Domsson Lean

One more thing came to my mind. I once wrote a lengthy post about issues with the marketplace search (focus on how reviews seem to affect a listing's position). I wrote it up in 2012, so not sure if it still applies, but it includes lots of actual practical suggestions on what could be improved and how: https://community.secondlife.com/t5/Merchants/Product-Reviews/td-p/1582283/page/2#M24887 It is a long read, but there is a tl;dr at the end, so maybe just check that. To directly bring one suggestion over here, I would love to see the "Was this review helpful? [Yes] [No]" buttons actually have an effect - one that also influences the search algorithm. Late edit: Reading the initial post again, I just realized that my comments are pretty much out of place, as they are not within scope of this project. Sorry for that. I'll just let them sit here anyway, because I don't like deleting stuff. Just ignore me for now.

Sorry if this came up before, didn't have time to read through the 8 pages, but here goes: What I'm wishing for ever since the introduction of mesh is a search filter for "100% mesh only" (and maybe also "no mesh"). Given the fact that products have a field for this, this should - hopefully - be trivial to implement.

Efficient unwrapping / reasonable texture footprint I see teh most horrible unwraps, even from creators who I thought were experienced. Often, the unwrap doesn't even cover half of the texture space. And then, most would also go with the maximum texture resolution of 1024 × 1024 px for each and every small piece. I often see objects that would use 8 × 1024 × 1204 px texures for one single mesh object, where each texture ist mostly pitch black (unused). People need to realize that this does not only increase lag (because you need to download all of these textures), but also is a heavy burden for your graphics card (they all have to be loaded into memory, they all have to be rendered and recalculated in real time). That's one of the biggest (but sadly also one of the most common) No-Gos I see in SL.

Intersting how many of you prefer 2.B. I'm starting to wonder if the main reason for that could be the fact that it has a backdrop, where all the others don't. Anyway, my personal favorite was 2.E. Since 2.B and 2.E share the same font and symbol, I think I might experiment with a mix of both of them. I will also try to make the font a bit bolder, but to be honest, I think being so slim is what mainly makes this font look nice. Using the lightning as the 's' isn't something I would want to see, but using all caps might be worth a try. Again, thanks for all the input - I really appreciate it as this is a very difficult decision for me!

Wow, thanks for all the "votes" so far. Seems like 2B really is the favorite here so far. I wouldn't have guessed. Keep it coming!

Back when I started my store on the Marketplace, I "designed" a logo with the help of good old MS Paint. Now, I think it is time for a touch up. Only problem: I have such a hard time deciding between all the ideas I've come up with! So, hopefully you can give me your opinion on these? I'd appreciate any kind of input. Here you go: 1.B: 2.B: 2.E: 2.F: 3.B: 5.A: That's all so far. If you wonder, here's what I'm trying to go for: Somewhat professional lookA bit of retro wouldn't hurtSimple & cleanI guess it would be nice to keep the lightning as well as the color from the current design. However, I'm basically free to change these and in fact, I've played around with changing both. The reson I put them all up in orange here is because I don't want you to favor one design over another just because it has a different color. Looking forward to any input! Cheers :)

- "That's deceitful and lies." - "indeed and in the buisness world thats how most things work" I can't tell you how much I hate this kind of attitude. What kind of justification is that, "that's how things work"? If one does the wrong thing, one does the wrong thing. Gnnnh, really, it makes me so angry. I will never ever get along with that kind of people.

Gaia, a feature to reorder the materials would be awesome. How often did I go to the struggle to manually remove, then re-assign the materials again, just to please the mesh uploader? Two simple arrows, as Drongle suggested, would be really helpful there.

Wow, you're giving up fast on this one. Why don't you try and supply Drongle with a bit more info? He's like a mesh physics magician so chances are he might be able to help with more input.

Hey Drongle, I just ran into the very same issue you discovered and described here. A simple 2-plane physics shape that gave me physics cost greater than 1000. I take it by editing the collada file in a way that there will only be nicely rounded values is a workaround, right? Other than that, did you file a Jira on this one? If so, what's the status on it? Thanks in advance!

Yeah, I'm currently adding steps to the wall piece, which will solve the problem without using hidden faces. Still, it's uncool that one has to work around this (adding a hidden plane will still leave the physics shape at <0.5m, hence the performance problems are probably not helped) and to dig trough forums to even get to know about it.

My approach of making the hole for the door bigger by 0.1m in each direction, then hitting "Analyze" on upload gave a pretty pleasing result. However, the physics cost - when turned to "Prim" - are 0.4 for the un-analyzed and 2.1 (!) for the analyzed model. I feel like destroying something.

Hey you both, the inivisible face was my first idea, too, though I can't help but feel it's a pretty dirt workaround for something I would call a bug rather than a restriction. Again, it's just unintuitive (if not pointless) that the same model will work or not work depending on whether one hit the "Analyze" button or not. And it's also highly unintuitive that the Analyzed model will apparently make the model "thicker". By the way, this might be the reason for it letting you through - if the process of analyzing really adds 0.1m (and that it seems to to according to my tests and prim-measurings) to all faces, then my physics mesh with a thikness of 0.4m would end up being 0.6m, hence the "Prim" option wouldn't be changed by the server. Again (2): Any place where all these oddities are documented? I'm losing the overview. PS: Good catch with the triangle, Dongle. I removed that just seconds after taking the screenshot.

Also, I wish the whole physics business was more intuitive. Without reading through the wiki and dozens of forum posts, it is impossible to just "understand" the physics stuff. And even then, stuff like the .5m minium size will kick in and ruin your day. Instead of a Jira request to display the switch, shouldn't we request that the minium size is changed to, for example, 0.1m? And what about Analyze - why does that give basically the same result as without, but about 0.1m thicker in each direction? Is stuff like that discussed at the mesh meetings? I haven't been there in a while. Or is there some wiki (or whatever) page (or other resource) that documents all this in a comprehensive and readable manner?

Hey Drongle, thanks for this very, very important piece of information. This puzzled me with previous projects, too, but I was able to work around it there in other ways. It's still weird that when hitting "Analyze", the physics shape will *not* turn back to convex hull silently, although the piece is still just 0.4m thick. Is there an explanation for this behaviour, too? Anyway, now I'm wondering what to do in a case like this? Here, the piece is 0.4m and has to be 0.4m thick. I can't just make it 0.5m. Isn't there some smart way to solve this? I thought about making the doorway about 0.1m bigger in each direction, then hit the "Analyze" button on upload. I'll do that right now to see what result it gives.