Dain Shan

But you could edit your skyboxes .. How about LL adds a save button to builds. No even better, after you take a build to inventory cou cant change it anymore, means no adding of textures, no altering any values or scripts. No linking stuff to it eighter. Thats what you suggest here. If you want to change something, like size or anything else, you have to start over completly. Oh my what a fun . Seriously .. i suggest you quit joking. Thats not funny anymore

Hm From the sound of your explanation that happens when you zoom the camera out? If yes then i think you see the LOD effekt. LOD or level of Detail is often mentioned with sculpts. Meshes have the same effekt in that regard There are 4 stages of LOD High, Medium, Low, Lowest. At each stage the mesh looses, when displayed on the screen, vertices and faces. Autogenerated LODs could have unfortunate effects on the mesh because an Algorythm decides which verts are pulled from the modell while rendering it on the screen. Unforseen deformations may be the result. You can influence this, by creating your own level of detail for each stage and upload it together with the High LOD Mesh.

Damm right .. i am one I started with Modelling at the beginning of the Mesh beta. And theres absolutely nothing wrong with that. If there was a quality control about that .. i wouldnt do mesh anymore, because my very first modell would have been denied. I think same goes for your Skyboxes too then. Because even now if we look at you first one, and comapred it to you top one, you would be thrown out from building back then. So be glad that there wasnt a quality control back then.. he?

Always that pointing at wannabes .. May i asked where you did start from? Guessed so. All i see here is ramting about things that are not even in the slightest a point of this thread. If you want to rumble .. open one about IP infrigment ( not that we dosent have already a boatload of them ) and about content quality ( we have a bunch of them eighter ) Point of SL was and is that you can actually create things on your own, and display or even sell it. If you want a Quality control bevore the items get to the market .. go to blue mars, they do that over there.

@ Vivienne Is this a rant, or a suggestion? Noone jumped out of the box as a perfect modeller. So please .. dont tell people to stay away because they are not "THE" perfect one, that helps noone.

Hi I cant comment on the first question because i dont know But i can comment on the second. unfortunately the answer is No, you cant.

Thanks Drongle I still think thats a BIG mistake from LL side. but i guess we never going to change their mind, eh?

Oh ... Now that i think about it.. i was assuming that display weight was the new value for the geometry cost. Maybe thats where i go wrong. I did a quick experiment. If i copy the second mesh with 45 display weight and link them together, the display weight change to 110 :matte-motes-sour: Also the PE changes to 3 ( from 2 in an unlinked state ) and accordingly to the Streaming cost ( Enabled from the debug menue ) that says 3.1 it make sense, somehow. If i unlink them and look at them individually the streaming costs are 1.5 for each mesh. So together 3.1 ( maybe a rounding issue ) is what i can understand if we set the PE cost = Streaming cost. But still i cant figure out how the display weight comes into play, and what it means. So .. if you want to get the best out of your PE for a given mesh, the streaming cost value is ( to my understanding ) still the most reliable source of information. Beside that it seems we still cant go below 2 Prims A testcube with 12 Triangles and 24 Verts as high LOD and autogenerated lower LODs and no physics still shows as streaming cost 0.3 and physics cost = 0.4. And still also shows a PE of 2 while Display weight is 20 Thats for a cube with the dimensions 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 If i expand the cube to 10 x 10 x 10 the Streaming cost changes to 0.4 Pe is still 2 and Display weight changes to 50 So i get the impression that Display weight has something to do with the pure dimensions of the mesh.

Im still confused. The advanced Option reveals the following with one of my meshes Display weight = 35 PE is 5 Now i wanted to see what one of my other meshes say about this Display weight 45 therefore 10 points more then the previous mesh. But the PE is only 2.0 ? If i use the Render Info from the advanced menue it says the first mesh has a streaming cost of 5.4 And the second has a streaming cost of 1.5 That fits the PE, but the difference in the display weight is somewhat confusing ? It cant be the physics .. so maybe i get something totally wrong here ? EDIT: Forgot to mention im using Second Life 2.7.5 (233657) Jun 22 2011 14:28:19 (Project Viewer - Mesh) Release Notes You are at 206,030.0, 178,884.0, 23.1 in MeshHQ 1 located at sim7007.aditi.lindenlab.com (216.82.40.77:12035) Mesh Import 11.06.16.233117

Maniac Choche wrote: Maybe the problem is related in the amount of streamed information? For example: - regular prims have fixed normals , fixed UVs , all those are not streamed - all information related to a sculpty object is hold in a very compressed image file I've made a very rude test with a sculpty: In it's native JPEG2000 format the size is ~4k. Same sculpty in uncompressed .dae is 1.05Mb. Since i have no clue what type of compression LL will use internally I've used RAR just to see how much i can compress it. I came up with something like 57kb and best possible compression settings. The differences are quite big , but the amount of information is more too. And let's not forget custom created LODs and Physics all those have UVs , normals , vertex positions etc. It's not just one DAE. Best regards p.s .dae file have tons of tags that are probably ignored and not streamed The final datapakage is far below 57 kb. All files will be merged into one file for the object, the uploader just need all of them to generate this one file. Also the data file of the sculpt you have looked at is most likely not even 50% if optimized into mesh.

Gaia Clary wrote: Dain Shan wrote: A Cube with 12 Triangles. The cost is always 2 prims at least. So we cant compete with an object that can have a mulitude of faces and still is 1 prim only. Theres simply no way. Alone because of the fact that we cant go below 2 prims. Has the PE been acknowledged as the final value ? The resource cost for a <64,64,64> mesh cube is 0.78. The PE for the same cube is 2. As long as LL does not tell what we have to believe i continue looking at the "Resource costs" . That is what Runitai has told us to do 10 days ago. And they told us on monday that we will "probably see consense between what the viewer thinks (PE?) and what the server thinks (RC?) by end of this week" Since there is no consense at the moment, how can we tell what is right and what is wrong ? As i understood it in the last meeting were final with the values. Same goes for adding scripts to a Mesh prim. I took that from the lines [12:13] Nyx Linden scripted and physical objects send out more messages, so they cost more for Server cost. If your object has a higher streaming cost, it won't have an effect For additional Costs when you add an script. As far as we testedt it la low cost mesh was pumped up to 4 Prims when a script was added And since we asked the combined question [12:08] Charlar Linden #3 Update on prim cost. We now see streaming cost is prim cost. How will making the object scripted/physical affect the overall cost? Min stand alone prim cost? Any rough formulas would be helpful. (Gearsawe)  The answer was [12:09] Nyx Linden basically "prim equivalence" is the highest for download, server, and streaming costs. Whichever factor is highest for your linkset, that's what we charge So it seems to me .. ( i may be mistaken ) that this values are considered final.

Well Gaia We tried that all i think. The best example is still the one with the most primitive object we can do thats still 3D A Cube with 12 Triangles. The cost is always 2 prims at least. So we cant compete with an object that can have a mulitude of faces and still is 1 prim only. Theres simply no way. Alone because of the fact that we cant go below 2 prims. The so called ressouce talk and that mesh shouldnt burden low end PCs too much is .. well i dont know how to put it friendly, so i better spare that, .... because the low end PCs look at sculpties at any corner and any square meter they move. So thats so not a good argument. So what else there is? I still cant come up with a resonable explanation. I agree that the future of meshes seems to lie in Attachments and some cases of rigged clothes only. For tha broad audience at least.

As long as he dosent want to rezz this vehicle then ^^

HD Pomeray wrote: We hear a lot about prim costs and rigging in this forum but I have only one question... Will we, or will we not be able to build Mesh vehicles that have as much detail as today's sculptie ones? Anyone have any insight on this? TY No, i dont think so. With the last correction to streaming cost, i doubt it will be possible anymore. You can still do it, if the vehicle is an attachment, thought

Yeah you are right. Today with the new Build of the viewer in sandbox 19 my Meshes have the same prim costs as a build purely made out of common prims. So they raised from a steaming cost of 2.8 to 5.4 ( that would be an equivalent of 5 prims ). Thats a raise of over 90% Noone is going to buy this ever, or bother even thinking about it. At the moment im really discouraged. I redid the same mesh now 3 times ( actually 4 ) to see if i could bring the streaming cost down .. to no avail. I even deleted all the Materials from the Mesh in blender just to test. It still is much higher now. I only can hope that this isnt intensional

Thanks for the pointer I got my knowledge about the W coordinate from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_mapping So also from this paper http://www.markmark.net/cloudsim/harrisGH2003.pdf Seems the W vector or value could be used for a lot of different functions, depending on the engine or the Apllication you use for creating scenes.

As far as i understand it, you only need the W vector for things like Volumentric textures .. I read a text about it .. now its really REALLY hard to understand for me I cant find the link anymore. But i know that at least in maya there is a a whole set of funcions for that.

Many thanks all for the links and the hints on the issue, very appreciated! Well it seems we really have to dip very deep into the tech stuff at least. All the time i was assuming, because the functionallity is already in OpenGL, that the vertices in a mesh only once appear in a list, and not like LL do here, part them in separate lists and therefore double and ( if i understand that fully ) may even tripple the vert count under some circumstands. Well i guess it is too late now, since the Asset as it is is final. Oh well. Thats is not that good if you plan to make some Building Block like meshes that a customer could texture all he wants without creating a totally new texture but use the the alreadypresent ressources in SL. ( So buy from a texture maker ) Cause if you want to use all 8 mat slots and also create a half good Very Low LOD it may become very difficult and also very costly to do so. I wonder if that is really necessary.

Thanks a lot .. i tag that near my screen for the future ^^

arton Rotaru wrote: What does that mean? Have you assigned any materials or not? Since the error msg belongs still to the materials, this would be good to know, if the upload floater gives wrong information here. Well i try to figure it out right now. ( First time i have this problem at all ... ) Well to make things short i just loaded the low lod as the high lod to circumvent the error, and still got the 18 Faces 44 Verts in the uploader. Since i havnt much time. I will do a detailed test on the materials tomorrow when im back from work. But there is something attached to materials... I just deleted EVERY material but one from the model, exportet it and uploaded it as the high lod model again .. in that case the uploader says 18 triangles and tadaaaa 41 vertices thats really really odd.

Thanks I Really should have mentioned that i just did a test here.. the mats arnt set right. That wasn the point. it was about this weired Vertex count i get while trying to upload the model. I did a quick test here for the smooth shading impact on the modell and well i still think theres something off But look for yourself Thats what happened when i set the same cupe to a cease angle of 90 degree. Indeed the vertice count rises. Now what happens if i smooth the whole object ( so the very low LOD ) already in Blender! 3 vertices are gone.. good so far but still they are higher count then not smoothed :matte-motes-shocked: Ok I will try to load and export it from Blender 2.49b .. only .. can someone point e to an phyton install ( an executable ) that will work? I tried to install the newest but it seems that diddnt work. Blender 2.49 still tells me that it need the Phyton scripts and i cant find an executable for an older version ( so 2.6 of Phyton ). A pointer would be really nice Thanks in advance

Hi all Im a bit stunned right now, cause i have no explanation for this. So i decided to ask for help or hints here. Problem .. I Created a cube with a few extra surfaces ( Triangles ) that i would like as a very low LOD base. I created the cube in Blender ( 2.5 ) and exported it to collada. Heres the Blender screen with the cube As you can see 11 vertices and 18 faces. Nothing wrong. So i wanted to check if i did it right and checked the uploader in todays Developement viewer ( Build 232988 ) And to my great surprise i saw this 18 Triangles .. check But errrr 41 Verts ??? even if i consider that a portion of the vertices got doubled from the 11 .. it cant be .. Anyone an idea what going on here? I used the advanced method for the uploader.

Jesus that would make the Budget tests we did totally questionable :matte-motes-bashful: Not good at any case.

@ Luc UHPS thats what you get for not paying attention. Its a long time since i last looked at the Jira thing. Thanks for the Hint !

Voted on The new 2.5 versions of blender are ( in my opinion ) much easier to handle then the 2.4 versions.