Trinity Yazimoto

ok, a question already asked by some other persons, did you tried with png format (interlaced checked) ? ah i see your pic is 32 bits. lower till 16 bits, the 32 bits can be a possible cause to your issue.

it would help if you post a picture of the rug and point the problem. if your texture still look ok when you open the texture in sl (not on the prim, the texture itself) then i suspect its a problem of the sides of the rugs. if the edge of your texture are supposed to be transparent, then you will see the other sides thru it and so if you apply your texture over ALL the sides, you will see thru the transparency what's on the vertical sides. i would set the whole rug as 100 % of transparency. Then, i would select the upper face and would revert the transparency to 0 %, and same for the bottom side. You can also do it side by side, but since a rug is extra thin, the faster is still to do as i just said. Of course, your vertical sides will be transparent, but its a rug, so its thin, noone will notice. it"s the tiny price you ll need to pay for having transparent edges on the main sides Of course i can be wrong, and your problem being not coming from the lateral faces... Without a pic its pretty hard to guess.

oh ok, as i suspected i misunderstood what you said about white map. It was looking really weird to me someone wants to make such map all white. So, sorry for my mistake. so indeed, the glossiness is higher than 17. mine is around 50, not 100. Enough for making look my fabric as vinyl one under really shiny light, and looks silk under less shiny light. it really depend the windlight setting, the position of the sun and of course local lights. but i never experienced such problem than yours. At the very least, my fabrics can look with no shinyness at all, or will look like vinyl fabric. and if i adjust really well my WL they will look like silk or satin most of the time. So it can vary from silk till vinyl and this is what im looking for, so as long as it keeps in that range, its fine for me. I think you are right, if i remember well, if i turn the glossiness under 50 it can turn white under local lights. So this is why i do my specular maps the most dark i can and i can keep the 50 for glossiness. Not all my dresses have this vinyl look, i have some really less shiny. The more it will be dark the less you ll have shinyness.. and it can happen, i just add a normal map but not specular, if there is no purpose at all for any shinyness in RL. Coby Foden wrote: But as the pants are not made of metal, nor silk, nor plastic, I keep the glossiness value low which gives the realistic subtle shine for cloth in sunlight. my suggestion would be the contrary. keep the glossiness around 50 but make your map the more dark possible and see what it gives. Anyway, you cant control what setting ppl will use on their viewer, neither what WL and if they choose to hide or not the local lights. So the perfect solution that will work with all the possible configurations does not exist, im afraid However, i would be really really glad to see more and more designers creating clothings with materials. Because, really, for photos, they are awesome.

well im not sure i understand you well when you say you applied a white specular map. Is it a totally white one ? If so, then why do you want that ? the more white you add the more you come closer to a glass effect. A fabric should be dark specular map. From this link : http://wiki.splashdamage.com/index.php/Specular_Maps : "The higher the value of a pixel (from black to white), the shinier the surface will appear in-game. Therefore, surfaces such as dry stone or cotton fabric would tend to have a very dark specular map, while surfaces like polished chrome or plastic would tend to have lighter specular maps." (bold is mine). your pants is supposed to be closer to cotton fabric than to polished chrome. Red wont do anything. For clothes you ll need black and white maps, but since its for fabrics, ull need a good amount of black (more than white) As for example. i went to the link you gave in Tempura island. I made 2 snapshots, one in the hall at the arrival. and the other under a local light in the garden. The dress im wearing is one of those i create with normal and specular maps.. there is no difference with local light or without. I can assure you. This is at the Hall at the Landpoint. this is in the garden under a ray of local light. its same than under normal sunlight. The windlight setting was one of the [TOR] sunrise (i dont rem wich exactly). But definitely my specular map is not white at all. If you want, drop me an im inworld, i can give you a copy of one of my dresses with materials for you do the test yourself. I can show you how look my specular maps if you want.

Aspire Rang wrote: Trinity Yazimoto wrote: Dres, about the textures you buy in SL. LL has already a full licence on them, from the day the original creator uploaded them. By purchasing them, you are given a full perm SL licence (if they are full perm of course), that mean you can copy them to infinite, you can modify them and you can transfer them. Generally, you cant transfer them as standalone, or with full perms but still, you can use them on your items and sell or share your items. The licence you have there is for use in SL only, and except if its said explicitely you cant use them outside SL. And you are not forced to give credits for the texture, except for some rare exceptions. This is not a CC licence. Now if you download them on your hard drive and you modify them. And then reupload them. Till here its fine, you can do this, since you have a licence that allows you to modify (and you can't do this within SL since there are no tools for that). So now you have the texture that you modified. Your texture modified is NOT the original texture. It's the original texture + YOUR modifications. you have created a derivative work. Now you will upload it in SL. You dont have to worry about the full licence you maybe dont have for the original texture because LL has this licence already since the day the original creator of the texture uploaded it in SL. Instead, you should worry to know if you want to give LL a full licence on the derivative work you made. This is the only thing LL is aking a licence from you. They dont care about the licence on the original work, bec they have it already. And the modifications are yours. You are the only one who can decide you want or not give the full licence to LL on that. For anything bought within SL (as long you are ok with the licence you have been given) there is no problem. LL has already a full licence on them, they wont ask a second time. Since the licence is clear and it says they wont give any credit, it doesnt the matter the name of who is uploading. what matters is that they can have a full licence, so at least one person uploading must have a copyright for being able to grant this licence to LL. If that's done, they consider they have already this licence and its fine. ...... No, you can't assume that. Many creators have stopped uploading to SL specifically to prevent LL from getting those rights. LL can not take them retroactively for the vast majority of content in SL that was uploaded prior to the change in TOS... any more than users can expect to get away with chat log disclaimers in their profile. wether the TOS are retroactive or not has never been really defined. Even lawyers never could give a clear and firm answer about this. but anyway, the full licence you have to give to LL for the use in SL is nothing new... it has been in the TOS for really long time before those new TOS. What has been new is that NOW they want this same licence for "whatever purpose" and "wherever they want". So as long you use what you purchased within the SL plateform, inside SL you are fine.

Hello Nina i have zero experience in selling dae files, so i can only give you my experience as a customer. i have sometimes bought some dae files, and they have always been thru a nc with a link to download and a password. ive seen indeed, a few saying they will send by email, but there is a looot of scam actually on the mp and im not going to add to my usual stress, the stress implied by waiting to see if i will really recieve an email from this merchant or not. of course, nothing can prevent from a scam and i can also be scammed by a merchant saying ill have the link to download the files in a nc. But in that case i'll know right away. While, we know sometimes an answer from a merchant can take some days/weeks and the waiting before i can know its a scam or not, is something that maybe some wont want, at least me. I think it depend the price, and if the challenge worth it. The one ive saw saying they send the files by emails were really expensive items, and im not ok for challenging so many money without being sure. But anyway, i think that even sending by email wont prevent you from your dae being copied and given away bec the person recieving the mail can also transfer the email to whoever they want.

Gaia Clary wrote: So is uploading rigged mesh legal ? ... Here is why rigged mesh violates the TOS when taken by word: All rigged mesh is based on the SL Avatar's bone structure If you want to make a rigged mesh then at some point you have to rig it to a skeleton that is compatible with the SL Avatar The joints information has been provided to the public under a CC license You may also use the default Avatar mesh as reference for your garments. this is also an indirect usage of CC attributed content for derivative work and must be attributed. Finally you might even reuse the SL Avatar meshes to derive your own meshes from there. this is direct usage of CC attributed content and must be attributed. Once you upload your work, you accept to: ... waive, and you agree to waive, any moral rights (including attribution and integrity) that you may have in any User Content... You can not do that, because the content has been licensed to you as CC, which makes attribution mandatory, not only for you but also for the receiving party (LindenLab in this case), so you can not wave this right, nor can LindenLab change that license, even if they are the original creators of the SL Avatar. CC attribution, once given, can never be reverted. Hence... Upload of rigged mesh violates the TOS. :matte-motes-evil: Well, i am sure i am wrong ... Am i ? who provided the joint information ? LL ? then they dont need i give them a full licence on smth they have already a full licence on since its their properties. They give me a CC licence on the tool. They dont give me anything on what i will build with that tool, bec its not their business. I have to respect their licence if i want to give away the tool as standalone. its just like i had to give credit to photoshop for every single artwork i create with it, or Microsoft, for every document i write with Word and that i could publish or sale. And why not giving credit to the creator of my comp processor too while we are at it, since i used smth they bought me to create everything i create on my comp ? I know all Adobe, microsoft and Asus didnt gave me a CC licence, but still. The joints informations are a tool. So yep, i think you are wrong :smileytongue: But i may be wrong myself.. bec all the rigging thing is still a deep blur for me lol

Drake1 Nightfire wrote: Chic Aeon wrote: So we are all stuck between a rock and a hard place. While I PERSONALLY do not agree with using other people's work in order to make products to SELL, I do understand that many people use other works. I am in a mall in another land where my neighbor seems to be uploading "legal" content and selling it. Did he do the work? Not so much. He uploaded and aligned the premade texture. Personally, I do NOT call that "content creation". I would not buy any of his products. So, every texture in every single one of your builds was made by you? Not a single one was a stock texture from a texture creation engine like Genetica? This is not new news for me. I was a loud proponent when texture templates came onto the fashion scene. Buy a texture, add a layer of "free" graphic fabric, and publish. To me this is not content creation. I admit that I am softer in my judgement on mesh "templates" as learning mesh is a whole 'nother world. I DO give big kudos to the designers who make their own products. You betcha. Right, they bought a template, opened it in PS or Gimp, added layers, shadows, seams, wrinkles, buttons, zippers, and an assortment of other things but they created nothing, right? Unlike some of the mesh creators who can buy premade textures for the full perm mesh. I dont read this like you Drake "Buy a texture, add a layer of "free" graphic fabric, and publish" is not same as what you discribed. using a fabric texture as a "component" of a whole design is not same imho than just what Chic said. if you draw the path yourself, draw the wrinkles, the shadows, the seams or whatever you will draw on your design, your design remain your creation and the fabric will remain only one component among the others. Now if you just assembled pre existing components, you still created an assembled texture. That is not really same as an original texture created from scratch but still, you created the assembly. There is room for everything in SL imho, but they are different words for every of them.

Dres, about the textures you buy in SL. LL has already a full licence on them, from the day the original creator uploaded them. By purchasing them, you are given a full perm SL licence (if they are full perm of course), that mean you can copy them to infinite, you can modify them and you can transfer them. Generally, you cant transfer them as standalone, or with full perms but still, you can use them on your items and sell or share your items. The licence you have there is for use in SL only, and except if its said explicitely you cant use them outside SL. And you are not forced to give credits for the texture, except for some rare exceptions. This is not a CC licence. Now if you download them on your hard drive and you modify them. And then reupload them. Till here its fine, you can do this, since you have a licence that allows you to modify (and you can't do this within SL since there are no tools for that). So now you have the texture that you modified. Your texture modified is NOT the original texture. It's the original texture + YOUR modifications. you have created a derivative work. Now you will upload it in SL. You dont have to worry about the full licence you maybe dont have for the original texture because LL has this licence already since the day the original creator of the texture uploaded it in SL. Instead, you should worry to know if you want to give LL a full licence on the derivative work you made. This is the only thing LL is aking a licence from you. They dont care about the licence on the original work, bec they have it already. And the modifications are yours. You are the only one who can decide you want or not give the full licence to LL on that. For anything bought within SL (as long you are ok with the licence you have been given) there is no problem. LL has already a full licence on them, they wont ask a second time. Since the licence is clear and it says they wont give any credit, it doesnt the matter the name of who is uploading. what matters is that they can have a full licence, so at least one person uploading must have a copyright for being able to grant this licence to LL. If that's done, they consider they have already this licence and its fine. @Gaia i think you should maybe ask yourself if the Goosberry project ppl are ok to give such licence to LL. I think you take the problem from the wrong side. if Goosberry project ppl are willing to give only a CC licence, then LL is not the right place (with the current TOS). @Chic you made my day girl ! i so agree with most of the things you said, and you said it so better than i ever could do :smileyhappy:. Thank you

Hum, althought i dont think its technically possible to make a segregation between items and their licence. i would find that really unfair, if they say "ok, we respect the terms of CC licence, and we wont use them for whatever purpose, thus no risk we steal them" but still state "oh but for all your original contents, its ok, we dont change, we will still do whatever we want we them and if we want to steal them we will"... im not sure i have understood well your post, so i apoligize in advance if i havent, but by reading you (english is not my native language either), i just read you want an exception for CC licence while all original items are still exposed to be stolen by LL.

Gaia Clary wrote: I miss the ability to give up lol that's a good thing. im likely to encourage that :smileyhappy: and i think noone here ignore who you are. But that has been so painful to see we had a wall in front of us in latest autumn when we tried to have a discussion with LL that we lost somewhat a lot of our hopes on that topic. But as i said, that's not a reason for not trying again (im an incorrigible optimist :smileywink:)

arf i havent seen your whole post before answering. i dont think your request is pointless bec so many have tried and failed. Its a fact so many have tired and failed. Noone can ignore that. But i think this doesnt have to stop you. The only thing i could advice to you, is to not ignore the fails of others bec maybe this could help you to avoid some of the errors made before and also to waste energy in things that havent worked and maybe use this energy to try some other things never tried. If ive been a bit disapointed by the lack of enthusiasm to answer my question about the tos in the forum from Ebbe, i still think hes a person more open to discussion, and certainely more reachable. so id say of course, dont give up.

no pb Gaia, that was just disconcerting me. so if your aim is to get an answer from LL ,and from the experience i got from UCCSL; its pretty hard to get anything from them on that topic. You still can try to send an email (certified mail works better) to Peter Gray (althought i dont think hes the right person), i can find the email adress for you, if needed. But im afraid you get the same kind of "non-answer" or "empty answer" we got. That was under Rodvik so maybe this will change with Ebbe. But i can tell you that after Ebbe arrived as CEO at LL, he came in the forum to say hi. I called out to him about this precise topic and it took me 3 posts for finally geting an answer while he was answering fast to other questions. His answer was in short "its complicated, i understand you are worried but you need to trust us" Here is the link : http://community.secondlife.com/t5/General-Discussion-Forum/Hello-from-Linden-Lab-s-New-CEO/m-p/2500681#M157464 i was not asking exactly the same question than you, but it seemed that the tos topic is not his favorite one. So well, maybe it will be different than with Rodvik, idk. i really hope ull be more lucky than we did.

well if that can help you, and maybe you know already that link, but Inara Pey posted a transcript of the legal panel about the TOS that happened some monthes ago. http://modemworld.wordpress.com/2013/10/28/tos-changes-legal-panel-discussion-transcripts/ If you are interested i can put you in contact with one of those lawyers. Just drop me an im inworld. beside, its a bit weird to me you say you dont want to discuss the topic but just ask your question to LL since you do here in the forum (where we rarely see ppl from LL staff), and after you get some answers to your question, you seems to say noone wants to help you. Maybe we've (at least me) misunderstood what you are asking here and what kind of help you would like to get. idk.

well there is a folder to delete in the app data folders in your harddrive. i dont rem the one precisely, im not at my comp right now, but if you want to be sure to do it, just do a clean reinstall. uninstall the viewer, and delete every folders of singularity in your C/username/appdata/roaming/ singularity and in C/username/appdata/local/ singularity. then you just reinstall the viewer, so ull start with a fresh new viewer and ull get ride of all the old connections names and pw. (it doesnt hurt to make a clean reinstall sometimes)

Gaia, the 2.30 section of the TOS tells clearly you have to grant LL of a full licence when you upload smth on their platform. It clearly means you give them the exact same rights than yours on your work (except the copyright, that noone can take you off, but in that case that wont get you too far since anyway, they will have the same rights than you on this work). Thus, you grant them the right to exploit your work in whatever way they want, without credit you, without remunerate you, and even without being forced to keep the integrity of that work. In short, they can do whatever they want, except claim they have a copyright on it. Moreover, this licence is perpetual and irrevocable. While such TOS can be understandable for the needs of the service, the latest update of the TOS in august 2013 extended these ones to whatever purposes. That means not forcelly for the needs of the service and Peter Gray told us in one of his rare mails that the purpose behind that was to be able to act as our agent on Desura plateform. While, i dont trust a lot this version, i cant avoid the fact that the purpose is probably for outside SL and thus far away dangerous. Now the question you have to ask to yourself is : "when i m granted a CC licence, do i have a full licence on the item ?" . The answer is no. CC licences are limited. The other question that comes after is "When im granted a CC licence, is my licence enough for i can grant to LL the licence they ask, in other words a full licence " ? Now since a CC licence is not a full licence and you are supposed to be able to give LL a full licence, by what miracle do you expect be in conformity with the TOS when you upload smth you have with a CC licence ? LL cant treat items uploaded differently. So it s everything in the same bag. They ask you a full licence on what you upload, and for being able to grant a full licence to someone you need to have yourself a full licence. Thus it works for everything you created by yourself, or everything you got with a full licence, or everything that is not licenced or in public domain. So CC licences doesnt apply to that.

oh im pleased to see im not the only one ... i had exactly the same thoughts than you Sassy after reading the LL post about this topic. First, what s the hell is that meeting with merchants ? What merchants ? So now, the elite will make the rules for everyone ? while they have privileged rules themselves ? And where are those elite merchants when the mess with the TOS started ? Ah yes.... surely TOS doesnt apply for them because of their privileges...I start to think that Toysoldier was right about these privileges. secondly, the icons and the copyright, ive been almost sufocating when i saw that LL asked us to use and copy a copyright on our vendors WHILE LL TOS STILL STATES THEY SIT ON OUR OWN COPYRIGHTS. So it seems to work with a doble speed... One for elite, one for the crowd... one for the icons (for what omg we have to use absolutely the copyright) and one for the crowd (who doesnt need respect for they copyrigths anyway). So like you, my answer is no. Im sorry for the owner of the copyright for those icons, but since LL is the asker and LL doesnt respect my copyright, im going to sit on this one too. And because im honnest, i wont use the icons at all. im not going to add this icons on my vendor pics. Ive checked the box in the mp for the 3 new items ive added yesterday, but that's the only thing ill agree to do.

yes, ive noticed that. ive deleted by myself some of the materials before importing, but didnt realized that then the one deleted will be missing lol. now i know

well, indeed, even after transfering weights, the solidified dress is not correctly weight painted. I'll prob keep that dress for when ill be more experiented with weight painting. idk. It's probably a bit insane from me to start with so complex dress. But well, that's a good training anyway. So for now, im probably going to start a new mesh simplier and will keep this one for later. Thank you really much for your help Medhue

hum, there is only one long sleeve and the other one short ? if that's it, you cant have an alpha layer till the elbow. alpha layers are done with clothing layer system with one single arm that apply on both arms inworld. so if you have the alpha layer till the elbow the other arm with the short sleeve will have aswell and so ull have the top of your naked arm transparent. The only solution would be to better rig the long sleeve for it follows better the movement of your arm, but i dont think the creator will be ok for redoing all their job. maybe you should have tried the demo first so you ll have notice the glitch.

yes Medhue, i have your video bookmarked from my Google + in my other comp (and miracle, lol, i may say i almost understand everything you say :smileywink:), and ive thought about it at first when i saw the solidify wasnt working. I haven't tried bec my dress is a lot more complex than a tee shirt and i dont know if ill be able to make that on the frills. But i can give it a try, why not ? im not counting anymore the hour of works im giving on that dress lol.... But when u say you extrude twice. do you mean you add one horizontaly and one vertically ? like if you had more thickness ?

well, im using Pshop CS5, and i dont know if there is a lot of difference with yours. but if you cant find sm1 using the 7 for help, send me an im inworld, i should be able to help you. english is not my native language, but i use my pshop in english.

and for not letting the mistery of the missing flounce unsolved, lol, i found out that it was bec one material missing. when i exported my dress from MD i added a color to each part for being able to select it more easily in blender and adjust everything. then i made it all white, but kept the materials. when i wanted to save as Dae, Avastar asked me to not have more than 8 materials, so i deleted some randomly and since it s just for a test i didnt care. Now how can a material deleted, make a missing flounce, im not the person with the answer lol...but that's it.. after deleting all the materials and test in the beta grid, my dress has the normal amount of flounces. well still work to do on it but im really happy it worked

oh, but mind you you have almost the solution ! right at the moment i was about to give up after 48 hours almost non stop working on this pb. I had to fig out how to copy the weight since i had no idea about how to do it and all what i can find about it on the web is in english and voice (i can understand if its writen but when its talked i barely understand). So after a bit of searches i ve finally figured out how to do. it works Except i miss now a flounce lol... Well, i see it in blender, but i dont see it in sl.. The dress still looks cute. So if i cant figure out what happened to this flounce maybe ill do with your solution. Thank you so much. Not only you gave a solution that works, but also you gave back to me all my enthusiasm. )

oh thank you Gaia for your answer. i sent an email to you earlier this morning and smth in your online support too. so for # 2 it says i have unweighted vertices on my dress (tons) and to use the avastar's copy weight. of course said like this i didnt suspected it was the weight tools and was looking for something in the avastar tab. For #3 right after it let me choose the file in my harddrive, sl said there is an error with my file and cant import. i cant remember, i have deleted this file, but if i find time, ill retry it to tell you. Edit, for #3 it says "there is a problem with the analysis of the file. check in the log." Well, in french... and since i dont know where i can check the log...