Jump to content

Sylvia Wasp

Resident
  • Content Count

    227
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Sylvia Wasp


  1. 19 hours ago, Kyrah Abattoir said:

    Count yourself lucky, "In my 2004" days I don't know how many thousands uploads i had to do to test the couple dresses I made originally. Thankfully we don't have to do that anymore :D

    I remember making a camisole in those days that cost similarly and sold for $150 lindens.  I think I sold 6 or 7 total, lol. 


  2. 3 hours ago, Da5id Weatherwax said:

    Every word here is true but there something I will add to it, specifically for those people who are capable of the "vision" in MD and other tools but find themselves stumbling when it comes to translating the results of that into a model for SL or any other 3d environment...

    We're geeks. We do what geeks do and we use "terms of art" a lot. This can obscure that what we're really talking about is a way to think about the project. A "model" in MD or other design-oriented software is not a 3d asset in the same way that a fashion sketch is not a sewing pattern or a design sketch for a piece of furniture is not a cutting list for a carpenter. I used these two examples advisedly, because in both cases to get from the sketch to something usable you need to be thinking in the same way as you would to get from design to 3d asset  - and it's something that, shorn of all the geeky language, many of you already know how to do.

    Let's stick with sewing, since in many cases when raising these concerns we're talking about clothing models.

    We talk about "edge loops", "topolgy" and "UV mapping" when we're talking about many of the same concerns involved in creating a pattern and laying it out on fabric. If you sew at all you've probably worked with stretchy fabric. You know there are ways you can construct a garment that work with it and there are also wrong ways to do it, that might conceivably look ok  pinned to a mannequin but will never work on an actual body. The skin of your model is like that, we talk about working with quads and keeping clean edge loops and we're thinking in exactly the same way as you are when considering whether a particular piece of fabric should be cut on the bias or not, we're looking at the grid that makes up our model like you look at the weave of your fabric and just know that "it can't be made to stretch like that there" and you have to cut that piece differently. If the grid of your model looks too tortured to be made in cloth, it's probably not going to work well as a 3d model either.

    When we're saying "your UV map is inefficient" and you can't get your head around that, try thinking "Don't lay out your pattern like that, look at all the wasted fabric. That stuff's expensive!" The edges of UV islands are called "seams" for a reason!

    Too many vertices? that's like a design that needs to be pinned to the mannequin every couple of inches to hold its shape. You know you can do better than that in cloth, you can do it with vertices on a 3d model too.

    None of this is anything you can't do, you just need to not be daunted by it, make the link between it and the skills and knowledge you already possess in creating stuff for the "real world" then see how the same approaches can translate well into making your creations not just "real" but also "good" in SL too.

    I love this.  A very succinct and insightful take on the problems (and rewards) involved. 🙂


  3. 13 hours ago, Kyrah Abattoir said:

    MD is a fine piece of software for what it does, but it is not a modeling software. I'd call it more a "design" software. It is a great tool to bring your vision of a specific garment into the digital space (as long as you don't mind not being in full control of the result).

    You can use MD for years and still know nothing about the skills you will need to bring your idea into secondlife, or any other game.

    And sure you can consider that next step as simply "beneath you" and not worth your time, hell, you can probably outsource it to someone else for a hundred buck.

    The reality however is that all those steps are ultimately connected, how you will UV your model depends on the textures you will use, how you will LOD your model depends on what matters and what doesn't detail wise, and even when you are still designing and refining your idea in MD, these are things that have to be kept in mind.

     

    Which is why you see time and time again the same mistakes being made in SL, which lead to bloated geometry, bloated texture resolution, dodgy rigging, dodgy texture UVs and a worse experience for everyone.

    I'm not telling people that they have to be perfect, just that they need to try to care at least a little. This is no different than the prim era, you can be smart about it, or you can just cram as many prims and textures as the linkset limit allows.

    Agreed.  I know I have to learn some Blender skills in addition to Marvellous Designer.  

    It's just that right now, to me, Blender seems like a mathematicians nightmare, but in RL I can make a dress.  Marvellous Designer allows me to take the same pattern for the RL dress and simply turn it into a 3D model.  It's using skills I already know, it's faster, it's more intuitive etc. 

    Being the super-picky person I am, I know once I start using it I will find that I will have to use Blender to "fix" the model before upload.  The UV is especially important to me as I have spent a couple of years trying to texture other peoples mesh and a bad or poorly thought out UV is almost always the problem.  

    Sylvia. 


  4. 15 hours ago, Semirans said:

    In regards to Local textures, this is a godsend. I've made textures and then uploaded the item into SL only to discover I forgot to remove the alpha (making the texture too complex) or that something didn't work on the garment that wasn't obvious in the program until I pasted onto my mesh blank.  A good example of this is matching seams on a garment.  I don't know why mesh makers do it, but almost every pair of pants I have has to be tweaked to get the patterns to match at the seams.  There is also some difference once the texture is on the mesh blank.  I make a texture, it looks great in PS with all the shading and such then I upload it and place on the grament and it looks washed out or muddy.  (my hubby explained it one day to me, but most of it was lost between OH LOOK new Textures, and aren't my mesh feet gorgeous?)

    I have all these same problems.  

    I've just resigned myself to spending about a thousand lindens in uploads on everything I make.  🙂

    I will *try* Local Textures (at least I keep telling myself that), but the texture picker in SL, and having to navigate that horrible inventory tree is so tiresome I'm almost ready to just keep paying the price.  

    That being said, I haven't tried it yet so perhaps I'm talking nonsense.  

    Sylvia 


  5. On 3/9/2020 at 8:07 AM, Kyrah Abattoir said:

    I think the answer on those is either:

    • They sell fullperm mesh 'kits' because they are beginners and they don't have the ability/time/drive to make it a complete product.
    • They don't care and they know that their customers don't know any better.
    • Time spent vs asking price.

    I think perhaps you are a tad too harsh here.  

    I've been in SL for ages and have met and worked with some of the great creators and it's always seemed rather obvious to me that the skills and qualities required to make good mesh are entirely opposite to the skills and qualities required to make nice clothing.  

    It's not that the full perm mesh makers are lazy, or poor workers, or don't bother to make "complete products," it's that they would like to make clothes, and have the vision for what is required, but they don't have the skill set.  Because the kind of person who's good at using a 3D mesh making program is not the kind of person who is generally good at design, colour, intuition, etc.  Good mesh makers have an engineering mind set, not a designers mind set.  

    In a way ... by introducing mesh but not providing an easy way for the average person to make it, Linden Labs has somewhat ruined SL.  The idea that we are living in a "user-created" world has never been further from the truth than it is right now.  There are no supported methods for making mesh "in-world" and there are no tools or utilities offered by Linden Labs to make mesh outside of SL either.  A simple plug-in to allow us to export our prim-work as mesh and then re-upload it would be the obvious next step, but Linden Labs has shown no sign of taking it.  You can futz around with that sort of thing if you use Firestorm, but the results are somewhere between dismal and non-functional. Long time SL residents like myself, who are expert prim-workers have seemingly acquired a skill that is now entirely useless.  All we have left is our ability to texture things.  

    That's why programs like Marvellous Designer are a godsend.  

    They allow folks who don't have that mathematical/engineering mindset or simply don't have the wherewithal to navigate a complex, counter-intuitive program like Blender or Maya ... to make mesh in an intuitive way.  

    What I've learned from this thread is that apparently they do also need to also learn a few basic cleanup steps in Blender though.

    good to know 🙂

    Sylvia

    • Haha 1

  6. 7 hours ago, MaxMare said:

    This is bad UV mapping and I`ve seen  A LOT of that with full perm mesh...there are so many new full perm stores and it is painfully obvious they are literally just learning...The approach 99.9% new creators have is: 1. create a mesh in Marvelous Designer, 2. rig in Avastar, 3. sell...Needless to say, they skipped at least 2. steps a professional would incorporate (optimize mesh/retopo and fix UV mapping)...Stretching can also be caused by sloppy rigging  (usually occurs between legs, under arm, shoulders, front and back mid section of longer skirts/dresses etc)

    If your business is based on full perm mesh, I would suggest to buy only meshes that include a textured sample as well as UV map sample in the DEMO (for example, CBB and Underground demos include this), it will save you a lot of trouble down the road with texturing and also prevent you from wasting Linden on meshes you won`t end up selling in your store...

    Edit: When it comes to just a tiny bit of stretching along one axis, you can compensate for that with your textures (make pattern more dense for affected areas)...

    Thanks for the advice.  

    There is indeed a boatload of badly made full perm mesh out there.  I'm hoping to make my own soon simply because of the complete lack of any really good alternatives.  I'm not sure why mesh makers don't make good full perm mesh for SL use, but they don't.  

    - The few folks that make the good stuff are usually just making things for themselves and make only one or two items, rigged only for the body that they use.  

    - The people making full perm mesh for sale, are typically amateurs as you say, and don't even know how to rig properly.  

    Sylvia 


  7. On 3/7/2020 at 10:51 AM, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

    Local textures are available in Firestorm, you simply need to open the texture picker ...

    31611781_localtextures.jpg.87e2848528f57f9cdf34c982b1c8f579.jpg

    That explains why I've never discovered it ... I never use the texture picker.  🙂

    One of the worst things about SL in general is the dreaded inventory and I learned long ago that one can make life more tolerable by reducing the times you have to navigate it to a minimum.  I usually just drag and drop textures into the edit box.  It's way faster and far more accurate.  

    I'll have to make a decision on whether the extra hassle is worth the savings in Lindens I guess.  

    Quote

    It's basically a 3D term that's been shortened for expedience, but retopology literally means the rearranging of the topology or "layout" of the polygons that comprise a 3D model, (which is pretty much the dictionary definition of "topology")

    I see that it works for the geographical meaning of 'topology' (which I wasn't thinking of, lol)  I was referring to the mathematical definition (topological transformations etc.) which is almost opposite really.  

    Quote

    3D Coat is available for Windows, Mac OS and Linux. 

    Cool.  I will definitely check it out then.  

    thanks again, 

    Sylvia


  8. 27 minutes ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

    There are two fairly simple solutions to your problem, the simplest of which is one you've already discovered i.e. just avoid applying the texture to that area and have the edges of the texture end just before the deformation of the UV begins.  The alternative would be to take that same UV grid texture and add it as an underlying layer in your bitmap editor. Then, using the grid texture as a guide, you can distort your texture so that it matches the distortion of the UV map you're seeing in the last screenshot you posted (in this case it looks like stretching the lace pattern at the edge of the texture by around 250-300% would compensate for the UV map distortion).  As long as you're using the Local Textures feature this can be relatively quick and painless and will avoid having to re-upload the texture multiple times while fixing the issue.

    This is the kind of fiddly nonsense I'm trying to avoid, lol. 

    I keep hearing about "Local Textures" but I can't see the option in Firestorm, so yeah ... everything I make costs thousands in uploads.  😡

    Quote

    Since you stated in your OP that this is a full perm mesh that you purchased rather than one you created yourself I'm assuming you don't have access to the mesh outside of SL, so retopologizing isn't going to be an option in this instance, but if you plan on using Marvelous Designer in the future it's most definitely a process that you should try to familiarize yourself with.  Having a clean topology that follows the form of the object you're modelling not only makes UV mapping simpler but can also make rigging mesh objects far easier and more effective than trying to rig the mesh output you get from MD. 

    This "retopo" thingie seems like a gross misuse of the real meaning of the word "topology" 🙂 but that's neither here nor there.

    I understand that the sort of "post processing" (retopo) necessary in Blender *after* using Marvelous Designer" simply wasn't done here.  Which is great for me because I'm a very detail and process oriented person who hates sloppiness so I don't imagine I will be making these mistakes when I make my own mesh. 

    Quote

    Personally I'd recommend taking a look at an app called 3D Coat, it's relatively inexpensive and there's a 30 day demo available so you can get a good idea of how it works before having to invest any money in it.  It has a lot of tools specifically designed for the purpose of retopology and UV mapping, as well as a really nice paint room that allows you to paint directly onto a 3D model on multiple channels simultaneously (i.e. diffuse/colour, normal/bump & specular/shiny, all the maps you need for materials in SL).  It's basically like a 3D Photoshop with Zbrush and retopology/UV mapping tools thrown in for good measure.

    I will check out 3D Coat for sure, but I'm betting it's Windows only? (because I haven't heard of it).  Painting right on the model has always interested me although for most projects it's not necessary.  

    I like to use vector based tools more than bitmap ones though, especially given the extremely low res textures we have to deal with in SL.  Here it is 2020 and most of the time our clothing is still only using 500 pixels or so of detail.  Another reason why making your own mesh and your own UV mapping is the only way to go really.  

    thanks for the advice, 🙂

    Sylvia


  9. 1 hour ago, Da5id Weatherwax said:

    I'm really sorry if I came across as unhelpful, but in all honesty my - admittedly a bit glib and brief - answer was why it wasn't working.

    Look at it without the texture applied, looking where the edge loops are going, if they are following the contours of the fitted model well...

    Now, on this one, in the picture I replied to you can see a couple of serious issues there. The horizontal loops are going up and down like a tarts knickers without any real justification for them to do so in the shape you're trying to achieve in the model. The paths of the vertical lines are so distorted that even without the somewhat funky triangulation it would be hard to trace them. You do expect that there will be some curving around - you want your edge loops to curve across the contours of a body, dipping down to outline an underbust curve or accentuating a cute butt a bit - but when the edge loops so blatantly do not respect the form they are trying to outline you are going to have problems.

    If you beat your head against the UV unwrap hard enough you can compensate for this - It's certainly possible that by tweaking the UV map vertex by vertex you will be able to achieve a distortion-free mapping of your texture on this model as it stands but that's going to be a lot harder, take many hours more and be and front-loaded with problems if you don't clean up the topology before you go for an initial unwrap.

    Interesting stuff.  

    I should clarify ... I didn't make this mesh or have access to it in Blender or Marvelous Designer, I'm just trying to texture it and at the same time understand what's wrong with it so that when I am trying to make my own mesh I don't make the same mistakes.  

    Sylvia

    • Like 2

  10. 21 hours ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

    Applying a UV grid texture (like the one below) can help you discern if the UV mapping is uniform across the entire mesh or if some areas have been squashed or distorted in some way.  That will give you some idea of the extent to which you'll need to distort your textures to fit the UV mapping of the mesh correctly when creating custom textures for it.

    ...

    As for deformations that occur due to the shape you're using try rezzing the mesh rather than wearing it, assuming the creator has uploaded it at the correct scale it should conform to the default shape used to create the mesh.

    As for reasons why this particular mesh is doing this, it's probably either because the creator didn't make the UV mapping uniform to begin with, or because they altered the mesh after applying UV mapping and in doing so compressed the UV, thereby causing the texture to become "squashed" on those polygons.

    Well, with your UV texture applied, it makes what's going on at the edge obvious, but any grid would do the same.  

    I was actually hoping to see a more "tangled" result.  What I'm trying to get at is what *causes* it, so I guess the answer is ... 

    "not remapping the UV before upload"? 

    Sylvia

    Snapshot_001.png


  11. 20 hours ago, Peony Swee*****er said:

    My guess (on that 18 pixels thing) is that the UV map does something odd as it wraps around the edge of the mesh, probably emphasised by the way it was weighted to the various bones. The odd stretch in the mapping probably wouldn’t normally be noticed until you try with a really precise design like your lace.

    I’d also guess that this was made in a program like Marvellous Designer, and that the mesh and the UV maps were auto generated. As Da5id said, a retopo would have probably fixed the mapping problem, since you’d also remap and have a nice straight edge to work on instead of lots of weirdly placed and shaped triangles.

    I'm still getting my head around "retopo" but I'm thinking this is something that could easily have been done in Blender *after* importing from Marvelous Designer. 


  12. 18 hours ago, OptimoMaximo said:

    The issue is simple: that mesh clay comes from Marvelous Designer and the way it creates a mesh with its UVs is the problem. That mesh started as a rectangular pattern that was then stitched in a tapered shape. The UV though aren't tapered, so the larger side shows a stretch and I'm betting that if you perform the same test on the bottom edge, you will see a squashing effect,quite the opposite of what you've been experiencing with the top side. 

    Well, I'm hopeful that it isn't as simple as blaming Marvelous Designer.  That program is about 1,000% better at making clothes for Second Life than any other and I hope to buy a copy once I have the cash as part of my program to make my own meshes. 

    My understanding is that even if you use Marvelous Designer that it's essential to import into Blender for many many "adjustments" before importing into Second Life so perhaps the "retopo" (still figuring that out, lol) should have been done there.  It seems like the issues with this mesh *could* certainly have been fixed at that stage. 

    Sylvia


  13. 23 minutes ago, Da5id Weatherwax said:

    That thing needs some serious retopo anyway :P

    not helpful.  

    I already suspect it's a crappy mesh as I said.  I want to learn exactly *why* it's a crappy mesh and what actions in creating it, led to the problems it has.  


  14. 9 hours ago, Chic Aeon said:

     The little balls are on the mesh. The mesh will stretch to conform to the SHAPE of the avatar. If the shape of the avatar is NOT the same shape as the reference model used in making the garment the textures will stretch. You see this ALL the time (even on us skinny gals) so not unusual.  If you test on someone that is really hippy you will likely see more stretching.  This has been around long before mesh clothing came into being.  

     

    Ah, thanks. Of course.  I feel stupid now.  😕

    Although, why it's stretching right at the edge of the garment and not stretching a half an inch further in still bewilders me a bit.  And I tested it on my own skinny self too, so presumably it will stretch even more on curvier girls.

    ...

    EDIT: 

    OK, I know it's gauche to reply to your own thread but ... new information!  

    Because I couldn't figure out why the image was only distorted at the mesh edges ... I moved it down (away from the edge) and the problem fixed itself (see attached image). 😮

    So after a bit of screwing around I figured out that for some reason 18 pixels from the edge (not 14, not 16) the image is no longer distorted.  Luckily for me I'm making something with alpha edges anyway, but seriously ... I'd like an explanation.  This trick wouldn't work on a regular garment using this mesh.  

    - Does anyone know why this mesh does this?  

    - Is it just a poorly designed mesh?  

    - Is there some (shoddy) technique that results in this kind of thing?  

    I have never seen this before.  

    Sylvia

    back_edge_18_pixels.png

    • Like 2

  15. I've been making clothes (texturing mesh objects) in SL for a while now and came across something I don't understand.  Maybe someone has seen it before and can at least explain it?  (I'd like to fix it, but it seems like it might just be a property of the mesh itself.)

    I purchased a full perm mesh object and I'm trying to texture it with a decorative edge.

    WARNING: The pictures here are just rough tests so obviously it's not finished work.  However, the problem can still be seen.  

    The first shot shows the texture in Affinity Designer, and yes, there is clippling (it's a rough test!), but mostly the little balls along the bottom border are generally the same size, right?  

    The second shot shows me wearing the test product in-world, and clearly ... the little balls along the border vary from 100% - 200%.  The ones closer to the edge of the mesh are all squashed and shrunken, whilst the ones further from the edge are almost twice the diameter.  

    Anyone know what (the F) is going on there?  

    Screenshot 2020-03-05 at 12.12.25 PM.png

    Snapshot_017.png


  16. On 2/26/2020 at 5:31 PM, Gadget Portal said:

    Because you are being unreasonable.

    Nailed it.

    Nah. 

    Everything I'm asking for is not only reasonable it's standard, and provided by every other mesh body brand

    I'm not looking to "promote my brand" (I don't have a brand and don't personally believe in brand politics/promotion, lol), I'm just looking to let users know about new products I've created for them. 

    Not only is there a HUGE difference between a "notice" and a "promotion," the groups in question specifically address this through the use of rules

    There are rules on the type of notice, the frequency of notices etc. and the *only* people who can post notices are those who have specifically requested access for that purpose and have been screened by the group owners (the actual people who are "promoting their brand"). 

    Possibly because neither of you are creators and don't post to these sort of groups, you don't know this? 

    Geez, I feel like I'm arguing about these groups exclusively with people who are completely unfamiliar with how they work😀

    In regards to my question that started this, it seems that the answer is probably ... "no"?

    I won't be checking back after this kind of response, so ... argue amongst yourselves, lol.

    Sylvia Wasp


  17. On 2/24/2020 at 10:42 PM, janetosilio said:

    So because there's no Belleza group that allows you to spam ads....they must not want you to create for them? Because....they're....different....

    Got it....

    You missed the point of there being other avenues to advertise besides sending group notices though.

    Wow, this is such a HUGE misrepresentation of what I said. 

    There is no "SPAM."  These are notification groups (with rules!) that exist specifically for the promotion of the mesh body brand in question and also to allow makers of clothing or accessories for those brands to let users know of new products. 

    All I'm saying is that I want a (very normal, typical) route for notifying Belleza users of new products that I am making explicitly for them.  And that every other mesh body has such a group/route/method. 


  18. 3 hours ago, janetosilio said:

    It’s the second most worn body.


    Honestly, I don’t even pay attention to group notices. I treat them like spam, close the box immediately when they pop up. I’ve been doing that for years.
     

    The best way to advertise now is through social media. Apparently, they are cracking down on Flickr, but that’s usually where I find out who has things I might be interested in. You can post ads, but not links.

    Well, I would disagree on "second most worn body" it depends on how the pollster makes the poll.  🙂

    The numbers also show that Belleza Freya is pretty much the only one of the three Belleza's that's still popular with designers (because sales).  

    Anyway, Belleza users seem to be different from Tonic/Maitreya/SLink users and probably always will be.  

    I WANT to make clothing for Belleza Freya, and I AM making clothing for Belleza Freya, I'm just saying that they are making it much harder than it should be to make Belleza users aware of that fact.  

    They just don't seem to have even basic infrastructure for promoting their brand. 

    Sylvia


  19. 3 hours ago, Syn Anatine said:

    Are these groups owned by the Belleza creator? If no, then....why take it out on the brand? That doesn't make a lick of sense.

    I'm not "taking it out" on anyone.  You're just trying to make me sound angry or unreasonable.  

    I'm just saying that every body type has groups precisely for this sort of thing, that Belleza seems to have one too, but ... that there seems to be basically "no one home" when I ask about advertising etc. 


  20. I know the title is a bit cheeky, but seriously ... 

    I have a small store where I make clothing for (female) avatars and I recently decided to expand the body types I support. I *had* been only supporting Tonic (the best mesh body) and Maitreya (the most popular mesh body), but I decided to expand my repertoire to include SLink, and because it's still very popular (apparently) .... Belleza Freya.  

    I then went about joining all the groups and trying to find out which ones I could use to announce products in. I found out how to do it with SLink right away (they have rules for it, like everything, lol) but  it seems that Belleza is completely lacking

    There are lots of Belleza groups, but only three with large followings that seem like the places to announce new product.  I tried asking in the groups, I tried finding out the owners of the groups and IM'ing them, and eventually I even dropped notecards explaining myself to the owners of these groups.  Two of them even say in the group description that you can "apply" for permission to post notices in the group if you are a creator and I've done that.  

    What I've got back ... (and this is weeks ago!), is sweet F-all.  Nothing. Nada. No contact.  

    I spent many days updating everything I make to support Belleza Freya and now I'm thinking I probably shouldn't have bothered.   

    Sylvia.  


  21. 1 hour ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

    "Micro" mesh is just regular mesh with a trick. For example, look at my beautiful jewelry part:

    ba3931a811.png

    Marvelous, I know. The problem is that this part can only be sized down to 0.01 because of SL limits. That's too big! But what if I put a box around my work that's twice the size?

    ec1f3e0012.png

    It can still be sized down to 0.01, but now the detail I want people to actually see is 0.005 in scale!

    So what happens when I try to scale this up? Well, SL has a maximum scale of 64. That means people can only see the inside at a size of 32 meters.

    Cool explanation as always.  🙂 

    Pictures really help too.  

    Sylvia 


  22. 1 minute ago, Chic Aeon said:

    Keep in mind that if you buy "micromesh" parts EACH PART will count as half a land impact, making your items VERY "primmy". Most jewelry is made as a single mesh item WITHIN 3D software.  So your base plan may be faulty :D. Just a warning.

     

    Personally I wouldn't buy anything from a seller with such a nasty message. 

    Thanks for the heads up, but I thought that worn items don't count as much as rezzed prims, no?

    I mean back in the day, everyone was walking around with jewellery made out of hundreds and hundreds of individual prims (ie - hundreds of LI if rezzed on the ground).    

    Sylvia

×
×
  • Create New...