Phil Deakins

The bee's knees. also The cat's whiskers Identical meaning to that in the above post.

The dog's bollocks. It means something that's so good that it's near perfect. I'm sure you can guess what 'bollocks' means although I don't think it's a word that Americans use. Only males have them It can be used in on its own, as in "Bollocks!" (rubbish!), or in a sentence such as, "That's a load of bollocks" (that's a load of rubbish), or. "He kicked me in my bollocks" (no explanation necessary). An American forumite used the word to me not long ago - it made me laugh. She explained that it's not a word that's used over there and that she'd heard it in a TV programme and checked what it meant. That's why I don't think it's used in the U.S.

I didn't say it wouldn't work in populated parts of SL. I said it would work anywhere. The sizes of avatars play a huge role in SL. They don't matter in your example, of course. Any size will do. I took your example to be a sort of summing up of the discussion, and a summing up isn't complete without all the main parts being in it, so I posted about room sizes

You certainly have spoken, Coby, but you forgot to mention one thing - room sizes - so there is still something to add. They need to be bigger than RL room sizes, as we both agree. Unless everyone wants large rooms with the need for additional furniture to occupy the larger space nicely, and not typical cosy RL-like living rooms, then it would all work just fine. But it wouldn't work just fine for those who prefer typical cosy RL-like living rooms, bedrooms, etc. That's where it would go wrong for many people - because of the camera, which is the reason we both agree that larger rooms are necessary. There is absolutely no reason why individuals, who prefer RL sizes, shouldn't have them anywhere on the grid. It's up to each individual. But, as far as furniture creators are concerned, we make furniture for the general sizes that exist in SL, which is larger than comparable RL sizes, so those who want RL sizes may need to make much of the necessary objects themselves. I did say in one of these threads that there may be a nice niche market for someone to specialise in the making and selling of ranges of RL-sized furniture and other items. You could do it?

Ceka Cianci wrote: Now agree to disagree and mean it or it's gonna get real messy in here.. i'm talking cheesecake Everrrrywhere!! \o/ No need for us to agree to disagree, Ceka. The threat of cheesecake everywhere was too much for us to even contemplate, so we've reach an agreement.

I'm back from golf now. I thoroughly enjoyed your play. I really did. I won't now reply to the rest of your post that I didn't have time to reply to earlier because it seems that we've reached an agreement. Ceka will be delighted

Does that mean that the engagement is back on again? :heart:

I'm teeing off shortly so this can't be a full reply to your post. I'll just answer that last bit for now. The idea of RL sizes in an empty SL would work in exactly the same way is it works in the current SL. Avatars and furniture would work just fine, but room sizes must be bigger than RL because of the way we see. So your idea of having avatar and furniture sizes the same as RL, and having bigger rooms because of the way we see, would work just fine. We've never been in disagreement about that. I can't stop to address the rest of you post just now. Sorry.

We did that already - more than once

Ah. Thank you Coby. Did you make it up (GAH) or is it something that used in general? Yes, I'm a GAHist but you know that anyway. I'll give you an instance where RL matching simply won't work. It's a sofa. I make sofas with cuddle and sex animations in them. Some of the anims are full length, as I'm sure you appreciate. My RL sofas are bigger than average and I am not very tall - a mere 5'9½" now. (I used to be 5'10½"), but I can't lay full length (straight) between the arms. So, if I made SL sofas the same size as my longer than average RL sofas, even RL-sized avatars wouldn't be able to lay full length in a cuddle, for instance. Of course I could make cuddle anims with raised heads or feet, just for the sofas instead of being able to use the same anims in the beds, but I don't. What's the odd 12" on the length of a sofa, anyway Incidentally, that's not an argument against RL sizes. It's just something to write because I love you

Coby Foden wrote: The sizes in SL have not worked perfectly well for many years. It is just how you have observed things. I have observed things differently. Avatar of any size can see that content in SL is not equally scaled. It's not "perfect" situation. The sizes have worked perfectly well for years - for the vast majority of users, that is. We know they don't work for you. You have chosen to have an unusually short avatar, so there isn't a lot of stuff you can buy that suits your height. It's you who is out of step with the world. The world isn't out of step with its population. f you haven't seen me state the benefits of RL sizing earlier then you have not read all my posts thoroughly. It's not that "I just prefer it". To state clearly the benefits what I see in RL sizing: • LI and land area savings using mesh content -- lower LI means that people could decorate their homes with more objects than would be the case with large upscaled ojects • In prim content land area saving --- instead of that house occupies the whole parcel, with smaller house one could have nice small garden • Consistent scaling of things (Means using: 1 SLm = 1 RLm) • More beautiful SL experience for everybody • If Linden Lab finally could find a way to tell the true mesh height in appearance editor: -- no more confusion about avatar heights (now the situation is a chaos: different viewers give different heights, measuring with prim is the only accurate one) Again, I'm not trying to persuade people to change anything. Take this as a fun reading how things could be instead of how they are now. Happy SLing all, thanks for reading. :smileyhappy: :heart: I can't find fault with your reasons for wishing RL sizes throughout. I have no objections to it, except that, because of the camera, it doesn't work in typical RL-sized rooms - and I'm talking about my own RL rooms which, in fact, are larger than most of the houses around me. If you can't have a little fully furnished country cottage, sized in RL meters, then RL sizes don't work. And we both agree that you can't have that RL-sized country cottage because the rooms would be much too small to move around the furniture in. On the other hand, if all creators and builders only created stuff on a 2:1 scale, then it would all look identical to 1:1 and would work very well with the camera. By all means scale things, but 1:1 does not work. It only works if you abandon the idea of RL-size rooms - which you've done anyway, so your RL-sized idea is already broken Phew! Here endeth the reply to your very long post

Coby Foden wrote: As I said above I'm not trying to persuade anybody to be anything. You could take this as education and an eye opener, things could be different, and in mind better, than what they have been so far. If you travel a lot in SL, by foot and really look at things, you would see that everything is not all right concerning sizing of things. Some designers rely on GAH method (like you). I'm sure that there are many sizes of GAH, there is no globally defined size of GAH. Each designer who relies on GAH naturally have their own estimation of GAH. So GAH method in designing is not accurate. Things all over SL are not scaled equally. Some designers make large things, some make even larger things. And anything in between. There are designers who actually do use meters (surprise!). But most them of scale up things like the GAH people. Some scale up by 1.5, some might scale up by 2.0. And again anything in between. In my mind this is not a very good thing. It makes SL to like some topsy turvy place. Nothing is exact. Keen eye notices this easily. If you stay mostly in the same place always, everything could look "okey'ish". But travelling all over SL gives a different picture how things are. Your view that "we should accept things as they are" sounds pessimistic to me. Why should we accept it as we know that things could be better? I would be very happy to see that SL was more consistent and thus more beautiful than what it is today.: Aha! A bit that takes very little to answer First. What does GAH mean? I can't reply to most of the above quote without knowing that. Accepting things as they are is the only sensible option, otherwise we'd be frustrated all the time. Yes, people do create things on various scales, so they don't look right together, but that's what SL is. It would be very nice if all creators made things to the same scale. I won't argue against that because I agree that it would be much better, but it doesn't happen and it never will, so there is no point in even bothering about it. Some may think, "I bother because I care about SL and what it looks like", and I would say that that's just how *they* would like things to be for themselves, so it should not carry the day. It's a heck of a long post to reply to but I'm getting there. Not too much more to go now

Coby Foden wrote: I want to point out: Big avatars need large rooms, small avatars need less large rooms than big avatars. Why should small avatars need as large rooms as big avatars? Anyway for both, the rooms would be larger that in RL. Let's suppose a male avatar which is 2.20 m tall would be ok in a room measuring 7 m x 7 m. Then there is mean RL height male avatar 1.74 m tall. What would be suitable room size for it? Surely the big avatar's room would be too large in comparison. To get the exact same feeling for small avatar as the big one has we need to do: Floor length of small avatar's room = (1.74 / 2.20) * 7 = 5.53 Thus for the same room experience: • Big avatar's room 7 m x 7 m • Small avatar's room 5.53 m x 5.53 m Your argument "if rooms are bigger, furniture needs to be bigger to make the rooms look right. And then, of course, avatars need to be bigger to be right for the furniture" is not correct. You are totally wrong in thinking that way. Think very carefully again. You are just going in circles with that statement, and in effect you suggest (unconsiously or knowingly) that the big avatar has reached a size "sweet spot" where everything looks right. Of course you have earlier denied of supporting any "sweet spot" idea. Draw exactly dimensioned layouts from both rooms and furniture, and observe. (Or easier make the large room with large furniture, make a copy, shrink the copy by 1.74/2.20 and there you have the rooms to compare.) We can say that the 7x7 room is all right for the big avatar, and the 5.53x5.53 room is all right for the small avatar. Small avatar is happy with RL sized furniture, big avatar needs larger furniture, fit for its size. Visually inspecting the rooms, the furniture in each of them occupy relatively the same areas from the floors.: I hope I get through the very long post before I'm due to tee off lol I haven't decided that there's a "sweet spot" for avatar, furniture and room sizes. Not by any stretch of the imagination. The only thing I've decided is that the practicality/functionality of seeing and moving well in confined spaces (rooms) causes a limit on those sizes at the smaller end because of the camera. Of course you can have RL-sized avatars and furniture in large rooms, provided you have either much more furniture in the rooms (or it will look far too empty) or bigger furniture. The first is an unnecessary waste of prims and the second leads to bigger avatars. SL users in general have settled on the bigger avatar option and it works perfectly well. I'm not even going to test your shrinking idea because I already know that there's a lower limit before the camera gets in the way. And I'm not going change the camera settings because, on the whole, people use the default, so there's no need to test it.

Coby Foden wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: 1. You are mistaken that there has been any speculation that you have been trying to "force" everyone to be RL heights. But you have been debating in favour of it. You can't force anyone, and nobody even suggested it. 2. Nobody has even suggested that you support that every avatar should be the same height (the bolded sentence in your post), so I don't know why you wrote and emphasised that sentence. 3. You are mistaken if you believe that anyone has stated that RL and SL meters are not the same. What was said (by me) is that, if you treat them as being different, your desire that general avatar heights = general RL people heights is already true, so there is no need to change anyone's mind about avatar heights. 4. You yourself have agreed that things in SL cannot work properly in RL sizes. I.e you agreed that rooms need to be bigger for it to work. But, if rooms are bigger, furniture needs to be bigger to make the rooms look right. And then, of course, avatars need to be bigger to be right for the furniture. 1. I just wanted to make it crystal clear that I'm not trying to force anybody to be anything. I'm not even "persuading" (as you say in your very post I'm replying to) anybody. I just present ideas how I see things, and what methods I think would make SL a more beautiful and coherent place. And I really do think that building to RL scale would be very good step towards that goal. Clear enough? 2. Again just to make it crystal clear that I do not support equal avatar size for everybody. 3. You are playing with words "the meters can be the same" but "treat them as different". (you are an expert in wordplay, sometimes I have to read many times to clearly understand what you have said) 4. I have said that RL sized avatars and objects do work perfectly in SL. You have said so too. We are in agreement regarding that. We both agree that avatars need larger rooms to feel comfortable.: 1. All I said was that there has been no speculation that you are trying to force people into RL sizes. However, your posts have come across as attempt at persuading us, whether it was intended or not. And I'm not talking about only this thread. Like you, I'm talking about the other thread, which is what you were referring to in your OP. 2. Nobody suggested that you did or do support equal avatar sizes for everyone. The first time that was even mentioned was in your own OP in this thread. 3. The 'meters' thing is not a play on words at all. It was a suggestion that would give you exactly what you want, that's all. 4. We do agree on that. It would be stupid not to. But the result would be that the larger rooms would need more furniture, using more prims/LI, just for the sake of making them look right. That waste is unnecessary with larger avatars and, therefore, larger furniture.

Coby Foden wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: And, as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong) the avatar height slider is a different measurement to the prim measurement, even though they both use meters. It used to be, anyway, and it probably still is. So anyone who sets their height with the Appearance editor, would get it wrong anyway. To be clear: The avatar appearance editor uses exactly the same meter (exactly the same lenght) as is used for prim and land measurement. Meter is the same meter all over SL. There are no different sizes of meter. Ok. So the idea that the Appearance editor height measurement and prim meters don't match is correct. Therefore new arrivals using the Appearance editor to set their RL height will end up with the wrong height, which is what I was pointing out. Now for your long post, which I have to break up into smaller chunks

Linden Lab has been known and criticised for competing against its own paying customers for years. It's a company without scruples.

Coby Foden wrote: I hope that Phil reads Pamela's post - carefully and open mindedly. :matte-motes-big-grin: :smileywink: I did read Pamela's post with an open mind, Coby It doesn't change anything though. I would guess that the vast majority of people use the default camera position, simply because it's the default and it works just fine. But whether the vast majority uses it or not, doesn't make any difference to anything because it has to be assumed that the default is what the majority uses. And if your comment rally about the other thread, it still changes nothing. What works works, and what doesn't work still doesn't work.

With the best will in the world, I can't see that many people would be happy to have their avatar covering so much of the view as the norm, Jo.

http://community.secondlife.com/t5/General-Discussion-Forum/Cut-Mesh-Prims-by-Changing-Your-Camera-Angle/td-p/2054145/page/2 Halfway down that page. I was probably wrong but I assumed it was your place. I'll answer your question anyway, even though you know my answer It's because the default camera position is what people actually use.in general.

I can do a quantity discount on security devices for you

Syo Emerald wrote: Some very old furniture is still oversized for me (and my avatar is larger than a most reallife women) Some of the very old furniture that I sell is a bit over-big. But I still sell it because it still sells. I sell smaller-sized ranges too. To be honest, quite a while ago I'd wanted to do away with the larger stuff, not only because it's larger but mainly because it's made from standard prims and my later stuff uses sculpties. but it still sells so I leave it on sale

I'm not against reducing LI costs, and you do that (I think that's what you said ). I'm all in favour of it. I think that mesh building could cause avatar heights to shrink a little due to smaller mesh buildings costing less LI. I don't think that heights and rooms will go down to anywhere near typical RL heights and rooms though. I can't argue against your experience with RL sizes because, as you said, you've become accustomed to it. But I can hazard a guess that people in general won't even try to get used to it because it's so very awkward at the start, to the extent that it doesn't work anywhere near well enough to consider it as working - and the default way of moving around is so very easy. I can guess that people in general simply won't want to persevere with your method and sizes. A few will, and do, of course, but not the vast majority.

When I tried it, some years ago, I decided that the av used much too much screen space. Coincidentally, in another thread, Jo Yardley just posted some screen shots in one of her Berlin Project buildings, and there it was - a huge head taking up far too much screen space for my liking Plus it shows the inability to see what's right in front of her and lower than shoulder height, so she'd only be able to guess whether or not she was about to walk over the corner of a bed, for instance, or even about to step on and squash a cat lol. It may be that because of mesh buildings and LI, avatar heights will evolve to being shorter in general. Time will tell on that. I'm ALL in favour of reducing LI count, and I welcome any way of doing it, even it results in me shrinking all my furniture. Mesh buildings may cause that to happen. Not down to RL-equivalent sizes, of course, but part way.

I agree that we'll never agree You pics don't show what it's like to move around in a furnished typical RL room. I have tried it, remember, and with your cam positions and 2-handed movements, and I do know that it's so awkward that saying "it doesn't work" is very reasonable. You are right that when headsets can be used, it will all be different. Also, the LI of mesh buildings may cause sizes to evolve towards being smaller, but never to RL-sized rooms, because they are awkward. Anyway, as you said, we'll never agree so let's move on ETA: Incidentally, the 2nd pic in your post shows a very big reason why it's no good - the avatar not only occupies far too much of the screen, and that's a biggie, but it can't see any low level items that's close to, and the user can only guess as to whether or not it will walk around something like a bed or walk over the corner. It could squash a cat - really. Nice pics can be taken - you've done that - but that's not negotiating furniture in the room.

You have a point there, Theresa, but, since the general height of avatars in SL is taller than the general height of people, why would the population want to change it? If some or many people first set their avatar heights according to an RL height, and if they can't find stuff to suit their height, they change it. It's necessary because of the camera position. RL-sized rooms don't work. The evidence is that they change it, presumably when they mix with other avatars and find how short they are, because the general range of heights is taller that they are in RL. And, as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong) the avatar height slider is a different measurement to the prim measurement, even though they both use meters. It used to be, anyway, and it probably still is. So anyone who sets their height with the Appearance editor, would get it wrong anyway.