Jump to content

Annie Melson

Resident
  • Posts

    90
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Annie Melson

  1. I want to jump in and include my voice along with many other creators have voiced their concerns here, primarily with the group losses for basic memberships along with raising costs for premium accounts. This move will definitely impact not only basic users, but creators and business owners as well, which will greatly impact the overall SL economy. I'll gladly relinquish my group allotments as a premium member to keep the basic members groups intact. Groups are a HUGELY necessary marketing tool for businesses. My heart hurts for those with small businesses trying to reach out and secure group membership for their stores where people are always saying they need more groups and being forced to leave groups as it is. Decreasing that number is only going to make that worse. Smaller stores don't stand a chance. Secondly, many basic users can't afford the current premium prices, much less raising them without a middle level premium package they could have and afford. Not having this option is going to push them away. Less customers means that stores will have less sales. The economy is going to drop even further. With the new Linden homes and the more personal interaction with others and with Lindens things were changing. People were starting to communicate and interact more. Doing the new Linden homes was a brilliant move and I truly applaud you for that. But I'm afraid these new changes are going to hurt the good those did. People were talking about how things appeared to be changing with LL and that SL looked to be making a comeback. Now people are scared again and they don't feel like SL is stable by lowering groups instead of fixing them. When people are afraid they don't spend as much money. This is detrimental to the whole economy in SL.

    Please please reconsider the lowering of groups for basic and adding a middle premium level for those who can't afford the full premium level. Please let's at least talk it over. This move was too much. There has to be a middle ground. I know myself and many other creators would gladly do what we need to do to instill confidence and quality in Second Life. I for one don't take the opportunities SL has given me and so many others for granted. I want to make sure those opportunities continue for others. 

    • Like 17
  2. I would love to see the things Charlotte and others have mentioned implemented to Marketplace. Here are a few other ideas I would like to throw in there:
    1.) Easily change the pricing and descriptions from the main listings page without having to open up the whole listing. 

    2.) Not sure if this could be done, but have the ability to click to include a universal Sales Sticker or bubble or something that could be added to a listing if merchants decide to have a sale.

     

     

    • Like 7
  3. 14 hours ago, arton Rotaru said:

     

    All I can say is that I haven't noticed any differences in uploaded textures. That's why I even re-uploaded a texture which I had in-world for a couple of years already. I also uploaded new textures with alpha today, and I couldn't see anything unusual.

    So whatever your issue is, it seems to be on your end. I would re-install Photoshop, and the SL viewer probably. Just to be sure it's not that either.

    Anyhow good luck with it. :SwingingFriends:

    Last but not least, here is an image of a model I just uploaded as a test. It has an alpha texture with some stitiching. It's only a 512x512px texture though.
    SeatStitches01.jpg.d7d7cbf10da79ddc042be65570d2ffef.jpg

    If I want to have stitches very prominent, I do it like this. As an overlayed poly strip with tiling stitches.

    SeatStripUV_01.jpg.2b49b12fe12b9d7001a3e85a07a934f1.jpg

     

    I believe you are right - that it is something on my end. I just wish I knew what it was causing it. I've done clean uninstalls and reinstalling, I've installed 2 other viewers, I'd tried different ways to upload. Nothing changes it. The only thing I can pinpoint is that it is only something occurring with transparencies. The one thing I haven't tried was uninstalling and reinstalling Photoshop. I will give that a try. Thank you so much for all your help! You've been wonderful. :)

  4. 38 minutes ago, arton Rotaru said:

    Yeah well, I don't know. At least it's a solid texture without an alpha channel, because the alpha modes is greyed out. That's a solid texture to me.
    However, all I'm trying to tell you, is that you are fighting windmills. The compression will not go away. It's there in my upload, it will be there in yours. To get better results the mesh/UVs and texture will have to be created accordingly.

    What you are saying is exactly what I am trying to show as the problem. You are pointing out the problem I'm trying so hard to explain. There is a problem in how my textures are being saved and/or uploaded because my mesh and mesh UV creation has not changed and I've never had this problem with textures before with the sizing or texture file. Changing the mesh/UVs isn't the issue here because if it was then my true solid textures where there is no transparency WHEN IT IS SAVED looks crisp and good. It looks exactly like all of my other textures that I have always made in the past. You say that what I have showed you in a solid texture because the alpha mode is greyed out, but that is where the problem lies. Those textures were saved to HAVE transparency, and it is those textures that are having a compression problem. I definitely have a problem with TGA files not uploading with transparency, yet the transparency IS saved into the TGA file. Changing the mesh or the  mesh UVs isn't going to change this problem, because if that were the case then my TRUE solid textures where alpha wasn't saved into the texture file would look just as compressed as the one with alpha saved into the file, but they do not. 

    The windmills I am fighting here is trying to explain the problem I am having. I have been searching the internet and have seen that a few others have had this problem too and they haven't been able to find an answer for it. They give up trying to find an answer. I didn't want to give up (I've been fighting this for a week now) because I have been able to successfully upload textures just like this one without a hitch for several years. I've uploaded textures just like this only 3 weeks ago without a problem, doing exactly what I am doing now. Something is happening. Something has changed. There has to be an explanation for it. Unfortunately it appears that no one knows what that something is yet.

    I do thank you and everyone else for trying to help me figure this out, though. You have given it your best, and I truly appreciate the time and effort you have taken in trying to figure this out with me. This forum is full of great people and all of you have shown your willingness to do whatever you could to help someone! Thank you so much for that. I will let this one go for now until later and focus on something else. Maybe that something will be fixed mysteriously LOL! Hugs! :) ♥

     

    • Like 1
  5. 6 minutes ago, arton Rotaru said:

    Well, the 1024 with no alpha doesn't look all that crisp to me actually.

    https://gyazo.com/209b8024c5a7a5ebb56ce25433a2ab72

    Sigh. I'm sorry I am not explaining this better. Let me try to explain again.... No, that gyazo isn't crisp. That was supposed to be transparent. It was saved as transparent TGA, but transparent TGAs aren't working for me, so it looks like it is solid. In actuality it isn't solid and is supposed to be transparent. So you are right, that is not crisp. But it is crisper than the PNG file. But that isn't my solid texture. My solid texture (the texture that has zero transparency, and was saved without transparency, in it) has crisper details. 

  6. 2 minutes ago, arton Rotaru said:

    It really doesn't matter if it's tga or png. They both will be compressed and converted in the JPEG2000 format. The only thing you can do is to change the meshes UVs so that they will take up more space on the texture. and make the stitching, and the grid pattern much bigger.

    The only way I see this would work with crisp results as is, would be with a 4096x4096px texture.

    Then how come my solid textures have crisp results? This is only happening with transparent textures. Also, why is this happening now, when in the past I've never had a problem and everything I am doing is exactly the same?

  7. 5 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

    I'm sure that you know this, but just in case ... The quickest way to create an alpha channel image in Photoshop is to select the area of your image that you want to remain opaque and then use Select >>> Save Selection.  That will load the selected area as a white area in a new alpha channel.  In the uploaded 32-bit image, that area will be opaque and everything else will be transparent.  Remember that for SL, you may only have one alpha channel.

     

    I did exactly this and uploaded the 1024x1024 TGA. No transparency and I don't even get the option to alpha blend or mask.

    https://gyazo.com/209b8024c5a7a5ebb56ce25433a2ab72

  8. 5 minutes ago, arton Rotaru said:

    They are all TGAs. The lossless checkbox will only be tickable when you load a 128 or smaller texture. It's also only working on these small sizes. If you load a larger texture the lossless checkbox doesn't matter. It has no effect then, if it's ticked or not.

    I thought so. I can't upload a transparent TGA. No matter what I do in photoshop to make it keep it's transparency, it still comes in solid and will not have transparent areas. (Using layers masks and saving as 34 too.) Apparently there is something setting wise in SL that isn't allowing me to upload transparent TGA. And I'm thinking it's the same for PNG with this blurriness.

     

    7 minutes ago, Whirly Fizzle said:

    LosslessJ2CUpload is the debug setting.

    I will give this a try. Thank you! 

     

  9.  

    10 minutes ago, arton Rotaru said:

    I did a little experiment. I created a texture with a grid pattern with 3 pixels wide lines. I added a little noise to get some "detail" to compare. A 1024px, and a 128px cutout. They are all set to alpha masking with 128 Mask cutoff. The prims with the 128px texture are respectively smaller to maintain the same texel density as on the prims with the 1024. I also re-uploaded an alpha texture which I had already in-world, to compare the new against the old. They both look identical though. So to me this comes pretty much down to compression. Which would be expected behavior.

    BlurredLines01.jpg.6aca313e683b898351846fd02221ed6b.jpg

    Arton, is that TGA or PNG? I also don't have the option to remove lossless. It's automatically putting the lossless in. 

  10. Unfortunately I don't think I am getting my problem across very well. Everything you are saying, I already know and have tried. I can upload anything of the same size and same file (TGA, PNG, etc) as a solid texture and have no problems. If I turn off the transparency and upload the texture, it is clear. It is in the act of uploading a transparent texture that it is going wrong. I have uploaded more transparent textures that have been created in the same way I have always done previously and each upload is different. I will actually get further degradation, and each one is a different degradation. There is no reason that I can find for this. TGA won't even upload transparency any longer for me. PNG uploads transparency but it is blurry.

    Once again, I've uploaded both TGA and PNG transparent textures in the past without issue. I can get them very crisp and clear. I can use alpha masking in SL without causing problems as well. All I ca figure at this point is that there is something happening in the uploader itself.

  11. 2 hours ago, arton Rotaru said:

    Wow, that's a tiny pattern indeed. Thinking of it as a 1024, it would still be tiny. I'd guess this is rather expected behavior due to the lossy compression when uploaded.

     

    29 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

    Compression aside, consider what will happen to any detail that is only a few pixels across as you downsize the image from 1024 x 1024 to 512 x 512 or smaller.  Pixels are averaged with neighboring ones, so a tiny feature that is defined almost completely by pixels around its edges can be averaged almost out of existence.  A 2 pixel wide line becomes a blur.

    I am not wanting to use a 512x512 for that exact reason. I just can't upload a 1024x1024 texture in this forum. It won't let me. I only posted the 512x512 because that's all it would allow me to attach.

    But remember, I have uploaded 1024x1024 textures exactly like this into Second Life without a problem in the past. Even just 3 weeks ago. Transparent textures are not a new thing for me, and they have been very clear and crisp in appearance. Something wrong is happening with my transparent textures right now that I can't find. 

  12. Hello, Arton. I tried clearing all of the caches in the preferences and then uploading again, but nothing changed. Should I go directly into the viewer's folder and delete the cache manually? The only change I can think of is that I updated Firestorm and now this is happening, however I've also tried different viewers and see the same problems, so that doesn't make much sense either.

    Chic, I've not asked if others can see the textures better. I'll have to do that tomorrow. :)

    I want to thank everyone who has responded for trying to help me figure this out! You guys are awesome! Hopefully we'll get this sorted out. ❤️

  13. Hello, Rolig. Yes, I've known about these things, and I had even tried a 512x512 to see if it would make a difference. It didn't, except to be blurrier. I've tried everything I can think of to make it functional. The strange thing about this is that it is only with transparent textures. My solid textures upload perfectly fine. What makes it even odder is the fact that I've successfully uploaded transparent textures in the past without degradation. 

  14. Hello, everyone. I've been struggling with transparent textures blurring after I upload them. When I test the textures in local, they look fine, but after I upload the very same texture, the texture is blurred as if it isn't fully rezzed. My textures are 1024 x 1024. I have made these textures for a fitted mesh item, but I can see the texture itself is blurry before putting it on the mesh, so it is definitely something within the texture itself and not the mesh. Plus this is ONLY happening for transparent textures. My non transparent textures upload just fine. So definitely not the mesh. I've been saving and following the same practices I always do for transparent textures and I've never run into this problem before. I am hoping someone out there may know what is causing this, and how I can fix it. 

    Pic of Tested texture in Local: https://gyazo.com/46c64cf323e9a2690c9d24e9c6d1c9d1

    Pic of Uploaded texture: https://gyazo.com/f66cd8668f45655d6e5aa30a9b4d1254

    Thank you for any and all help I can get from all of you! :)

  15. I was afraid you were going to say that. :( I'm going to try a few more things to fix it. Have there been a lot of issues since the release of fitted mesh? Could it be that LL released Fitted Mesh too soon? Just wondering if I ought to hold off and stick to the standard sizes until the kinks are worked out, if there are indeed kinks...

  16. Red poly, I don't think it's the same thing, though I can see why you would think so. :) My picture makes it look that way. I took the pic while the avatar was animated in a very wild dance, just to show the issue better. So the one leg looks funky because of the animation. It also makes it look like a bow legged problem, like  jira you linked. Sorry about that. The joints are not bow legged in my issue. I should have said to look at just the left leg at the knee joint and see how it seems to have slid off the joint a bit. It's a solid looking cut, not jagged or sloppy. For example, take two cylinders and stack them on top of each other, then slide the bottom cylinder out just a bit. That's what it looks like. Both knee joints look like this.

    Gaia, these pants were made to fit on the default avastar avatar. I didn't make it to fit a custom shape... I don't see how that could be causing this particular problem I'm having since I'm not trying to fit it to a custom shape or even a custom pose, but maybe I misunderstood what you mean... Any other ideas?

  17. I've got a rigged mesh pair of pants that I have weighted to the collision bones for the new fitted mesh. I've got experience working in Blender and AvaStar rigging and weighting the old method as well as the Liquid Mesh method before Fitted Mesh came out. I've not had problems with rigging and weighting in the past so I'm assuming this is a fitted mesh issue. The problem is that the joints are appearing disjointed at the knees. I've checked my rotations and weighting and all appears as it should. The mesh was created using the default SL avatar in the T-pose, so the bones are aligned with the mesh as it should be. I'm uploading the mesh the way I have always uploaded it. Does anyone know what could be causing this disjointedness at the joints? Thank you! :)

    Disjointed-Fitted-Mesh.jpg

  18. Oh yes, I'm completely aware of the lack of support when it comes to the volume bones. I keep my eyes on that whole conversation. ;) But this particular pair of pants is an experiment anyway, and I want to see how it all works - with everything. I like to learn new things. 

     

×
×
  • Create New...