Maeve Balfour

Yay, a fellow shoe/bootmaker actually interested in responsible LODs! :matte-motes-smile: Like you, Fizz, I am still exploring workflows for effective footwear creation (and hopefully reasonably time efficient). I tend to be distracted easily though, so I seem to be taking forever... But I guess since I am just creating things for my own usage, it's okay to meander along LOL. Anyways... some generic modeling thoughts (I don't use Blender specifically, but these should work regardless).... In my efforts thus far, I have tended to make my full LOD mesh first (with as much efficiency in its construction as possible) and then worked backwards on the lower LODs. I leave the full mesh for LOD1 and LOD2, then create lower detail meshes for LOD3 and LOD4 (3 separate meshes in all). I then remap the UVs for the LOD3 and LOD4 meshes to try and match the original mesh's texture - not an easy feat (feet! LOL) as you can well relate to. Another idea I am considering, but haven't gotten around to trying yet... is to reserve TWO of the materials exclusively for the LOD3 and LOD4 meshes (one per mesh). My concept behind it is to use two totally SEPARATE UVs/textures for those meshes - to hopefully avoid the UV-matching headaches you mention. The two exclusive materials can hold their own specific texture, which would be designed to fit the UVs of the respective LOD3 and LOD4 meshes. The main mesh could have the other six materials out of the eight available, or however many I decided it needs. Now - a little bit of trickery is needed to make this work. EACH MESH needs to have ALL the materials, regardless of whether they are intended to be showing or not. So... for the main mesh, I would create two tiny triangles and hide them from view, and assign the materials intended for LOD3 and LOD4 to them, one material per hidden triangle. FOR THE LOD3 and LOD4 MESHES, I would do the opposite - hide SEVEN triangles, each with the unintended materials assigned (one per triangle), and then for those LOD meshes (the visible sections) I would assign the intended material (and hence the intended lower LOD texture, UV-mapped to suit, would be shown). If done right, as each LOD mesh kicks in, the intended texture will be shown. I would assume ALL the textures would be loaded upon rezzing, even if hidden away, so in theory there wouldn't be any lag involved for the LOD changes. Obviously, there will be a slight increase in impact due to the extra triangles loaded into the lower LOD meshes (to accommodate the hidden materials), but I think it would be quite acceptable, especially since you are already intent on creating responsible meshes in regards to rendering cost. Also, for the lower LOD textures, I would recommend using lower resolution textures (256x256 most likely), since at the distances the LODs will be switching, you wouldn't be able to see much detail in the texture anyway. For the FULL LOD mesh, use 512x512s. So yah, this is the concept I intend on testing eventually - technically it is probably as much work as working the other way (re-doing UVs to match existing textures). However, it will probably avoid the major headache you mentioned Fizz - getting the other LOD mesh UV's to effectively fit the higher LOD textures. I hope this helps - feel free to ask me for clarifications! Have fun! :matte-motes-smile:

Before I suggest anything, I think I should mention that the model you are thinking of creating (an hourglass, with outside AND inside faces) will very rapidly get expensive in triangle count if you try to get really smooth curves. You will need to keep this in mind as you model, and be prepared to reach a compromise between visual looks and overall triangle count. Organic, curvy shapes are always expensive on polygons / vertices - so to be SL friendly, your model will need to have a degree of "blocky" edges, even in the curves - though still reasonably good looking aesthetically. Also, with the inside surface, I am not sure how the effect will look, due to the single direction the normals will be pointing (inward). Any faces on the inside with their BACKS towards the camera will be invisible, and ones partially in view (depending in their angle in relation to the viewer camera) will probably have clipping effects. I guess you won't really be able to tell until you try a test upload. Anyways.... I don't use Blender myself, but a generic METHOD I would use to create the hourglass shape would be this: 1: Create a cylinder primitive. Probably with 8 sides for reasonable roundness, and nine segments along its length. Delete the polygons at each end, so it is hollow. 2: Duplicate the cylinder. Keeping it in the exact same spot, REDUCE it so it is narrower (to give the thickness effect of the glass). With this cylinder, INVERT THE NORMALS - this is so that the faces of the inner cylinder will now face INWARD, in the opposite direction of the exterior cylinder. 3: Now viewing from the side, select all the vertices in each segment (both cylinders at the same time) and reduce their dimensions in both the horizontal directions at the same time (equally on each axis). Tweak this by eye (probably easier if you type in co-ordinate dimensions for accuracy), and repeat the procedure for the length of the cylinder until you get the desired hourglass shape. The FIFTH segment will be the MIDDLE of the hourglass (the thinnest point). Easy done (I hope my text explanation isn't too confusing - the process itself is pretty simple) :matte-motes-smile: If the result is still too blocky, you could try with more segments in the cylinder, but keep in mind that each new segment will increase your polycount. Also, with Blender, I think there is an option there for shader smoothing... as in, the hard edges of polygons are rendered as smooth in SL (someone with knowledge of Blender will need to explain this). It's only a shader effect though - so the curves of the hourglass will still have the blocky look in profile, but the front-on sections in view will be smoothed out in regards to how the shadowing is rendered (I hope my wording makes sense LOL). To work around the hassles of alpha glitching, especially since you will be wanting transparency to work with this model, make good use of the material mapping. Your mesh can have up to EIGHT material zones, so you could set the faces of the inner and outer cylinders with totally separate materials assigned, which makes them able to take totally separate textures if necessary, and have their own degrees of transparency etc, and apply other material zones to the wooden enclosure, the sand inside the glass, etc. Very handy. Best bet is to try out a few tests on the Aditi grid, and see how it comes along. Have fun :matte-motes-smile:

Mariah: The link to the video I watched (back in October I think) has unfortunately long since expired. It was hosted on a German TV website, and was only there for about a week. However, a quick Google will find the documentary-maker's website. I am hesitant to post a direct link here, as at least one of the promotional videos trailers there has a glimpse of SL-related nudity (as does the documentary itself - but all in context of SL and the related subject matter - but I feel it prudent to at least forewarn of this). Currently I am not sure if the full documentary is available to watch online, but it is definitely worth keeping an eye out for. You could try contacting the producers (I think they are contactable via the website) to see where / how you might access it. The documentary itself was a hybrid of English and German languages, plus I think some Asian conversations as well. I am only a fluent English speaker, however I was able to follow the vast majority of the documentary and understand what was being talked about. SL was a large part of the content, though other online games and communities were featured as well. Still, it was definitely worth watching. I hope you can track it down to watch - I am sure it will surface somewhere. :matte-motes-smile: EDIT TO ADD: Try contacting the SL group Virtual Ability - they were featured in the documentary, so I would be almost certain they could point you in the right direction to find it.

I watched the documentary "Login 2 Life" a few months back, which was recommended here in the forums. In it, the group Virtual Ability Inc (I think that was the name) featured prominently - a group dedicated to helping people with disabilities enjoy SL as a social medium. From what the documentary showed, they do a great many things to help those less fortunate get a good start in SL, and especially as a way of connecting with others. I am sure they would be a wonderful way of being introduced into SL, especially on a positive note. Virtual Ability Island is the name of their sim, if I remember correctly.

Not sure about OpenSim, but for SL, you can apply up to eight different material zones in a single mesh (like faces on a prim in essence), and each can hold totally separate textures (and the alpha effect won't impact on textures used on the other material zones). So in theory, you could use multiple textures for your imposters, just keep them on a separate material. An important thing to remember is that EACH LOD will require the same number of materials, even if the intended textures aren't visible for certain LOD meshes - in that case, just assign a hidden tiny triangle with the unneeded textures for the relevant LODs, and hide them away inside the trunks etc. (I hope that makes sense, LOL, typing this in a hurry on a work break!) So yah, multiple textures in that regard are perfectly feasible :matte-motes-smile:

Lobo: I guess it depends on your personal preferences in regards to modeling techniques, as to how you create your LOD meshes. Smoothing will add (a lot) of extra quads to your mesh depending on how much you apply it - so you need to keep a close eye on how it affects things. Also, keep in mind that in Hexagon you are probably creating a QUAD based mesh - when it is converted to triangles, the poly count will be AT LEAST DOUBLE (assuming each quad is split into two triangles - SL requires all meshes to be triangles). Myself, I tend to work LOW POLY in my modeling techniques to get the basic shaping defined, and gradually add the details until I achieve the final main mesh shape I am after - all the while, I keep a very close eye on my poly count and keep it as efficient as possible (as LOW a poly / quad count as possible, even for the FULL LOD version of the mesh). Once I have the main mesh created, I duplicate it in a separate file and I then work backwards, removing quads / merging others to reduce the detail level, while trying to maintain a recognisable shape from the relevant distances the LODs will be seen at. Keep in mind that a good quality texture will go a LONG WAY to helping add to the overall look of a lower LOD mesh, even with heavily reduced geometry - if done well, the texture can actually fool the eye into seeing detail that isn't really there in mesh (and generally, people won't be scrutinising your mesh at longer LOD ranges anyway, they will zoom in close with their cam if they want a good look, where your better detail LOD mesh will kick in). Hmm... I know Blender is free and a wonderful program, but keep in mind that Carrara-8 is a very powerful modeling program as well. Since you already have it in your toolkit, it would be worth exploring its capabilities - you might find that you prefer its interface to work with over Blender. Often various 3D programs have stronger capabilities in specialist areas than others, so are often very useful purely for those aspects. Myself, I have a wide range of 3D programs I have accumulated over the past number of years (and often asked myself why I bought them etc as well LOL), but each is powerful in its own way, so are all valuable assets to your 3D toolkit. Have fun! Mesh is awesomely addictive, not only for SL, but for creativity in general - but that is an entirely different subject! :matte-motes-smile:

The concept of different LOD levels for the model means that you create up to four versions of your mesh - one for each LOD step LL uses. (LOD = level of detail). For each step down the LOD scale, SL would switch to the mesh you define in the uploader as the cam distance increases. This saves on rendering cost (and will reduce your land impact cost as well - very important for performance, even if it is a worn item). So say for LOD1 and LOD2, I would probably use your full detail mesh. LOD3 and LOD4 (further down the scale) - you would create separate meshes, each in LOWER detail in regards to triangle count. Basically, remove as much detail as you can, while maintaining a recognisable shape, at the longer view distances. You will also need to UV-map these meshes as well, preferably so they roughly match the texture of your full LOD mesh. A fair bit of work, but definitely worthwhile if you want to be a responsible mesh creator. So yah, the different LOD levels you mention is simply lower triangle count versions of your main mesh. Hexagon is quite capable of doing this part (not sure about the UV-mapping, as I use a separate application for that (personal preference mostly)). :matte-motes-smile:

Yah, Hexagon is definitely viable for SL mesh - I have been using it constantly. :matte-motes-smile: In regards to Collada, I simply export my finished mesh as an .obj file, take it into Blender and then export it as the final .dae file for SL uploading. I don't know much about using Blender itself yet, but for simple importing and exporting it is fairly straightforward (no learning curve required LOL). It would be nice IF Hexagon had this facility built-in, but I can live without it and use this workaround in lieu, since it means staying with a modeler I am familiar with. I also use Blender during my modeling process to convert my meshes to triangles (unless my meshes are simple enough to do it by hand). I'm unaware if Hexagon can convert quads to triangles automatically (though I wouldn't be surprised if the option is staring me in the face LOL!). Blender does a lovely job of this - simply converting each quad to two-triangles. This procedure is pretty painless too - just export your mesh as an .obj file, import it into Blender, then immediately EXPORT it as an .obj file again - Blender's OBJ export options include a TRIANGULATE function - simply select that option and you have a triangulated mesh. Far quicker than doing it manually! Then take it back into Hexagon if you plan on further work there. (Often Blender will add its own material to your mesh (most likely an export option) - I generally just remove it from the mesh when it's back in Hexagon, to keep things as Hexagon-specific as possible (for cleaner workflow)). Keep in mind that the default unit measurement systems vary between Hexagon and Blender - so each time you bring a mesh BACK into Hexagon, you might want to increase its size by a factor of 10 (at least for me, anyways) to keep your Hexagon sizing consistent. I haven't attempted rigged meshes as yet, but I would assume Hexagon doesn't have this capability. For the rigging, I will be using Blender for that step; however the rest of the mesh would be done within Hexagon as per usual - using an imported AV as a mannikin to model around etc. Personally, I find that Hexagon's UV-mapper is a pain to use on complex meshes - if you find this to be the case, it's definitely worth exploring other options for that step - Blender for example, among others. However, you might find Hexagon is just fine for your needs (I gave up on Hexagon's UV-mapper years back, so it might have improved since then). As a side note: Hexagon tutorials tend to be sparse and thinly spread, but I found the Hexagon video tutorials at Geekatplay to be hugely helpful (especially as a refresher for me, since I never read Hexagon's manual properly!). They have a buy option, but I found watching the videos online to be perfectly acceptable. If you are a Hexagon newbie (or an oldie like me LOL) they are definitely worth studying. So yah, Hexagon is great for SL mesh - Have fun! :matte-motes-smile:

You've probably already heard this mantra many times if you follow these forums, but it bears repeating all the same: Use only as many triangles/polygons as are needed to convey an efficient geometric shape. :matte-motes-smile: Sculpties by their nature have always been very inefficient in regards to download and render costs. Mesh is the perfect opportunity to create equivalent shapes, but at a much reduced triangle/poly count. The best approach if trying to create a shape in mesh (when compared to an equivalent sculptie) is to try and REDUCE the amount of triangles used by a massive degree - since sculpties have always tended to be extremely wasteful in triangle usage. By the sounds of your post, you are already aiming for mesh efficiency, which is great. It's definitely worthwhile making a habit of creating meshes with efficiency always in mind - it helps with reducing lag and render strain. (Sadly, I have seen many examples inworld where merchants / creators just assume that mesh should have the same number of triangles as the equivalent number of sculpties for a given product - which results in INSANE triangle counts, massive inefficiency and overall lazy modeling (not to mention killer lag)... this is especially the case with AV attachments, where Land Impact doesn't seem to be a concern, but is still a factor in render costs). So yah, sorry for harping on - but if you aim for efficient, non-wasteful modeling practices, your meshes will be on the right track overall. :matte-motes-smile:

Thanks for that Neural - I've been looking to get into rigging my meshes for SL at some point, but have been a little befuddled about where to start exactly (in regards to Blender version issues, relevant tutorials etc). Your tips and links here will go a long way to getting me underway, once I get the time to get into it properly. :matte-motes-smile:

Personally, both for SL and for prior experience in generic 3D dabbling, I have always preferred to model in quads. I guess I am biased towards box style modeling, having used programs that lean more towards this method of mesh making. (Also, for generic 3D rendering (non-realtime) such as Poser, it is preferable to have quad meshes otherwise glitches tend to appear in renders). In regards to modeling for SL, I model in the same principle (quad-based) as it's easier for me. The only real adjustment I have made is using much lower polycounts for the realtime environment. When I have a mesh optimised as much as possible for each LOD, I simply convert the model to triangles. (I specifically import INTO Blender for this step, and then export the file as an .obj FROM Blender using its triangulate option, and then import the resultant model back into my preferred modeler. The reason is that Blender is far more efficient than my own modeler for this step (dividing each quad into TWO triangles; my own modeler tends to convert quads into FOUR triangles, which is bad for SL!). After this basic conversion into tri's, I simple continue on as usual for UV-mapping / material mapping etc. In regards to your question about the tesselating... I don't really know if it makes a difference. I'll let one of the experts answer that (you there Chosen or Drongle?) :smileyvery-happy: So I guess overall... just model in the way you are most comfortable with. If you choose quads, it is a simple step to convert the finished model to Tri's prior to mapping etc. :matte-motes-smile:

I think I should just post briefly here, in fairness for Neural. She contacted me inworld not long after my initial reply to her in this thread yesterday. In essence, without giving away private conversations (TOS), she was frustrated and had posted here in haste, and regretted her wording with hindsight. She had NOT intended to begin a flame thread, although some of us have taken offence to the way she expressed her frustration. As Kolver suggests, mayhaps inworld via groups it's hard to get the knowledge that Neural alluded to, which would potentially explain the frustration factor (and the allegation of "paranoid hoarding of info" (possibly)). Still, her intial post in this thread stung a lot of us... me included.... I guess it's a classic case of misinterpretation and overreaction all around, at least from my point of view anyways. A better choice of words would have been preferable, for sure. However, I guess this underlines the frustration factor some residents must be experiencing in regards to accessing logical mesh knowledge, especially not really knowing WHERE to start. I'm letting bygones be bygones now. Neural and I have patched up our differences. 'Nuff said. :matte-motes-smile:

I think some sort of centralised, easy to find, and extensive information database/wiki regarding mesh and mesh creation is needed badly. So many times myself and other mesh creators have seen other residents who are totally perplexed by mesh as a concept, and unfortunately many misconceptions arise as such. These misunderstandings tend to make many residents hesitant to even try using mesh, let alone learn how to create it, which is a pity since we know how wonderful mesh is. Especially something covering the generic basic concepts of mesh itself and the steps towards creating it - I would presume that most residents don't understand the standard workflows in creating mesh, and are no doubt perplexed by it all. Some kind of overview explaining the basic steps would at least help address this, and allow them to learn the necessary skills without being overwhelmed by information overload. (ie: Mesh creation / UV-mapping / Texturing / Materials / Rigging). With these basic skillsets in place, residents would then be able to get an easier grasp on the specifics required for SL.... and from there gradually expand on their 3D skillsets with more specialised aspects such as texture baking and such. As an additional aside - Some thorough information on OPTIMISING mesh for SL usage is sorely needed as well. I have seen some wonderful mesh examples inworld, but sadly it is often evident the creators don't understand the NEED for mesh efficiency to help with realtime performance. This tends to happen a lot with AV attachments, where the PE is often totally disregarded (I'm talking in the realms of 100PE to 220PE and higher for individual clothing meshes etc, usually insane triangle counts with full detail for every LOD, which equates to huge render hits). Information on WHY mesh optimisation is important would hopefully help reduce this, at least for residents/merchants who care about the quality of their products. ... I understand that something like this is already on LL's wishlist, and that resources are stretched. I know that it will definitely be appreciated by many once it is implemented. Just my 2c worth :matte-motes-smile:

Mesh isn't something you just walk into, pick up and start making masterpieces from the word go. As Pamela said, it's a complex subject in general, and NOT just for SL. Just google 3D mesh and you will see how massive a subject it is. I suggest you find a modeling program you are comfortable with AND can afford, LEARN it properly, LEARN the general concepts of 3D... and THEN start making mesh for SL. There is no other way to do this efficiently. If you can't be bothered to put in the effort to at least learn the basic concepts, you are facing an uphill battle from the very beginning. I cannot stress this strongly enough. There are PLENTY of either free or low-cost 3D programs out there - try the demos, find one you are comfortable with in regards to interface, and stick with it. Myself, I use a mixture of low-cost 3D programs (personal preference mostly, for a variety of tasks - some are better than others at different stages of the process). And despite its quirks, Blender is free AND it has recently undergone a major facelift in interface design, so is much less painful to use than previous iterations. And the reason for my harsh tone? Your accusation of people like myself being "paranoid hoarders with info on mesh". Do you even bother reading these forums? Have you even attempted looking at HOW MUCH information regulars in here freely share with others? These forums are a goldmine of information, if you make the effort to actually LOOK. I know your post wasn't directed at me personally, but I take affront to your general tone. Sometimes I wonder why I bother trying to be helpful in here. :matte-motes-mad: /rant end. EDIT: Apologies for my rather snippy remarks Neural. I received your message inworld, and can understand your frustration. Neither of us worded our posts very well here, and as such things have been blown out of proportion. For the record, definitely no bad feelings on my part now.

Gregory: Hmm... more interesting ideas. The Latin square concept would be interesting to see in use, though as Kwakkelde says, for my grid area the randomisation options are sufficient for the required effect. Still, I really like your suggestion tho, and would love to see it used (I could even try it myself sometime, if I can get my head around the permutations involved (maths isn't one of my strong points LOL!) - I can definitely see the potential you refer to tho. :matte-motes-smile: Kwakkelde: Yah, I get your point now, about the flipped UVs. I hadn't thought of that originally, but I can definitely see how your concept would work... Mayhaps utilising eight UV-tiles instead of the four, with half of them with flipped UVs. So many ways to get the randomisation to work! Thanks for the tip! :matte-motes-smile:

You can use the AV bones to rig from, definitely - as long as the intended result is used as a WORN mesh inworld (to change the AV appearance). If it is just merely rezzed as an object, it won't be able to be animated - it will just appear and function as a static object - for animation to happen, the mesh needs to be worn by an AV (the AV rigging in the mesh snaps to the AV itself, hence its animation capability). As far as I know, the only other way to achieve animation is to create each moving part of the mesh as a separate mesh object, and create animations via one of those prim animators on the marketplace - however, this is ONLY creating animation by moving pieces around - it is NOT the skeletal animation style that you are referring to. (Anyone please correct me if I am wrong here) :matte-motes-smile:

Thanks for the feedback, everyone - I'm glad that my concept is useful! :matte-motes-smile: Kwakkelde & Drongle: Thanks for the info regarding the vertices. I had considered going back and welding them all, but for all the time it would have taken, it sounds like it would have made next to no difference to the PE... so in other words, it saves me time so I can concentrate on being creative! (that's the excuse I'll use, anyways LOL). Kwakkelde: Mirroring the UV.. hmm... actually, you can flip the axis of the textures within SL in the build menu, so this probably duplicates the effect you are referring to (if I am reading you correctly there, that is) - Still, its always handy to have multiple methods of achieving something. Drongle: Hmm.. that's quite a challenge there, regarding landscape texturing. I'll give it a try when time allows for sure. A rough idea in my head, regarding the texture creation... would be to create a basic, bland base texture, which would be tileable on all edges. This I would use as a base texture in a bottom layer of Photoshop. From there I would create various detail layers to sit above this, and save out combinations of these as separate tiles. The main trick would be to try and disguise where the seams are - regardless of how perfect the joins are, a visible gridwork where the textures meet would probably be noticeable when they tile out, since organic landscapes dont have straight lines etc. I would probably make the texture overlays with as much variation as possible in regards to how close/far they fall in relation to the tile borders, hopefully making it difficult to easily discern the edges. (In other words, I would specifically AVOID having any kind of uniform margins - lots of randomness instead). Another combination could be using a random mix of different sized material tiles in the mesh as well, say in variations of the quarter theme (quarter / half / three-quarter / full), and having a mix of textures to suit. Obviously this makes the concept somewhat more complicated, but could be workable to hide the seamwork. Balancing the texture cost as well would have to be considered, in order to keep the download time. Sounds like a fun project! Plus it would be interesting to see how this works for an undulating surface instead of a flat one - I would assume a bit of texture stretching could become an issue here, if I simply tried reshaping the existing mesh. ...... When I get a chance, I'll type up a post showing how I use this technique in conjunction with a faked ambient occlusion overlay. Most reading this will probably be able to guess what I do by now, but I'll post it anyways for posterity - chances are that it will spur others on to be creative and explore the idea further. :matte-motes-smile:

Currently, you cannot import custom rigging into SL for animation (as far as I know). I think the animated meshes you are referring to utilise a limited workaround to give the appearance of animation - via texture flipping. I would assume that up to eight versions of the original mesh are used, each shaped into a "frame" of animation (wings flapping, body part movements etc). These mesh frames would be assigned a separate material each. All of these would be included in the final mesh upload. Inworld, I would guess that a script is used to alternate textures for each material zone - flipping between the visible texture and a full alpha - so the required "frame" of animation would be made visible by displaying the normal texture, and then hidden with the alpha.... hence giving the appearance of rudimentary animation. If planned well, this can be quite effective, although obviously you have the limitations of only eight materials/frames to work with, plus the added PE cost of all the extra triangles of the duplicate meshes. Fingers crossed LL will introduce user-created rigging one day :matte-motes-smile:

I just thought I'd share something I have been playing around with as a concept, especially since a friend has asked me to explain how I did it as a tutorial. I have been exploring the potential of materials inworld, especially since they have the same customisation abilities as prim faces - but without the limits of prims themselves. Materials can be spread out all over a mesh surface, and don't necessarily need to be lumped together - a material surface can be spread out across a mesh on completely separate triangles, scattered to the winds if necessary, within the mesh dimensions. Considering that you can have up to eight separate materials within a single mesh object, this offers some seriously powerful ways to be creative. In this post, I will explain my method of creating a large floor space on a flat surface, but avoiding the often awful problem of texture repetition - the obvious repeating, and the blurriness of the textures when viewed up close. Being fussy by nature, this issue has always annoyed me... but now mesh and materials has given me a way to work around that. :matte-motes-smitten: I have developed a general rule of thumb for my own texturing inworld... For surfaces viewed up close to the AV, I tend to prefer a ratio of about 100 pixels per metre (or a 512x512 for a 5m x 5m area). It works nicely, especially for floors and wall surfaces when viewed nearby an AV. (For distant textures like high ceilings and walls not likely to be seen up close, I can generally dispense with this methodology, and just work with textures spread across a larger scale). As always, it's a matter of balance - texture load times versus visual appeal. I tend to lean towards creative/repetitive use of a limited number of textures, in lieu of dozens of individual textures, making for quicker rezzing in general. However, for large areas like floor surfaces, which are viewed up close, I have faced the universal SL problem - either an overstretched, blurry and pixelated texture when viewed up close (with no or few repeats)... OR a sharp texture repeated many times across the said area - sometimes the repeats work okay, but often it doesnt - it all depends on the texture in use. So, this is my workaround - harnessing the combined usefulness of UV-maps and materials.... In essence, I use a series of four different mesh tiles, all UV-mapped prior to use, and imported into the main mesh project. In most circumstances (as far as I know), you can import mesh objects which have been UV-mapped beforehand, and they will retain their UVs if their vertices and triangles aren't removed and/or added to. Considering SL meshes can contain up to eight separate material maps, you can import up to eight pre-UVmapped meshes into a single upload file, and providing each of these imported meshes are assigned separate materials, their UVs won't clash with the others. Okies... on with my workflow for the big floorspace. My goal was to create a floor area of 46m x 54m to fit an interior build I am working on. I wanted to have sharp textures, BUT I didn't want obvious texture repeats. So this is how I went about it: The two floor texture images are 1024x1024 each. Each resultant texture tile is 512x512 (one quarter of each image). The four mesh tiles are UV-mapped for each quarter of the UV-space, taking in a different tile. Inworld, each of the mesh tiles will be about 4m x 4m, retaining my goal of about 100 pixels per metre for sharpness. And..... below is the result of the mesh when uploaded inworld, with the two textures applied to the eight material zones. A very slight amount of tweaking was done via repeats/offset in the build menu to get the textures to fit as intended, and to further mix things up, I changed the colours - variations between pure white and a various shades of grey. Due to the mixing of UV-spaces and materials, the incidence of obvious texture repeats is largely diminished... The repeats are still there, of course, but the dreaded monotonous texture repeating is not so obvious. To break up the floor area a little, I also created a random scattering of solid tiles in a separate mesh (with shadow materials included; visible above)... these used the same textures and UV-mapping principle as the main floor. And this is the same mesh floor space, viewed up close (with my AV shown for scale). The texture still retains its relative sharpness up close, within my own fussy tolerances, so I am a happy girl! (To the right of the image, you can see a mesh join, hence the hard edge between the textures - but still fully acceptable to my own requirements). The final mesh floorspace (46m x 54m) came in at 5PE (672 vertices / 336 triangles). The vertice count is probably higher than it should be, due to the overlaps of the imported meshes during construction, but it is within my tolerances in relation to the final PE cost / visual quality. (I have not tested whether welding the duplicate vertices would destroy the pre-made UV-maps or not (time restrictions on my part mostly)). Since this floorspace is intended to be viewed within a confined area, I was able to be savage with the LODs, using a simple 8-triangle mesh (containing 8 materials) for LODs 2,3,4; the LOD switch will not be visible INSIDE the final structure. So yah, this is my experimental workflow with mesh, UVs and materials to reduce the incidence of obvious texture repeats across large areas. The result is encouraging so far, and will help greatly with my future projects. I am hoping that by sharing this technique, it will help fellow mesh creators unlock ways to harness the power of creative texturing. Materials can be your best friend, especially when used in conjunction with UV-mapping. Just think outside of the square, so to speak. Have fun! :matte-motes-smile:

Drongle: "70 to 100 sculpties per boot" :matte-motes-agape: Just to clarify, Drongle... the insane sculptie boots I am referring to are ones I have previously BOUGHT (long prior to mesh being released) - I would die of shame if I made lag monsters of such proportions, especially since mesh is now available. :matte-motes-wink: And to Fizz and Nacy, it's my pleasure to offer my own experiences - and great to know that others can benefit from that. :matte-motes-smile:

Just a quick reply to this thread in general.... In regards to vertices count, you have a good mindset in general Fizz - keeping it low by design. My own footwear projects thus far are similar to your original mesh you mentioned (BEFORE you subsurfed it) - a boot mesh I am currently working on, with a fair degree of detail, is around 900 vertices with economical modeling for LOD1-2, so you sound like you are on the right track. And yah, compared to doing it with sculpties, mesh footwear with our kind of vertice count is vastly more efficient in rendering. I have sculpted boots (lovely though they are), which have in excess of 70 to 100 sculpties per boot... so I can't begin to imagine how many triangles they contain overall. Our vertice counts are miniscule in comparison, so we can be proud of that - doing our bit to fight the lag monster! In regards to creating the lower LOD meshes... I just reduce and reduce as much as I can get away with, while maintaining a recognisable shape. For the UVs, I load up the texture I created for the original full detail LOD1-2 mesh, and create the UV's to fit it as closely as possible. With the heavily reduced triangle detail, you will only get a very rough fit... HOWEVER, keep in mind that for LODs 3 and 4 for footwear, these ill-fitting textures are really not very noticeable, so you can get away with it pretty much. Creating these UVs isn't overly painful, since with the reduced triangle counts, there are less vertices etc to move around - I find I can generally set these up relatively quickly.... it's the creation of the lower LOD meshes than is time consuming (for me, anyways LOL). Still, definitely worth the effort. Also - in regards to footwear at least - if your textures are well made and have nice shadowing (either baked or faked), and your lower LOD meshes still have a recognisable shape to them overall... you will find the two complement each other quite well, and the textures will tend to fill in the missing geometry detail quite nicely at the distances the LODs kick in. You'd be surprised (I know I was when I first tried it out properly). Plus these optimised LODs really make a big difference to the PE counts - generally my footwear is between 3PE and 8PE, depending on how complex the designs are... Still a vastly more render friendly result than the sculptie lag monsters! So I think you are on the right track in general, Fizz. Have fun!. :matte-motes-smile: EDIT: I guess I should put my money where my mouth is, and show a wireframe of my mesh techniques (and mayhaps be crucified in the process by the pros!) - Roughly 900 vertices / 1600 triangles approx. (LOD1-2; LODs 3 and 4 will be MUCH lower in vert/triangle counts). All hidden faces are removed. Only the top section of the inner boot shaft is modeled. The bootlaces are 4-sided extruded cubes, to keep their triangle counts as low as is possible while maintaining visual detail. (With hindsight, I could save quite a few triangles by joining the tops of the soles to the other sides of the soles, instead of welding to the boot leather uppers etc). :smileyvery-happy:

A longshot in the dark here, but I'll mention it anyways just in case... When you say your PE is fluctuating, am I correct in assuming that you are referring to the numbers WITHIN the uploader window itself? (without actually uploading it to rez inworld?). The reason I ask, is that at times for me, the tab where you set the upload's size parameters (I can't recall its exact name (typing this post at work)), where you set the import size percentages, I can sometimes get random imputations there in the uploader. Normally it is a standard default, but I get caught sometimes with it jumping around and giving me strange PE results. Since this affects the actual default rezzed size of your meshes, IF it's changing without your knowledge, it can potentially skew your PE figures by a big degree. So if you aren't already doing so, try keeping an eye on that setting... just in case it is changing without your knowledge. :matte-motes-smile:

In relation to your question 1: SL meshes require a UV-map for any kind of texture to be applied (UV-mapping is pretty much a standard in most forms of 3D, especially games and 3D-render related content). Currently, SL only supports image textures for mesh. However, LL have a materials project in their longer-term plans, which will presumably include user-created bumpmapping etc (although nothing specific has been defined as yet - just that it "is coming"). Still, this will be an extremely handy addition to the user's toolbox. Personally, I am HOPING for bump-mapping, specular, displacement and mayhaps an option for a shadow overlay channel for baked shadows (fingers crossed). Regarding your question 2: There are software packages out there that will let you apply textures to a UV-mapped object in a 3D-based workspace (although you will still require a UV-map to be created prior). The model itself is created in the normal process, and the .obj file is generally imported into one of these applications. Prices vary, and will require an investment of time to learn the ins and outs of how they work etc, but can be a viable alternative to flat UV texture painting. Blacksmith3D is a good one to look into (they have an option of a "pay-as-you-use" subscription method if you prefer to go that way, or buy outright). A bit of overkill for pure 3D painting only, but 3DCoat is an excellent 3D-painter also (it is a voxel-based modeler primarily, but its 3D-painting aspects are superb). I use 3DCoat for painting complex objects in a 3D workspace, but generally I will revert back to Photoshop for flat UV-painting when I have gotten the majority of the general details worked out (although that is just my own preference). Both programs will let you paint in layers, with similar options to Photoshop etc - getting used to their functionality can be a headache at first though, but definitely worth persevering with. An advantage of the two software packages I mentioned above are that they will both let you export your current 3D viewpoint as a flat image, to then open in Photoshop etc, paint details there, and THEN apply that image BACK ONTO your model in the 3D workspace (from the viewpoint you made the snapshot from) - quite handy at times. Also, both packages have the option of auto-generating your UV-maps for you - generally excellent for keeping texture stretching to a minimum, and the UV seams tend to be invisible due to you painting over them in the 3D workspace. HOWEVER, keep in mind that these auto UVs will be pretty much useless in a 2D application for the same reasons - zillions of seams will make it extremely difficult for anything but the most basic touchups. :matte-motes-smile:

Are you using one of the LL official viewers? Just wondering if its some kind of incompatibility issue. During the mesh beta testing period I had problems with my GTX460 after a viewer update, and was getting messages like yours. I ended up giving up, and using an older card to get around it. (My GTX460 is still borked if I try using it). Try out one of the third party viewers (if you are using V3 etc), and see if that changes things. Just an idea....

Your mesh is looking lovely Braydon, and at 15PE I think it is quite reasonable. Your usage of baked textures to simulate folds and create details which aren't actual geometry is definitely a big plus in keeping the rendering cost down as well. I would assume from your mesh experience that you are keeping your triangle usage efficient - and since organic shapes are always more costly in triangle count, a reasonable increase in PE is fair trade-off for overall appearance. And as Kwakkelde said... your triangle count as it stands now is only around the triangle count of a single sculptie... so by far, your mesh is vastly more efficient than pretty much any sculpted equivalent (which would use quite a few sculpties to resemble your piece here). Have you created any LOD meshes to go with this? That might be a way of reducing your overall PE count - although a fair bit of work to do so. So yah, I think you can be quite proud of your work Braydon! Lovely stuff! :matte-motes-smile: