Aquila Kytori

The screenshots you linked to appear to show two different versions of the ashtray? :

Looks like you have it sorted now The UV map area turned black because somewhere along the line you created a new image texture with a black background called "uv frame box" and have it loaded up as your image texture in the UV space. This will have no effect the UV map when exporting the UV layout. When exporting, the UV layout it will be saved as black edges on a transparent background, ready to be used as a guide to creating a texture in your 2D image editor (Gimp, PS, Paint.net etc ).

No you weren't wrong, there are not huge changes between 2.8 and 3.4 . So what you learn from from a book published in 2020 is still very relevant. Also, if need be, you can have multiple versions of Blender on your computer. Just download the corresponding version of Blender. https://download.blender.org/release/ I have 4 versions available on my taskbar. If I remember correctly Blender for Dummies didn't offer alot of examples when it comes to how to go about unwrapping an object. It just explained a little about the UV options and a step by step on how to UV unwrap (and paint) an eye object. The important thing is what Optimo said :

I to had Blender for Dummies by Jason Van Gumster. The edition I had was for Blender 2.5. It got lost somewhere but before that I had about every page for the first half of the book marked yellow with marker pen. I remember it was beginning to fall apart from all the use I got out of it. I loved it . Unfortunately the latest edition, fourth edition, came out over 3 years ago, January 2020, and was for Blender 2.80. The next edition is planned for December 2023 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blender-Dummies-5th-van-Gumster-dp-1394204043/dp/1394204043/ref=dp_ob_title_bk Would I recommend the edition for 2.80 for you now when you will be using Blender 3.4 ? ............. I just opened Blender 2.83 to have a quick check on how it looks compared to 3.41......................... If you have €30 burning a hole in your pocket then yes I probably would . ( + another 2 euros for a marker pen and a note book ).

In the mesh uploader's preview window you will find that the "triangles that are too small" are indicated by thick black edges and vertices in the SL viewer and by red edges and vertices when using the Firestorm viewer. You may have to zoom in on the objects in the preview window to see them. Then you have to go back to Blender, search the area of the physics model indicated in the mesh uploader's preview window and get rid of them. In the example below there are a couple of vertices at the cut-out for the tunnel that are causing there to be very narrow triangles when the physics model is triangulated. When using the SL viewer : Firestorm viewer : Back in Blender, checking the areas indicated in the Preview window for the problematic triangles that are causing the errors : When you think you have corrected the Physics model re-export and try uploading again. If you have no more errors then you're done, if not its back to Blender and more searching. Note: There are two types of model that we can create in Blender to use as our Physics model : Planes (triangle) type physics model. Box (hull) type physics model. Planes type is when we construct our physics model using quads and triangles (planes) as you are doing now with the physics model for your building. Box type is when we construct our collision model using "box" shapes. See below for an example of a Box type physics model for one of your circular rooms. In the Mesh uploader > Physics tab, when using a Planes type physics model we don't touch anything in Step 2 or Step 3 , the mesh uploader leaves our physics model just as we created it. That is a mesh constructed of Triangles. Our collision surfaces will be Triangles. When we give the mesh uploader a Box type physics model to use for collisions we need to ask the uploader to Analyze it in Step 2 of the Physics tab. The uploader is then tasked to convert the model we gave it into a collection of Hulls ("boxes") We left a little space between each of our boxes when constructing our physics mesh in Blender so that the uploader can more easily create ""hulls" where we want them to be. When Analyzed the collision surfaces will be a collection of Hulls. But don't worry about the Box type, for buildings its usually best to do as you have been doing, using the Planes type physics. And all you need to remember is when using the Planes type Physics DON'T touch anything in Step 2 or Step 3 of the Physics tab of the mesh uploader. A quick recap of the 3 rules that should be followed when creating a physics mesh. Each visual model (object) has to have its own physics model. The Bounding Box (BB) X, Y and Z dimensions of the physics model should match the BB dimensions of the visual model. Keep the physics model as simple as possible. Your physics model is falling foul of rule N° 3, The mesh uploader doesn't like to find very small, very thin or degenerate triangles in the physics mesh. The "very small, very thin" are relative to the size of the model. What is classed as a 'too small' triangle in a large mesh would not necessarily be a problem in a smaller physics model. A Degenerate triangle is a triangle with zero area. Two (or 3) of its vertices are occupying the same point in the 3D space. For short term file sharing you could use Litterbox. https://litterbox.catbox.moe/ Just make sure that you set it to use the 1 or 3 day option.

Isn't that what the Sort by Object name option in Blenders Collada exporter is for ? 6 Objects to be exported: Or have it fixed so that it can read and use the order of objects it finds in the .dae file. ? The people who "upload everything as "Object" " obviously don't care what order the objects are dealt with.

GLOD replaced by MeshOptimizer (one word). From Inara Pey's Living in a modern world, https://modemworld.me/2022/09/09/firestorm-6-6-3-performance-improvements/#lab " The Performance Improvements viewer also includes the MeshOptimizer Project . By default, this replaces obsolete GLOD’s mesh simplification in the mesh uploader with the newer and more powerful MeshOptimizer package to provide better level of detail (LOD) modelling during the upload process. Note that as an option, Firestorm also retains the GLOD capability – see below for more. " The Glod option is the one named Reliable.

Thanks for the correction Optimo,

Edited to add: See @OptimoMaximo 's reply below. "A rigged mesh doesn't bring its textures automatically during upload, it's a long standing bug that was never fixed. One can try all combinations of options during export, and although the texture files can be correctly referenced, the uploaded won't take them. At all. Never, no matter what." So unfortunately it isn't going to work for your monkey. Below this only applies for Static mesh models : To upload the the texture image along with the model you need to check the Include textures option in the mesh uploader. Mesh Uploader > Upload Options > Include textures. see images below. I had always thought that it was necessary, when exporting to Collada , to have the Textures Options > Copy ("Copy textures to same folder where the .dae file is exported.") option enabled so that when opening in the Mesh uploader, the uploader could look in the same folder containing the model.dae and find the texture image that is referenced in the Collada file. But apparently that is not necessary ? Uploading a cube with a grid image texture assigned to it : As an experiment I painted on the grid image texture in Blender and repeated the export. Note that the modified image texture was not saved before exporting the Cube : Looking inside the Collada file of the of the first Cube it seems to indicate that the image texture is to be searched for from its original location on my hard drive : but with the modified image texture it seems to be referencing the Blender file ? : And with the Texture Options > Copy option checked it is again referencing the Blender file ? Deleting the resultant Image texture .jpg from the folder containing the Cube.dae still results in a succesfull upload of cube + image texture ! Any ways , that was just me doing some experimenting ................. As a general rule, enable Texture Options > Copy, when you want to have your textures exported along with the model. I can't think of any advantage of uploading the image texture along with the model and as Quarrel has already mentioned the best is, while still testing and modifying your image texture, to upload your image texture using the Local Textures option so that every time you modify your texture and "save" it in Gimp or PS or while Painting inside off Blender, you can instantly see the changes on your rezzed model inworld without having to continually re-upload it after every modification.

Yes, you are right. @DulceDiva should be using Zbrush like this.

I should just mention first that I don't use Zbrush. I had to use Google Zbrush doesn't do Smooth Shading. A smooth look in Zbrush is achieved by increasing the topology which is probably not what you want or a good idea for a model that will be used in a real time renderer like SL. Here is a 5 year old video explaining this : and here is a link to an add-on that perhaps makes it possible to enable smooth Shading in Zbrush ? (Like I said earlier no guarantees, I don't use Zbrush) : https://mad-pony-interactive.gumroad.com/l/PMkGb so perhaps you can ? To enable Smooth Shading in Blender its : Object mode > Select Model > Object > Shade Smooth > open the Object Data Properties tab > Normals > enable Auto Smooth and then, if necessary play with the Auto Smooth Angle value. If you are using Blender 3.3 or above, then instead of opening the Object Data Properties tab you will find that after Object mode > Select Model > Object > Shade Smooth > an Auto Smooth pop-up menu at the bottom left hand corner of the 3D viewport and from there you can change the angle value. Smooth Shading /Auto Smooth can also be enabled in Edit mode and applied to the selected faces. Edit mode > select geometry to be smoothed > Face > Shade Smooth > Object Data Properties tab > Normals > enable Auto Smooth.

Just a guess until someone who knows more about these things comes along .................. Have you tried Limit Total Vertex Groups or Clean Vertex Group Weights ? link to Blender manual https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/latest/scene_layout/object/editing/cleanup.html and save your work before trying these

Unfortunately Razor this model of a sword is not designed to be used for real time rendering in any game engine, let alone SL. When modifiers have been applied it gives a triangle count of 2,406,144. For Second Life (or any other game) you would need to create a much lower poly version of the Blade, Handle and Scabbard, say 10,000 (or less ) triangles for all 3 objects and then bake out a High to low poly normal map to reproduce all the finer details. Probably using a cage.

You're welcome.

Not one .dae file but one .dae for each level of detail and one for the Physics models. When uploading you point the uploader to the .dae file containing one or more High LoD models then the uploader searches the folder containing the High LoD .dae for the other lower Lod and Physics .dae s and loads them up automatically for you. In the example below there are 4 High Lod models to be uploaded together along with their lower LoD and Physics models. Thats 5 .daes each containing 4 models. :

ooops yes. I was looking only where I was expecting to see it, saw an empty space and decided it wasn't there . And we can only give suggestions, sometimes even suggestions that were not asked for, you are not obliged to follow any of them lol. .............. And ty, I will check out Artscape this weekend. Its been a long time since I wandered around SL just for the fun of it.

if you are still refering to Analyzed physics ........... take a look at the three pillars on the right compared to the three pillars on the left. Each pillar on the left is a single colour indicating each is a single hull. Now the three on the right, each pillar is shaded with at least three different colours ! Why would that be? They need to be checked in Blender. So to start with, in Blender check your pillars and also make each section of wall between pillars clearly separate boxes. Your physics model in the Physics panel is indicating 166 vertices mine 104. Why such a big difference ? Again needs to be looked at in blender.

Go back to the Firstorm for SL viewer and in the Physics panel of the uploader check the number of hulls after hitting the Analyze button. In the Firstorm view you have that little slider which can be used to "explode" (separate) each physics hull as seen in the anim. gif I posted earlier. Remember each colour in the physics preview indicates a separate hull. In your preview panel there are way to many different colours (Hulls) ! There is a reason for this and its the reason why your Physics cost is so high. You see in my anim.gif of a very similar model to yours that there are only 13 Hulls. Yours is showing 35 ! Also the LL viewer does not indicate the real Physics cost of the the model when it is set to Physics Shape type Prim. The Firstorm viewer does. Calculation of Physics cost before upload was 13 x 0.36 = 4.68 and the Firstorm viewer indicates ............. 4.68 Note also I didn't take a chance on the SL Physics analyzer getting it right. Take a look in the preview window of the gif and see how each section of wall between the pillars are separate hulls. Separate hulls in Blender before exporting. (with a little space between each of them which helps the Analyzer to see that I wanted them to be counted as separate hulls). The rule is don't give the Analyzer the option to create hulls where you don't want there to be any. Your mesh YOU decide. lol

The reason I thought that you were using Planes type, not Analysed physics is because in your image we can see the triangles that make up the collision surfaces. I maybe wrong but before, for Analysed physics you couldn't see those when in Physics view? Now, using Firestorm, there is very little difference to distinguish between the two types of Physics. In the screenshot below I think the difference in blue colour is only due to the difference in Physics costs : For analysed Physics the Physics cost is the number of Hulls multiplied by 0.36. So the physics cost should be known in advance. If it is different from what you expected then you have a reason to complain lol . Recap for anyone new to SL mesh that may be reading this, 13 Hulls x 0.36 = 4.68 :

Physics costs can be puzzling at times. For non analysed physics 1 or two small and or thin triangles (small, thin relative to the overall size of the model), or a face that is not quite flat can increase the physics cost a lot. I would have guessed at a cost of between 1 and 2 or even less but to check I did a couple of test uploads. It is hard to see exactly what the back corner of you model looks like so I made two Physics models, 1 with a right angled back bottom corner and one with a back bottom corner at approx 45°. Both models had the same number of triangles. And size matters, (for planes type, non analysed physics) the bigger the model the lower the physics cost. I guessed at 8 x 8 x 4m. I didn't bother making a high Lod model , instead I used the physics model for both visual and Physics. First with the 45° back bottom corner : When rezzed the physics cost was 2.1 Next. to see if in made any difference I rotated this physics model 90° along the X axis in Blender, Applied rotation and exported : Rezzed now the Physics cost was reduced to 1.3 : Same thing with the second physics model, 90° bottom back corner : Rezzed Physics cost is 1.2 : And rotated before exporting : Rezzed gives the lowest Physics cost of 0.7 : Almost identical physics models, both consisting of 80 triangles can result in a factor of 3 difference in physics cost . ( 0.7 to 2.1 ) What to do with your Physics model ? Hmmmm , can't see anything wrong with it. I'm not sure what going on with those 2 (?) angled corner faces, I would try a test upload with those faces removed. Also to increase the average triangle size of your physics model I would drag the bottom edges of your columns and walls so that they are aligned with the bottom edge of the model. Larger average tri size usually means lower Physics cost. If your columns and walls have top faces in the physics model delete them. If all else fails you can always share your physics model here for use to look at ?

Another workaround for the SL minimum Bounding Box dimensions ( 10 x 10 x 10mm) for something like a piece of paper is, instead of adding extra geometry to increase the BB dimensions, simply rotate the model a little before exporting, then when rezzed in-world rotate it back to how it should have been. In the example below the paper is 0.2mm thick (Z axis), after rotating it 10° the BB Z dimension becomes 70mm : Rezzed in-world : But for something so thin it would be better to do as Wulfie suggested, duplicate the top face of the paper and flip the duplicates normals for the back face.

SL has a testing grid (Aditi) where uploads are free. You will still be charged an upload fee but the L$'s used on this Beta testing grid are only pretend L$'s and will not be deducted from the amount you have on the main grid (Agni). Check out these 2 links for a "how to ..........." : https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Preview_Grid

The models in Avatar workbench are the correct size. If your model is too small when it is rezzed in world then the most common cause is that the objects scale in Blender has not been applied. To check this, in Blender > Object mode > select your (joined) model > open the N side panel and have a look at the scale values. They should all be indicating a scale of 1.000 Example of scale not applied: If the X Y Z scale are not at 1.00 then open the Apply menu with CTRL + A and choose the All Transforms option. Example of scale applied: As a general rule, in Blender, Apply Scale and Rotation before using any modifiers or UV unwrapping etc. The All Transforms option applies both at the same time.

The minimum Bounding Box, X Y Z dimensions for a mesh object is 0.01 x 0.01 x 0.01m. If you try to upload a mesh object with one or more dimension less than 10mm then you will find that the uploader automatically stretches the model along those axis so that it complies with the 10mm minimum. There are ways around this by artificially increasing the BB dimensions but in this case Chic is correct in suggesting that the various objects that make up the glasses should be joined to be a single object in Blender before uploading to SL.

Perhaps this is what you are looking for ? https://wiki.firestormviewer.org/fs_older_downloads Not sure if the following is useful for you but if you are uploading with Firestorm you can still choose the the old GLOD option for auto generating the lower LoD models. In the mesh uploader under Source, for each of the lower LoD models you choose the Generate Reliable option. (= old GLOD method). The following is a screenshot from Inra Peys "Living in a modern world" blog : https://modemworld.me/2022/09/09/firestorm-6-6-3-performance-improvements/#lab and also you will find similar info from this Firestorm Wiki page : https://wiki.firestormviewer.org/upload_model_lod?__cf_chl_tk=TLpQ78TQba9TpWEFxVafDtyudFNphEOVKXXUau_OKVI-1665254182-0-gaNycGzNCFE