Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jamesether

How tall are you?

Recommended Posts


Jo Yardley wrote:

You visited our teleport area, to visit Berlin you need to go trough the station and get on the train.

All our apartments have been rented (the sim has been pretty much fully booked for the last 3 years) so you can't really walk about those without our police tapping you on your shoulder or a tenant hitting you over the head with a frying pan or something
;)

I got on the train but I didn't sit because of the outfit rule, which I respected.

Isn't there any normal-type living room or bedroom that I can see? I'm willing to be proved wrong if that's how it turns out, but I do need to see it to believe it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

But you do have to build hugely oversized houses when avatars are adjusted to RL heights. I set myself to 6'1" and, with my camera as close as possible (just before it went into mouselook),

Ouch! (trying to recover my eyes from the hot red text.. oh, by the way, if the intention was to make your message clearer and louder, it unfortunately had the opposite effect..) :matte-motes-sunglasses-2: :smileysad:

Phil, if I understand your message properly, I have the feeling that you are trying to tell that regardless of the avatar's size, small or big, they both will need the same sized houses to move about comfortably. If this is your message, I cannot agree to that. The present, so common oversized avatars and big builds for them, is not some magical sweet spot in virtual world.

 

I believe that small avatars need less space than big avatars do. I can test this and see it with my own eyes. Or maybe my eyes are lying to me.. :matte-motes-frown:

I'm wondering now how did you adjust your camera? My curiosity rose as you said "just before it went into mouselook". If you did the adjusting with mouse scroll wheel it sure will snap to mouselook when your camera gets close to the avatar. The problem with mouselook is that you cannot walk properly with that view. Mouselook is intended for vehicles, not for walking.

If adjust you view with the debug setting "CameraOffsetRearView" you can place the camera at you eyeballs. You can put the camera even further in front of your avatar. And you can move normally. The camera doesn't go behind the walls nor behind ceilings. Naturally if the camera is at the eyeballs or in front of the avatar you cannot see your avatar from behind. The point is that we can position the camera so that the small avatar can navigate in small spaces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

I got on the train but I didn't sit because of the outfit rule, which I respected.

Isn't there any normal-type living room or bedroom that I can see? I'm willing to be proved wrong if that's how it turns out, but I do need to see it to believe it.

Phil, as Jo said, all apartments are rented. I guess that you need to get in the apartment rental queue. When there will be free one you can rent it and do the experiment. (Sorry, I couldn't resist..)

:smileyvery-happy: :smileywink:

 

 

/me is getting a bit tired of this subject already.., it has been interesting discussion anyway.

Peace and :heart:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The train compartment in Berlin is also 1:1 scale ;)

 

Mind you, it would be fun to have a little space somewhere in SL where we can build an averate SL home with car and avatar and right next to it a RL scale 1:1: house with car and avatar.

Would be a fun experiment.

It would allow people to explore both houses, realises how odd it is to sit in a car that is not made for your size avatar, sit on the furniture, stand next to the avatar, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Jo Yardley wrote:

Mind you, it would be fun to have a little space somewhere in SL where we can build an avera
g
e SL home with car and avatar and right next to it a RL scale 1:1: house with car and avatar.

Jo, that would be great. Everybody interested could compare them in person and make their conclusions. Any volunteers with available land and building skills and free time?

Really, Linden Lab should address this scale issue and make the sample builds on their land for people to see. But I guess the Lab is too busy with more important matters than this inconsistent scale issue rampant all over Second Life. :smileysad:

 

 

/me is looking shyly towards Rodvik... :matte-motes-bashful-cute: .. but she is afraid that Rodvik does not read this thread as he is a busy man with other matters in his hand.. :smileyindifferent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Coby Foden wrote:


Phil Deakins wrote:

But you do have to build hugely oversized houses when avatars are adjusted to RL heights. I set myself to 6'1" and, with my camera as close as possible (just before it went into mouselook),

Ouch!
(trying to recover my eyes from the hot red text.. oh, by the way, if the intention was to make your message clearer and louder, it unfortunately had the opposite effect..)
 :matte-motes-sunglasses-2: :smileysad:

Sorry. Maybe I should have used a different colour. The red wasn't a way of emphasising it. It was to indicate that that part of my reply was in response to the part of your post that I also made red. Blue might have been better. I'll remember not to make red my first choice in future.


Phil, if I understand your message properly, I have the feeling that you are trying to tell that regardless of the avatar's size, small or big, they both will need the same sized houses to move about comfortably. If this is your message, I cannot agree to that. The present, so common oversized avatars and big builds for them, is not some magical sweet spot in virtual world.

 

I believe that small avatars need less space than big avatars do. I can test this and see it with my own eyes. Or maybe my eyes are lying to me.. :matte-motes-frown:

I'm wondering now how did you adjust your camera? My curiosity rose as you said "
just before it went into mouselook
". If you did the adjusting with mouse scroll wheel it sure will snap to mouselook when your camera gets close to the avatar. The problem with mouselook is that you cannot walk properly with that view. Mouselook is intended for vehicles, not for walking.

If adjust you view with the debug setting "
CameraOffsetRearView
" you can place the camera at you eyeballs. You can put the camera even further in front of your avatar. And you can move normally. The camera doesn't go behind the walls nor behind ceilings. Naturally if the camera is at the eyeballs or in front of the avatar you cannot see your avatar from behind. The point is that we can position the camera so that the small avatar can navigate in small spaces.

I scrolled the camera (I did say that somewhere ;) ) to the point just before it would go into mouselook. I didn't alter any settings. I'll try it again but after placing the camera at my eyeballs. I still don't think it'll work though, because the camera will always look straight ahead instead of dynamically moving to where I want to see at any particular time - the floor, for instance, like real heads and eyes do. But as I said. I'm willing to be proved wrong, but I do need to see it to believe it. Unfortunately, the one person who could show me doesn't seem to want to for some reason. TPing into a rented place for a couple of minutes, when the tenant is offline, shouldn't be a problem for a landlord.

I'm curious to see it working for myself but it is only academic. SL defaults are what they are, and that's the way it is - the norm. So nothing will change, and it's not even an issue, except for the few, because seeing in the SL world works fine as it is.

There's one major thing that shouts, "I haven't been mentioned in this discussion" (the red is for emphasis this time :) )which is, why do a few people *really* want things to match the real world when SL is a different world? Why? Nobody has posted a reason yet. Perhaps those who want SL to mirror the real world will offer reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Jo Yardley wrote:

The train compartment in Berlin is also 1:1 scale
;)

Yes, I understood that, and I said that the types of rooms there are fine with larger than RL avatars, because they are naturally large rooms in the real world. It's not an example of a normal sized real world house though. I could walk up and down the train easily enouigh because the carriages are very long - much longer than a typical real world living room or bedroom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I scrolled the camera"

You need to change your camera settings, not just scroll in.

Till you have put the camera in a better position (overshoulder, looking straight ahead at eye height) in stead of a few feet in the air above you like in the normal setting, it is no use to visit any small location.

TPing you into a rented place for a couple of minutes SHOULD be a problem for a landlord if they didn't first check it with their tenant.

Either way I am not the kind of landlord that goes into my tenants houses without their permission.

It would also involve me spending time and effort just to show you something.

How about you build yourself a nice little real scale home to experiment with?.

"I'm curious to see it working for myself but it is only academic. SL defaults are what they are, and that's the way it is - the norm. So nothing will change, and it's not even an issue, except for the few, because seeing in the SL world works fine as it is."

The norm may be good enough for most, not for all.

And the SL world does not work fine if you want realistic scale.

"why do a few people *really* want things to match the real world when SL is a different world? Why? Nobody has posted a reason yet. Perhaps those who want SL to mirror the real world will offer reasons."

The basic answer is; Why not?

It isn't just a few people by the way, quite a few to be honest, a minority sure, but still not just a few.

I already mentioned why I wanted RL scale before, mainly because I wanted to match the prim scale as it would help me make more accurate reproductions of RL items and buildings, but also because with the right camera settings and near a 1:1 scale reproduction of a famous landmark or object, I could much easier imagine being there and all my snapshots would be more realistic.

I guess it has also something to do with how you look and live in SL.

Some people make themselves look like super models and enjoy living in huge villas, drive expensive cars and live like milionaires.

I prefer to look like I do in RL and I live in a dirty small apartment above a noisy bar in a poor neighbourhood.

Mirroring the real world to me is more interesting then going wild with my imagination, it is why I choose history, reality to me is often more exciting then whatever I can make up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Jo Yardley wrote:

"I scrolled the camera"

You need to change your camera settings, not just scroll in.

Till you have put the camera in a better position (overshoulder, looking straight ahead at eye height) in stead of a few feet in the air above you like in the normal setting, it is no use to visit any small location.

I intend to do that later today.


"I'm curious to see it working for myself but it is only academic. SL defaults are what they are, and that's the way it is - the norm. So nothing will change, and it's not even an issue, except for the few, because seeing in the SL world works fine as it is."

The norm may be good enough for most, not for all.

And the SL world does not work fine if you want realistic scale.

"
why
do a few people *really* want things to match the real world when SL is a different world? Why? Nobody has posted a reason yet. Perhaps those who want SL to mirror the real world will offer reasons."

The basic answer is; Why not?

It isn't just a few people by the way, quite a few to be honest, a minority sure, but still not just a few.

So the reason you want SL to match RL is "why not?". That doesn't strike me as a reason for LL to change any defaults, especially when it would do away with the benefits that the camera being behind brings - seeing your av, and seeing what it's feet are about to walk into, for instance. In RL, if I'm walking towards, say, a box on the floor, my head and eyes look at it so that I don't stub my toe on it. And, in RL, when I'm walking along a street, my head and eyes are positioned so that I see much further ahead and take in what may be in the way in advance. No matter where you set the cam in SL, both of those can't be done. BUT... I'm going to try. I'm going to set the cam where my eyes are and I'm going to create a 4x4m furnished bedroom, and see how I manage. If I've been mistaken about such an RL-sized bedroom not being able work reasonably well in SL, I will say so. I'll also say if I find that it doesn't work reasonably well.

You agree that it's only a minority of people who would like SL to match RL, and I agree. It's not a reason for change, is it? And it doesn't make size in SL an "issue" that needs any LL action.

Stand an SL-sized av next to an SL-sized building and you couldn't tell whether or not they matched RL sizes. For instance, in Coby's picture you couldn't tell if the tall avs were ultra-tall and the short avs were normal, or if the short avs were ultra-short and the tall avs were normal. You couldn't tell if any of them were typical RL heights.

I can certainly appreciate it when some people want SL sizes to match RL sizes, and create them like that. It's their world, their imagination. But it's no reason at all to find fault with SL because things are usually bigger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

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.

yes, it matters.. when i get called a child av and booted from a furniture store at 6'-3"  there is a problem. People see a (by the measurements) normal human sized av and call them children.

If SL and RL were so different why is there all of the bruhaha over  whether someone is a teen av simple based on height?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If sizes in the SL world matched sizes in the RL world, that wouldn't happen, and it's unfortunate that it does happen. It's the "others" who are at fault though, and it's not particularly commonplace. However, if that small minority of people in SL wouldn't insist that things should match the real world, bearing in mind that SL is actually a different world, it wouldn't happen at all. In other words, if everyone fitted in with SL as it actually is, instead of trying to have it as something that it is not, it wouldn't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

If sizes in the SL world matched sizes in the RL world, that wouldn't happen, and it's unfortunate that it does happen. It's the "others" who are at fault though, and it's not particularly commonplace. However, if that small minority of people in SL wouldn't insist that things should match the real world, bearing in mind that SL is actually a different world, it wouldn't happen at all. In other words, if everyone fitted in with SL as it actually is, instead of trying to have it as something that it is not, it wouldn't happen.

Who says they don't? Every viewer has a height  slider that shows your height in appearance.

You say that virtual furniture has to be enlarged to fit the larger rooms. Wouldn't that necessitate larger avs? Why not keep the furniture smaller?

LL labeled it a meter. They have inches and CM listed in appearance for height. Are we supposed to ignore the measurement tools they have given us and make things based on the gargantuan avs that stand 8 feet tall as males and 7 foot tall Amazonian women?The maxed out avs are the problem not the "realistic" sized ones.

You keep saying that the wording should be ignored. I say we should go back to making things sized accurately. By your logic then, all avs should just be maxed out and we should not be able to change our size.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

 

There's one major thing that shouts, "
I haven't been mentioned in this discussion
" (the red is for emphasis this time
:)
)which is,
why
do a few people *really* want things to match the real world when SL is a different world? Why? Nobody has posted a reason yet. Perhaps those who want SL to mirror the real world will offer reasons.

First I want to thank you Phil, for using the red text more sparingly. :smileyhappy:

 

Phil, didn't you know that this gigantism is a well kept Linden Lab secret? (Shhhh...) First they chose the metre as a unit for land and prims. Then, in their wisdom, they decided to make the default avatar taller than average human is. "What wisdom?" one might ask. Well, you see, land business brings a lot of money to the lab. So their thinking went like this: "Let's make the avatar bigger than normal human is. You see guys, this way we can sell more land. Big avatars need more land than smaller avatars. More income for us. Yay!" This great insight was greeted with standing ovation by the other members of the team.

:smileywink:  (/me hopes that Rodvik does not see this revealing post...:smileysurprised: )

My friend's friend had heard this rumour from their friend's friend. So I think this rumour could well be the truth. :smileylol:

Oh, by the way, I snapped a photo:

big-furniture-1.jpg

Huge gigantic set of furniture here. The two ladies are around 1.8 metres tall. Phil, do you think that normal sized furniture would not work at all in this environment? Do you really think that this space must be filled with huge furniture for it to "look right"? If you you think so, I cannot agree to that view. In my mind, normal sized furniture would work extremely well here. It would look great. Besides, with normal sized furniture we wouldn't waste so much space under the furniture.

PS.

I found interesting page about average human heights all over the world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#Average_height_around_the_world

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Drake1 Nightfire wrote:


Phil Deakins wrote:

If sizes in the SL world matched sizes in the RL world, that wouldn't happen, and it's unfortunate that it does happen. It's the "others" who are at fault though, and it's not particularly commonplace. However, if that small minority of people in SL wouldn't insist that things should match the real world, bearing in mind that SL is actually a different world, it wouldn't happen at all. In other words, if everyone fitted in with SL as it actually is, instead of trying to have it as something that it is not, it wouldn't happen.

Who says they don't? Every viewer has a height  slider that shows your height in appearance.

Who says who don't what?


You say that virtual furniture has to be enlarged to fit the larger rooms. Wouldn't that necessitate larger avs? Why not keep the furniture smaller?

LL labeled it a meter. They have inches and CM listed in appearance for height. Are we supposed to ignore the measurement tools they have given us and make things based on the gargantuan avs that stand 8 feet tall as males and 7 foot tall Amazonian women?The maxed out avs are the problem not the "realistic" sized ones.

You keep saying that the wording should be ignored. I say we should go back to making things sized accurately. By your logic then, all avs should just be maxed out and we should not be able to change our size.

I think you're rambling a bit. I never said anything avs maxed out.

Of course avs need to be larger than RL people. It's obvious. They have to be to look right on the larger than RL furniture, and that's why they are.

"Metres" is just a word. To be perfectly honest, it's really very silly trying to force the SL world to be something that it isn't, by making things the same sizes are their real world counterparts. It doesn't work. That's all there is. You can position your camera to make it sort of work perhaps, but that's not the real SL and people use the real SL; i.e. default camera position, so it doesn't work. It's like trying to force a square peg into a round hole, when it *absolutely* isn't necessary. But if you want to do it that way, it's fine by me - as long as you don't preach that SL in general should be done that way.

But we've been through all this before in the thread and I don't think we need to go through it all again. Perhaps if you read the whole thread?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Coby. I do think that rl-sized furniture would work fine in that environment, but that's not a typical real world living room or bedroom. It's a huge space. Incidentally, if you did have rl-sized furniture there, the place would look empty and you'd need more stuff in it ;)

I have a question for too? Jo said she has 3x2m hotel rooms to rent. Do you think it's possible for an rl-sized avatar to navigate well enough in such a furnished room?

Right. I'm of to set my camera to my eyes and try it again in a typical rl-size living/bedroom :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

So the reason you want SL to match RL is "why not?". That doesn't strike me as a reason for LL to change any defaults, especially when it would do away with the benefits that the camera being behind brings - seeing your av, and seeing what it's feet are about to walk into, for instance.


I guess I was hallucenating when I saw my avatar in mouselook.  And had a minor stroke before I realized I can get a nice "out of body experience" view with the flycam.  Moving the default cam location down and in a little bit would provide greater benefits especially while operating vehicles and getting a better sense of scale.


You agree that it's only a minority of people who would like SL to match RL, and I agree. It's not a reason for change, is it? And it doesn't make size in SL an "issue" that needs any LL action.

For the sake of simplicity and user expectation, it's easier to match physics and scale to the real world than reinvent the fundamentals.  The Lindens were Doing It Right when this assumption of a 1m meter, gravity matching the real world, etc. was hard-coded.


Stand an SL-sized av next to an SL-sized building and you couldn't tell whether or not they matched RL sizes. For instance, in Coby's picture you couldn't tell if the tall avs were ultra-tall and the short avs were normal, or if the short avs were ultra-short and the tall avs were normal. You couldn't tell if any of them were typical RL heights.

Barbiedoll legs and arms tend to be a dead giveaway the proportions are wrong.  Compare a Barbie to an actual woman if you need a basis for comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

yes, it matters.. when i get called a child av and booted from a furniture store at 6'-3"  there is a problem. People see a (by the measurements) normal human sized av and call them children.

If SL and RL were so different why is there all of the bruhaha over  whether someone is a teen av simple based on height? 

THIS.  Then again, I've noticed regular size humans tend to stand near me when giving a basis for comparison, since brown bears are actually tall when standing rampant (as is my norm).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil Deakins wrote:

I think you're rambling a bit. I never said anything avs maxed out.

You pretty much have to max the height slider (or above 75) to get into the high-six-foot to 8-foot range.  For some reason, most people don't find it obvious on the old sliders that the numbers are percentiles of the known adult human range for the dimension.  If you want a generically average in every way avatar, all 50s is the way to go.  Going with percentiles was odd and combined with poor default camera positioning is responsible for the damage you're advocating as a good thing, when a lower, closer default camera position and using sliders that reflect the way we actually measure dimensions would reverse the trend for the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coby and/or Jo:

I've got my av at 6'1" (0 in the slider).

I've set my Debug Settings > CameraOffsetDefault to X = 0, Y = 0 and Z = 0. So I think that should be somewhere near my eyes and not above or below my eyes.

 

Test #1

I've made a 4m x 4m room (a hollow 4m cube box with an opening for a door), with a floor but no ceiling. I haven't put anything in like a bed or a chest of drawers. It's empty. To be accurate, the inside is a little under 4msq because the cube is 95% hollow. But then a 12'x12' room is also slightly under 4msq so it doesn't matter.

I'm inside it and, although my camera doesn't go outside the room, I can't see the floor, except the opposite corner when I stand in a corner.

 

Test #2

I've made a block to represent an rl-size double bed:- 0.5m high, 1.5m wide, and 2m long. It's against a wall, and I'm moving around inside the room. As I rotate, I hardly see any of the bed. If I'm a corner, away from the foot of the bed, I see half of the bed. I got SL up after typing the last sentence but I didn't know where in the room I was because I couldn't see the bed.

 

To be perfectly honest, unless I've done something wrong when setting the camera position, it's not possible to use a typical rl-size bedroom or living room reasonably well with the camera where your eyes are. It's because the head and eyes can't move to face and look in the direction you want, like they do in the real world. They remain looking straight ahead. Is it possible to set the camera tilted down a bit? Also, it feels extremely cramped in the room so it's completely unusable as a room in a home.

Also being perfectly honest, I'm thinking that those who say they live successfully in real world sized accommodation only manage it because they choose to use the type of accommodation that's untypically large or huge in the real world, but couldn't manage it in a typical rl-sized house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

Yes, Coby. I do think that rl-sized furniture would work fine in that environment, but that's not a typical real world living room or bedroom. It's a huge space. Incidentally, if you did have rl-sized furniture there, the place would look empty and you'd need more stuff in it
;)

I have a question for too? Jo said she has 3x2m hotel rooms to rent. Do
you
think it's possible for an rl-sized avatar to navigate well enough in such a furnished room?

Thank you. Finally you agree that RL sized furniture actually would work ok in SL. Great, I'm starting to like you Phil :heart: :smileyhappy:

Hey, the point is that you don't need that huge space as in the photo when you use RL sized furniture!

I find it very odd reasoning: "Hmmm.. I have a huge space here, I must fill it with stuff. Maybe I'll use oversized objects".

A hotel room 3 m x 2 m! And furnished? :smileysurprised: That's a closet, not a room. Even in RL I wouldn't step in there. I would go on and find better hotel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Baloo Uriza wrote:

Going with percentiles was odd and combined with poor default camera positioning is responsible for the damage you're advocating as a good thing, when a lower, closer default camera position and using sliders that reflect the way we actually measure dimensions would reverse the trend for the better.

I'm advocating it because the 'behind view' is so much better than the eye view, which I just tried out in a typically sized living room for the real world and it just doesn't work. The reason it doesn't work, as I mentioned in my previous post, and in an earlier one, is because the av alweays looks straight ahead. You can't do that successfully in a 12'x12' furnished room. It just doesn't work.

So it's far better to accept what is and size things accordingly. Trying to force square pegs into round holes isn't the best way of doing things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

The reason it doesn't work, as I mentioned in my previous post, and in an earlier one, is because the av alweays looks straight ahead. You can't do that successfully in a 12'x12' furnished room. It just doesn't work.


Works for me... grab your avatar on the back with your mouse, and you're able to strafe and turn your head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Coby Foden wrote:

Thank you. Finally you agree that RL sized furniture actually would work ok in SL. Great, I'm starting to like you Phil :heart: :smileyhappy:

Hmm... I'm not sure that ever said that RL sized furniture wouldn't work in SL. What I've been saying is that rooms need to be significantly larger than rl rooms and that, if the significantly larger room is to look like a typical rl room - say and living room or bedroom - then the furniture does need to be larger. I've also said that rl-sized furnitre looks much too small in the necessarily larger room. As a furniture maker, I've done that in the past and I know it looks too small.

I always did like you :) You're not argumentative at all, and that's nice, because it makes for sensible discussions. Agreement isn't necessary to have sensible discussions. I get argumentative sometimes, but only when someone gets argumentative first. I respond to negativity with negativity (when I can be bothered, that is) and I respond to sensible discussion with sensible discussion.


 Hey, the point is that
you don't need that huge space
as in the photo when you use RL sized furniture!

I find it very odd reasoning:
"Hmmm.. I have a huge space here, I must fill it with stuff. Maybe I'll use oversized objects".

No you don't need that huge space, but you do need a much larger space than is typical in rl.

 


A hotel room 3 m x 2 m! And furnished? :smileysurprised: That's a closet, not a room. Even in RL I wouldn't step in there. I would go on and find better hotel.

I lived in a room very much like that in London for many months. It was a bedsit and was about 10'6" long and less than 2m wide. I got it because it was close to where i was working and, being that small, the cost was low enough. They can be lived in in the real world but not in the SL world. Because of the technical limitations of SL, typical real world house sizes don't work. Yes, you can have rl-size avatars and rl size furniture provided you live in a larger than typical rl life accommodation, but you can't have all three.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Baloo Uriza wrote:


Phil Deakins wrote:

The reason it doesn't work, as I mentioned in my previous post, and in an earlier one, is because the av alweays looks straight ahead. You can't do that successfully in a 12'x12' furnished room. It just doesn't work.


Works for me... grab your avatar on the back with your mouse, and you're able to strafe and turn your head.

It works for you? You have 12'x12' rooms to live in?

Even if you do, which I genuinely doubt, grabbing your av on the back isn't the way to navigate in a room. It's only a way to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...