Rahkis Andel

If you really examine the edge flow of the current avatars, you'll notice that asides from some optimizations with old technology in mind, it was probably all quads before being triangulated. The mesh has a pretty good distribution of edges too. The only time it turns into a canyon is where the weights were sloppily executed. Besides, any avatar 2.0 will not be significantly more high-poly than the one we have now (~7000 tris). Having a crotch that resembles a human one will -not- make clothing generation easier anyway. Unless you are making skin tight clothes, that copy-paste method just isn't very optimal. Most practical, well made clothing will mimic the avatar's edge distribution, but not perfectly copy it. There may be some clipping in crazy animations, but that is what alphas are for. To repeat what I said before, all a better avatar is going give us is a better looking avatar, not better looking clothing.

Coby Foden wrote: Ashasekayi Ra wrote: RE: The clipping issue I think part of the problem is unrealistic expectations of what the mesh deformer and/or Avatar 2.0 will be able to do Even if we get a perfect Avatar 2.0 (which I haven't seen any Linden officially agree will be created), there will never be a way to achieve zero clipping for every single clothing item made by various creators with varying topology. I found this video very interesting: http://3d-studio-max.wonderhowto.com/how-to/animate-clothing-without-your-avatar-skin-penetrating-outer-mesh-379834/ Now, if we had better avatar mesh, then that mesh could be used as a base for clothing items, by copying it and expanding it a bit. Then the avatar and clothing item would have the same exact topology. It could well be so that in a situation like this the deformer would do near perfect and amazingly excellent job. You already can: Funnily enough, when you make clothes this way you get near perfect results (Perfect, as in clothes that deform exactly as the avatar does, thereby not clipping). A better avatar would look better, yes (particularly if it were weighted more carefully), but it would not perform better with layers of clothes made by different artists. If creators think Avatar 2.0 is going to make their clothes magically never clip, I've got some bad news for them: The reality is that either their technique is poor or they don't grasp that some clipping is inevitable and must simply be covered up. And you know, thats unfortunately the impression I get from some people...

I guess you never made it to page 3 because that's exactly what I said.

Can't win 'em all.

You're working with a subdivision surface. That only affects the object while you are editing it in maya. When exported to collada to bring into second life, one of two things can happen to make it stay smooth: One, the subsurf becomes applied and the vertex data is permanently subdivided. Two, the subsurf is simply lost and you go back to the original shape. I'm not sure what is causing the difference here because it really doesn't matter if it's rigged or not. I don't know how to apply the subsurf in Maya, but if you do, that's all you have to do before exporting. In Blender, our .dae exporter automatically applies modifiers for us, which is nice.

Looks like I came out in front this time.

I honestly don't know if this will fix your problem or not, but if you want to fix the origin do the following: - Select the main object that you want everything to follow and press (Shift + s) and select "cursor to selected". This will snap your 3d cursor to the center of your main object. - Then select all parts of the strap and press (ctrl + shift + alt + c) and select "origin to 3d cursor". That will make sure all object origins are in the same spot. Like I said, I have no idea whether or not that willl fix the problem, but this should be useful for you to know anyway. Let me know how it goes.

This may be off topic, but from my perspective Avatar 2.0 is the last thing I'd hold the deformer for. Let me be clear that there is nothing you can do to the default avatar to prevent all clipping. It is up to the clothing makers to fine tune their clothing weights to minimize the appearance of clipping, and even then there will still be a need for alphas to cut out problem areas. Why will alpha's always be needed? Clothes clip because there is a topological discrepancy between the clothing and the body. Clothing designers want to make the smoothest, most natural looking, highest-poly content they can get away with. The default avatar on the other hand will always have to be low poly. When the avatar wants to bend, it will be incapable of bending as smoothly as the higher-poly clothing that is laying on top of it. On a small scale, this is what happens: Not the greatest example, but you get the idea. _______________________________________________________________ So, what happens when Avatar 2.0 inevitably fails to satisfy expectations? More anger, complains and bad mouthing. And people wonder why it seems that LL ignores it's community? I do not envy their position. Regardless, if Avatar 2.0 is the only reason the project is delayed, and I doubt it, there is going to be a problem.

I'm with you 100% on all the points made. I am ready to see the Deformer released based on what I've seen, but just because it seems ready for my needs doesn't mean that it's ready for integration. I'm willing to wait for an informed decision to be made. Let's get real here: It is in no one's best interest for the deformer to never be released.

Here's a free idea. Feel free to steal it. Minecraft boots; The lowest detail footgear on Second Life. 8-bits of color depth. Buy now!

Just to clarify, your question was answered, yes? You can just use the highest LOD for all levels for something like this. If you wanted to give it a lot more detail and make the upper floor walkable, then you'd want to start thinking about this again. @Kwakkelde Kwak: Your patience is admirable. I seriously wasn't expecting for you to actually explain that. I was only pulling your leg, my friend.

Well, I see no open complaints for your GPU and your hardware seems sufficient. Do you have any screenshots of what appears to be happening in game when you try to res these objects? I mean, are they there, but just aren't visible? Edit: Codewarrior, i guess we wake up at about the same time, then.

Unless it's a ghooooost houuuse.

That is...really weird. Mesh is mesh is mesh. It doesn't really matter what the brand is, there is nothing anyone could be doing to their mesh to make you not be able to see it. Unless you bought something "defective". A bad product, that is to say. Could you provide your computer specs?

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: Actually those buildings should be the easiest and low LI ones around. All shapes are very primitive. Anyway, if it can be built in RL, it can certainly be built in virtual space. The problem with the windows is, with small ones you can make them opaque at a certain LoD. With very large glass surfaces (biodomes?) that could look very distactive. I'm half asleep, sorry. What are we talking about again?

Well, for one, I wouldn't worry too much about this one. It doesn't require enough tris to worry much about different LODs. Edit: Haha, I said "for one", but I really don't have anything else to say, there. I don't think you need to worry about how that is connected. it's just two stacked cuboids and a triangular roof.

That's not impossible, just challenging. The glass would be an issue, but then again, a little creativity could make that work too. Granted, I'm all talk here. I'm not willing to go through the trouble of attempting to do this to illustrate a point. Take that as a concession if you like.

Are you being sarcastic? Your comment so flippantly disregards all logical reasoning that I find myself wondering if you could possibly be serious. I'd love -- love-- to pick apart your "arguments" but I can't shake the feeling that by doing so I'd be the buzz-kill ruining the joke.

Chosen Few wrote: Rahkis Andel wrote: I think the most relevant point here is that it is frustrating to see blatant copyright infringement and not be able to so much as report it. I'm not sure why people feel they can't report it. There just seems to be tremendous misunderstanding about to whom such reports should be delivered. It's NOT Linden Lab. The proper thing to do, not just in SL, but in all cases of suspected infringement, is to report it directly to the IP owner. I do that all the time, and I don't find it frustrating in the least. As an example, not two days ago, I discovered that a local comic book shop in my area was selling their own in-house produced Superman comics. So, I called DC, and told them what I saw. I assume DC will take action to stop it, but it's really none of my business whether they do or they don't. It's for them to decide what happens with their property, not me. In reporting it to them, I did my civic duty, and that's where my role ends. By the same token, if I were to come across the "Batman from Arkham Asylum" models that the OP mentioned, I'd alert Warner Bros., as they're the ones responsible for that particular property. And again, that's where my role would end. Would it be satsifying to know that action was indeed taken, and that the ripoff artists were shut down? Sure. But if DC, or WB, or whoever, decides not to pursue it, should that bother me? Not at all. It's none of my business what they choose to do or not do in defense of their own property. My concern is strictly to ensure that they be made aware of it, so that they can decide for themselves. Honestly, it never occurred to me to do that. There you go, folks.

I'm not sure how that was a reply to my comment. I didn't say anything at all about how well the mesh deformer code works. I'm plenty impressed with it. Frankly, if the project really was ready for release, I'd expect it to be released. Just because the deformer code works doesn't mean it's ready to be released into a production environment where it could potentially do unforseen damage. Perhaps you're right, though. In that case, I'd want to see exactly what Oz has said and what his current stance is. All I've seen is hearsay. If it really is ready and LL is just arbitrarily dragging it's feet to annoy the community (I doubt it), then I certainly hope your call to action works. I would like to see it released asap, after all. I'm just not going to hold my breath.

Ciaran Laval wrote: I know you can take a different approach for internal walls and floors as opposed to external ones, but external ones are often part of a mesh that is also going to be an internal wall too. Just to clarify, there is no building layout I can think of where the external walls must be connected to the inner ones. If you have a problem with that, post again with a screenshot of what you are trying to do and I'll show you how to make it modular. It sounds like you know what you're doing, though.

Agreed. They said they were trying to walk inside of it, though, so it stands to reason that they can't get away with not having the additional faces.

The fact that LL is trying to make no promises and keep the Deformer project plans hushed should suggest to you all that they already know the community wants it. What good do you think more voices are going to do, exactly? LL clearly realizes that this isn't something that they must release immediately to avoid a mass exodus of Second Life. How do we put pressure on them to release something they aren't ready to release? From what I understand, the community has never successfully pressured LL into doing anything. It's a bit of a futile exercise, don't you think? The community has absolutely no leverage, here. It is in everyone's best interest that the Deformer is released and works well, LL included. It will be released -- Let's just be patient. The new material system is more of an exciting prospect anyway.

Add a solidify modifier. It should have a thickness property to...well, define the thickness, of course. The problem is that SecondLife will not display the backside of a face. The back of the face is the direction opposite of that which the normal is facing.

I think the most relevant point here is that it is frustrating to see blatant copyright infringement and not be able to so much as report it. In the end, however, LL would just drown in the deluge of reports they would immediately get and summarily have to research the validity of. Honestly, do we want to see -more- of LL be dedicated to conflicts of interest? I imagine their IT and Customer Service departments must live an endless hell as it is. I can think of no other game with the complications that Second Life could have with user uploaded content and a centralized marketplace and currency and everything. I'd rather see them focus more effort on actually improving SL, not arbitrating justice to pirates, irritating as they may be. Let's just do our parts and not buy their crap, yeah?