Jump to content

Rahkis Andel

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rahkis Andel

  1. Spiritum Sciavo wrote: I can't recall offhand the function of it, but simply press Q while in the UV window to toggle that on or off. Sorry I couldn't be of more help than that. Let me guess: You didn't read any of the other comments?
  2. That's a very moving argument. If there is a class-action lawsuit against LL, I hope that argument is given verbatim. The only problem is, even if this is taken to court and any part of the TOS is deemed unenforcable, there is already language in the TOS that states that all other portions will still remain valid. It won't make me feel any better to know that I still can't login to SL or open a new business there, because that is what I intended to do before all this happened. It sounds like this will be a VERY uphill battle.
  3. The double sided option does make a difference in the 3D viewport. Turning double-sided normals off on each object is a known method of speeding up a slow viewport in some cases. When you turn double-sided normals on, it tells the 3D view to shade each side of the poly-face based on normal direction; the front side of the face will be shaded normally and the backface will have inverted shading. With double-sided off, both sides of the face will be shaded the same (So you won't be able to tell if there are flipped/messed up normals). With backface culling on, only the front side of the face will render at all (therefore having double-sided on in this case has no effect, so it may as well be off). So long story short, Gaia is right that you may be better off having double sided off and backface culling.
  4. FYI: You can go in and out of UV sculpt mode by pressing "Q" in the UV/Image editor. That key is easy to hit on mistake and before I knew about that mode, I was stuck unable to do anything until I searched through every key preset in the Image editor to figure it out.
  5. Somehow, I feel like this is too dumb to be a dumb mistake, to incorrectly paraphrase you. Surely, I opened my mouth too soon -- I think I can be forgiven as impassioned as everyone is over this. Granted, my opinion is unchanged, but my opinion is speculation echoing fear. Clearly, the issues of what can and cannot be uploaded (even if it already has been) is far worse than any future "competition" on LL's part. It sounds like your hands are more tied than most, and after all I've seen of your helpfulness here on the forums and what business you must have brought to LL in this time, I can only find your situation ironic. The ones actually helping SL be a lucrative and content rich platform with great user-based support are punished while those who couldn't care less keep on keeping on.
  6. IvanBenjammin wrote: ...I was cautiously optimistic, but now I'm just cautious Yep, that's me in a nutshell.
  7. Before reading that blog post, my opinion was that there was nothing to worry about -- LL will change the TOS in response to the backlash they are getting, right? No harm meant, I figured. In retrospect, that stance feels naive. I see little other explaination than "business as usual". I guess the silver lining is that if virtual worlds have a future (and I believe they do), it's been abundantly clear for years now that the future isn't Second Life. Second Life is just too big in it's own market to compete with. I've always thought that the reason for the lack of SL alternatives that are significantly better is simply that no one with the means to supercede SL is willing to try so long as they have the market tied up. If LL cashes out, displaced users and content will have nowhere else to go but to alternatives (hopefully open source ones). Finally, progress will be made towards something much better than Second Life. Optimistically speaking. I hate to root for the worst case senario, but I am of the mindset that "change is almost always for the best in the long-run". We'll just see what happens. Until something gives, I have no choice but to suspend any plans of making content for this platform.
  8. Any luck? I'd be interested.
  9. It's hard to say, but my guess is that you had some object-level transforms unapplied.
  10. I'm going out on a limb here, but it could possibly be an LOD problem.
  11. I don't know. Define rather high. A head is probably one of the more complex things you could upload, so it probably is high. Also, since you were just test uploading it, I am assuming you didn't already have LODs ready, so you probably just used the same mesh for all LODs. In that case it would be really high.
  12. No, they don't need to be on different layers at all. They only need be separate objects. When you export, you'll use the "export selected" checkbox and will select all the parts you want exported including the armature.
  13. My strategy for the eyelids would be to model them in the closed position. When I'm ready to animate them, I would separate the eyelids from the rest of the head, duplicate them and move them into their appropriate positions. I'd use blend-shapes, but you don't have to. Edit: just to explain, in my experience it's easier to open closed eyes than to close open eyes. That's why I model with the eyes closed. And as for the jaw, my thought is that if you just weight the jaw to the jaw bone, it should move. I am not sure if that's true or not, but it's my guess. I'm with you, though. The seam would be a deal-breaker for me.
  14. Let me give you some quick advice. Don't worry so much about how the model looks when you are making it. If you take any game character you've ever seen and stripped them of their textures, you'd see that they aren't what you thought they were. They are not perfectly smooth at all. Likewise, when you apply textures, the blockiness will not be noticable. Long story short, you'll need a few duplicates of the eyelids at different positions from opened-to-closed. All of the above will be uploaded with the head, so in game they will be linked and you'll use a script to cycle their transparency. How to write that kind of script is a question for the scripting forum. Also, I could be wrong, but I don't think the separate jaw is technically necessary with a mesh head. Rather, I know I'm not wrong since I've seen it done, I just don't know exactly how it is done or what the potential consequences of doing it that way are.
  15. Nice. I'm glad you figured it out, because I wouldn't hold my breath on it getting fixed.
  16. Hmm, maybe see if this issue has come up in the bug tracker. If it's a recent "bug", it might still be getting worked on.
  17. Okay, thanks for explaining. Granted, it still doesn't make sense to me, but I guess that's why I'd never cut it as a lawyer.
  18. What does that have to do with preventing bake fail? I don't remember reading about that. Are you sure that's not an unrelated update? Either way, I guess that sounds like a valid enough culprit.
  19. I'm as flummoxed as you are, but I can say pretty confidently that SSB has absolutely nothing to do with the avatar's z-location. It only affects textures. I guess that narrows it down by 1 at least.
  20. I can't tell you what problems there have been or how difficult they were to fix, but I can tell you this: Issues can crop up for a maddening myriad of reasons. More than likely, it will be a hardware or driver incompatibility before it'll be a problem with your OS. I've seen people attribute Win8 to game-stopping issues, but I use Win8 and Firestorm and the SL viewer work fine for me. Take that however you like. My personal feelings are use whatever OS you like best and keep your fingers crossed SL doesn't disagree with some ambiguous setting or device driver you have. Edit: Oh, and to answer the titular question: Yes, going crazier every day!
  21. That explaination doesn't make sense. We only have the illusion of ownership and their system makes it looks like content is trading hands. As far as LL is concerned, we just have game tokens and a visual representation of what is saved on their servers and our name on it. They still own that digital information and claim the rights explained in the TOS and they unambiguously own every last L$ we have. So using that logic, when you theoretically buy something from me, we trade game tokens and LL switches some properties to associate the product with you instead of me. The only thing that makes that transaction mean anything at all is their TOS and whatever digital rights laws apply. That's why I'm saying their TOS probably is necessary for their business. If I'm missing something here, please explain what it is if you don't mind.
  22. I'm not prepared to debate the point, suffice it to say, be paranoid if you wish. Consider, however, that unlike other sites, SL is arbitrating transactions between people using a "fake" currency. As I understand it, this may not just apply to their "kiddy games" since we are litterally giving our content to LL to sell on our behalf. They cannot legally do this without the rights to sell and re-sell our content. So from that context, their business model probably wouldn't work without that legal verbiage. If those are not rights you wish them to have, so be it. I, on the other hand see that it is not in their interest to try to abuse those rights. Now, one point I will concede is that it definitely concerns me what might happen if LL were to go bankrupt or close down SL. Based on how it is worded, I don't think they get unlimited rights to content after service is canceled. Just like how when LL is gone, our L$ is gone without refund. When they are gone, we retain all rights to our displaced content. That, however is an assumption.
  23. All the best points are taken so I'll just add this: This is a rather standard verbiage for uploading your work anywhere online. So think about that anytime you want to sell or show off your work anywhere on the internet. In reality, they are just protecting their rights; even if they had the desire to do so, do you really think they have the resources to steal everyone's work and resell it? That would be a massive and fruitless undertaking. Just like all conspiracy theories, it just doesn't hold water. If they wanted to scam you, they'd have done it already.
  24. Honestly, I wouldn't sculpt that kind of hair. Actually, I don't think I've ever seen sculpted hair that looked good, except in the case of stylized cartoon characters where it doesn't need to be realistic. The very nature of using brushes gives a clay-like quality that just doesn't suit the shape of natural hair. If you're going for an anime look, fine -- I've seen that done well -- but realize that those cases involved really talented and experienced people. Besides, for a ponytail, I'd probably reccomend not using mesh (at least not for the tail-end), since a flexi-prim would probably give more desireable results. Also, if you're using 4r6, you should have access to zRemesher. That replaced qRemesher, so far as I'm aware and is much better.
  • Create New...