Jump to content

shaniqua Sahara

Resident
  • Content Count

    66
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

47 Excellent

About shaniqua Sahara

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

262 profile views
  1. i don't know if you got a working script going but this worked for me. default { state_entry() { llListen( 0, "", llGetOwner(), "fire" ); vector rootRot = llRot2Euler(llGetRootRotation()); vector mod = <llFrand(-0.2), llFrand(0.2), 0> + <0, -0.1, 0>; rotation rot = llEuler2Rot( rootRot + mod ); integer n = llGetInventoryNumber( INVENTORY_OBJECT ); integer choice = llFloor( llFrand(n) ); string name = llGetInventoryName(INVENTORY_OBJECT,choice); llRezObject(name, llGetPos(), <0,0,15>*rot, ZERO_ROTATION, 12); } } hope it helps.
  2. not really, the selling point of my avatar is that you can wear maittreya clothing. but even so. it leveled the field in that there is now an opportunity for that to happen for small creator. edit- i also mean though, a level field technologically........having to go to omega was not a level field for everyone............to me BoM as we know it today should have been released when mesh was. then everyone would have been happy with it.
  3. you mentioned reading my posts........you might have read i have an avatar i sell and that BoM instantly leveled the playing field for me, a small, nobody creator...........can you please put a weighted value on that? what is that worth in your opinion? if sl implemented everything you wanted............wouldn't invariably want more............wouldn't it still be "yeah they did that and it's good but they didn't do yadda yadda yadda"? BoM is good as it is and sl can continue to improve things and add the things you want eventually................since eventually we'll want more anyway-it always feels the same...... why can't it be like that?
  4. well i guess here is the departure point.............i think those things have been achieved, by and large. it says "avoid the NEED for ....", it has done that. but realize "need" is not synonymous with "obsolete". to me it is a fact that these things have been achieved. and no where in there do i see "calculate baked materials" and it sounds like a small project to me. i'm guess you are from the UK or Aussie, in America there is an odd phenomena of actually not being able to agree on senator's attendance records, even though it is a matter of record. i think it's the same thing here......how are we going to decide whether those stated objectives have been reached? it's not likely we'll find common ground beyond we all seem to want sl to always be better than it is.
  5. i was curious about this script so i tried it......i used llSetPos and llGetLocal Pos. when i put the script in the root prim, the entire linkset floated up and down. when i put the script in a child prim, it floated up, but then just like the happened to the OP, the prim flew out into the universe, god knows where. edit- i should have said the entire object shot away.
  6. sags my shoulders........basically you are saying sl has not done enough................so what does that have to do with "BoM"? i mean jeez.........that is the point..........the project was just a little thing wit the goal of letting a cutom object be ruth..........people are saying that is not ggod and then using the aurgment that sl has not done more to revamp their textering system, but that is a problem you have with LL. why does that make the functionality we do have not worth having? explaining about the texture and all is to give context to the point and because other will read this also that may not know somethings. not that i thought you didn't know things like sl uses 3 maps. you are making me repeat myself.please read my earlier posts.
  7. please don't take offensive to how i may word some things, my intent is only to be as clear as possible, not to talk down to you or insult you. this literally means nothing. BoM does not lack any feature, it can't, because it is only a collection of preexisting processes. this indicates you don't understand what BoM is. you think you do, but you don't. i swear this is a case of people being so close to something they are not seeing what is right under their nose. no i did not answer my own question and what you wrote shows you do not understand BoM or maps. you said "Theoretically they are the same, just a texture,"............no, that is faulty understanding. they are not the same. first the use of the word "texture" is just a label sl choose to use to refer to images. so while they are all "textures" they are not all equal, they do not carry the same information and actually are "maps". these "maps" are made to work in conjunction with one another, seperately. these maps called "diffuse", "Specular" and "normal". they all work together by laying one on top of another, then the entire "stack" of textures is rendered as one composite texture, which is a JPG.2000 image format. now when the stack is rendered in sl, as it has been before and after BoM, the diffuse maps get flattened together because they are of the same type. the normal and spec maps are not and have never been rendered as part of the composite texture. sl simple does not have the framework to render the specular and normal maps as part of that composite texture. in sl's frame work, you need maps to hold the information. those maps can be composited of their own kind, but while you can flatten green with purple, you can't flatten purple with a brick, just as you cannot flatten a brick with sunlight. they are 3 separate maps that work separately and apart from each other. all this thing called "BoM" is doing is flattening the diffuse maps. that's it. BoM a name so we can refer to a process. that is where is ends. diffuse maps have nothing to do with spec or normal maps....... BoM is only a process that pertains to how diffuse textures behave. so can you now also understand why "BoM" cannot be lacking features? it's just squashing paint together. you see when you open a model in a 3d program and you automatically see highlights and shadows, that is what everyone wants........you think that BoM could have been that? no, because merging a paint layer down just like you do in photo shop is just a process of merging down a paint layer. it does not have any other magic or code or tags that can be used and are not. now that i have explained that. can you see a way for the spec maps be flattened into the color maps and have it work as expected? i don;t meae give me code. i mean can you see, in some way, a .jpg can hold that information and sl's current engine can render it? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TLDR: textures are not all the same. sl works with 3 separate textures. these 3 types of textures cannot be merged together, think of them as 3 different entities that do their own thing. that is how sl set it up to work. BoM is just the act of flattening the color textures and directing the functionality of Ruth to a custom object. period. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ok so lets say BoM had never been done.........none of the things you people want could have been done anyway. the only way to get what you want to write a new texturing system. so whether BoM was done or not, still you'd never get what you want. BoM effects nothing. this is no step back Drayke........ you actually are just saying that because you contradict yourself, you said it was a step back because mulit-material creators are either stuck with onion bodies or "flat" as you say, bodies.........so if they are "stuck" with, then their is no step back. nothing is lost. everything thing is exactly the same.........only better. none of the things you want, is sl capable of doing and BoM did not prevent any of them from happening. sl is making the best of it's current system, you can want it to cook your dinner, but there simple is no apparatus to do it..........you want to calculate baked specularity........then build a new system, but why are you complaining about what is being done with the old system?.......oh and btw.........they did not "drag" "any" system" into anything else. ruth could already do what she could do..............THAT is the system, all they did was let your object now be ruth. that is all........the texturing engine and framework remains the same and in that framework spec maps and color maps cannot be merged. if you car only has 4 gears, you can never put in 5th gear no matter how much you beg or complain. you simply have to build a new car with 5 gears.........so why beat up on the the 4th gear when it's not it's fault? the big thing about BoM. the best and coolest thing, is that it lets your object be ruth. that is a big deal and should be seen in that light, because that is what it is. i know you did not read my earlier posts. anyhows..........i am tired of writing............if someone doesn't get it by now, i will never be able to explain it better. so i am pretty much going to leave it here.
  8. that is what occurred to me. i also have gut feeling that onion layers are still going to have there place. there are too many interesting things that a inventive, creative mind will come up with for them to be totally forgotten. i have been thinking of adding a left arm and leg onion layer to my commercial avi. but i have held off working it out until i fully scoped out what BoM can do and hearing about what other people are experiencing.
  9. that wasn't all directed at you. only the first line. the "demand" thing was a general statement meaning people complaining about BoM, ask for functions that aren't capable of being delivered by BoM. if you re-read it without thinking it applies to you, you will see i was not insulting you.
  10. please understand that does not make any sense. it is the same as saying "Silk or cotton or leather.....has no light". it does not make sense. BoM flattens diffuse textures together, that's all. how can anyone make demands of something that doesn't have that capability? BoM sucks because if can't cook my dinner. that is basically what is being said. all you critics and complainers of BoM cannot state or explain how things could have been done different working under the constraints of the actual system in use.......how do you fix the car that you actually drive to work, not some theoretical car that maybe one day you can have........ not one person is going to saying anything that speaks to how BoM could otherwise have been implemented without changing the entire !@#$$ system that sl uses, because there is nothing to be said. they can only confuse and obfuscate the issue by saying all kinds of things should have been done with BoM but don't make it clear that those things could only be done in a system that doesn't actually exist. the logic of the naysayers here is this: SL's texturing system has a carburetor, sl changed the gas filter surrounding the carburetor so it could breath easier. people then come along and say "that was stupid, that gas filter is worthless, instead of changing the filter, you should have rebuilt the engine to use fuel injection.............so you see now why changing the gas filter is a stupid thing to do?" the title of this thread is " BOM needs to auto-calculate Normal and Spectral layers like Sansar" let the OP explain how "BoM" can do that? he said BoM needs to do something.........explain how that can be done OP. he can't. he can only explain how it can be done without "BoM". because BoM, like so many other things in sl, doesn't have anything to do with materials at all. it's true. read this entire thread carefully, you'll see it is all there. the whole problem is, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what BoM is.
  11. absolutely. i've had people convey to me the impression they believe BoM is in part meant to replace alpha cuts. that is thinking that BoM is something much more than it actually is.
  12. but Optimo what you are failing to bare in mind is that all LL did was flip a switch, polished up a few things, tossed in a dozen skittles and that's it. they didn't plan a big project. what you want was outside the scope of what they planned. changing how things work is a majoring undertaking, BoM was not. BoM was already there, they just had to touch it up. you making the case for a better texturing system is irrespective to BoM because BoM is merely a logical step given the way actual system currently in place works. and how one also can know this is true is because you could make your case before BoM was even conceived and you can still make the same case after BoM has been implemented. that demonstrates your argument is independent of BoM and so you can't criticize BoM itself because it is just a part of the system you want to replace. to put it another way..........if your argument is to replace the current texturing system with a new one, then that is a criticism of the system itself, so criticizing BoM is redundant.
  13. BoM= assign a tag to an object and now all the functionality ruth has will be directed to that object..........oh and here about a dozen or so extra layers............that's all folks. nothing more than that..........it is that simple. now what can be done with that....a lot and a lot still unknown i'm sure...........but one thing that cannot be done is to somehow magically add speculate values to diffuse layers. to add specular reflection, sl system requires a map..............but BoM is already maps. so it can't be done.......only revamping the texturing system could such a thing be entertained. those are facts. regardless any potential claims to the contrary.
×
×
  • Create New...