Ashasekayi Ra

*notes that it will be a mesh pony* ::matte-motes-bashful-cute:

Moo Spyker wrote: I uploaded two of the same mesh model 2052 triangles. The first one I had the uploader generate out my LOD's uploaded it it came into SL as 10 prims (PE). The second one I manually set medium, low and lowest to the minimum triangle setting, each one displayed 2 triangles. Uploaded that one and it came in as 2 prims (PE)... Why should the combined LOD effect the PE? This would encourage builders to never use any LOD setting but the highest because it would save on L$ and PE cost... This entire thing makes no sense to me... A merchant surely isn't going to put two triangles in a medium LOD. The developers have already stated that the average user on SL will mostly see medium LOD or lower. So, customers will be pretty unhappy with them. I'd doubt a non-merchant would want to do that either. Even on ultra, you'll see the medium LOD sometimes, and I know I wouldn't want to see two triangles for the distance covered by a medium LOD change. 10 PE for that amount of triangles seems odd if you used the default settings in the auto uploader. Did you go in and add a low poly custom physics shape or decompose the default LOD that was added in the physics tab? It sounds as if you didn't adjust physics, and the physics cost was 10 PE and bumped the model up to a higher cost. Next time you upload, take a look at what physics costs says in the upload window. Your final PE is the highest number out of the three costs: server, streaming(download) and physics.

DanielRavenNest Noe wrote: The Collada .dae file you upload has some creator information at the top of the file, and you can add additional notes that will be ignored as far as affecting the model itself. What I don't know is if any of that creator information gets preserved in the Second Life asset once it is uploaded. If it is, you have built in proof of who uploaded the original and when it was first made. This made me curious, so I asked about it in today's mesh meeting. The devs stated that the header information, including author name, is not included in the mesh asset after upload. But, they do record who uploaded the asset and when he uploaded it.

Thanks for the post. Would it be possible to add PE count and range instead of (or in addition to) just prim count on listings since the PE count can vary with scale for mesh items? Also, does LL plan to post a writeup about the important differences of mesh objects on the marketplace to help educate consumers? (For example, linking certain regular prims to a mesh prim can cause the PE to go drastically high which can cause parcel returns.)

I've gotten rigged mesh to work fine with version 2.58.1. Make sure you get a current build from graphicall.org. Then, make sure that you rename the armature avatar exactly.

Thanks Charlar, understood. @Zalandria Zaius: I would hope people use some common sense. But, I know that isn't assured.

Vivienne Daguerre wrote: Thanks Nyx! I appreciate the reply, and it is good to know that our feedback is being seen. Your point is well taken. It is almost like you need a basic viewer, and advanced viewer, and perhaps a builder's viewer that goes beyond the advanced. Or perhaps a basic, intermediate and advanced viewer, something simple for the new user, something for the power user, and something for the builders and creators. I'd give an LL dev a pony if they'd make a viewer for builders. ^^

Should we leave mesh examples out on these main grid mesh sandboxes for further testing by the developers? Or, clean them up after our own use?

hehe Glad it worked out

You can hit Ctrl + Shift + 4 in the viewer to see the log file.

I'm pretty sure you aren't actually allowed to bring any of the Daz 3D models into SL per the regular Daz license. But anyway, I haven't had any issues using the 2.58.1 version to export rigged mesh. The only caveat is that you do need to name the armature "avatar" to get it to work properly. I'm using the Win version however. Maybe, it is buggy on other OS systems.

As Drongle said, the importer doesn't force you to decrease the triangle count for each LOD step. However, during one of the meetings, a Linden developer stated that decreasing by a factor of 4 for each step down will give you decent streaming costs. And really, I wouldn't bother with the automated LOD. You can get much better PE and looks doing the LODs (especially the two lowest) by hand.

@ Zena: Are you using Blender 2. 58. 1? That version allows you to export out a rigged mesh that works in SL. It also has "export selected" added. It isn't on the main Blender site though. You have to download a version from graphicall.org. Concerning rigged mesh exported from Daz, I'm waiting for Daz 4 Advanced and the new Figure Setup tools (renamed Content Creation Tools I think). Right now, we can't test the weight paint ability of Daz since we can't legally bring Genesis into SL. So hopefully, the creation tools will come out soon so I can experiment with Daz's system and see if it is easier or harder than weight painting in Blender. And well, I'll have to see if the dae from Daz will be compatible with the SL uploader when it comes to a rigged mesh.

Thanks for that link Vivienne! I'm glad to see mesh is moving forward. But, I'm also happy to see they are moving cautiously with the deployment. There will be enough issues trying to explain how this new mesh asset works to clients/customers. We don't need huge bugs making the situation worse.

Yes, it would be nice if LL replaced the prim slot on the marketplace with something like "PE range" or "Prim range". That way, no one has a valid excuse not to list the PE range from say 1 meter to 64 meters. Then, if I see that a merchant omited that range, I can just keep moving to the next product. However, this won't solve issues with products being misrepresented in inworld shops.

@Drongle: Thanks for the info. If anyone has a log, please let me now. I'll be most appreciative. ^^

Was there a mesh meeting yesterday (July 18th)? I don't see a log posted.

I didn't have success with Daz 3. I haven't tried with Daz 4 yet.

I think that if someone tries to be shady to the point that customers feel cheated, they will eventually see a loss in money. If I bought a tree (advertised as fully grown) from someone that rezzed in at 1 meter just to get a lower PE, I'd assume they aren't trustworthy. And, I wouldn't shop with that person again. Personally, I'm going to be upfront and honest with customers about the costs. First, I'm going to sale the item at its proper scale. Secondly, I will include text on the product page that lists the PE at its preferred (first rez size) and at the max size of 64 meters. I may add some example sizes/costs in between. I'll also add a line of information about how scaling and linking effects mesh items. Like someone already said, merchants are going to have to help educate people about the pros and cons of this new asset type.

QFT There are many items still on the mesh wishlist that need to be coded. I really hope they don't spend too much time on trying to make mesh look ok to people on old viewers. If they want to see mesh correctly, they can just upgrade.

Heh... yes, it is quite a big deal if you want to use modular building methods. But, I'm *hopeful* they'll fix the pivot points. And, don't get me started on the added costs for scripts.

At the last mesh meeting (or the one right before it), Prep Linden stated that changed pivot points won't be supported at the initial release of mesh. But, it was high on the list of things to add after the release. Until then, we'll we have to use the old workaround from the early mesh beta days.

Thanks for making the jira Max. @TANAKAAKIO : You'll have to use an alpha layer to hide the area beneath the clothing in most cases.

I know that. I wasn't calling that a bug. The "bug" I was referring to was the issue of alpha flicker on the whole model (ie. higher LODs) when only part of the texture has some transparency. In this case, alpha used for the LOD billboard. Granted, I realize that the LL team has already said this won't change because it isn't a code problem.

arton Rotaru wrote: I do so, yes. But keep in mind, currently we have to keep the number of assinged materials in all LODs. So I carry the alpha texture on a single triangle on the other LODs and the non alpha on a single triangle on the lowest LOD. Thanks Arton. I knew we had to have the same number of material IDs for each LOD (hope they change that later). I just didn't think about using two textures just to get around the alpha issue. I wish they would fix that bug.