Coby Foden

Phil Deakins wrote: Coby Foden wrote: Perrie Juran wrote: And when you are looking through a window your focus is locked straight ahead. Their is no way to just roll your eyes to look up or down or to the sides. While in mouselook use the WASD keys to move about. While walking you can steer the avatar with the mouse, you can also look up and down with the mouse while walking. Perfect for tight places, and going down and up steep stairs, you can see where to step. Can also avoid the clumsiness what Phil feels in small places as he cannot see what is in front of him with deafault camera setting. But extremely imperfect for the default setup But extremely perfect and efficient way for better setup. :smileyhappy: Why should we lock ourselves to the inefficient default one? It's silly because there is possibility for better one.

Phil Deakins wrote: Coby Foden wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: If it just about size, then why not adopt a scale that is far more suitable for the SL system instead of a scale that requires people to force themselves to accept because the SL system doesn't suit it? Coby replies: Your big scale 'GAH + eyeballing' system is not far more suitable. It's very stupid system. Your system has many disadvantages in it. For one, it's random dimensioning system. And it shows in SL. Not consistent in sizes. There are no best practises concerning the sizes of things in SL. The phrase 'best practises' is akin to morals and ethics, which have nothing to do with the sizes of things in SL. Perrie introduced that phrase into this discussion, but he was mistaken. Coby replies: When we had new 3D sofware implemented in our offices we had intensive training for it. Among other things the instructor taught us best practices how to use the software effectively to create good content. It had nothing to do with morals nor ethics. :smileyhappy: My mind is that of a creator who creates for the majority. If the majority decided to use 1:1 scales, I'd go along with it. because of the SL system, I'd think they were mad, but, as a creator, I'd go along with it. Coby replies: Amazing! If the majority of SL was created in 1:1 scale you would accept it. It appears that your talk here is all about majority, not what other alternatives would work besides what is the majority. :smileytongue: Phil, no need to reply something like " but the rooms need to be big because of the camera, etc, etc..." :smileywink: Why not? The camera is the reason. Because the camera location is not locked, we can move it to better location. Then we don't need gigantic rooms, no gigantic furniture, no gigantic avatars to match the furniture. :smileyhappy: The thing is: • Very tall avatars need very big furniture. • Very big furniture and very tall avatars need very big rooms. • RL sized avatars need RL-sized furniture. • RL-sized furniture and RL-sized avatars don't need so big rooms as is with case of big furniture and very tall avatars. I think that you fail to see and understand this: small does not need as big as the big does. PS. Out of interest I browsed through some of the earlier similar discussions and I found that you even you have said this: "You are right that larger rooms don't necessarily need large furniture. ;-)" ... and this ... "Because the camera location cannot be changed big rooms are needed. Big rooms require big furniture. Big furniture require big avatars." You see? Because the camera location can be changed there isn't any technically forced reason to go for very big rooms, and very big everything else. Going big is just an acquired habit in SL.

Phil Deakins wrote: Coby Foden wrote: Phil, try with female avatar then you will know the truth. In the picture below is my avatar on the left, on the right is outline of real woman taken from from RL photo. (I gave a copy of the avatar's hair to her.) Avatar height is very close to 1.79 m (5 ft 10.5 in). The arm length slider is at 100. Cannot make the arms any longer. If you want to make taller avatar the result is that arms will be too short, to be proportionate, to that taller body. I've done the test with my female alt, using a prim to measure her height. I maxed the arms and the fingertips are pretty much in the same position on the thighs as in your diagrams. I altered nothing else. According to the prim, she is 2.02 meters tall. That's 6' 7½" tall. The result is that I don't accept the fermale arms argument. I'll leave her as she is, and I'll leave the prim as well - just in case you, or anyone else, wants to have a look. Is the body of your female alt proportionate? The crotch halfway in the body? No grasshopper like long legs? Why don't you post a good frontal picture here? Use a telephoto lens when taking the snapshot to avoid perspective distortion, keep the camera at the height ofthe middle of the body when taking the snapshot. Take the snapshot of your alt beside real woman's body picture (you can take the woman from my image here). Put the picture on a prim, strech the picture to the same height as your alt avatar is. Put the prim with the picture and you alt side by side. Take snapshots, post it here. Your words mean nothing without a picture.

irihapeti wrote: just on avatar speed i been keeping up with news on Occulus Rift in SL. I dont have myself. Just follow the blogs people who have been using in SL say that the most noticeable thing with the Rift is how fast SL avatars move. Seems that avatars walk and turn really fast. relative to our general walking and turning speeds in the RL. Like little motobikes one person said so that has to have some bearing as well I think on why SL floor areas need to be larger and why more space is needed between furnishings and walls say. Needed to walk/navigate smoothly like we do in RL. and not walk in stop/start style like we often do in SL. Like for example: make a corridor. say 16m long and 2m wide. Then see how easy/difficult it is walk down it (no stop/start) without brushing the walls + which raise a interesting question would what we make get smaller (and stuff placed closer together) meaning consistent with RL as a general rule, if the avatar walked/turned at a speed consistent with RL pace and not whizz round like it do now? I have always perceived that the avatars walk too fast, a lot faster than what we generally use to do in RL. Naturally this fast walking and fast turning increases avatar clumsiness in small places. We would need variable walking speeds for variable purposes. Naturally also proper sutable walking animations for those various speeds. That would be really super cool enhancement.

Phil Deakins wrote: Coby Foden wrote: Phil replied in blue: About Second Life we can ask: "Is the sizing of content the same across the grid?" We know it isn't; sizing is not consistent across the grid. Aha. An answer. There are no such things as sizes in SL. What would you like to do about it? It wouldn't affect me anyway, because there are no such things as sizes for furniture anywhere in RL, except for beds, and they vary from place to place. So what can be done in SL to correct the situation. Nothing. Ok, you start to play with terminology now. You are nitpicking about my word of choice, the "size". I'm very sorry to confuse you with my bad choice of word. Sure there are no such sizes (numbers for size) for furniture as there are for clothes, shoes, etc. If we go to a shop to buy a chair saying "I want chair, size number 15 would fine for me, thanks." they will be wondering what we want. Well anyway there actually are 'sizes' in SL as well as in RL for furniture. They come in certain dimensions, those define what size the funiture is. (I think you understand, you're just nitpicking the word 'size' which I used.) The general dimensions for furniture are pretty established thing all over the world. There are slight variations in the dimensions (in the size of the furniture) :smileywink:, but not anything very big (expect for the American beds, perhaps :smileyvery-happy:). The dimensions in the pictures below definitely define the sizes of the kitchen units. No question about it. (Enough for word play?)

Phil Deakins wrote: Remember the default cam position can't be changed. In that way, it doesn't work when compared to larger environments and stuff. Rubbish Phil. You are again confusing any newbie who might suddenly drop into your post. You know that it can be changed. Stop confusing people.

Phil Deakins wrote: I'll make the offer again. Test it with me without changing the camera position from the default. Phil, I know that the default camera location does not work well with small content. I know also that it is not very good for big content either. It is really a very, very bad location for the camera. A relic from the past history, that's what it is. It distorts the perspective of the world. So what's the point for me to test, a thing what I already know, with you? So that you can happily yell: "See, I told you!"? :smileyvery-happy: I know Phil, thanks for the offer anyway. :matte-motes-big-grin:

Perrie Juran wrote: And when you are looking through a window your focus is locked straight ahead. Their is no way to just roll your eyes to look up or down or to the sides. While in mouselook use the WASD keys to move about. While walking you can steer the avatar with the mouse, you can also look up and down with the mouse while walking. Perfect for tight places, and going down and up steep stairs, you can see where to step. Can also avoid the clumsiness what Phil feels in small places as he cannot see what is in front of him with deafault camera setting.

Phil Deakins wrote: Perrie Juran wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Now I'm going to repeat something. SL is not RL. The reason I've repeated it is because you keep on about RL sizes. It's you who promotes RL in SL. Why? What does it matter if things are generally bigger in SL? Why do you want to equate SL with that other world, RL? It's interesting to note that you have completely abandoned any discussion on 'consistent sizing'. Y'know, the topic that you said had been discussed many times in the past, and eventually admitted that you mentioned it once in a long thread I've no idea what the idea behind consistent sizing is, and I'm interested to know, but it looks like you've dropped it And I am going to repeat again what Coby has said, "We know SL is not RL." Tell that to Coby. She is the one who keeps wanting things in SL to be the same as they are in RL. Not me. Coby replies to Phil: Making things the same size in SL as they are in RL does not equate that SL = RL. So, you can stop using that silly phrase by now. I'm not trying to make SL the same as RL. This is just about sizes. Making the sizes the same does not magically turn SL into RL, and I'm not after that transformation at all. What we are talking about here is what would be best practices. . . . I've no survey to back this up but I doubt if most people come into SL thinking that they want to represent themselves as a 7 foot tall giant. I know I didn't. Basically, as you look around SL, what most people are trying to represent themselves as being is simply trim, fit, and handsome or beautiful but otherwise average compared to everyone else. That is how I believe the majority want to be percieved. Yes, and there's no reason at all to match RL sizes to achieve it, especially when RL-sized everything doesn't work anywhere well enough. Coby replies to Phil: RL sizes work well and there are good reasons for it. But of course you like to discredit any reasons given. You are just blinded by your years of experience in making big content for very tall avatars. Your mind is geared for the big, it seems to be impossible for you to get used to the idea that small works as well, and even better. ETA, another unkown here is which came first, the camera angle or the Ava. Did they settle on the default angle because the hight of the Ava 'forced' it' or did they set the camera angle and then build the Ava. I've no idea. I would guess that they came up with the camera position because everything else used that sort of position. Every ad for 3D games I see on TV these days use the same sort of position. Phil, no need to reply something like "but the rooms need to be big because of the camera, etc, etc..." :smileywink:

Phil Deakins wrote (in blue): Pussycat Catnap wrote: If the arms are at 100 and the rest of the avatar is proportionate to them - most female shapes would be from 4'8" to 5'3" or so, give or take a little. Most (or some key ones) of the dials that adjust height do not also stretch the limbs. The height dial itself does, but not at the same rate as the rest of the body. This quickly becomes an issue. I don't agree with that. From my own experiences, arms can be in good proportions with a taller than RL body, although I haven't done it with a female avatar. Phil, try with female avatar then you will know the truth. In the picture below is my avatar on the left, on the right is outline of real woman taken from from RL photo. (I gave a copy of the avatar's hair to her.) Avatar height is very close to 1.79 m (5 ft 10.5 in). The arm length slider is at 100. Cannot make the arms any longer. If you want to make taller avatar the result is that arms will be too short, to be proportionate, to that taller body.

Perrie Juran wrote: What we are talking about here is what would be best practices. Yes indeed. That's a very good definition for this discussion. That's what I'm talking about. But Phil, for some strange reason, keeps repeatedly returning to what is 'typical'. He's done that same thing in some earlier discussion too. And then he continues to 'prove' that other things would not work in SL because of this 'typical' thing. Camera is locked, need bigger rooms, need bigger furniture, need bigger avatars... on and on he goes. :smileysad: :smileywink: Phil, this is not about 'typical'. Please join us to discuss about what is not 'typical'. :smileyhappy: The things what I, for example, have said here. You know that they work if you drop the 'typical'.

Phil Deakins wrote: Coby Foden wrote: If the avatar is RL sized it does not need so huge rooms as the very tall avatars will need. The result is that the RL sized avatar's house works well with RL sized furniture, there is no need to upsize them. Phil Deakins wrote: I completely disagree. Since we won't come to agreement on that, perhaps you'd care to join me in experimenting with it. Remember, though, that the default cam position can't be changed. ROFLOL, Phil! You want to lock the camera. Would you like to use 2.6 m tall avatars too to 'win' your case? And should I perhaps work with only one hand and with a very tiny screen? Any other requirements? :smileysurprised: :smileytongue: As I said in my other post: This is not about what is 'typical'. So why do you want typical surroundings for the experiment?

Phil Deakins wrote: Now I'm going to repeat something. SL is not RL. The reason I've repeated it is because you keep on about RL sizes. It's you who promotes RL in SL. Why? What does it matter if things are generally bigger in SL? Why do you want to equate SL with that other world, RL? It's interesting to note that you have completely abandoned any discussion on 'consistent sizing'. Y'know, the topic that you said had been discussed many times in the past, and eventually admitted that you mentioned it once in a long thread I've no idea what the idea behind consistent sizing is, and I'm interested to know, but it looks like you've dropped it We're running out of colours, so I don't care to comment all your comments. (Still containing some erroneuos thinking by you.) :smileywink: Phil, nobody is trying to equate SL with RL. Nobody. It is just you pushing that meaningless phrase here over and over again.This is about sizing content. Nothing more, nothing less. You can drop the silly phrase, we've had enough of it. Ok then, here is something about consistent sizing, to relieve you from the sad face. (Funny you being a designer that you don't understand what is meant by it.) consistent: - uniform, undeviating, unvarying; marked by harmony, regularity, or steady continuity, free from variation or contradiction, expected, constantly adhering to the same principles, course, form, etc. synonyms: - coherent, compatible, concordant, harmonious, nonconflicting antonyms: - incompatible, inconsistent, unfitting, varying, irregular For example, one can ask: "Does adidas have a consistent sizing across the world? Is adidas clothing sizing the same around the world?" About Second Life we can ask: "Is the sizing of content the same across the grid?" We know it isn't; sizing is not consistent across the grid. Next, the benefits of RL-sizing. The benefits of RL-sizing have been discussed earlier. Maybe you have skipped all those posts in earlier threads because they don't support your 'bigger works better' view? Even in this thread one person gave one very good reason to go small. Still you say in this same thread: "I've never seen anyone write an actual reason". Why Phil? Debating for the debate's sake, I guess. Even I have mentioned some benefits earlier. You just disregard all. Why, I wonder. If you have forgotten about the benefits, I give here some benefits/reasons for RL-sizing: • It is impossible for female avatar to tall correctly proportionate avatar, if the avatar is tall you cannot stretch the arms long enough, so they look too short • The big one is this: in RL all the content sizing is pretty consistent, there are some variations but the variations are not huge. All content in RL is perfect for the majority of adult population. RL is perfect reference how content looks, why not use it in SL? • When RL content is used in SL there is no guesswork about what size an object should be. No eyeballing and 'guesstimations'. Just measure an object in RL, and use those measurements 1:1 in SL. • Using RL sized avatars and content in SL saves land space, you don't need so huge houses as you need with giants and their giant content. Besides filling your land with a huge house, you can put a garden too by using smaller house. • You can use more RL sized content on your parcel than what you can use with big content (thanks to mesh). I don't really understand what is your point to constantly refer to what is typical in SL and what is typical room size in RL? You know very well that my point of view has nothing to do with 'typical'. It has nothing to do how the masses have their camera 'locked' in the default setting. It has nothing to do with the giant rooms in giant houses made for the giants. It has nothing to do with Jo Yardley's very tiny RL-sized rooms in SL. It's just plain silly that you are trying prove your point by referring to those things. Please, at least try to be sensible in your replies. You know definitely well what I'm talking about. This comes tedious if you debate just for the sake of debate. Thank you. :smileyhappy: What I'm talking here is not about 'typical'. :matte-motes-big-grin:

It's also interesting to note what the European Union has decided. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika Attempt to ban [swastika] in the European Union "An attempt to ban the swastika across the EU in early 2005 failed after objections from the British Government and others. In early 2007, while Germany held the European Union presidency, Berlin proposed that the European Union should follow German Criminal Law and criminalize the denial of the Holocaust and the display of Nazi symbols including the swastika, which is based on the Ban on the Symbols of Unconstitutional Organisations Act. This led to an opposition campaign by Hindu groups across Europe against a ban on the swastika. They pointed out that the swastika has been around for 5,000 years as a symbol of peace. The proposal to ban the swastika was dropped by Berlin from the proposed European Union wide anti-racism laws on January 29, 2007." However, in some European countries public display of swastika is punishable by fine, and even by imprisonment.

TDD123 wrote: Coby Phil :smileywink:

You're wrong in so many points that I feel the need to reply. :smileywink: Phil Deakins wrote: Coby Foden wrote: Phil replied in blue: Coby replied in green: Phil Deakins wrote: Coby Foden wrote: (Phil Deakins replied in blue): Would there be any benefits if we used RL as a reference in content building? Surely there would be. There would no more guessing to what size to make a chair, a table, a kitchen sink, a cabinet, a cup, a glass, a plate, etc. You just measure the RL items and make them exactly to same size in SL, using 1 RLm = 1 SLm. You know very well, from the thrads on that subject, that the default camera position doesn't allow it. Phil you know very well that the "sacred default camera setting" (what you refuse to touch because it is the default) :smileywink: does not prevent anybody in any way from creating content in RL sizes. You can do it, and you do know it. Please stop confusing people by saying something what is not true. Thanks. :matte-motes-smile: I didn't say that the camera position prevents RL sized content from being made. I said nothing like that. What the camera's default position doesn't allow is making everything in RL sizes - rooms specifically, and that causes furniture to be bigger, etc. It's not me who is confusing people, it's you who reply to me by changing what I said. That's confusing. In effect you did say that the default camera setting prevents making RL sized objects because you replied to my post where I was telling about sizes of objects, not rooms. You are confusing people, not me. I'm not changing what you said. :smileyhappy: I know that you are referring to room sizes (somebody new here might not know it). They go: "Darn, not possible to make any object RL size here, ufff... " :smileysad: If anyone reads, then there is no confusion. What would you prefer? Me saying that RL sized rooms and furniture are just fine, when they are not? What I prefer to say is that: RL sized furniture + RL sized avatar + good camera location + spacious RL room work perfectly in SL. No need at all to making everything bigger. Your idea that bigger works better is wrong. Well, we have already agreed, in one earlier very long discussion, that for avatar comfort, for ease of movement it is a good idea to make the interiors bigger than in RL. If the avatar is average RL height, and if the camera is located away from its default "sacred" location to a much better natural view position, then the interiors need not to be hugely larger than in RL, for comfort and ease of movement. However, if the camera is kept in the default location and the avatar is very tall then huge interiors are needed. But, as you said, rooms do need to be larger, which results in larger furniture or it would look much too small for the room. As a furniture maker I've seen it and known it for years. As a result of that, avatars need to be larger too. Larger rooms do not result in that the furniture and avatars need to be bigger. That's your wrong thinking. You're so stuck in that thinking, result of the many years of making furniture for very tall avatars, that you seem to be incapable of thinking anything else. The default camera position is no excuse for extra large content creation. We know that the camera is not locked in that position. Any content creator should be aware of it. Not knowing that it is not locked is no excuse either. Content creators should familiarize themselves with the platform well; especially those who sell content. The default camera position is no reason to make gigantic houses, but it does mean that house contents end up being larger because houses are necessarily larger. You are right - the cam position isn't locked, but what percentage of people change it? Content creators need to make content suitable for the most common, which is the default cam position. And I assure you that content creators are very well aware of it. That's why you don't see much RL-sized furniture. Just because the cam position can be changed, doesn't mean that most people change it. If the avatar is RL sized it does not need so huge rooms as the very tall avatars will need. The result is that the RL sized avatar's house works well with RL sized furniture, there is no need to upsize them. But as the content creators know the camera postion so well and know that it can be changed to better location, they should be an example to people. Make things to RL sizes, inform people how the content looks right. Make content modifiable, so that those who want to be giants can scale the content to suit them. It's rather silly to continue to support giant sizes for years and years. You claim that large interiors need large furniture because RL sized furniture would look too small. That's a funny claim. It's not a funny claim at all. You are just waffling now, presumably because you don't have any good argument against something you don't want to be true. I've been in the furniture making business for a lot of years, and I promise you that RL-sized furniture looks way too small in typical SL rooms in homes. Your claim is funny. YOu have made content for very tall avatars for years and years. You have no experience at all how things would look with RL sized content. Yes, I'm sure that RL sized furniture would look rather small in the houses made for the very tall avatars, that we can agree. :smileyhappy: Where I live we many large malls. These malls have large interior spaces where there are seats for people to rest their feet, there are many small cafeterias in the middle of the open areas, there are snack bars. Plenty of empty space all around. The ceiling is very high. All the furniture is normal standard size, same size what people have in their homes. Not a single very large, oversized piece of furniture is seen anywhere. And nobody complains "Why the furniture is so small in this big place?" For everybody everything looks normal in the scene. We are talking about homes, not malls etc. You put an RL-sized sofa against a wall in a typical SL living room, and you'll see that it looks much too small and unrealistic for the room. It's no good arguing about it Coby. I've been in the business for years and I know. Who said we are about homes? Why are you referring to typical SL living room? We know that there are lots of "typical" SL living rooms which are extremely large. We know that RL sized furniture looks small in those rooms. We are not arguing about it at all. We are discussing (at least I am) whether RL sized content and avatars work in SL or not. Your business experience has been making content for very tall avatars. That has nothing to do with RL sized content and avatars. Normal size furniture works perfectly in RL in big spaces. Why do you feel that it wouldn't work in SL? I didn't say it wouldn't work in the sort of large spaces that you mentioned. It doesn't work in homes. Please stop changing what we are discussing. Why do you change the object of the discussion? Are you hoping that, if you change it, you can win a point? RL sized furniture works very well in SL homes when they are made for RL sized avatars. I'm not here "to win a point". I'm here to discuss that RL sized content works in SL. There's no compelling reason for gigantism. To me, your feeling that way makes no sense at all. Is it just a thing what you have deeply instilled in your mind ('it does not work'), or what is it? It's deeply ingrained in my mind due to my extensive experience of it. It doesn't matter if it makes sense to you or not. Unless I'm mistaken, you are one of the minority who want their avatar to be more or less RL sized, and for no apparent reason. It's a 'thing' with you - almost a principle. It's funny that you often refer to 'minority'. Does it make your claim stronger as you feel to be in the 'majority'? There are many reasons to support RL sizing. It has been discussed over and over again. But you prefer to discard anything what is said in favour and about the benefits of RL sizing. It's not a 'thing' with me, it's not almost a principle. It's just a fact. Content creators create for the majority if they can, because they want to sell to the majority, and they can with homes and furniture. In very recent times, there are more shorter avs than there used to be, and it would benefit content creators to cater for both, as I do in a small way. But the old avatar heights are still the majority as far as I know. Whenever I go to a place where there are plenty of avatars, I'm never noticably taller than the others, but there is the occasional avatar that is significantly and very noticably shorter than the rest. That's the RL-sized one. I understand that lots of content creators do it for the income, it is natural to make content for major customer group. But this majority thing does not invalidate in any way what I have been saying here about RL sizes. Being the majority does not mean that the majority is right. In SL the majority just has followed the wrong path, due to Linden Lab made mistake early in the beginnings of SL.

Phil Deakins wrote: Coby Foden wrote: Phil Deakins replied in blue: I know that you are referring to room sizes (somebody new here might not know it). They go: "Darn, not possible to make any object RL size here, ufff... " :smileysad: If anyone reads, then there is no confusion. What would you prefer? People saying that RL sized rooms and furniture are just fine, when they are not? Well, we have already agreed, in one earlier very long discussion, that for avatar comfort, for ease of movement it is a good idea to make the interiors bigger than in RL. If the avatar is average RL height, and if the camera is located away from its default "sacred" location to a much better natural view position, then the interiors need not to be hugely larger than in RL, for comfort and ease of movement. However, if the camera is kept in the default location and the avatar is very tall then huge interiors are needed. But, as you said, rooms do need to be larger, which results in larger furniture or it would look much too small for the room. As a furniture maker I've seen it and known it for years. As a result of that, avatars need to be larger too. Phil, do you remember this discussion? http://community.secondlife.com/t5/General-Discussion-Forum/Dimensions-Avatars-Content-some-thoughts/m-p/2185525#M126607 Phil Deakins wrote: The idea of RL sizes in an empty SL would work in exactly the same way is it works in the current SL. Avatars and furniture would work just fine, but room sizes must be bigger than RL because of the way we see. So your idea of having avatar and furniture sizes the same as RL, and having bigger rooms because of the way we see, would work just fine. We've never been in disagreement about that. As you see, you have agreed in earlier discussion that RL sized furniture and RL sized avatars work just fine. Now you're going back to your earlier claim that they don't work. Why is that, did you change your mind? By the way, for your furniture, avatar needs to be 2.33 m [7 feet 7.7 inches] tall so that it looks the same in relation to your furniture as 1.79 m [5 feet 10.5 inches] tall avatar looks in relation to RL sized furniture. Naturally your furniture and the tall avatar need bigger room than RL sized avatar and RL sized furniture would need. I'm totally convinced that these RL examples of spacious living rooms would work in SL very well when dimensioned exactly 1:1 (1 RLm = 1 SLm). RL sized sized avatar would work well in those environments. No issues whatsoever. No need to enlarge the furniture, no need to enlarge the room, no need for bigger avatar. Works fine just as it is. :smileyhappy:

Tari Landar wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Nope. I'm being perfectly serious. I remember plenty of discussions about why things are big in SL, but I remember no discussion about the idea of consistent sizes; i.e. for furniture, houses, avatars, and such, but especially furniture. Ok, in thta case, read some of the threads I posted, consistency is discussed, and has been, numerous times. Though, like I said, some of the threads may not have started off, or even ended discussing primarily that, of course, since they all tend to morph into numerous discussions, and topics. I'm pretty sure that I did mention consistent sizing, at least once, in one long thread. Phil participated in that thread too.

Phil Deakins wrote: Perrie Juran wrote: When it comes to the whole sizing issue, camera placement is a factor, and perhaps a very large one. But it is not the only thing that effects this. Imo, the default camera position is the only factor. I know about the discrepency between prim meters and avatar meters, but I don't see how that causes things to be bigger.. Phil, there is no discrepancy between "avatar" meters and prim meters. They are exactly the same. (For clarification to anybody who got confused: By "avatar" meter Phil means the meter shown in the viewer appearance editor.) What is wrong is that Linden Lab viewer does not show avatar shape height, the height what we see, and can measure with prim. What the viewer shows is avatar's Agent Height. Agent Height is shorter than avatar mes is. If we could see avatar's collision box then we could measure it with a prim and see that the prim measuremet and the viewer measurement give exactly the same height in meters. What Linden Lab did wrong is that in the viewer it just says "Height". People (not nowing what height it shows) think that it shows the mesh height. Confusion, confusion among many is the result. So there is no discrepancy with prim meters and the appearance editor meters. They are the same. (Yes, I know even after this clarification you still will say that "there is something wrong with the appearance editor meter because it appears not to be the same as prim meter") Oh, well... :smileywink: PS. Because the appearance editor shows Agent Height instead of the mesh height people unknowingly do make their avatar taller than they think. Measuring by prim is the only exactly accurate way to find out how tall an avatar is.

Phil Deakins wrote: Coby Foden wrote: (Phil Deakins replied in blue): Would there be any benefits if we used RL as a reference in content building? Surely there would be. There would no more guessing to what size to make a chair, a table, a kitchen sink, a cabinet, a cup, a glass, a plate, etc. You just measure the RL items and make them exactly to same size in SL, using 1 RLm = 1 SLm. You know very well, from the thrads on that subject, that the default camera position doesn't allow it. Phil you know very well that the "sacred default camera setting" (what you refuse to touch because it is the default) :smileywink: does not prevent anybody in any way from creating content in RL sizes. You can do it, and you do know it. Please stop confusing people by saying something what is not true. Thanks. :matte-motes-smile: I know that you are referring to room sizes (somebody new here might not know it). They go: "Darn, not possible to make any object RL size here, ufff... " :smileysad: Well, we have already agreed, in one earlier very long discussion, that for avatar comfort, for ease of movement it is a good idea to make the interiors bigger than in RL. If the avatar is average RL height, and if the camera is located away from its default "sacred" location to a much better natural view position, then the interiors need not to be hugely larger than in RL, for comfort and ease of movement. However, if the camera is kept in the default location and the avatar is very tall then huge interiors are needed. The default camera position is no excuse for extra large content creation. We know that the camera is not locked in that position. Any content creator should be aware of it. Not knowing that it is not locked is no excuse either. Content creators should familiarize themselves with the platform well; especially those who sell content. You claim that large interiors need large furniture because RL sized furniture would look too small. That's a funny claim. Where I live we many large malls. These malls have large interior spaces where there are seats for people to rest their feet, there are many small cafeterias in the middle of the open areas, there are snack bars. Plenty of empty space all around. The ceiling is very high. All the furniture is normal standard size, same size what people have in their homes. Not a single very large, oversized piece of furniture is seen anywhere. And nobody complains "Why the furniture is so small in this big place?" For everybody everything looks normal in the scene. Normal size furniture works perfectly in RL in big spaces. Why do you feel that it wouldn't work in SL? To me, your feeling that way makes no sense at all. Is it just a thing what you have deeply instilled in your mind ('it does not work'), or what is it?

Phil Deakins wrote: SL is not RL Hey, again! :smileysurprised: We know it Phil. Everybody here knows it. :smileyvery-happy:

TDD123 wrote: Perrie Juran wrote: Then we changed how the avatars looked without changing the physical representation of the avatar on the server, and their default size was scaled to match the collision model. They took an easy out when they changed how the Ava's looked. Perhaps that is understandable. Changing the physical representation ON THE SERVER would have been a much more complex undertaking than what they did. I still don't understand what you are pointing at here. What 'collision model' ( the model that is handled by the physics engine ? ) and did it have different values for height or camera-angle ? And in what way did that affect builds ? It is the avatars "bounding box". That is used for detecting avatar's collision to objects. Avatar Agent Height is the height of this collision box. I think Linden Lab further mixed things up as this avatar collision box is shorter that the avatar mesh shape is. And more confusion was added as Linden Lab viewer shows the height of the collision box (i.e. Agent Height) instead of the avatar's mesh height. Now most people just assume that Linden Lab viewer shows the mesh height, which it does not. Lots of confusion. http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/LlGetAgentSize http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/LlGetBoundingBox

Phil Deakins wrote: SL is not RL, ... It is totally uneccessary to state so emphatically that SL is not RL (over and over again). I'm sure all SL users know exactly which is which. Nobody here is so delusional who would think that they are the same. :smileywink: Anyway... It has been already discussed earlier many times over why it is important to use consistent sizing of things. Where do we have a reference for consistent sizing of things? Of course it is in RL, there things are sized so that they are comfortable to use for most people. Why not use that sizing also in a virtual world? Would it not "work" or what is it? Is it because it is "Your World - Your Imagination" equals to "build to whatever sizes you wish - because this is Virtual World, it does not matter if the virtual world has non-consistently sized content"? What? Would there be any benefits if we used RL as a reference in content building? Surely there would be. There would no more guessing to what size to make a chair, a table, a kitchen sink, a cabinet, a cup, a glass, aplate, etc. You just measure the RL items and make them exactly to same size in SL, using 1 RLm = 1 SLm. Done. All items created by this method will look great and exactly the right size in relation to any other item created by this method. Perfect exact balance in the size of things, just like in RL. This is simple, it is easy, it is perfect method for consistent sizing.Why to invent something more complicated (like GAH, or some other weird haphazard thing)? How about building by the, your preferred, GAH (General Avatars Height) method? Naturally as there is no GAH defined anywhere, every creator will have their own personal GAH to which they build things. If they want that their content in SL looks consistent in sizing they will have to: • determine how tall this GAH is in meters in your thinking • find out what is the average human height in RL • calculate upsizing factor (GAH divided by average human height) • when building multiply all RL measured things by this upsizing factor or • never mind the upsizing factor, just build everything by eyeballing things so that it looks "thereabouts" right Which method produces more consistent sizing of things and more beautiful world? Using RL as the exact guide or the GAH method? Phil Deakins wrote: bebejee wrote: I have come accroos some really nice houses but both outside and inside they are built like for avatars thrice the size of regular avs, whats with this? make one feel like Alice in wonderland iin such places, can they be shrunk? To answer the question in your title, those houses don't suffer from "gigantism". They are made to suit normally sized avatars that are taller than their RL equivalents... There lies the problem; how tall exactly is "normally sized avatar"? Or the average height of "normally sized avatars"? Of course there is no poll ever made, with large enough sample, of SL avatar heights to be able to define the average height for it. So how to size things for this elusive "normal sized avatar"? It's impossible, as the results we can observe in SL clearly show.

RowanNothan wrote: Any body know any programs that will be easy on me to accomplish this? Unfortunately there is no easy shortcut way to accomplish what you want. You need to learn all the steps in the creation process. If you try to skip some steps in the learning path you'll find yourself in a situation similar to this:

Proces credit (money withdrawal) Requested Day 5 Business Days Later Monday Following Monday Tuesday Following Tuesday Wednesday Following Wednesday Thursday Following Thursday Friday Following Friday Saturday Following Monday (8 calendar days later) Sunday Following Monday (7 calendar days later) Business holidays in the US will extend the 5 business day window by 1 day. Further down on that page: How long does it take to process credits? For processing a credit to a Paypal account, requests generally take up to 5 business days (Monday-Friday, not including U.S. holidays) to be completed. We always strive for quick turnaround; however, holidays and the volume of transactions may affect processing times. So, it's generally five business days, but it's not guaranteed that it will always be five business days.