AyelaNewLife

I'm not sure how to check how many faces the object has with the build tools; but that script returns an answer of 1, when I can manually count 4 distinct tintable faces.

Tinting does persist.

and for the two troublesome pieces. With the second one (the gloves), I can recolour some faces without an issue. The arm guard and fingers are fine, but the back of the hand covering is the one with the problems. The other piece has problems will every face I've tried. Edit: I just noticed another odd behaviour that might help. With these clothes, if I recolour the problem area first, and then recolour the normal areas (eg the fingers), then the problem area immediately returns to white.

Disclaimer: I've never actually made anything in mesh myself, I'm just hoping to pick your brains. I bought a multi-piece outfit lately that had mod/copy permissions, and I bought the white version. My plan was to recolour the outfit (because black is pretty neat). And I did, for most of the outfit, without an issue. Edit -> Select Face -> Change colour of the texture from white to black/dark grey. I'm not reinventing the wheel here. For two of the pieces, the changes didn't "stick". I'd recolour them, they would look good, then the moment I took the piece off and reattached it, it had reverted back to it's previous colour. I don't know why, nor do I know how to fix the problem. Even better, the creator specifically requests that customers don't contact her with issues regarding modifying the outfit - it's presented "as is" with no further support. Here's the troubleshooting steps I've tried so far: Check for scrips: no scripts Rez the item on the floor and recolour: same problem Unlink the item: no scripts in any section, and the recolour reverts itself the moment I relink the components Check if anyone else is having the same problem: at least two others do Any idea a) what's going on here, or b) how to fix this?

I never say anything if I'm just going to grab a drink. What's the point? Going through the "back in a sec" "okay back" dance across several IMs would take almost as long as it does to walk to the kitchen and back. Other times I'm tabbed out reading something else, or editing, or typing in another IM window, or focusing on something else. I'll get around to reading the message in a few minutes. I don't think that makes me "afk". There are some that aren't happy with that though. If you take more than a minute to respond, they start twitching and the follow-up IMs start rolling in. "Busy?", "Guess you're busy then", "Helloooooo???", "You there?", or the classic "?". Sometimes I'll tab over to a wall of "woe is me, no one will talk to me". Other times it's raw abuse. Now I don't know if these types are so coked off their ***** (t i t s, it's not a naughty word wtf) that it genuinely seems like I'm taking an hour to respond, but if a three minute gap between messages causes you to flip out, you need to get off the internet and get some professional help.

These sorts of things tend to work best when a couple people do the bulk of the legwork themselves, and allow everyone else to chip in as and when they please. Over-engineering these organic ideas until everything is weighed down with roles and regulations, so that nothing gets done until the Director of Page Numbers has finished their work and passed it on to the Director of Page Headers, is an easy trap to fall into. Okay so I'm being facetious here but I'm glad to see things leaning towards a more casual, freeflowing form. I think that will work out the best for us all and keep things fun. With the obvious exception of Orwar, Director of the Crop.

I have no idea how I screwed up the crop by one pixel. But I fixed it, 768 x 1024 version below! It has my standard lazy watermark because vanity, plus a version without if that's needed. Edit: I'm only partially a moron; my monitor might well be 1920 x 1080, but my viewer is not, as it's slightly shrunk by the windows toolbar, so I was a few pixels off when cropping out blank space.

My editing process is almost entirely layering raw shots. I can remove/reduce most alpha overlap glitches by combining two layers with a different form of DoF applied (Black Dragon feature). I can add vibrancy to the colours or make the shadows darker simply by layering a different windlight (with the same sun angle) onto a base shot. The end result is something that's incredibly faithful to the raw SL shot, yet impossible to recreate without editing tools. Meanwhile there are those that will take a quick snap in front of a greenscreen, and then edit the photo to the point where it looks like it was painted by hand. And there's nothing wrong with that at all; it's just a radically different style to mine, and from the sounds of it yours too. And I don't think lumping them in together as "edited so doesn't count" is either fair or accurate.

I looked away for a day and missed this still, amazing work girls! That was awesome

I haven't checked this thread in a few days, are we still going around in circles with the whole "landowners have the right to be bads, and you have the right to call them bads" thing still?

I use two viewers for SL; Firestorm for everyday use, and Black Dragon for photos. I'll therefore swap between the two fairly often. My process is simple; I push the big red x in the top right hand corner, then once that viewer is closed, I boot up the other one and push login. Regardless of whether I'm going from Firestorm to Black Dragon or vice versa, I get this (or equivalent) pretty often: This gives me the sads. Sometimes I don't get this, and can log back in with the new viewer with no issues. Sometimes I get this, push log in once more, and I'm in. And sometimes, like just now, I'll spend five minutes mashing the login button, rebooting the viewer, scowling at the screen (in case that helps?) before I'm finally allowed back in. This is annoying. So the actual question: is there any way to mitigate this problem? Is there a "soft close" in either viewer which will stop SL from bouncing my login request? Is there a setting buried in the options of either viewer to ensure that happens? Or is this just the inevitable side effect of 15 year old spaghetti code?

This is me in photo mode: Let me know if you want me to afk there while I'm at work.

Ah of course, and that's why you also need to photo verify. Oh, but photos can be manipulated, so you also need to webcam verify. Except you might just be hiding under baggy clothes, so you've also got to strip off. Except this might be a pre-recorded video, so you have to follow his instructions to the letter. You know, just to confirm that you are who you say you are.

As far as I'm aware (open to correction if I'm wrong), the ToS doesn't stop you quoting chat logs back at the person you were conversing with. Sharing it with a third party? Yeah, that requires consent, but repeating an IM back to that same person should be fine.

I'm not saying I stole that outfit idea from Zeta, but....

I'm with Cindy, in that these produce eye rolls and the occasional tut rather than genuine anger. Mostly blank profiles; I just assume that your personality is equally blank, and I'm yet to find the exception to that rule That copy-paste pick about how if you put this in your profile then the unicorns will fly down from space heaven and end bullying once and for all; di caprio stare meme Broken English; and I don't mean second language issues, I mean those that just mash their face across the keyboard and assume the rest of us can translate imbecile "I prefer a conversation to lists"; that's fine and all, no one gives a toss about some BDSM tester results you cheesed, but at least give me something to work with here Any variation on "you cannot separate SL from RL"; because it's almost always followed by the inevitable "... and so that is why you need to get on voice with me and send me photos" "I'm here to explore, dance and chat" coupled with two dozen variations of "*****s loose women for dominant males" in his groups; bonus points for the low-effort system avatar that's inevitably connected to this gem Groups connected to RL locations; as you can guarantee that question #2 will be "where are you from?" So I guess my profile pet peeves are more like red flags about the person themselves, rather than just being a profile-specific problem. Edit: also I passed 1000 arbitrary internet points, do I get a gold star or something?

angery emojis

I kinda get it if I'm honest, even if it's obnoxious to be on the receiving end of that approach. It's like throwing a bucket of darts at a dartboard - his success rate might be abysmal, but that one accidental bullseye validates his methods.

It's not really a single line as such, but there's this: Every third person has something in their profile about how RL and SL are separate, or how you can't separate the two as they're unavoidably linked. That's all grand, each to their own and all that. But if you extrapolate that to "now you have to get on voice with me" or "GIV ME NOOOOODS", we're gonna have a bad time.

To get the ball rolling; a couple of my flickrfriends have been giving this a go, as did I. It was pretty fun!

I did my thing of forgetting that this thread exists again

That's what I disliked about the movie (not read the book). It's nerd fantasy fulfilment. Wade has almost no redeeming qualities and is ripped straight out of the incels guidebook, with a heavy dose of Nice Guys (tm). He can be reduced down to "if I get better at computer games then girls will like me", and an obsession with geek trivia replaces anything remotely resembling an actual personality. And yet he gets rewarded with everything - fame, power, sex - simply because he knows some obscure garbage. It's a terrible message. And all the movie does it wrap that terrible message in a smothering cloud of contextless references, in the hope that the audience will spend their time nudging their neighbour and saying "ayyyy geddit?!?" than actually processing the trash being thrown at them. It was a pretty movie and all, and made a couple of interesting side points. But it all got drowned out by one of the worst protagonists of recent years and a swarm of five second reference-cameos. Not a fan.

Sounds great!

While you're right of course, you can cut out the bulk of information harvesting simply by not posting your live on a social media and installing a privacy plugin on your browser. Far from perfect, but it's low effort. Trying to keep yourself off every "database" out there? lol

Why would it check all of the avatar's groups for this? That sounds like back-to-front thinking. Surely the sim would check to see if the avatar is in the specified group's memberlist (if a check is needed at all; which is a minority of parcels), rather than checking each individual group to see if that group has a "allowed in Parcel A" flag somewhere (because those flags don't exist).