Codex Alpha

Rya Nitely wrote: entity0x wrote: I think customers need to be educated. I've never believed in 'the customer is always right" - that's a corporate mentality put out to make us workers cater to them. In my own dealings, I believe in "Be courteous, but firm. Educate the customer" However, in our culture, customers have bought into that myth "Customer is always right" but it's about as real as the value of diamonds (also created by a corporation). Customers are generally rational human beings, who are just like you and I. They're not a different species. You are really talking about a very small percentage of difficult people, who may be customers or merchants. But these types are not usually open to suggestion or education. I never mentioned customers were any sort of way, but rather stated my opinion on how I like to deal with customers, in RL or otherwise. Many customers are simply wrong - it's my job to educate them so that we can both arrive to an understanding, rather than catering to their delusion, which can only enable future problems in the relationship. Quit trying to turn this into me insulting people. It is actually out of respect that I treat them with courtesy, but firmness. In my experience, they appreciate it in the end versus the salesguy who just nods and leads them down the golden path, then they find out later he was bs'ing them the whole time, even condescending, just to get the sale.

Op is clearly trying to replicate Elsa's Castle, and even named her sim "Frozen". There is no fogginess here. Much like many others who simply replicate existing furniture designs into 2nd Life.

VanillaSunsets wrote: I would love to see you create and upload a tree to SL and update us here :catwink: I would love to see what you come up with, will be very humble if you surprise me and will be a willing pupil:cattongue: :-/

Rhiannon Arkin wrote: I am trying to understand how some rather complex mesh builds have such a low land impact. There are tree groups sold in mp, consisting of 4 birches, with dozens of planes for the leaves and many more for grass. And it has inly 4 li. I cant get even one tree uploaded with less then 8 to 14 li. And i consider myself a very efficient modeller. There are many other examples. Stonewalls made out of many individual stones, but they only have 1 li, again, i cant reproduce that at all. What's the trick? Any answer appreciated RHIA The trick is mastering hi-poly to lo-poly modelling, and baking the color, normals and specular textures that will define how a user sees it inworld, rather than by defining it with the model's geometry. The next is to follow the SL mesh uploader's suggestions as to how many vertices/triangles each LOD model should have, and decimating your models down appropriately to match them, whilst maintaining the silouhette (or defining shape) of the model as much as possible. Keeping the physics model simple (or actually making sure you have a model for the physics) can go a long way. I've tried many things myself, though I haven't uploaded a tree with leaves and multiple branches yet, but I am assuming I will have the same success of (optimized, don't seek Low li) models by utilizing these techniques. In a lot of ways, this stuff cannot be taught, as everyone models differently, it's trial and error to find out what design will work better than the other. VanillaSunsets wrote: Many residents won't notice, lots have their viewers set to LOD 4 and will see your stuff just perfectly, but there is a trend going on to set LOD's to just 2 (about average) and ppl will see the shortcuts. Some creators do not care and rely on the ppl that have viewer settings up to 4 and they do sell, some sell a lot! But it creates lag, I made items like that but I am learning how to do it in a better way to help SL run better for everyone, even if it is just a lill bit. A best practice would be to design for the default viewer settings, for what the average person will see, and optimize the LODs to get the best visibility and Li possible. At some point, creators have to make some kind of standard practice and stick to it, rather than trying to please everyone. VanillaSunsets wrote: Ppl that have older computers can't handle all the high setting and will still see your creation as ugly triangles from a distance. And some newbies will not know how to adjust the LOD settings... well maybe in a few months. There are creators out there that include notecards with their products giving directions for users to fiddle with their viewers through the Advanced Menu, so that THEIR product looks proper. This is bad practice IMO. I have my viewer pretty much on default settings LOD wise (and on the settings suggested for my video card) and many products break from only a few meters away trying to get their low Li. The best suggestion is to become a master at optimizing for the masses, instead of making users change to suit creator laziness

Second Life is a creative tool for me.

Chic Aeon wrote: PS. This did not happen with the original 2.78 release or any time before on earlier releases. It has only been happening with 2.78a. Nah, this has been happening to me too for quite awhile and I never knew what was doing it. One of those small things that get missed (not covered in tutorials, etc) that drive you mad wondering where your background went after bake. I hate, hate, hate that. So glad I came across this topic to solve this issue. (will try it later)

It's not only the problems associated with using VR, it's the actual gameplay method I am also not impressed with. Since you really can't 'walk' around physically, most games make you click to move, much like one of those point-and-click older photo-based Myst-copy games, or you're just standing there shooting at stuff that comes at you, and the game is moving you about. Unimpressive. Sickening. Headache inducing. Pretty fun gimmick though. Back to the big screen or the large monitor for serious gaming though.. WASD to move about, Mouse to click, select and shoot.. Ahh, yes much more immersive and fun. If LL is seriously still considering this, it should be a plan to implement over the next 5 years or so, probably will be perfect in 10 years (with walkable tread surfaces, but expensive). Much like the hilarious "Minority Report"-style monitors, cool looking, but utterly inefficient and rotator-cuff-injury-inducing full arm movements, using a mouse is still much more efficient.

Yes! Exceptional job recreating popular art and having a sim based after a popular movie! Don't let my sarcastic reply sway you from continuing, as you will probably have more positive support and reinforcement to continue this behaviour, because Elsa and Frozen is very popular! Just in time for Christmas too! Never mind that TOS or Mesh Upload Questionairre thingy... MirandaBowers wrote: I think that is a great project you have going there! I love the ambition of making it large scale. Impressive! You should keep up the good work and continue exercising your creativity. Although I can always appreciate someone's skill at doing something (like drawing Simba The Lion), it's not her creativity. It's the creativity and manifestation of artists from Walt Disney. Each time you submit any User Content, you represent and warrant that (a) you are the sole author and owner of the intellectual property and other rights to the User Content, or you have a lawful right to submit the User Content and will not infringe any intellectual property or other right of any third party. -Terms Of Service

One doesn't need to be a copyright lawyer. Just upload your own creations, and try not to just be one of those artists that is barely skirting the TOS, by replicating a real-life product, and calling it a different name, when from all appearances, everyone knows what the product is. It's really not that hard. 

Pamela Galli wrote: You cannot copyright a design, just the functional elements of a design. Huh? I had to read this statement multiple times, because it doesn't make sense. My understanding is that it is the opposite. You CAN copyright the DESIGN (the blueprints), but NOT the functional elements. For example, 2 parties can design a guitar amp. Both have different designs, and those blueprints dictating their dimensions, electronic schematics, form, etc are presumable patented. The fact that the amp uses a volume knob (functional), tone knob (functional), channel select switch (functional) would NOT be able to be patented. The same statement could be made to IDEAS. Ideas cannot be copyrighted, but only the tangible form on paper, in the form of a document (or blueprint) that materializes it. I can have an idea for a kitchen water faucet, but must define its functionality and design on paper, and will probably differ greatly from YOUR design, in taste, skill, etc. And in response to the OP, yes apparently it IS Okay to sell things that resemble products and brand names from real life, as the practice is quite rampant. As Chin Rey states, 'most designs are influenced from RL designs' and that can be true. I don't mind 'influenced' products, as long as they're not just replicating the objects and pretending to not be. Unfortunately, that is probably what most of the SL base wants - they want that furniture brand they can't afford in RL - most customers won't care if it's a Marshall guitar amp replicated in SL... Do you think they willl buy your "Herschel"-amp before a "Marshall" -amp, even though they may look the same or sold under a 'different brand name'? Do what you like, but please... I beg you.. Try to be original and interesting in your designs. You wll already have that NIKE, ADIDAS, etc influence in your original creations anyway... Make me some cool original design shoes you conceptualized and sketched up yourself. If they're good designs (influenced by popular brands or not), people will appreciate it and word will get around. Or not. Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about and people want the NIKE shoes.

Take both files and overlay them on top of each other (as I did in FL Studio);  Yes, it's the same base file. Many of Doom's sounds are from Sound Ideas' General series sound effects library. - https://doomwiki.org/wiki/Sound Doom producers may have removed the padding from the original effects file in order to make them smaller, but create a noticeable 'click' or 'pop' sound because their ends have been chopped off... Clearly by the time LL decided to use it, they could afford to play the sample in it's entirety. General Sound Effects Collections are an important resource for post production and game building – and Sound Ideas offers the best options in the audio industry. Sound Ideas Signature Collection - The General Series 6000 Sound Effects Library If I didn't make my own sounds on my own, I would purchase a library of sounds, and edit it to my liking (for timbre, tone, sample rate, etc) , or mix it with other sounds to create unique combinations.

I had some flickering yesterday on a few objects and thought something was wrong with the normals or something too.. or LODs... but it seemed to be some clashing of light sources or something. LL released a viewer update today, so maybe that fixed it, as I don't notice/ cant recreate it now.

ChinRey wrote: All I know is that you get higher LI if you don't keep your vertices straight. Interesting. I truly love real, practical information. Much appreciated. Kudos to Artu and Drongle as well. My strategy lately is to upload my LOD1 mesh in SL, and see what the vertice requirements I should meet for the next LOD down, and work to meet them in the most efficient means possible.. then enter that model in .. then work on the next, upload that... using the uploader as a preview to see how it all goes. All the way down to LOD4. That, and following the tips posted on this forum demonstrated on a simple pillow (didn't even know there was a check UVs, etc button before), I"ve already improved my LODS on every new product so far. So thanks. Real practical advice with simple examples goes a long way for those of us who want to optimize and follow best practices, not only for our own piece of mind, but the success of SL in general. shaniqua Sahara wrote: we have to accept poorly optimized things because it's part of the average. i say turn up your LOD settings to where you can, make what you like how you like and go to town. eventually some will get better at it and others won't. that's sLife. we're all different sorts and stripes in it together whether we like it or not. I disagree. We should always design for the beginner SL'er, the average, and what looks good in the default settings of the viewer, and better than that. I just bought some items from the MP from a seller who uses this excuse "Improve your LOD settings", but her stuff breaks LOD way too easily, and I'm on the default setting, and always have been. If anything I will lower it as has been suggested to see any weaknesses in my own meshes - and I strive to improve them, updating already a few products that had issues I was unaware of. Accepting mediocrity is not the answer. Educating creators, and not supporting creators who don't go the extra mile is a better answer.

There are many popular 3D Modelling programs you can use. Which one you will use will probably first depend on the finances you have, the next on preference, and the next what educational resources are available. I use Blender, because it is free, I prefer it over the menu-centric cluttered interface of other software, and there are plenty of tutorials. Blender may be a relatively dead end road for you, if you aim to work for big companies as an employee, as they want the industry standard, which is Maya. If your goal is to freelance, you can use whatever software you like.

Take the $L and spend it on something nice. Unless you have reason to believe the $L was stolen, or involved in some crime ring regarding SL accounts, why would you worry at all? I've had gifts thrown my way (though not as much), I just thank them and use it. But then again, I'm not involved in anything untoward, so wouldn't have such concerns where it came from.

Artorius Constantine wrote: Just last week my Roaming Falconer NPC got 1 starred because "...It's a Joke ... it is all linked". Well yeah, what good would it be if it wasn't linked? You want 15 prims as a coalesced object? I don't get it. I think they just wanted the bird but didn't bother to read the first 2 lines of the listing, or the Title, or the rest of the listing, or look at any of the several pictures, or contact me before 1 starring a perfectly good NPC that is exactly what it says it is. Not sure why "it''s a joke", but what the hey. I just left a nicely worded reply about reading the listing and hope people read it. and yes, I see the irony in that. Yes, you have to wondered why they bought it... for the creation or as a parts kit? Tamara Artis wrote: Its the reality we live in, we can't blame the customers for expecting to get everything for nothing, the same moment they wish for it! I would rather blame merchants who act like servants and fill every possible wish they customers might have, and also for selling too low. True, for this how we've probably arrived at the self-entitlement displayed by many customers, who instead of approaching you in a sensible manner, they'd rather try to force you to bend to their will. This is how you see some products with 200 animations in them... somehow the creator thought that THAT was needed in order to compete or sell their item - then customers come to expect 200 animations from others.. soon anything less than that is unacceptable. As I don't rely on SL as a primary source of income, and every $L I make gets re-invested into it and developing skills for, it doesn't matter to me - but for other creators that do I can see it being quite taxing after awhile. I think customers need to be educated. I've never believed in 'the customer is always right" - that's a corporate mentality put out to make us workers cater to them. In my own dealings, I believe in "Be courteous, but firm. Educate the customer" However, in our culture, customers have bought into that myth "Customer is always right" but it's about as real as the value of diamonds (also created by a corporation).

Suki Hirano wrote: We've already established the fact that most so-called "original mesh creators" (validity pending) refuse to hand out modifiable versions of their products. But behold, a new level of "you can look but you can't touch our precious creation" has risen. These seem to be some quite spiteful and disrespectful comments... it's not all like that. If you were a creator yourself, you probably wouldn't be talking like that at all. Suki Hirano wrote: We've already established the fact that most so-called "original mesh creators" (validity pending) refuse to hand out modifiable versions of their products because: They believe the rumour modifiable = easier to copybot They don't want customers to play around with their stuff in case they make it look ugly They think customers are too stupid to know how to use the edit tool then blame it on them if it breaks Fine, whatever. People like me can always choose to just find stuff that are copy/mod to buy. People who refuse to give modifiable stuff at least have (what they think are, even though most aren't) "reasons" behind it. Yet on the other hand, some customers are obsessed with having mod/copy permissions even on the most advanced items, even if doing so will break some functionality or intent of the item - Makes me wonder why. Some will take to review sections and leave low reviews (because they item lacked permissions they demand to have, though the item never offered it to start with). Perhaps instead of decrying merchants who limit permissions, and promoting some strange copy/mod shopping culture (those are options, not requirements), do what you do - shop elsewhere, or contact the merchant and see what they can do for you personally. Reasons why a product (or creator) may not include copy/mod (or variations of): #1 Why would it have to be? Do you get copy/mod permissions when you buy a snowglobe from a curiosity shop in RL? Do you mean you went in to the store, looked around, found a snowman in a globe that was cute, bought it, then went home to find out you can't replicate it or mod it? Then you head to Yelp and defame the product because you couldn't change the snowman's tie color? #2 The product WILL break or has specific requirements to remain intact. Yes, the product may rely on the product remaining intact for it to function and perform as it was intended. If you want to pull it apart, for what purpose would you be doing that anyway that would require advanced permissions? Some textures are 'baked' into the product, so changing the texture to a 'wood texture' you would like would be pointless - Also, didn't you buy the product because you liked how it looked in the first place? Again, explain why you need to do this. #3 Personally, If I include mod/copy on everything, I might as well sell parts only, and save the time mapping out textures, handpainting and designing textures, learning Cycles to bake them out, etc... and just let you put that crappy wood grain on it. Why bother doing it... if the customer buys your stuff just to change it - why do the work completing it (or even advertising a style that may not be appealing either, trying to guess what people like) Yes, there is a sense of pride from the creator that gets insulted if someone wants to mod and tear their creation apart (for w/e reason). They designed it and sold it as it is - it is a work of art. I'm not in the business of selling builder parts, or spare parts, or scrap parts.. no mod ensures my products stay intact . Even if it is only pride being served. It is my artistic vision, and I believe it needs to stay intact. #4 Limiting permissions actually takes the stress off customers. Ever played the Sims? When you get that new prop, furniture, pool, piano, bed, bar, jukebox, etc... do you feel the need to mod it there? Does it need to be resized? Nope. It just fits. This is the goal we need to strive for in SL. I design with the default SL avatar in mind. I may include a resizer script or modification permission on items that need it (like a shop sign, art piece, etc), but a couch should be near standardized. This will encourage not only creators to create avatar meshes with some kind of standard, but stop the demand from Minotaur-sized avatars to be able to sit properly on stuff that isn't designed for them. It's okay to be a Minotaur, but realize you will have to seek and purchase Minotaur-sized furniture, made for your race. Much like clothes are made specific for a model of avatar, realize that your 10 foot woman with the 8 foot legs probably isn't going to fit on the average furniture out there - AND WHY SHOULD THEY EXPECT TO. No matter what side you are on, there are always reasons, and valid reasons. #5 Limiting permissions increases percieved value of the item. When I started Second Life, some of my best and favourite purchases that I have today were No Copy / No Mod items. Fancy office chairs, an octopus 'table', fancy living room chair, etc didn't have any permissions. I treated them like gold. They seemed even more special because I couldn't just replicate 100 of them on my land and on friend's lands.. It became "MY CHAIR DON"T YOU SIT IN THAT!". There is value in this approach. When you must look after something, and not leave it willy-nilly out and about, the item becomes precious. Also, being able to change the texture on the chair or otherwise screw with it would have also lessened its value. ---- The panic of No Copy / No Mod items is exaggerated. If lost due to some mistake on the owner's part, they can always contact the seller to have it redelivered to them (Or even better, have a "Redeliver Item" button on the product listing itself on the MP) I plan to make some very unique items in the future, items with special abilities, puzzles, etc. They will probably have no copy/ no mod on them. This will be because they are meant to be precious, special, and dangerous to lose. So don't lose them. I'm a big boy, I haven't lost any of my no copy / no mod items. Though of course I wouldn't mind if they were at least copy for safety, but I don't cry and demand from the creator anything they're not willing to do. As you said, you're free to check "mod" and "copy" options on the listings and never see any other creations. However, any creator who is willing to 'prostitute' their work out, probably isn't all that invested in their products, or will lose the drive to create new things, if the intent is by people to turn them into spare parts, etc. Suki Hirano wrote: As a builder who endorses the idea that everything except scripts should be modifiable, something like this is just incomprehensible. Well hopefully I've made this more 'comprehensible' to you. I endorse Creator's Choice, but also to educate people that they have no right to DEMAND things from creators.. You're not ENTITLED to anything - but you do have the choice where you spend your dollars. For me, it can be the difference between me concepting, sketching, painting, modelling, skinning, baking a cool 'cube' for sale on the MP - a unique item that someone can appreciate... vs uploading a white untextured cube and saying "Here, you texture it how you want, you have all the permissions in the world". There is literally no point (at the end of this debate) for a creator to spend time doing any of that, if customers like you demand that they have the ability to change it.

My hud is 1) Go to inventory 2) Go to sub-folder 'animations' 3) Go to sub-folder 'dances' 4) Right click "Retarded Chicken Dance" -> Play InWorld. :-D

Callum Meriman wrote: That original post is actually very good, and something I understand more and more each day. People don't realise how much time and care is put into a product, not just the design work, but all else including the unread manuals, the packaging and double checking, the photos, the marketplace process itself. And then the support for gormless idiots who usually IM wanting their answer whilst you are doing something important. The answer being the first in the manual. It's disheartning to get that one star review because "The item isn't in my inventory" Yes, over the long term, this kind of thing can take away someone's drive to create cool things for them Of course, the customer, who had no real issue to complain about features that were never advertised to start with, still got everything they wanted with an update I made out of good faith. Did the two missing stars taken away due to missing features get returned, along with a glowing review on customer service? Nope.. not even a thanks in a pm. This is what self-entitlement looks like, I guess. My only solace is that the product has improved anyway, I guess. All feedback can still be used for improving. Rya Nitely wrote: This is the reason I stopped giving freebies. In my mind a freebie is a gift. You have now been around long enough to understand how it feels to get a one star review for the freebie that you gave out of generosity, as a gift. You have changed your tune, but let us not argue about what you said then, and now. I agree with your post. Welcome to our world. No, I haven't changed my tune that freebies can be reviewed as well. My beef is not with reviews and constructive feedback,but rather with misuse of the review section.A few scumbags aren't going to stop me from giving gifts to SL'ers.. Hell I loved and appreciated gifts and $0 items when I started - I'm giving it back. I also stand by my statements that freebies should be the same quality as paid products - since is represents us as creators. Freebies are not only gifts, but let's face it, it is an advertiser, and a 'loss-leader' to other products - so it better be good quality too. I'm more posting about the annoyance of a rash of reviews post relating to what is not there. You don't give a restaurant less stars because "It didn't provide chicken soup on the menu - If you had chicken soup I'd give you full marks", what is up with that strangeness. Every review can become a 5 star, if the seller meets and exceeds the issues you had with it. But as we see from Angie's List, to Yelp to Steam and other online reviews, people tend to leave negative and uninformed reviews long before they give constructive ones. Don't get pissed off at me though - I give you 3 out of 5, I'll tell you why, then come back and give you 5 if possible.

He he, at one time there was a free titler going around in Second Life, that had it's channel name exposed. Must I say I had great fun changing the titles of friends who wore it, they couldn't figure out that it could be accessed by anyone nearby in chat

Is it against the rules? No. Does anyone care? Probably not. Will you buy that product or others from that creator in the future? Probably. So who cares. In the end, you know if you're cheating or not, why ask anyone else here?

Alwin Alcott wrote: like nobody can review without this manual.... It's sarcasm. Comprehension issues? Pamela Galli wrote: Somebody sure changed his tune. Not at all. Anytime I have left a review I have always supported why I gave it the stars I did. You don't review a movie and then give it less stars because "Robert Deniro wasn't in this film. I would have given 5 stars but the director didn't include Deniro" I also suggested (assuming you read it all before responding), that simply making the marketplace review section LIKE or DISLIKE might be better, as well as adding more specific options to flag errant reviews, such as "outdated due to updates" Theresa Tennyson wrote: You seem to think that if you make the decision to buy something your review should default to five stars. This isn't always the case. Sometimes you'll buy something that the description says isn't exactly what you need, but it you buy it because there isn't a better alternative. So by your logic, you would like to see the color Pink on the product, but you bought anyway... then you return and use the review to give it 1 less star or 2 because it didn't come in pink? If you like the product, and it has some shortcoming that you would like to see, or if you didn't understand something, shouldn't you contact the seller/creator then and see what is possible? I'm not expecting 5 stars on everything.. 5 stars is unrealistic as it means PERFECT, and nothing is perfect, everything can be improved... But how you rate something should be provided with context - and you don't punish the creator because the product doesn't come in Pink, and you think it should come in pink.. so one less star.. Theresa Tennyson wrote: Is it fair to give an item one star because it doesn't have a certain feature and that lack was clearly noted in the description? No, because the expectation is you won't buy an item that you'd consider a one-star item before you'd buy it. The purpose of a review is to give information to other shoppers and the maker. If it could be better, why give it five stars? Even though you set it up to disagree, we agree on these points, since that's the point I'm making. "I would give this sofa set 5 stars, but I took 1 star off because it wasn't in pink, another cuz of no copy/mod, and another because it doesn't include 20 sitting animations that I would like"

Remember, when reviewing a product on the marketplace, ensure that you remove stars because 1) it didn't have the permissions you wanted (but you bought it anyway) 2) you thought you could edit it, copy it or resell it (but you bought it anyway) 3) it didn't come in the color you wanted, or wasn't available in pink (but you bought it anyway) 4) the seller didn't get back to you about your questions on the product within 5 minutes (but you bought it anyway) 5) the product didn't have any animations in it (but you bought it anyway) 6) the textures are not as clear 'as you would like" (whatever that means, but you bought it anyway) 7) you can't read, and therefore don't understand what the product includes or not includes (but you bought it anyway) 8) you have buyer's remorse, so use the review system to gain leverage for a refund After all, this is a valid use of the review process. It isn't about how and why you rated the product, but more about your emotional response, ie., 'frustration' and 'disappointment' (both of which sound pretty whiney and self-entitled). I am still learning about all this, and realize that my good intentions are seldom appreciated. Sometimes I include free gifts in my product packages - and THEY are the cause of lower reviews, so perhaps I should discontinue such generosity. If I include features that are difficult for newer users to use, even with explicit instructions, and repeated messages inworld whenever you rez/touch/operate an item, this can result in claims "product does not work". Of course, I don't get contacted inworld for the most part about any of this, no requests for help, no questions or requests. Instead I will get the review sections being used to express this instead. Bonus Tip: If the creator/seller meets your needs, wipes your tears away for your 20 cent investment, never ever thank them at all. Also, do not revise your review to reflect the changes - leave it up in perpetuity. (Disclaimer: There are a lot of polite customers out there, you know who you are, but you are a rarity, but appreciated) The point is, amongst other changes to SL and the MP that I have suggested in my time here, the review system needs another look at. Changing to a simple LIKE/DISLIKE system would require customers to commit to one or the other, and to also back up their statements. Much like YouTube and other sites, there is no context to a 2-4 star rating, because it is rarely provided - nor can someone understand the thought process of the reviewer. In the rare event that I review a product myself (I hate giving any less than 5 stars) - if I do, I will always give context to why, and make it relevant. "I would rate this 5 stars but it doesn't have copy/mod permissions" is hardly a valid review.. or is it? It's all opinion. Do you mean you purchased the product just to come back and remove stars because it didn't have features you wanted? Changing the review system would also cut down on flag reports for seemingly 'questionable' reviews that simply do not have an appropriate category to flag for. What is 'inappropriate content->Off Topic" mean anyway? Did they talk about hockey or some movie? Where is the keyword "irrelevant" instead? I've got a thick skin, but sometimes this attitude bums me out. I'm coming out with some really innovative products soon, and spending a lot of time learning and refining - the last thing I want to see is some crap review because my product didn't include the banana dance in it... Huh? Where did I advertise it was supposed to have banana dance?

Want to make your own necklace? Google is your friend. YouTube tutorials galore. Pick software to make it with. I use Blender. Off you go.

Use the snap to Grid feature. It will change your building experience.