Jump to content

Fluffy Sharkfin

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Fluffy Sharkfin

  1. Haven't encountered either of these myself but you may find that deleting the history for the object (Edit > Delete by Type > History) may help. Both these issues can be fixed by freezing the transformations on your object (Modify > Freeze Transformations).
  2. Ah, thanks for the clarification. While I'd heard mention of it at a couple of the meetings I didn't realize it was only going to be implemented for use in the new AO function. It's a pity though since being able to simultaneously run multiple animations on different bones within the same rig would allow us to add a much wider range of movement to a single animated mesh using fewer animations instead of having to create a unique animation for every possible combination of motions the object could perform
  3. Ah, you were referring to having actual legacy prims as part of the linkset, I understand now, sorry. Since the introduction of bento the number of bones in the rig exceeded the max limit for mesh uploads so they changed things to allow mesh to be uploaded with only the bones to which it's rigged, afaik you still have to include the entire skeleton when uploading bento animations (animations without the "Hip" bone as the root don't seem to work), it's just that any bone which doesn't have transformations applied to it by the animation isn't affected when it's running so is "freewheeling". I'd assume that it would be easier to determine how many bones are being used in an animated mesh by looking at how many bones a mesh is rigged to rather than how many bones in the animation have transformations applied to them. The other reason for using the mesh to calculate the land impact rather than the animation would be that since we'll be able to add multiple animations to animated meshes and trigger them via script it would mean the LI for those meshes would change depending on which animation is currently playing and I'd imagine that would cause all sorts of problems. Since they were also recently discussing the ability to trigger multiple animations on avatars, it will be interesting to see if they do the same for animated mesh so we can have one animation playing to control one part of the mesh and trigger a different animation to move other bones which are rigged to a different area of the same mesh (or perhaps another mesh in the same linkset).
  4. How exactly would legacy prim land impact work with animated mesh when its mesh, not prims? I think keeping the existing formula for calculating mesh land impact and just increasing it based on the number of bones the mesh contains would be a good solution, so that simple animated objects that only require a couple of bones to perform smooth animations like doors, curtains, rocking chairs, etc. would still have relatively low land impact compared to say a fully animated mesh character or creature. There are a lot of potential uses for animated mesh that have nothing to do with NPCs, it would be a shame if we lost sight of that and nerfed other forms of content with unnecessarily high land impact, etc because we were focusing solely on the most advanced possible application (especially since we don't have any idea what sort of impact animated mesh has on performance yet).
  5. Avatar impostors and LODs aren't exactly the same thing though, which is why we have LOD models for rigged attachments to reduce the complexity of the 3D avatars over distance and impostors to limit the number of 3D avatars we see on screen at any one time. LODs are still simplified 3D models whereas impostors are 2D sprite representations of 3D models which are, one would assume, far less resource intensive. As for LODs being really important to animated meshes I'm sure we can all agree that, for responsible content creators, LODs are really important for all meshes not just the animated ones (in fact, depending on how they handle land impact for animated mesh, I'd say they're still more important for worn rigged-mesh since attachments aren't governed by land impact at all).
  6. I guess that depends on how it's implemented, but I'd imagine that it will be less laggy than having every frame of an animation as a separate mesh all linked together as one object with a script constantly switching alphas on and off, and since these will be rezzed objects they'll be subject to the restrictions of land impact, which means they shouldn't be anywhere near as laggy as a lot of current avatars, some of which wear millions of rigged, animated polygons at a time without any restrictions (although that does raise the question of whether LL will extend the "jellydoll" feature to apply to animated mesh as well as avatars, but i suspect the performance issues will be as much about the number of animated meshes on screen rather than just their complexity so maybe they'll also implement impostors and a "max # of non-impostor animesh" setting similar to the one they have for avatars).
  7. I'm not sure why either! Animated mesh would mean smoother, more realistic motion and less lag, what could possibly go wrong?
  8. First check your Preferences and make sure that Show Grid Selection at login is enabled in the Advanced tab then swap to the beta grid using the pull-down menu just below the login button (this is using the standard viewer, but I'd assume that most other viewers would have similar options).
  9. I must admit I have very little idea about how the internals of avatar physics layers work in relation to the avatar skeleton so can only guess whether that part would be possible, but if it is then it could potentially be a basic form of flexible mesh, since you could re-position the bones that are affected by avatar physics, rig the mesh to those and then adjust the settings on the physics layer to control how the "fleximesh" behaves when it moves. As for avatar shapes, since they're basically just a list of bone transformations one would think that it should be possible to apply them to any skeleton in which those bones exist. One "must have" feature for animated mesh, in my opinion, would be variable animation speeds with interpolation between frames, so that we can control the speed at which animations will play while still having them play smoothly. A simple example of this would be an animated mesh vehicle with an animation containing one full revolution of the wheels, using a simple formula like FPS = (speed / circumference ) * total_frames you could calculate the exact speed that the animation should be playing at for the wheels to "roll" along the ground rather than spinning or sliding. A similar formula could be applied to any animated mesh object that walks, crawls, rolls or slithers in-world and would remove the need to create and upload multiple animations in order to provide a range of movement speeds for animated meshes. Having a way to control the speed an animation plays at would mean more realistic movement for animated meshes in world, less work for creators and less lag and bandwidth usage for end users (less animations to download, no lag when one animation ends before the next has loaded, etc).
  10. As a big fan of Ashley A. Adams work, especially some of her latest phobia series bug-monster sculpts, I'm looking forward to seeing a whole host of creepy and disgusting looking things in SL once this feature is implemented. I must admit that upon hearing that they weren't going to support custom rigs I was initially a little disappointed, but given the number of bones available for use in the bento skeleton I think we should have plenty of options for creating weird and wonderful new things and perhaps replacing some of the inefficient, lag-inducing weird and wonderful old things too.
  11. LOL! I've been completely nerding out ever since this got announced, I'm actually having trouble sleeping at night because I lay awake thinking about all the awesome things that can potentially be done with this new feature.
  12. I can see why they would be wary of the label NPC since it's quite vague and doesn't really describe what the new feature actually is, just one potential (and admittedly quite popular) application for it. Even at the creators meeting where it was first announced there were questions about being able to use avatar shapes and physics layers with animated mesh, which suggests that people will quickly jump on the idea of "Project NPC" as actual NPC versions of avatars. The subject of attachments and attachment points was also raised, however since animated mesh will still technically be objects it would seem more logical to focus on being able to link multiple rigged meshes together and run the same animation on all of them. So instead of "attaching" something to an attachment point you would rig the object to the relevant bone and then rez it from the objects inventory and link it to the object. On a related note, one thing that would be really nice to see would be the ability to link existing rigged mesh content to an animated mesh and have it animate along with that object. This would allow people to use their existing clothing to dress animated mesh NPCs, and also enable clothing makers to link any item they've made, including those made prior to the release of animated mesh, to an animated dummy that could replace the bots that are currently used in stores.
  13. Actually my example was absolutely serious I'm not really sure why you would want to create a whole new rig with the correct hierarchy rather than just offset the joints on part of the existing rig but perhaps we have different things in mind? I was imagining something very simple like a dancing teddy bear or animated toy puppy, and just disconnecting the rig at the elbow and re-positioning the bones of the hand into a simple bipedal or quadruped type skeleton just as one would do when creating any mesh with joint offsets like so... (another even simpler example would be an animated book which opens and closes by using 2 finger bones to control the front and back cover but you get the idea). Using a rig like this you could potentially animate the creature to move around in world (to some extent) without having to actually move the mesh object using a script, since the root bone isn't part of the quadruped rig so the object root could remain stationary while everything below the root bone animates the mesh and makes it "run around" etc. or even do the same with the other hand, leave both connected with mChest as the root and have two animated creatures interacting with each other in a single animated mesh object/rig.
  14. Unless the animation for the rigged hair and the animations in your AO are compatible and both are scripted to work in unison then chances are it'll still be poking through your avatar, since there'll be no way for the animated mesh object to detect where your chest or any other parts of your avatar are positioned.
  15. Since they changed the rules on uploading rigged mesh to get around the bento rig having more bones than the uploader allows and made it so we now only have to include the bones the mesh are weighted to, hopefully the same will apply to animated mesh and creators will be able to choose a suitable sub-hierarchy and ignore the rest of the rig, (for example, if I wanted to make a simple four legged creature I would be able to use the bones of one hand and re-position them so that I can rig the legs to the finger bones and the neck/head to the thumb bones).
  16. When creating bento animations the upload window still allows you to set hand poses and facial expressions for the legacy avatar, so you can support bento and non-bento avatars with a single animation. Simply make your bento compatible animation and set the legacy hand pose in the upload window to what you would normally set it to for a non-bento animation, when you trigger the animation then avatars with bento hands will use the hand pose you set up when you made the animation while legacy avatars will use the hand pose you chose during upload.
  17. Theresa Tennyson wrote: In order for that to a valid point, you'd need to show: 1) That someone would actually do that and 2) That someone else would assume it was because of what the store on the box did. And in order for it to be invalid you'd need to show: 1) That someone wouldn't actually do that and 2) That someone else wouldn't assume it was because of what the store on the box did. Asking for proof of what other people may or may not decide to do or think is kind of pointless, neither of us can say with 100% certainty what someone else may choose to do. Theresa Tennyson wrote: I've bought many things because they've looked cool in-world and seen who made them. However, I can't remember the last time I've inspected something because it looked bad and judged the creator based on that. I'd imagine that most people don't bother to inspect things that look bad, that's kind of the point I was trying to make with my whole rancid fish oil and paint thinners pizza analogy Theresa Tennyson wrote: I'm not saying that creators don't have the right to put any permissions they want on what they sell. However, there are creators here who both want that right and the "right" to not be called "anti-consumer" due to their choices. I just don't see how limiting everyone who buys your product only because of a barely existent chance of damage to ones reputation wouldn't be called "anti-consumer." Honestly, I don't think it's fair to label anyone as "anti-consumer" just because they don't provide things that meet your specific personal requirements. There are plenty of consumers that are happy to buy no-mod content, you may not agree with their decision but that doesn't mean you can ignore their existence and claim that you speak for all consumers when you're really talking about your own personal preferences! Berating others for not agreeing with your point of view isn't going to resolve any conflicts of opinion, it will only escalate them. As I said I'm in favour of mod content, but I'm also in favour of people being free to make their own decisions without being called names by those who disagree with them. Nobody has ever been maimed or killed by no-mod content (not so sure about rancid fishpaste and paint thinners pizza, that's more of a grey area ), so what's the harm in letting people make their own decisions?
  18. Great pizza analogy but, as a counterpoint, what if instead of barbecue sauce they decide to smear it with rancid fish paste and paint thinners, then they put it back in the box and share it with a group of friends. Unless that person specifically tells their friends that they've "customized" the pizza, don't you think that everyone who tasted it would take one look at the box and make a mental note never to buy a pizza from that shop as long as they lived? As to the question "Why No-Mod?" the answer is pretty simple.... "Because Free Will!" You can try to educate people on the pros and cons of Mod vs No Mod (in fact I think doing so is a great idea, personally I much prefer stuff to be modifiable and there are a lot of misconceptions about the amount of protection No-Mod actually provides), but if, after informing a person of the facts, it becomes clear that they have made up their mind to disagree with you on the subject then any further attempts to "educate" them is going to seem (at least to them) more like an attempt to pressure them into doing what you want them to do regardless of their own wishes, and your "lessons" will eventually devolve into pointless debates which are more to do with ego vs self-entitlement than Mod vs No-Mod. I have the utmost respect for Penny and her opinions, she's an extremely knowledgable and talented individual and, for the most part, I agree with everything she said in her OP, but the simple truth is creators are under no obligation to give customers what they want and, simlarly, customers are under no obligation to pay for items that don't meet their requirements, no matter how reasonable or ludicrous their points of view may seem to each other. I'm not entirely sure how her statement of "I want to encourage you to support those content creators who do release moddable rigged/fitmesh content" got twisted into the concept of a boycott on creators that don't offer modifiable content but I'm fairly certain that wasn't her intent and it clearly isn't lending anything constructive to the debate on Mod vs No-Mod content!
  19. The only fee for uploading mesh is the upload cost in L$. Having had credit card info on file in the past should be enough, but you can check by looking at your Mesh Upload Status under the Account section on the SL homepage (if you haven't already completed the IP Tutorial you can find the link to that on the same page). Mesh Upload Status page and no, you don't need a premium account to upload mesh.
  20. brunotusker wrote: I have no bloody clue as to how I butchered the reply subject like that. Beats me! I didn't even notice until after I'd replied :smileyembarrassed: Anyway, glad it helped, good luck with your pendant, it looks great so far!
  21. mikka Luik wrote: More or less but would add using their creativity to push them to learn new skills. Without shedding what has been learned in the past. Even when pretending to throw it away. I don't hold with the doctrine of unlearning. Its a waste. Agreed. It's easy, when learning new skills, to fall into the trap of discarding old tools and techniques in favour of the latest "awesome new thing" and concentrating too much on finding new ways of doing things even when the old ways are far more efficient and practical. As with most creative endeavours, creating good content isn't about finding the best tool and using it for absolutely everything (or even learning how to use all the tools for that matter, although that can certainly help), you also need to be aware of the pros and cons of using each particular tool or technique and be able to select the right one for each step of the creative process in order to achieve your desired result without compromising efficiency or visual quality.
  22. brunotusker wrote: Oh the viewer supports grouping? That actually makes things easier for me then. I use Wings3D for pretty much everything I do these days. If "grouping" in Wings3D means adding more than one material to a single mesh model then sure, it supports that (as I said previously, terminology tends to change depending on the package being used which can make it difficult for people using different software to share tips and techniques since, for example, the term "Grouping" may mean one thing in one app and something completely different in another). A quick google search showed a few likely possible sources of information on the subject of creating multiple material mesh in Wings3D, including this thread from the Wings3D forums, Collada Mesh Export with Multiple Textures. If you follow the link from the second post it takes you to another thread on the subject, as well as this handy youtube video which you may find helpful too. :smileywink: Hope that helps a little, best of luck with your project!
  23. brunotusker wrote: Do you have any link regarding the multiple materials thing? If there is one thing I would love to do. It is exactly as you said with the being able to combine the models together as one. If by "the multiple materials thing" you mean creating different "faces" on a mesh object in SL so you can have different settings for shiny, glow, etc. then it's as simple as applying different materials to different groups of polygons in whatever 3D app you happen to be using (for example in Maya it would be materials, in 3D Coat it would be UV Sets, etc) the terminology and step by step process may change from program to program but I think you'll find the basic principle is the same. It's worth doing a search of the forums on this subject as there are a lot of posts detailing what to do in various apps, and also some valuable information on things to avoid (for example mixing up the material order on corresponding LOD models can lead to all sorts of headaches).
  24. "Ugly Mesh Blob of Phenominally Dumb Sides" is a pretty funny title for a thread comparing the efficiency of mesh to that of sculpted prims considering that the majority of sculpted prims created were ugly blobs and when it comes to "phenominally dumb sides" what could be dumber than being limited to one single face with a UV map that can't even be adjusted to make efficient use of texture space? Sculpted prims do still have their uses in SL but they're quite limited in comparison to mesh, and to try and claim that sculpted prims are in some way more efficient than mesh is just plain silly, and is an argument that has long since been disproved. For example here's a screenshot I posted way back in 2012 (original post here). the above object is 1060 triangles (slightly more than half the number of triangles in a single sculpted prim) and amounts to a land impact of 0.5 LI when scaled to between 2-3 meters in length. You couldn't even begin to create something like this from a single sculpted prim, and it certainly wouldn't be 0.5 LI at any size! JasonClandestino wrote: They are so intimidated of talented creators that they would rather kill their own system. The most talented creators, in my opinion, tend to be those that are willing to expand their skillset and learn new technologies and techniques in order to get the best possible results and push the boundaries of their creativity.
  25. Hmm, I could have sworn that it worked for rezzed items too but apparently not. :smileyembarrassed:
  • Create New...