ChinRey

April 7

13 hours ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

I wonder how deep LL checks for assets...

If a creator keeps a texture item in their avatar inventory (very likely), is that enough to count?

All assets are stored in SL's asset databases so that can not be the issue.

April 1

2 hours ago, Carolyn Zapedzki said:

I will give that a go, they should still look fine on a straight wall as well? It's for stuff I sell.

You can simply include both a flat and a curved copy of the poster in the package you sell

March 31

8 hours ago, Rick Nightingale said:

The tops are identical, in fact B was made by shift-dragging A. What's going on?

Are they the same length too? A is expected behaviour for a long, thin cylinder, B is not.

There is a quirk in how SL handles LOD for cylinders. For all other objects the swap distances are determined (among other factors) by the size along all three axises. But for cylinders the z size is ignored and since the distance are calculated from the center of the object, you can sometimes get LOD swaps even before you reach the end of it.

I once asked Grumpity Linden about it and she said "it's amazing how many tris we save this way." She may have a point; it's been this way for more than 20 years and it's amazing how few people have noticed.

March 29

15 hours ago, wantedfelon said:

Can someone please help me fix this?

31,676 vertices and 62,672 tris - I think that explains it. You can't expect the viewer to handle high poly meshes reliably.

So it's time to clean up your mesh. There are tons of superfluous vertices there so you can easily cut it down to a four digit number of vertices and tris with no notcieable difference in the shape. And if you do the ridges along the sides and the headboard as textures/normal maps, it shouldn't be difficult to get the counts down below 1,000 even.

March 28

1 hour ago, Persephone Emerald said:

The metaverse in Snow Crash was a single platform that pretty much everyone used.

...

The metaverse in Ready Player One was more like SL in many ways (not surprising since it was inspired by SL), and was also used by pretty much everyone.

There is no such thing as a metaverse then since no virtual world is even close to being "used by pretty much everyone".

March 17

2 hours ago, derek244 said:

I have a resort I purchased that has what appears to be a hidden prim on one small area. I walk then rise over it then down again. I set highlight transparency but it wont show. Ive done everything to find the prim. Is it something else?

It can be a "ghost prim" an object that was deleted but for some reason are still in the physics engine. Or it can be some dodgy ground physics. In either case restarting the region should fix the problem. The regular weekly restart may not fix it though but if you ask LL to do a more thorough reboot, the problem should go away.

Edit: It can also be a nearby with dodgy physics. Sometimes a sculpt or a mesh can have a bounding box and physics shape that extends well outside the visual shape.

March 12

2 hours ago, PheebyKatz said:

Just posting these so you can see what kinda stuff I was referencing, and I should have done that in my original post.

Ok. I don't really have much to add to the replies I posted to those threads but I think I should emphasize one crucial and often overlooked trick I mentioned in both:

If you want to ensure seamless joints between two meshes, make sure the overall dimensions of each and the position of every single vertice along the seams are a precisely a number of millimeters that is divisable by 2. If you don't it can be very difficult, even impossible, to align them correctly in-world.

March 12

33 minutes ago, Porky Gorky said:

But something that has been bugging me is that I can import 2 models with the same number of polys and the same size bounding box yet they can have different Li. I'm wondering if your comment about triangle size is the answer because the only difference between the two meshes would be the size of the polys.

No, that's a different issue. The download weight, which is the weight that usually determines the land impact, is calculated from two factors, the calculated swap distances between the four LOD models (which again depend on the size of the object's bounding box) and the file size of each of them.

The file size depends partly on the amount of raw data of course but also on how much the compression algorithm (good old gzip) can compress the data and even minor differences in the data structure can have a significant impact on that.

Here's a seriously oversimplified digtal example to illustrate. Take the string 1000010000. It can represented as 2x(1+4x0). But move the 1 in the middle to 1000100000 and we get 1+3x0+1+5x0, a significantly more complex string.

50 minutes ago, Porky Gorky said:

Is there an optimal triangle size (in cm)?

No, there's no optimal triangle size, the rule is always to have as few as possible (but not fewer). However, with small triangles you usually need more of them, increasing the file size, and big triangles take up a lot of space, increasing the object size. So by combining them into a single mesh, you get both a relatively large and bounding box, increasing both the factors that determine the download weight.

So the general rule is to not combine big and small tris in a single mesh. But remember there is no rule without exceptions. Look at this little cottage for example:

The doorframe has 24 small tris and the window 28 so normally we want those as separate meshes. Normally they shuold have been done as separate meshes but this is a 1 LI house so it can only have two parts in the linkset. The door has to be separate to be movable so everything else had to be made as a single mesh. This is a good example of how the different rules for optimisation conflict with each other so you have to choose one or the other.

March 12

1 hour ago, PheebyKatz said:

Judging by the lack of response, either nobody knows anything new, or nobody cares.

Awww, I didn't notice your post until now. 😉

On 3/5/2024 at 3:47 AM, PheebyKatz said:

1: Considering the fact that I'd be using the same size textures either way, how much does it matter what size my actual model is when I upload it? Does size of the mesh at the time of upload make any noticeable difference in the quality of the final result, like a model imported at full-size vs. a model imported small-scale and then resized?

It makes no difference whatsoever so do it the way you prefer.

On 3/5/2024 at 3:47 AM, PheebyKatz said:

2: For detailed work at over 64 x 64 meters, does everything still work pretty much the way it did in 2017, or have their been any significant changes as to how to ensure upload quality? Will the info out there still produce optimal results (like using cubes to slice the mesh, etc.)? Or what do people do now that's different?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Can you give us a link to that 2017 post you found?

Here are a few general rules for splitting a mesh into a linkset though:

Try to keep the distance between the center of each part to less than 64 m. If it's bigger, you won't be able to link them. (This has changed since 2017 btw, the max link distance used to be 54 m.)
If possible, avoid splitting parts that have the same texture. It's no big deal if you have to though.
For optimal LOD and LI split big and small tris into separate meshes.
For optimal LI, try to get the download weight and server weight of the linkset as equal as possible.
If the linkset includes several identical elements (such as windows on a building), upload one copy and duplicate it in-world.

These rules often conflict with each other so be prepared to make some compromises.

2 hours ago, PheebyKatz said:

Now watch everyone tell me they would have done it differently once it's all finished. XD

Well, it's always easier to give feedback to a finished build than to some abstract questions so that can't be avoided. But you do know about the beta grid, right? You can do test uploads there for free and that's crucial if you want to improve your meshes without wasting tons of L$.

February 24

The only way I can think of is to use one or more flexiprims. A single flexiprim with a good chain texture should work quite decently and with four synchronized flexiprims you can make a chain that looks convising even at close range.

Edit: On second thought, maybe two would be enough, not four.

February 13

5 hours ago, IvyTechEngineer said:

A 3D model of the house will give students a better appreciation of the design.

Yes, that's potentially a great use for Second Life. I assume you want your students to be able to walk around inside the house to get a feel of how it works and that causes a few problems.

SL avatars tend to be considerably bigger than RL humans so you want to make special avatars to match RL scale.

The default camera position far behind and above the avatar won't work inside an RL scale building and even a modern "game style" camera position is too far off to really give the level of immersion you need. So you want to go into mouselook.

Both these issues can be solved when you're aware of them but there's a third one, walking speed. In SL it's about twice as fast as in RL. Try to move around in your RL house at a brisk jogging speed and you see the problem. A don't know any solution to this unfortunately. The CtrAltStudio viewer, which was specially made for VR headsets, solved it by continuosly starting and stopping the movements but I don't think any current viewer has any similar function.

February 3

1 hour ago, RubyPassion said:

This topic is of interest to me from a display HUD point of view. For me it is much more convenient to script a prim HUD. Does it make a different if I have a HUD of 78 prims or is it better to create a mesh HUD with different faces? Did anyone research that?

I haven't researched it but I can't imagine it would make much difference. If you have 78 faces, presumably with 78 different textures, the load caused by the geometry is a drop in the ocean compared to what the textures cause. So choose whatever suits you.

January 24

20 minutes ago, BartPitcher said:

Maybe, repetitiveness versus variance is also a factor of quality. Is it possible to re-use model 'snip-its' that have high level of detail? I'm not sure if you re-use a branch with leaves a couple of times in a tree model would reduce the amount of poly's. To define the tree in the model app I assume re-use the same sub structure could be efficient, but at the end all these re-used parts need to be rendered individually because each re-used part has different positions, angles, etc.?

That's an advanced question, certainly not a noob one.

Second Life does not have object instancing (yet) but there can still be a lot to save by assembling objects from a few standardised modules rather than making them from big single meshes since it can drastically reduce the amount of data the client has to download (or retrieve from cache) and process. The most render efficient way to make a tree would be to use a few such modules for the trunk and branches and make the foliage entirely from prim sheets. That would mean a huge icnrease in the land impact though. Land impact has nothing to do with render efficiency, it's all about server load and as far as the server is concerned, an object is an object. It doesn't matter if it's a high poly mesh or a simple prim and it doesn't matter if it's part of a linkset or not. (The latter is a fundamental flaw in SL's software btw but it's one that would be horrendously difficult to fix now.)

One of the biggest secrets of efficient building is to find the right balance between render load and land impact. This is a bit of an art really since there are no absolute rules and every case is unique. For trees, splitting the canopy is definitely a part of this balancing act.

If you look at the two trees in picture above, the small one has a canopy made from a single mesh. That's the only way to get the LI down to 1 and the foliage only has 24 tris anyway so it's hardly going to affect the load. The big tree, however have a canopy made from three different meshes, some of them copied so adding up to seven parts.

With that being said, textures are still far more important for render load than geometry and there's a lot more to save by re-using textures than meshes.

January 23

51 minutes ago, BartPitcher said:

Thanks again. Was trying this with low LI mesh trees I had, but they did completely disappear at longer view distances. But they are not the cross panel type, will try these.

Oh, I hope you don't misunderstand me. It's perfectly possible to make good looking low LI high LOD trees without going all the way down to crossed panels.

Take these two trees for example. The one to the left is 21 m tall and 4 LI, the one to the right 10 m and only 1 LI yet (you have to take my word for it here) they never disappear or even distort noticeably until you go beyond your veiwer's draw distance.

bilde.png.1da866e4110c0fdbdac587806defe66f.png

The trees from the creators I mentioned in my first post are not quite at that level but they are close enough I'm sure you'll be happy with them.

1 hour ago, BartPitcher said:

And yes, I already use very big sculpt Heart oak trees. Mesh can't do that

Ummm, I think my picture prooves you wrong there. Mesh can do that but there are only a handful of mesh makers skilled enough and very few of them make trees.

But sculpts do make a lot of sense for very big feature trees as long as you don't have too many of them and Lilith Heart's old oaks are still among the best there are in SL in that category.

January 23

This isn't nice of me but often in the past (not so much recently) I've had the feeling the SL population could be divided into:

0. People who's opinion doesn't matter

1. Programmers

January 23

1 hour ago, BartPitcher said:

I now use Kriss Lehmann's Botanical trees.

Ok. His cedars aren't too bad actually. At least not from what I've seen. I never needed cedars myself so I never looked too closely at the options for that particular tree.

January 23

3 hours ago, BartPitcher said:

My current challenge is to find trees that do not disappear if you move away half a sim distance. With the client LOD setting maxed out, I found some that still have reasonable LI, like 4 to 5 for the bigger trees, 1 for the small. However, at a certain distance the LOD reduces in such a way that the shadows disappear, which is almost as ugly as disappearing objects.

Off the top of my head I can only think of four mesh tree creators who fit that bill: Reid Parkin (Mesh Plants), Alex Bader (Skye), Teresa Matfield (T-Spot) and one I'm not allowed to mention here.

I'm sure there are a few others too so let's see what others recommend.

---

Edit: No, make it four. I completely forgot Eldowyn Inshan (United InshCon) since I never got around to use any of her works on my own sim. I've also seen low LI/lag trees with good LOD by others but I don't know of any who does it consistently.

I was in a similar situation as you about ten years ago, building a two sim landscape with low lag and long distance visibility. In the end I had to learn how to make trees myself but even after that I was still happy to keep the Teresa Matfield and Alex Bader ones I already had. (Reid Parkin's trees weren't on the market yet at that time as far as I know.) They weren't quite up to the standard I wanted but close enough not to cause any serious issues and far better than most mesh trees on the market.

----

Edit 2: If you want low lag, low LI and good LOD lush vegetation, it's important to think in layers: Very simple (even down to old style crossed panel) meshes for smaller plants and plants that are well away from where people are likely to go, well optimized medium detail plants (like the ones from the makers I mentioned) for the bulk of trees and then a few highly detailed mesh or sculpt(!) ones in strategic spots. The two Grand Old Ladies of SL trees, Lilith Heart and Nadine Reverie are worth checking out for the latter.

I already posted a message about this long ago so I won't go into details here. Take a look at https://community.secondlife.com/forums/topic/465598-plants-lag-and-a-new-classification-system-for-vegetation/

January 22

5 hours ago, IvyTechEngineer said:

The first thing to do would be to merge some vertices around the edge of the partial spheres. Next, I can use the slide vertices to move them so they align around the partial sphere edge.

Just a quick comment without reading the whole discussion (sorry, I'm a bit busy atm). Normally the edges are the last place you want to simplify a curved surface because that's where the angles between the vertices are most visible.

January 21

2 hours ago, Paul Hexem said:

SL itself can be free, but the requirements to access is where the cost is.

That's a very good point. SL is only free for people who need the hardware anyway and most people don't.

January 11

7 hours ago, Monica Greenfield said:

It's not a super complex shape in terms of polygons, and is approximately 16x16x1m.

One thing you can try before you simplify the physics model is to increase the height of your terrain a bit. It's a bit counter intuitive but SL's physics engine doesn't like small meshes and at 1 m you're close to or past the limit where the physics weight starts to skyrocket.

If you end up simplifying the physics, you may want to consider simplifying the main model to match too. For walkable surfaces it's often more important to maintain a perfect match between visuals and physics than to add lots of details.

January 3

1 hour ago, Doris Johnsky said:

So if I make a shape there's nothing i need to do to make it mesh compatible?

There's nothing you need to do to make it mesh compatible but you do want to tweak those shape sliders to get the best result. It's not about system vs mesh body either. Each mesh needs its own tweaks.

3 hours ago, Doris Johnsky said:

3. What makes the face look as it does? Shape or skin? I assume shape, with skin being the coloration, but it may be a combination.

It's always the combination. Even the best shape can look bad if the skin doesn't fit it and vice versa.

January 1

2 hours ago, Lisa Schlesinger said:

So if there are common hang out places for people who like to create in/for SL please point me in the right direction.

I don't know of any hang out places for builders but you should really join the classes at Builder's Brewery and also at Happy Hippsters. Not only are they great for learning building skills but also to meet other builders.

December 26, 2023

13 hours ago, arton Rotaru said:

IMO it's up to anybody to download a capable viewer. If one chooses to stay as long as they can on an outdated viewer, that's not my problem.

One rather important question then: are there still people running Widows 8.1 or earlier here? If so, they may not be able to even run the current versions of the viwers, let alone future ones.

Now, Windows versions before 10 are not officially supported by Second Life and I have no idea if this is a genuine problem, which is why I ask. But it's definitely something we should consider.

December 25, 2023

41 minutes ago, arton Rotaru said:

Well, the advanced stuff is handled with glft extensions.

There are still a lot of aspects of "full PBR" that are missing and for good reason.

For those not too familiar with the concept, the idea with Physical Based Rendering is that instead of simply reproducing the colors across a surface, we try to simulate all the physical factors that cause those colors. But there are so many such factors and they interact with each other in so many weird and wonderful ways. If we were to take PBR all the way, we would have to measure render lag in frames per year, not frames per second. Some people wouldn't be happy about that so we have to compromise a little bit to make it work.

December 25, 2023

13 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

The Creative Commons PRB materials site I noted above doesn't include an Albedo or base colour map, but it does have something called "Diffuse." I'm assuming, because these are PBR textures, that this is just what they've chosen to call it.

Slightly, but not completely, off topic: To understand this, it's important to realise that PBR is not a standard. It's a concept with a lot of different implementation. This is why there is so much confusion about the names of various maps.

The Khronos Group is trying to establish a standard for it now, based on Unity's old PBR system. But there are still lots of other variants around and there will probably always be, partly because some won't change, partly because glTF PBR is a very simplified take on the concept and may not be advanced enough for many uses.

10 hours ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

If you let a viewer/server do the 2048 to 1024 resize, the quality will suck. Do the resize your self BEFORE uploading texture maps.

The SL software very often does a better job scaling from 2048 to 1024 than the most common scaling algorithms used by various image eitors. It's a bit of a hit or miss though and if you really, really, really want to make the most of each pixel and are willing to spend some time and effort on it, head over to the beta grid and try different scaling methods (including the one built into the SL software) and see what works best.

Forums

Blogs

Knowledge Base

Posts posted by ChinRey

Linden Lab

Tilia

Second Life

Connect With Us

Partner With Us