Coby Foden

Phil Deakins wrote: Coby Foden wrote: Ok, I found the way how to see the Linden Skin on my avatar. That's just a basic skin. It's like all other skins except that it's ugly It's not another layer of any kind so it doesn't show anything more than any other skin does. This "basic skin" has been referred to as "Linden Skin". I sure I have seen that said. And it is on other layer from the textures what we usually put on the skin. This fact can be verified by setting parts of the designed skin textures partially semi-transparent and/or totally transparent. Then you can actually see the designed skin textures on top of the Linden Skin and the Linden Skin textures showing through the transparent parts of the designed skin textures. The Linden Skin is under, the designed skin is on top. If that is not layering then what it is?

Phil Deakins wrote: You know very well that you can't have a texture hanging in air inworld. What I said was that you can see it. Just open it. Of course we know that we cannot see a texture floating inworld by itself, without an object. I'm just teasing you about your statement "you can see it. Just open it." But as I said, "opening it" is not really seeing it inworld. What you see is the texture opened in the viewer's texture viewing window. It is not inworld for all to see. You cannot say that viewer's texture viewing window is inworld, can you. (Well, course you can if you insist on saying so. But it does not change the it actually being inworld.) Why did you start talking about shapes as a reply to my teasing statement? Trying to mix my flow of thinking, eh? :smileywink:

Coby Foden wrote: I remember reading long time ago that the shape is covered by what is called a "Linden Skin". The separate skin item in the inventory what we wear comes on top of that Linden Skin covering it totally. Unfortunately I have no idea where the data for that Linden Skin is located. Ok, I found the way how to see the Linden Skin on my avatar. What I did inworld was: "New Body Parts, New Skin". Then I wore that new skin. I didn't add the three textures (Head, Upper body, Lower body) to this new skin as is usually done with skins for which the textures are created outside from SL. And voila, there is the Linden Skin shown on my avatar without being hidden by any other skin textures. The Linden Skin is almost just like a solid color, without much details. However this skin's appearance can be edited. The editing options available are: Skin color, Face detail, Makeup and Body detail. Each of those options have many sliders to adjust how the skin looks. Older residents might remember that even with those editing options the Linden Skin could never be made to look anything beautiful. So the Linden Skin is still there. What I still don't know is that where the data for that skin is stored.

Sassy Romano wrote: ObviousAltIsObvious wrote: there is a menu where on each issue page you can set your own BUG JIRA issues to public access. this choice is left to the people who originally filed the bugs, for the privacy reasons that Perrie mentioned. Interesting. When I view the page, on the page itself it says "viewable by all users" so now i'm just as confused. Hmm... does it actually say in the Security Level: Public Like this: If not, it can be changed by clicking the word after the Security Level (whatever word there might be). A small selection list will pop up for setting the security level.

Pussycat Catnap wrote: WTF are you people arguing about anyway? We are totally confused by now about what is what. :smileyfrustrated: :smileyvery-happy: Help?

Phil Deakins wrote: You can certainly see a texture without is being on an object. Just open it. Hey Phil, can you put up a texture alone inworld, without an object, (hanging in air perhaps) so that I can visit there and look at it with you? Ok, I think what you mean is that you can open and see the texture in the viewer's separate window, don't you? That's not really what "seeing inworld" means. [ETA] When you have hanged (or floated) the texture alone in the air, please invite me to visit. Let's place our avatars at the front of the texture. Then I will take a snapshot of us and the texture and I will post the snapshot here in this thread. My camera is ready... :matte-motes-big-grin:

Phil Deakins wrote: You really do like beating about the bush, don't you. Phil, this is not "beating about the bush". I thought this was an friendly argument, each party presenting their views about the matter. If you're tired of this subject then just stop replying. :smileyhappy: Anyway, as there are errors in your last post I feel the need to reply. :smileyvery-happy: Phil Deakins wrote: Coby Foden wrote: By the way, you say that avatar's shape cannot be seen alone. I guess that by the 'alone' you mean that it cannot be seen without the skin (texture). You're right. And you know what? You cannot see any object in SL without texture either. An object in SL always has a texture, you cannot remove the texture so that the object would have no texture at all, you can only change it. So in this respect the objects and the avatar shapes act the same way. Of course they do, as they both are meshes. I know I'm right You agree with me now, but earlier you said I was wrong about it, and you (wrongly) used your imported shape, rezzed on the ground, to demonstrate it. I already told you that. I said that too. What I said is: "The shape does exist. The shape is a mesh. Have you ever ever looked at your avatar in wireframe mode? Then you can see your shape without the skin covering it." Note carefully: I didn't say that the avatar shape exists in SL without the skin on it. Maybe the wireframe mode got you confused? When looking at things in wireframe mode the skin on avatar shape and texture on object is still there. What the wireframe mode does is that it does not render the existing skin and existing texture on screen. It does not remove the skin from the avatar shape nor the texture from the object. Sorry, I may have missed the statement referenced by your blue text ("I alredy told you that".). So you agree that avatar shape and objects are similar items? That they have mesh and they have texture on them when rezzed inworld. Good. Phil Deakins wrote: An avatar shape is different. The file for it in your inventory contains only the data for itself - the shape - I'm not quite sure about that is the avatar shape actually different from object regarding the texture. I remember reading long time ago that the shape is covered by what is called a "Linden Skin". The separate skin item in the inventory what we wear comes on top of that Linden Skin covering it totally. Unfortunately I have no idea where the data for that Linden Skin is located. Phil Deakins wrote: I honestly don't know why you are continuing to argue, or even why you started, Coby. You are now stating things I said earlier as being true but you argued against at the time. You are swapping about a bit with your arguments/points, which makes it very difficult for me to discuss it. It beats me why you're doing it. It's not because of my original statement that shapes don't exist, or the discussion would have stopped ages ago. I'm sorry that my feeble attemps to explain how I see things have confused you. I don't understand why you say that I'm "swapping about". I may have explained things poorly, so that the full meaning of my thoughts have not been clear in my writing. Phil, you very well know why I started this discussion after your first post. Don't try to change that now. Thanks. The discussion has continued this far because forum discussions tend to be like that - there is the main road and often some side roads are needed to fully explain things. You know very well this too.

Phil Deakins wrote: A normal SL shape doesn't exist as something that can be seen in its own right, of course and, to all intents and purposes, it doesn't actually exist. If that vision - i.e. we wear content that does not actually exist - makes you happy and satisfied, that's great. I have different vision and I'm ok and satisfied with that - until some real expert chimes in and tells how things really are. By the way, you say that avatar's shape cannot be seen alone. I guess that by the 'alone' you mean that it cannot be seen without the skin (texture). You're right. And you know what? You cannot see any object in SL without texture either. An object in SL always has a texture, you cannot remove the texture so that the object would have no texture at all, you can only change it. So in this respect the objects and the avatar shapes act the same way. Of course they do, as they both are meshes. You can argue that the shapes are just numbers. Yeah, the files for the shapes - and also any other objects - have plenty of numbers. A lot of them. However, besides numbers the files for shapes and other objects contain also other data. When an item is inworld - worn or rezzed on ground, they surely are objects defined by the numbers what are in the file. A file is just a medium to store and transfer information, of course the file itself is not an object. The rezzed result from the file is the object - a mesh item. It's the same for avatar shapes and other objects. They both are mesh items inworld with what we can interact.

Freya Mokusei wrote: In my veryvery brief reading of this thread, Phil and Coby are both right. :-P Perfect, thanks Freya. :smileyhappy: :matte-motes-big-grin: :smileywink:

Phil Deakins wrote: Then you've been talking about something different, Coby. You ought to have made that clear, and you ought to have realised that the discussion has been about the normal SL shape and skin, and not about anything else. No Phil, I was not talking about something different. I am fully aware that the subject is SL avatar's shape and skin. My reference to mesh avatars was just to show you that SL avatar's shape is nothing different from any other mesh item in SL. The SL avatar shape is constructed from vertices, edges and faces; so are all other objects. Phil Deakins wrote: ... shapes are not called objects in SL. They are called shapes. Objects can be rezzed in SL but shapes can't be rezzed. The fact that avatar's "body" is called shape in SL does not mean that it would not be an object. Neither does the fact that the shape cannot be rezzed. The shape is a mesh object. Phil Deakins wrote: I looks like you've been beating about the bush without telling anyone, perhaps because you are into mesh avatars, but the discussion was never about that. It was only about the difference between the (standard) shape and skin in SL. The fact that the OP is new and asked about the shape and skin, as we all did when we were new, ought to have made that clear. No, I'm not into mesh avatars. As I mentioned above I'm fully aware what this discussion is all about. You just caught my attention as in your first post you wanted to point out: "One bit of information that hasn't been mentioned is that a shape cannot be seen. It doesn't actually exist.". So, I thought that for the benefit of the public (i.e. those who don't know the facts) I explain a bit how things really are. :smileyhappy: Phil Deakins wrote: It's been interesting though. It caused me to think about the shapes of objects (not just avatars) and their skins (textures) and how an object, including an avatar, is put together for display. And I found out - an overview anyway. I'd never thought of a sofa, for instance, having a shape just like an avatar does, but they are the same in that particular respect. I'm happy to know that an object, including an avatar, is rendered by creating a wireframe from the parameters in its shape data, and placing bits of texture on it so that the texture is displayed in the form of the wireframe. I just want to add the following comment: I rezzed a prim cube, changed the default plywood texture to "blank" texture. When I examined the cube, this is the info what I got: • Texture data: size 32 x 32 pixels, on faces 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 • Mesh data: 108 triangles, 96 vertices So the cube's mesh is still there. It has not vanished because of the texture. Why there are all those 108 triangles and 96 vertices still left? A cube has 8 corners and 6 faces, that would be all the data needed for placing a textures to all the faces of a cube if your thinking was right. Why didn't all the superflouos data vanish? One more thing: Have you thought why all objects need faces to be able to texture the object? Your thinking implies that all face data is not needed at all - just the wireframe data. So why the faces then?

Phil Deakins wrote: Coby Foden wrote: Moreover, one can make changes to that shape, save it, and then one can import that shape back to SL. One can even rez the imported shape on ground - with skin textures and without skin textures. One can see the shape as an object inworld. Naturally one can inspect the imported shape in both wireframe and also fully rendered. I missed that bit. No doubt the external program allows you to do that by creating an object from the shape. But what you can't do with it is take that object from the ground into your inventory and wear it as your avatar shape. So that feature of the external program doesn't mean that avatar shapes are objects. They are not. Of course I can wear the imported shape. It would be imported mesh avatar shape. That's what the so called "mesh avatars" are. The "mesh avatar" shapes have been created "from scratch" in mesh program. They have been rigged there to the SL avatar bones so that the mesh moves with animations just like the SL avatar does. Skin textures are created. Then the mesh and skin textures are imported to SL. Now the mesh avatar is ready to be worn. One thing to note: the imported mesh avatar cannot replace the default SL avatar. As we know, the SL avatar shape and its skin cannot be removed. So what is being done is that the default SL avatar is hidden by wearing full body alpha mask - then as we wear the imported mesh avatar only it will be rendered. (But nevertheless, the default SL avatar is still worn and present even if it is hidden from view - it does not magically vanish from existence by wearing an alpha mask.) You keep insisting that the shapes are not objects. Well, you might not be familiar with terminology - or you are trying to twist the things what generally are called as "objects" in virtual worlds, games, mesh programs, to something metaphysical. If I create a table, in SL or in mesh program, what it has is: vertices, edges, faces. Generally we call that table "an object". The table's shape is defined by the location of various vertices, edges and faces. The avatar shape is no different from any other shape - like the table shape for example. Avatar shape has been created exactly by the same methods as any other mesh item. So, it is an "object" by the general definition. Where do you get the idea that the avatar shape is not an object? It is not something special - different from everything else.

Phil Deakins wrote: One thing that I may have said wrong is that "it doesn't exist". It may exist as an object/thing or it may not exist.as an object/thing. The avatar mesh (i.e. the shape) can be exported from SL. The exported mesh can be opened in mesh program. I have done that, many others have done so too. That mesh can be examined in the program without skin, as a solid single colour object, one can examine it also in wireframe. One can even apply skin textures to it, then it looks exactly the same way like it does in SL - an avatar shape painted with skin textures. Moreover, one can make changes to that shape, save it, and then one can import that shape back to SL. One can even rez the imported shape on ground - with skin textures and without skin textures. One can see the shape as an object inworld. Naturally one can inspect the imported shape in both wireframe and also fully rendered. How is all that possible if the shape does not exist as an object/thing? Maybe we - all who have been doing the above - have been just dreaming? You can safely drop the "may exist" and "may not exist", and say that "the shape does exist".

Phil Deakins wrote: For the OP (and me) there is no need to think of it as anything other than an invisible, human-shaped blob. I'm very happy to hear that your "it may not have been techically accurate, though it may have been,..." explanation works for you very well. :smileywink:

Phil Deakins wrote: To all intents and purposes, the shape doesn't exist as a thing that you can normally see, Coby. Thinking of it as a humna-shaped invisible blob works very well, and the OP is wanting to understand the difference between a shape and a skin. It's how I've always thought of it after it was explained to me at the beginning. The OP indeed wanted to understand the difference between a shape and a skin. Why should we tell "fairy tales" instead of telling the actual fact how things are? I find it rather odd that something supposedly "easy" is invented to explain even fairly simple things - like for example the difference between a shape and a skin. The actual fact is not too difficult to understand: • Shape is made of mesh. As the name already suggests, the shape defines the shape of the avatars body. • Skin is a texture (combination of three textures). The skin is wrapped all over the avatar's shape to give it natural look. We actually can see our avatar's shape - always. What we see is the shape, defining the form of the avatar. This shape is painted over with the skin texture. The skin faithfully follows the shape. The skin is just like a paint on a car. Even though the car is painted we can see the car's shape. Same thing with the avatar: even thought the avatar's shape is painted with the skin, we still can see the avatar's shape. Finally, a short "how to view avatar's shape structure" for those interested. Hide the following "Rendering types" using the shortcuts: Ctrl-Alt-Shift-6 = Sky Ctrl-Alt-Shift-7 = Water Ctrl-Alt-Shift-8 = Ground Ctrl-Alt-Shift-9 = Volume (To render the above back just press again the key combinations.) Then switch to "Wireframe mode": Ctrl-Shift-R Observe your shape. This is how the shape looks: :matte-motes-big-grin: To view the collision skeleton, from the menu select: "Develop, Render Metadata, Collision Skeleton". [Turning pedantic mode off...] :smileyvery-happy:

Phil Deakins wrote: One bit of information that hasn't been mentioned is that a shape cannot be seen. It doesn't actually exist. Phil, what are you talking about! :smileysurprised: The shape does exist. The shape is a mesh. Have you ever ever looked at your avatar in wireframe mode? Then you can see your shape without the skin covering it.

Bliss Zufreur wrote: i've also noticed that when i go to events and live music, mesh is the last thing to rez... I've noticed the same thing - in a crowded place it often takes a long time for all the mesh wearables to rez. By inspecting people's mesh clothing it is very easy to see why the mesh takes long time to rez. Lots of clothes have insane number of vertices in them. It seems that a big number of designers think that the more vertices the better. Add to that huge texture sizes and the result is very slow rezzing. :smileymad: I know and I have seen that there are also many designers who actually know how to make good looking clothes with well optimized, fairly low polygon mesh. If all designers did that then there would be no problem with mesh rezzing. It would be fast, it would be efficient, everybody would be happy.

bebejee wrote: I would like avatars to appear bigger rather than having to zoom in on them, in another virtual game called Red Light Center the avies appear big by default and you can zoom out, it would be great for all the detailed stuff like intricate jewllery, makeup, tattoos and all on SL avies to show with this rather than having to zoom in on them. Maybe you are not aware that you can replace the default silly SL camera location with something better? You can change the camera to be: close, low, far, whatever you wish. Look at the debug setting "CameraOffsetRearView". Play with the X and Z values. Making Z value smaller brings the camera lower. Y value controls the centering of the camera, Y=0 means that the camera is dead center on the avatar. By changing the Y you can put the camera on the right or left of the avatar (over the shoulder view). The viewer default values are: X = -3.000 Y = 0.000 Z = 0.750 <-- this Z value makes the camera location very high "view from the top of a tree" which is very unnatural. I have changed my values to these (which are nice ones for average human sized avatar): X = -3.700 <-- I use this X value because most of the time I want to see my avatar completely Y = 0.000 Z = -0.100 If you want the camera to be closer to the avatar (showing only the upper body) then change the X value closer, like Z=-2.000 for example or even closer. There are also other debug settings which affect the camera view. Anyway this "CameraOffsetRearView" is a good easy starting point to find a better than default camera view.

Teagan Tobias wrote: First: If a third party is handling the forums, has anyone filed a JIRA about the spam. Yes, I have. I'm waiting to see will it be closed as "Not applicable" or something like that. :smileysurprised: :smileytongue: https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/BUG-5741 Now everybody do click the above link and start watching the issue. If we don't do anything, most likely nothing will happen. If we do something, then there is a slight chance that something could happen. It's always worth trying, it costs nothing. :matte-motes-big-grin:

We cannot move a thread ourselves, but the moderators can. Just click the "Report Inappropriate Content" in your post. Write in the window that pops up: "Please move this thread to: http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Second-Life-Viewer/bd-p/SLViewer" Then the moderators will move the thread.

Your can add --noprobe at the end of the program's launch icon's properties (in WIndows it's the text in the "Target" line). For example for Firestorm it would look like this: "C:\Program Files\Firestorm\Firestorm-bin.exe" --noprobe Sometimes the program cannot detect hardware and the program hangs there without advancing. The --noprobe prevents the program doing the 'Detecting hardware' thing, so the launching of the program does not stop there. Note: Right after the "C:\Program Files\Firestorm\Firestorm-bin.exe" there is a space, then two hyphens (--), and then the noprobe.

Pussycat Catnap wrote: Is there a limit on the number of tattoo layers one can apply? There is a limit, it's five. The same applies for any clothing layer and also for alpha masks. For prim, sculpty and mesh attachments, on any attachment point, there is no limit as long as the total number of the attachments worn does not exceed 38 - that number includes also possible HUDs attached. PS. Surely it's also well known that instead of just on tattoo layers, tattoos can be made also on any clothing layer. So that should be enough canvas for anybody for tattooing. I wonder why the OP wants to "ruin" the skin with permanent tattoos. :smileysurprised:

Laurent Bechir wrote: Is it possible to move up the level of a sim, to get a deeper sea, without being obliged to take all the objects of the sim before. The sea on my sim is 20 m deep, and I would like to have it deeper. Look here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Limits#Land Maximum water height: 100 meters using inworld controls, 255 meters by using a *.raw file upload.Region water height is usually 20 meters, and adjacent regions should have the same water height, or else they will look discontinuous. Maximum terrain height: 255 meters using inworld controls (mainland limit), 510 meters by using a *.raw file upload.

Sassy Romano wrote: Pretty much. In the JIRA that I created, they wrote it off as "Unactionable". Says it's all. I have created a bug report too. No actions so far. Maybe we should start spamming the JIRA with requests "do something with the forum spam"? :smileytongue: PS. I counted fourteen pages of spam in this forum alone! :smileyfrustrated:

Doggy wrote: I still have no idea why this was removed as it's part of what made Linden Trees ® so appealing latterly. The answer is: https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SH-2711 "The 'RenderAnimateTrees' setting looks strange and queries related to the setting reduce the viewer fps" and https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/VWR-28933 "Restore animated trees, fix bugs that SH-2711 side-stepped" So it appears that the only reason for the animated trees feature's removal was that they reduced fps - on some low end computers propably? I liked the animated trees, never had any reduced fps problems with them.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: You people are killing me! You all know about such things? And you didn't tell me? Oh Maddy, where have you been! There is even more stuff... :matte-motes-big-grin: LOL, that looks funny. It would need nose and mouth; then it would be just perfect! :smileyvery-happy: :smileytongue: