LaskyaClaren

Madelaine McMasters wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: "Clothes with Lots of Tiny Triangles that Fit Really Well" is a bit of a mouthful... ... for an entire litter! ;-) There aren't enough alpha layers in my inventory to make that picture look right.

Dresden Ceriano wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: It's going to be complicated and confusing for non-techies like myself for a while unless merchants are very clear on what it is that they are offering. I can see an avalanche of complaints coming (probably here) from people who've bought what they assumed was fitted mesh, but which turns out not to be. They do need to establish a clear nomenclature, or all hell will break loose, I fear. It sure is going to be complicated and not just for non-techies like yourself. The term "fitted mesh" is far too generically descriptive to be able to sort out in a search. If LL were smart, they'd come up with an official, specific, non-descriptive term to use for it, much like what was done by the person who came up with the term "liquid mesh". Hell, since LL has claimed unlimited license to use their customer's creations as they choose, they could just usurp the term "liquid mesh" and use that. Of course, considering that fact that they weren't smart enough to even imagine that this might be something their customers would want until years after they implemented rigged mesh, I wouldn't get my hopes up. ...Dres It certainly is going to be a problem, I suspect, and very much a case of "buyer beware." I'm really not big on "liquid mesh" myself, in any case: it sounds too much like a cheesy effect from The Matrix. Also too technical and geeky really. But I suppose "Clothes with Lots of Tiny Triangles that Fit Really Well" is a bit of a mouthful.

BLADEZRAVEN wrote: this is a legitimale question, if you are naked then add giant c0...ck.... than add jeans,will the new mesh wrap itself around your stuff ??? like will blue jeans look like you are walking around with a jeans blue c0n ...dom ??? im not being silly guys this is a real question ! Ew.

Sassy Romano wrote: You won't be able to mix and match if you also want to use physics for boobs and bum. The fitted mesh would bounce and keep poking through the standard mesh. Awkward.

ObviousAltIsObvious wrote: aw, that's a good thing for some of us! it lets us mix and match fitted mesh clothes with "plain old rigged" body parts, and only the invisible LL body has to suffer from the distortions. Well, for me it will probably mean multiple shapes (which I sort of have already, anyway). It'll be nice to be able to free up my sliders a bit for the new mesh stuff, but I'll obviously need to stick with a more standard body type for the clothing I already own. I suppose I can handle that. :-)

Innula Zenovka wrote: Just about any mesh item you wear is "rigged," so it follows your body as you move. "Liquid" or "fitted" mesh is, to oversimplify horribly, rigged in such a way that it deforms to the shape of your avatar, so one size pretty much fits all human avatars (though I'm told we'll still need to wear alpha layers), and we won't have to use standard sizes any more. As I understand it, existing mesh clothes won't be affected one way or the other. I can still wear my existing Standard Size outfits, which will fit no better and no worse than before. But I can now wear liquid mesh items that will fit me whatever size and shape I am, same as system layer clothes do. I don't really know much about liquid mesh, but I did have a play with some of Red Poly's items when first she introduced them, and was most impressed with how well they fit. I could see those items deforming to my shape as I played with the sliders, simply using whatever viewer I was using at the time (probably Catznip or Firestorm). I'm not sure what these liquid mesh items will look like to people using viewers that don't support liquid mesh, but I'm planning to find out. Thanks Innula! It's going to be complicated and confusing for non-techies like myself for a while unless merchants are very clear on what it is that they are offering. I can see an avalanche of complaints coming (probably here) from people who've bought what they assumed was fitted mesh, but which turns out not to be. They do need to establish a clear nomenclature, or all hell will break loose, I fear.

ObviousAltIsObvious wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: Ok, so, technically speaking . . . what's the relation of fitted (i.e., "liquid") mesh, to "rigged" mesh? Is the latter irrelevant to this new roll-out? Help a poor benighted Luddite understand what to look for . . . :-) it's the same thing. liquid mesh is an older unofficial version, without the jiggle and not using the newly added collision bones. the old liquid mesh clothes will keep working the same as before, but they won't take advantage of the new volumes until their makers rework them. "plain old" rigged mesh moves with the body and a few shape sliders, and doesn't try to include the shape's muscle and fat like liquid/fitted mesh. THANK YOU!!!! :-) So what this means, in essence, is that nothing I currently own (whether "rigged" or not) will do this new magical bones-fitting, shape-hugging thing. It will still "work," but only in the way that it did before. Poop.

LaskyaClaren wrote: Innula Zenovka wrote: I don't think that all of those 13,355 items can be fitted (liquid) mesh. I have just looked and most of the items seem, if you look at the descriptions, to be in standard sizes. I intend to start by checking out Redgrave and Red Poly, both mentioned in the video, who first introduced liquid mesh about 18 months ago. Ok, so, technically speaking . . . what's the relation of fitted (i.e., "liquid") mesh, to "rigged" mesh? Is the latter irrelevant to this new roll-out? Help a poor benighted Luddite understand what to look for . . . :-) If no one answers my question, I am going to first hold my breath until I have to put on a blue-tinted skin. And then I'm going to take it to the competition over at SLU instead. And then you'll all be sorry. You just wait and see.

Innula Zenovka wrote: I don't think that all of those 13,355 items can be fitted (liquid) mesh. I have just looked and most of the items seem, if you look at the descriptions, to be in standard sizes. I intend to start by checking out Redgrave and Red Poly, both mentioned in the video, who first introduced liquid mesh about 18 months ago. Ok, so, technically speaking . . . what's the relation of fitted (i.e., "liquid") mesh, to "rigged" mesh? Is the latter irrelevant to this new roll-out? Help a poor benighted Luddite understand what to look for . . . :-)

Perrie Juran wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: Apparently, it's here! http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Featured-News/Fitted-Mesh-Is-Here/ba-p/2461687?utm_source=PoTD&utm_medium=Story&utm_campaign=SocialCM How long before I can go shopping???? (Oh, and thank god I can now "Jiggle and Bounce." Keeping me up nights, that one was.) This is going to be fun. I typed "fitted mesh" into the search field in the MP and under apparel it shows 13,355 items. Really, I'm surprised that they got this done so fast. Torley's video did look pretty good. That's impressive, Innula's caveat notwithstanding. I assumed it would be at least a week or two before the first items would be rolled out. But, obviously, LL was working in consultation with some existing designers. Redgrave and Red Poly will be doing pretty well for themselves over the next few weeks, I imagine. :-)

Apparently, it's here! http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Featured-News/Fitted-Mesh-Is-Here/ba-p/2461687?utm_source=PoTD&utm_medium=Story&utm_campaign=SocialCM How long before I can go shopping???? (Oh, and thank god I can now "Jiggle and Bounce." Keeping me up nights, that one was.)

And then there's this. Awesome post. Thanks! “@InaraPey: #SL blog post: '"Dear Ebbe"' - http://t.co/kTrZh6ek76 - #secondlife #LL @ebbealtberg” — Ebbe Altberg ( @ebbealtberg) February 10, 2014

Snickers Snook wrote: FWIW, my first interactions with Ebbe Altberg (he really should be Alt Linden) were very positive on Twitter. He took the time to engage many of us, responded knowledgably about the poor newbie experience and other issues, and above all, seemed much more interested in his "customers" than the previous not-so-humble CEO. I am cautiously optimistic but I've had my heart broken before. :matte-motes-wink-tongue: My experience was the same: he responded to an ongoing Twitter conversation about SL between myself and another blogger, tweeting that he had enjoyed our conversation. I don't really know how to read that, or what it means. But it's certainly not a negative thing. As for Mr. Altberg or ebbe.resident or whatever posting here . . . maybe someone just needs to ask him to phone home?

Madelaine McMasters wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: Dillon Levenque wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: That is really quite wonderful. I suspect that the curators and art collectors of the Italian High Renaissance often had similar fascinations. Instead of cameras, however, they had to be on the lookout for Georgio Vasari. ;-) I went straight to Google, the name being unknown to me. That is and will be the most wonderful thing about this forum and others like it (and one of the wondeiful things about Second Life): the exposure to new people, new ideas, and new ways of seeing things. I do wish there were a way to "like" posts here. :-) Yes. Social media platforms can sometimes be a horror. But they are full of people. And I think that's a pretty cool thing. With apologies to Proust... "A pair of wings, a different respiratory system, which enabled us to travel through space, would in no way help us, for if we visited Mars or Venus while keeping the same senses, they would clothe everything we could see in the same aspect as the things of Earth. The only true voyage, the only bath in the Fountain of Youth, would be not to visit strange lands but to possess other eyes, to see the universe through the eyes of another, of a hundred others, to see the hundred universes that each of them sees, that each of them is; and this we can do with an AM Radio, with an Oh, with a Levenque or a Claren; with people like these we do really fly from star to star." Well, that's rather beautiful put. :-) (And no need to apologize to Proust. I spoke to him on Friday, just after my conversation with Bryn, and he's just fine with it.)

Dillon Levenque wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: That is really quite wonderful. I suspect that the curators and art collectors of the Italian High Renaissance often had similar fascinations. Instead of cameras, however, they had to be on the lookout for Georgio Vasari. ;-) I went straight to Google, the name being unknown to me. That is and will be the most wonderful thing about this forum and others like it (and one of the wondeiful things about Second Life): the exposure to new people, new ideas, and new ways of seeing thngs. I do wish there were a way to "like" posts here. :-) Yes. Social media platforms can sometimes be a horror. But they are full of people. And I think that's a pretty cool thing.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: I'm going to take issue with the idea (cribbed from your blog) that... _____ Forgetting” is important here, for to integrate with the machine the human being must “forget” a great deal, including much that makes us human, makes us, as individuals, singular. As Kumiko insists, "If we converted a memory into digital 1′s and 0′s or some other form of language then it would only be a matter of time before we began to manipulate it. We would cut our sorrows and manufacture outcomes in order to create a shiny surface to our lives with nothing behind them." _____ I think this is backwards. Forgetting is both human and humane. The flawless and endless memory of machines is both inhuman and inhumane. Imagine remembering every slight, every insult, every harm done to you over the course of your life with the precision and immediacy of digital recall. I want (and cannot escape) the ability to forget, and to temper my memories to shape my own narrative. The first pick in my SL profile is "Friendship", which contains the following quote... “Oh, the comfort, the inexpressible comfort of feeling safe with a person; having neither to weigh thoughts nor measure words, but to pour them all out, just as they are, chaff and grain together, knowing that a faithful hand will take and sift them, keep what is worth keeping, and then, with a breath of kindness, blow the rest away.” -- Dinah Maria Mulock Craik (1826-1887) We manipulate our memories every time we recall them, coloring each retrieval with the light our or current selves before filing them away again... or not. We cut our sorrows, and if we're lucky, we manufacture outcomes in order to create a shiny surface on which to skate into the future, full of hope. Let's try this again. What I think I would like to say in response to your excellent point is that what makes the digital archive so dangerous in some ways is precisely that it would efface -- force us to to "forget" -- our human subjectivity, which is (paradoxically) the facility to forget, remake, recombine, and re-imagine. I think that is part of what is at least in implied in Kumiko's comment, as well.

Dillon Levenque wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: And I really do want to hear that story, btw. :-) Italian jurisprudence being somewhat uncompromising, I cannot get into the details. Suffice it to say tthat the (then) curator of the Galleria Doria Pamphilj (who as it happens was married into a very influential family) had a fascination with t-girls and a rather reckless spriit—he was seemingly oblivous to the fact that cameras could be everywhere. There was an exchange of pictures, so to speak. That is really quite wonderful. I suspect that the curators and art collectors of the Italian High Renaissance often had similar fascinations. Instead of cameras, however, they had to be on the lookout for Giorgio Vasari. ;-) Edited to correct the spelling of Vasari's name. Because if I'm going to be pedantic, I should at least be competently so.

Storm Clarence wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: PS. Edited to add: "I find it distasteful to say the least (I'm sure she would as well.)" Well, la-di-f*cking-da. Well who are you to elevate the work of one artist over another. The next thing we'll see is a tramp or thief posting for some atrocious Gypsy folk vocals, and telling us how great he is. It doesn't belong in GD. So. la-di-f*cking-da with Bryn's work too, right? I'm sorry, Storm, but I can say with the utmost candour and honesty that I have only the vaguest glimmering of what you are trying to get at here. Who has been posting about folk vocals? If you would care to address my initial post, about the value of art in SL, or perhaps about what I have said on my blog post, I'd be delighted to continue this conversation.

Storm Clarence wrote: I'm not so sure how or why 'art' is in the general discussion forum. I think posting the 'work' of an artist in GD leaves that artist vulnerable to, well, lots of stuff. Do you have Bryn's permission to post this here? Is she aware that you leaving her open to any criticism that may ensue -- we all don't have the same tastes, ya know. So, now that you have opened Bryn to a general discussion I will discuss her and you generally and in the open. Bryn resigned from her position supporting and advocating the arts in SL because of the recent ToS changes. Are you now advocating for Bryn's art or the position Bryn took with her resignation? Either way, I find it distasteful to say the least (I'm sure she would as well.) PS What bigger insult to the artist if someone decides to post an lolcat as a response! Artists are, by their nature, public figures. Bryn permitted bloggers (amongst whom was myself) early access to a preview of the exhibit precisely because she wanted it discussed in the public sphere. Are you suggesting that General Discussion board is a particularly toxic venue for such discussions? In any case, while my blog post is about one particular installation by Bryn (whom I first spoke to in person only about 3 days ago, so I am hardly qualified to speak for her), this post is not particularly about her: it's about art in SL. I am advocate neither for her art, nor her position. You may hold me responsible for what I have myself said, but as regards any views or opinions held by Bryn, I would suggest you take those up with her. PS. Edited to add: "I find it distasteful to say the least (I'm sure she would as well.)" Well, la-di-f*cking-da.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: I'm going to take issue with the idea (cribbed from your blog) that... _____ Forgetting” is important here, for to integrate with the machine the human being must “forget” a great deal, including much that makes us human, makes us, as individuals, singular. As Kumiko insists, "If we converted a memory into digital 1′s and 0′s or some other form of language then it would only be a matter of time before we began to manipulate it. We would cut our sorrows and manufacture outcomes in order to create a shiny surface to our lives with nothing behind them." _____ I think this is backwards. Forgetting is both human and humane. The flawless and endless memory of machines is both inhuman and inhumane. Imagine remembering every slight, every insult, every harm done to you over the course of your life with the precision and immediacy of digital recall. I want (and cannot escape) the ability to forget, and to temper my memories to shape my own narrative. The first pick in my SL profile is "Friendship", which contains the following quote... “Oh, the comfort, the inexpressible comfort of feeling safe with a person; having neither to weigh thoughts nor measure words, but to pour them all out, just as they are, chaff and grain together, knowing that a faithful hand will take and sift them, keep what is worth keeping, and then, with a breath of kindness, blow the rest away.” -- Dinah Maria Mulock Craik (1826-1887) We manipulate our memories every time we recall them, coloring each retrieval with the light our or current selves before filing them away again... or not. We cut our sorrows, and if we're lucky, we manufacture outcomes in order to create a shiny surface on which to skate into the future, full of hope. This is a really excellent point. I don't think I was trying to suggest (although I can see that it might sound like it) that forgetting is not a very human quality. In a sense, it is precisely because humans are so very good at forgetting -- and reshaping or reimagining the past -- that we are so very vulnerable to machine memory, because digital archives and databases are so very insistent on objective memory. To clarify, or rather elaborate in response to your insight, it is precisely the subjectivity of human memory that makes us most human, and that we must not surrender to the unblinking mind of the machine. Edited to add: I'm sorry, that didn't respond to your question so much as it repeated your point. I can only plead a dinner that was beginning to burning (and that now is in danger of becoming entirely inedible). I'll respond later more fully and intelligently, I hope!

That's a wonderful story, Dillon. Thank you for sharing it :-) (Can I convince you to reveal the "colourful" story of your art acquisition as well?) There's a famous essay (well, famous among people who read obscure and obtuse German theorists, anyway) from 1936 by Walter Benjamin entitled "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction") which addresses the issue of the "copy" that you describe: he talks about the "aura" that clings to an original, and that becomes increasingly dimmer with each reproduction. What I find especially fascinating, though, is your suggestion that the copy becomes an "original" in Second Life. I'm not entirely sure I know why, but intuitively that seems right. Because because everything here is a copy and a simulacrum, the rules change? Bryn Oh, in a blog piece she wrote about her last installation ("Imogen and the Pigeons") talks at great length about the importance of interactivity and immersion in virtual world art: I have said in the past that I think of my artwork here in virtual worlds almost as paintings you can enter and explore. The beauty of a painting, the immersion of cinema and then meshed in with a new type of open ended freedom of movement combined with interaction. There are many new and interesting techniques to experiment with inside the virtual artform. The one which I brought up at the beginning, that ties into my new build Imogen and the pigeons, is creating immersion within the artistic environment by creating scenarios which challenge the viewer. I generally don't put out text or arrows to tell the viewer where to go or what to do. I feel this can break the immersion so I let the viewer discover on their own. This seems to me right. I also like the way she talks about the importance of labour on the part of the viewer. It is engaging because we have to work at it? And I really do want to hear that story, btw. :-)

Thank you for the response! I think you're right: without the creativity of the residents of Second Life, and the art (in all of its many forms) that they have produced, this virtual world would be no better than any other social media (and in some ways, worse). Of course, it's not just about being visual: blogs, forums, and social media have visuals too, like avatars, images, and video. What makes SL different is the 3D format, I suppose? Is that the element of visual culture that makes virtual world art different and appealing?

As many of you may know, Bryn Oh's new installation, The Singularity of Kumiko, opens this coming Friday (14 February). I got the chance, along with other bloggers, to check out the installation during a preview this weekend. It's pretty fantastic, I think. I blogged about it here: http://laskyaclaren.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/the-singularity-of-bryn-oh/ And here is Bryn Oh's own trailer for the installation: Art in Second Life is one of things I love most about virtual worlds, but it can also frequently leave me questioning my engagement with and relationship to this place (i.e., Second Life). That was certainly the case with Oh's new exhibit. So, out of curiosity, where does "Art" rank in importance for your own Second Life experience, and what does it "do" for you? (And no, I don't intend to define or delimit "Art." You can do this if you wish.)

Many thanks, Rolig. I was afraid that something like this might be the case. Another workaround I've found that seems to work at a pinch -- at least, on my screen -- is to turn the standard "Edit Appearance" pose off, and then edit my shape, changing the hover value, while sitting on the ground. I don't save the new hover value, I just change it, and then minimize the edit shape window. Then, when I stand up again, I cancel the edit, and close the edit appearance window without saving. Annoying, but it seems to work. Fortunately, I don't groundsit all that often. These mesh pants cost far too much to get them filthy and wet. :-)

Hi all! Undoubtedly I should know the answer to this, but I don't. When I am using my AO and commercial groundsit animations, my avatar sinks about 8 inches or so into the ground. This is not a problem when I am not wearing the AO: a normal cross-legged groundsit works fine. Now, I know that I can adjust the "hover" height on my shape, which is currently at 50. When I adjust it up to about 55 or 56, the groundsit height is pretty much perfect. Unfortunately, however, when I stand, this means that I'm now hovering about 8 inches off the ground. I'd initially assumed that this has something to do with my avatar height, which comes in at 1.88m on the Firestorm measurer (it's closer to 1.85 when I measure it against a prim). This is a bit on the short side, but I'm hardly a child avatar. And when I do use groundsits for "child" or "teen" avatars, I'm hovering above the ground about 6 inches. (My regular sitting animations are also a tiny bit low, but only by a couple of inches, which I can live with.) These are commercial no-mod animations, so I can't adjust them. Is there a setting in the Firestorm menu, or advanced menu, that I can use that will only change the hover distance for groundsit animations? Or am I doomed forever to be half-interred when I sit on the ground? Thanks!