Sylvia Wasp

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. 😡 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. 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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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?

Wow. I guess the "winners" were chosen by a random algorithm? lol. how completely uninspiring these are.

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

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.

No, lol. I don't have a brand and I don't believe in brands per se either.

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

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.

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.

Cool explanation as always. 🙂 Pictures really help too. Sylvia

Cool. 🙂 I don't actually need it as "big as a house" but I was worried that they were somehow un-resizeable beyond the micro-realm as it were. Sylvia

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

I'm considering getting into making jewellery and I need to buy some FP micro mesh for that purpose. The seller in question has a (rude IMO) 'no questions, no support, no refunds, no returns' kind of policy so I can't ask him the question before the purchase. The (stupid) question is ... I know "micro-mesh" is designed to be small, but how big can it actually get? Like, can I buy a "micro-mesh" item and then just drag the handles out until it's as big as a house? What would happen? What's the essential difference between "micro-mesh" and regular mesh anyway? Okay so I guess that's two questions lol. Sylvia 🙂

thanks Molly 🙂

Okay so I added the code because better safe than sorry 🙂 (thanks for the code BTW, awesome, simple and very clear as usual)... but you've only (slightly) convinced me of the necessity of the first check (for owner), and not really convinced me of the need for the second check (for creator) at all. Your problem with the ears seems to stem from two things that will never happen with my products, which are: - multiple HUDS by different creators for the same product. The only way I could see this happening is with Gacha (and I am opposed to Gacha on moral grounds, lol) - HUDs that are not uniquely named. (I would just never, ever do this) It also still seems to me that because I'm using this in the HUDs ... llRegionSayTo(llGetOwner(),cmdChannel, (string)index); ... that a HUD can only talk to the owner of the HUD, so if the HUD is owned by someone else, it can't communicate with anyone else. So it still seems to me that we're talking about griefers. Someone who's essentially made a hacked (illegal) version of my HUD that can talk to other owners. The second situation also seems to necessitate someone making a hacked (illegal) version of the HUD and the product, and that someone who normally buys my products has unwittingly instead purchased this shady product (or more likely "found" it in a sandbox). Both, extreme edge cases IMO, both requiring illegality, and in both cases the intention of the griefer would be to do a lot more damage than just ripping off my few silly products. More likely there would be some other nefarious code payload that would be the focus. Anyway ... adding them anyway!, (and thanks again), but I think we're really dealing with secret agent levels of security here. So here is the final, final listen code I got (for anyone following and wanting to reproduce the thing): listen(integer channel, string name, key id, string message) { list crown = llGetObjectDetails(id, [OBJECT_CREATOR, OBJECT_OWNER]); if ((llList2Key(crown, 0) != llGetCreator()) && (llList2Key(crown, 1) != llGetOwner())) return; integer index = (integer) message; string texture_key = llList2String(textures, index); llSetLinkPrimitiveParamsFast(2, [ PRIM_TEXTURE, ALL_SIDES, texture_key, <1.0, 1.0, 1.0>,ZERO_VECTOR, 0.0, PRIM_NORMAL, ALL_SIDES, texture_NRM, <2.0, 2.0, 2.0>,ZERO_VECTOR, 0.0, PRIM_SPECULAR, ALL_SIDES, texture_SPC, <1.0, 1.0, 1.0>,ZERO_VECTOR, 0.0,<1.0, 1.0, 1.0>, 51,0, ]); } I switched creator and owner around so it makes more sense with the variable name. thanks for all the help everyone! Sylvia

Well, I might add it anyway since you're being so "passively aggressive" about it, lol. But it's literally adding yet another nesting if-else statement (the very thing I started out to avoid) just to absolutely rule out the minuscule chance that some griefer (who has read this thread BTW) hates me so much they are going to actively try to subvert my code, in order to play havoc with the textures on the 8 or 10 people who actually buy my clothes. I mean, I'm a small business and I operate at a loss. I only make the clothes so as to provide inexpensive, yet quality options for Tonic body users. It's more of an Anti-Capitalist action than a business, lol. Sylvia,

Hmmm ... It seems like a very very very very very unlikely situation that you're talking about IMO. I mean I'm going to get a completely unique number almost every time despite the outside chance that two avatars *may* generate the same number. Also, we're already talking about active griefing rather than just covering off stupid mistakes, two avatars in the same room with the same product, or sloppy work on my part. Someone would have to do a lot of work to construct something just to screw around with another avatars clothing texture HUD, and why would they? Sylvia

Yes, I discovered this in testing today. The whole thing stopped working and since the only thing that was changed is the NULL_KEY, I went back to the old version and it worked again. I think I'm just going to leave it the way it is (was) because I think having this at the top of the HUD code ... string HUD_Name = "some HUD"; integer cmdChannel; ... integer Key2Chan(key ID) { return 0x80000000 | (integer)("0x"+(string)ID); } and this in the Mesh code ... string HUD_Name = "some HUD"; integer cmdChannel; integer Key2Chan(key ID) { return 0x80000000 | (integer)("0x"+(string)ID); } ... default { state_entry () { cmdChannel = Key2Chan(llGetOwner()); llListen(cmdChannel, HUD_Name, NULL_KEY, ""); ... } ... does essentially the same thing. I'm already communicating between a named object on a secure channel that's specific to the user/owner of both objects. The HUD even names itself on startup so it can never be called anything else. The mesh can't listen for any other HUDs other than the named HUD, and the user would have to own both objects anyway. No other users should even be able to listen in on the same channel. I think that covers everything except ... "I've stupidly rezzed multiple copies of my own HUD all over my property and am just randomly clicking them now." Even in that case, the result would either be the very thing the user wanted, or it just wouldn't work at all AFAICS. Sylvia

Done and Done. Both excellent ideas. One last thing that always secretly bothered me though ... I don't "handle" the listen in the mesh object. Is it really necessary for a simple thing like this? Should I be using a timer and deleting the listen after a set time? It seems like extra complication and also something that will get in the way of utility of the product itself. If the HUD stops working after x seconds or whatever, the user will be left thinking it's broken. Won't the listen just disappear by itself? Sylvia