will raise. 

I do think we can all agree upon the fact that there is a problem.  How big or urgent that problem may be is still in the eye of the beholder. 

I see two basic choices people have.  First one is to accept the SL World as it is and adapt accordingly.  The second is to fight the status quo and try to get Linden Lab to fix things. 

[Kelli May]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

i just want to see  how far off i am..some reason stomething seems off about my body..i just can't pin point it ..maybe looking at yours and then looking at mine i can spot my deformity if there is one ..because yours looks great  =)

 

---

Thank you for the compliment. I'd hate to say who is right and who is wrong between us... our shapes are just different. Perhaps mine does stick closer to some artistic norm than yours, but it's the variations from the average that make us stand out. I can, with no predjudice, try to point out where our shapes are different.

 

• Your body, overall, is narrower than mine. A number of sliders affect this, but body width, body fat and possibly muscle and saddle-bags are where the difference lies.
• Your breasts are higher, and your midriff longer.
• Your waist is narrower, although not excessively so (mine is wider than you normally see in SL).
• Your neck is longer. Combined with the narrowness of your body, and the longer, slimmer torso, this contributes to a slightly stretched out look in your av.
• Your shoulders are narrower, and your arms shorter. My shoulders are a tiny bit wider and my arms a bit longer than average, and our being either side of the norm exaggerates the difference further. It's hard to tell, but your arm-length might be down to your hands being a little small.

You are clearly going for a younger, slimmer look than mine. Two totally different avaters for different looks, slender or curvy. My av was based on a swimmer's build: relatively long, strong arms and shoulders, and a little muscle under soft curves. 

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

Ack!!  Are you guys really bitching about this same exact thing once again?  How many horses need to be beaten to death over this?

...Dres

---

I do cringe a little now whenever I see the subject come up again.  I pretty much know by memory every pro, con, why, why not, etc, etc, this discussion will raise. 

I do think we can all agree upon the fact that there is a problem.  How big or urgent that problem may be is still in the eye of the beholder. 

I see two basic choices people have.  First one is to accept the SL World as it is and adapt accordingly.  The second is to fight the status quo and try to get Linden Lab to fix things. 

---

i don't think  all of us come to these threads to fight..i'm sure some do..i know i have opened my mind more now than before on things..i mean i have always been for those that want to do it their own way no matter what they want to look like...

i have recently just wanted to try and make something  that will fit more my rl self and that means i need to go smaller..but at the same time ..i still have my other shapes as well..

i think the politics really should find another place in things like this..i came to this thread because the title sounded peaceful..not a title like a lot in the past..hello down there or up there or  why are you doing wrong or this way or that way??...those are the oens to look out for lol

ones trying to peer pressure people to conform..

if you ask me that only holds the gaps longer and pushes those away that may have wanted to try either way..people like honey more than vinigar in their tea i think hehehehe

when freedoms get pushed around  people tend to push back and stand up ..because it has become political right and wrong instead of what they really may have wanted in the first place..

i just want to try lots of ways without someone else getting all pissy about it lol

 

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Kelli May wrote:

---

Thank you for the compliment. I'd hate to say who is right and who is wrong between us... our shapes are just different. Perhaps mine does stick closer to some artistic norm than yours, but it's the variations from the average that make us stand out. I can, with no predjudice, try to point out where our shapes are different.

 

• Your body, overall, is narrower than mine. A number of sliders affect this, but body width, body fat and possibly muscle and saddle-bags are where the difference lies.
• Your breasts are higher, and your midriff longer.
• Your waist is narrower, although not excessively so (mine is wider than you normally see in SL).
• Your neck is longer. Combined with the narrowness of your body, and the longer, slimmer torso, this contributes to a slightly stretched out look in your av.
• Your shoulders are narrower, and your arms shorter. My shoulders are a tiny bit wider and my arms a bit longer than average, and our being either side of the norm exaggerates the difference further. It's hard to tell, but your arm-length might be down to your hands being a little small.

You are clearly going for a younger, slimmer look than mine. Two totally different avaters for different looks, slender or curvy. My av was based on a swimmer's build: relatively long, strong arms and shoulders, and a little muscle under soft curves. 

---

 

ya i felt i was a bit too stretched out as well..i after looking at it and looking at it..it gets hard to see what  needs adjusting..

my neck i really felt was too long for sure..

i think my main problem is i am trying to stay exactly at 8 heads rather than straying a little inside that..

it's hard to get the breasts where they should be abd keep the middle correct and then keep in that range without the head dropping down..

i think i should just make the shape i am looking for and then adjust the proportions to that ..rather than getting things in the right lengths and widths first hehehe..

thank you for your opinion..i think it helped me a lot =)

 

[Perrie Juran]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

Ack!!  Are you guys really bitching about this same exact thing once again?  How many horses need to be beaten to death over this?

...Dres

---

I do cringe a little now whenever I see the subject come up again.  I pretty much know by memory every pro, con, why, why not, etc, etc, this discussion will raise. 

I do think we can all agree upon the fact that there is a problem.  How big or urgent that problem may be is still in the eye of the beholder. 

I see two basic choices people have.  First one is to accept the SL World as it is and adapt accordingly.  The second is to fight the status quo and try to get Linden Lab to fix things. 

---

i don't think  all of us come to these threads to fight..i'm sure some do..i know i have opened my mind more now than before on things..i mean i have always been for those that want to do it their own way no matter what they want to look like...

---

 

I agree totally with this, especially your first point.

With all the enhancements that LL is adding with shadows and lighting and depth of field, etc, I wonder if they realize how much more awesome things could be if they would get a handle on the sizing and proportions issues.

In the mean time I don't sweat it.  I just try to enjoy myself as much as possible.

[Nova Convair]

All that talking about size and shape ...

The avatars in SL are in no way - not even a little - akin to the population in RL. People have a picture in mind what is most beautiful. Models for example are tall and thin. The female 90-60-90 proportion is hardcoded into the genes and therefore popular. Men are tall with broad shoulders and so on.

So that's what the people choose for their avatars - combined with a poor handling of the shape editor and a missing eye for proportions. Not to forget the tendency to exaggerate. And it will always stay that way.

That will make the ones that keep RL sizes look like small people under giants. The attempt to copy RL into SL will fail here. Most avatars can't even pass a standard sized door of 2m height.

So you can build your piece of 100% copy of RL on your parcel (would be interesting to have a look at it btw) but that has nothing to do with the existing SL.