Phil Deakins

As you said, reducing avatars to RL sizes doesn't screw up the default way of moving, but it does when furniture and therefore rooms are also made to RL sizes. Anyway, we seem to petering out a bit on this side topic. Just know that I still love you, even though you do fit in my pocket

I can only judge by the number of people in the forum who support RL sizes all round, including in this thread. I accept that mesh is a reason for reducing the size of things, but not to RL sizes - just smaller, even if they are smaller than RL. RL size is too arbitrary, and for no valid reason. The real reason for making things larger than RL is the default camera position. As long as that doesn't change, things need to be larger. No. a meter is not a meter everywhere - in RL, yes, but not in virtual worlds. A meter is what a virtual world says it is. But even if you insist that an SL meter is the same as a real meter, it doesn't make a scrap of difference. Things are bigger in SL. As far as mesh is concerned, forget the meter altogether. Just make things suitably sized for SL. That's all that's necessary. The meter is totally unnecessary in SL as a measure for making things. The only thing that matters is avatar heights. Btw, where are the dimensions I keep asking for?

Coby Foden wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: It's just not on that everyone needs to move using 2 hands when they can move perfectly well with 1 hand. And negotiating furniture in a 12'x12' room really is awkward even with 2 hands and a repositioned camera - so awkward that it's very fair to say that it just doesn't work when compared to the SL we have now where accurate one-handed furniture negotiation, with the default cam position, is so very very easy. After using long time a better more natural lower camera position the default "from top of a tree view" looks really strange and ugly. It distorts the perspective, vertical lines are not vertical but tilted. The default view could be one reason for "grasshopper leg" syndrome one sees very often. And it is could be also reason for "to build big". Because looking from the top of the tree everything looks too small unless made big. The very, very easy is not always the best way of moving about and seeing around. Learning and using more advanced ways is not awkward at all. I haven't suggested that there isn't a better camera position. I've only said that, regardless of what camera position is set, a typical RL-size room and furniture doesn't work in SL - not without it being far too awkward, and therefore it doesn't work.

Coby Foden wrote: RL sized avatars and furniture will work also in rooms. Why are you stuck with that statement about RL sized rooms to support your view that RL sized avatars do not work in rooms? I have said that avatars - in general - will need bigger rooms in SL than in RL. The point is that smaller avatars will need smaller furniture and smaller rooms than big avatars. And that has its benefits. The reason I talk about RL-sized rooms is because that's what YOU claim, except that, in this thread, you've said that the rooms do need to be "slightly bigger" - slightly. Of course RL-size avatars and furniture will work ok in big rooms. That's never been in dispute. The only thing that's been in dispute is the claim that they work well in RL-size rooms, and, in this thread, "slightly bigger" than RL-size rooms - "slightly". You now seem to have conveniently dropped the word "slightly". Actually there are RL sized rooms available in SL. I have visited in some and it does work - but it needs that you will need to know how to move and cam around at the same time and that you have adjusted your camera properly. But if you find those too awkward to learn and use, then your test has only proved that the default camera position and using only keyboard to move are very inefficient ways in small spaces.. Yes I know there are RL-size rooms in SL Jo Yardley (Berlin) says she does them. But I keep pointing out that they don't work, even with 2-handed movement and drastically altered camera position. It's *still* to awkward negotiating the furniture without bumping into it or walking over it. My test included changing the cam to the position that was stated in the previous thread, and using 2 hands. I did all that, and it doesn't work in a 12'x12' furnished room. Of course you can stay in the room and blunder your way around it, but that's not the same as it working. Building in prims the size does not matter concerning land impact. One prim has always the same land impact regardless of its size. For mesh objects the size matters - the bigger the mesh is the bigger is the land impact. So there definiterly is a very good reason to design to RL scale instead of making things "generally larger" than in RL. With mesh arrival it's the time to let go from that historical over large building style. If you were designing in mesh (which I know you don't do) you would very quickly learn the fact that smaller is better than big. Surely people having small land are concerned how much land impact each object what they put on their land will cause. Then don't use mesh buildings. I don't have any experience at all of mesh - not even as a user of it - but I can't imagine any benefit in having mesh buildings. A few LI/prims maybe, but so what? It's just not worth it. Mesh parts of buildings, perhaps, but not whole buildings. Surely mesh is best suited to smaller objects. So I don't accept mesh buildings as a valid reason for reducing the size of avatars to RL sizes, when it screws up the default way of moving around in SL. With your mesh building logic, you ought to be pushing for smaller-than-RL avatars In all honesty, I believe that you want RL-size avatars and furniture, as in the previous thread, simply because that's what you like, and that mesh isn't the reason - it wasn't mentioned in the previous thread.

It is an extremely tiny number of people who seriously want SL sizes to match RL sizes. Mesh wasn't the reason in the previous thread, so what is your reason? You seem reluctant to provide the dimensions of a suitable "slightly bigger" than RL room. Until you do, there is no point in continuing the discussion. Words are just words. The proof either way is to be found in an actual furnished room, and I want to test your "slightly bigger" room. I don't mind if it's your own SL home but the proof is in the bricks and mortar, so to speak, so let's see it. Put you room where your mouth is

Coby Foden wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: But go into an RL sized 12'x12' furnished room and you can't see well enough to negotiate the furniture, because you can't see the floor just in front of you without the awkwardness of manipulating multiple keys, and even then it's just awkward. You can see the floor and the furniture provided that you take the little time to learn how to use mouse and keyboard simultaneously in moving and looking around. Surely anybody will find it awkward if one never had any interest in learning it. After learning it, it will will be a great aid in moving in cramped spaces. Nothing awkward in it. I find it odd that if the only "acceptable" or convenient keys for moving in SL would be the arrow keys or WASD keys. Why to limit oneself to those keyboard movement methods only? It's just not on that everyone needs to move using 2 hands when they can move perfectly well with 1 hand. And negotiating furniture in a 12'x12' room really is awkward even with 2 hands and a repositioned camera - so awkward that it's very fair to say that it just doesn't work when compared to the SL we have now where accurate one-handed furniture negotiation, with the default cam position, is so very very easy.

Coby Foden wrote: I guess that Linden Lab will do nothing towards consistent realistic scale in SL. It appears that they just don't care.. There's no reason why they should care. It really doesn't matter to almost every SL user. SL sizes work well in SL, so who cares that they don't match RL sizes? It does seem to matter to you. You are one of an extremely tiny number of people for whom it does matter so, just out of interest, why does it matter to you? Please tell me. If the lab cared for proper scale [...] Why should they? SL is SL. It is not a reflection of RL. SL is a 'world' in its own right. It doesn't have to mimic a different world. It just developes according to its own environment, and there's no reason for it not to do that. The only "proper scale" there is is that which applies to SL - not that which applies to another world. ETA: I realised that you are now talking about scale and not size. Did you mean size when you wrote scale? because we've only been discussing RL and SL sizes. From my SL experience, SL scales are generally the same as RL scales.

Coby. Of course I agree that RL-sized avatars and furniture work in SL in the open. I've never said anything different. I've only ever talked about enclosed RL-sized rooms. It will work well enough in mansion-sized rooms because they are effectively open spaces, but not in typical RL-sized rooms. I'm not going to go though your long post because it would serve no purpose. We've been through it all before. In the previous long thread on the subject, I even tested it with an actual RL-sized room and bed and I know from that experience that it simply doesn't work. In this thread, you said that the room has to be "slightly bigger" than an RL one, so (1) you agree that it doesn't work with typical RL-sized rooms, and (2) I've asked you more than once to give me the dimensions of a "slightly bigger" room in which it does work, but you haven't done that. I can only guess the reason why you haven't done it - because the room needs to be a lot more that "slightly bigger" and, if that's the case, then my statement that it doesn't work would be correct. So, until you give me the dimensions of a room in which RL-sized avatars and furniture work without being awkward, so that I can do the test, there is no point in continuing this debate. If you do provide the dimensions, and it turns out to be a mansion-sized room, then my statement that it doesn't work will be shown to be true. Regardless of the disagreement, the bottom line is that it really doesn't matter either way. Stuff in SL is generally larger than stuff in RL, and there's absolutely no reason why it should not be that way. That's really all there is. ETA: I just want to add:- (1) Yes, a home with enormous rooms can be made in which RL-sized avatars can move around perfectly well, but that would need a lot more furniture to make the room look right, and it would mean that cosy little typical RL-size rooms couldn't be used. (2) In order to move around in a typical RL-size furnished room you have to alter you camera's position and use both hands to see what you need to see - look down to see where the corner of the bed is to avoid walking over it, for instance. It's all very awkward and too unnatural a way of seeing in a confined space. If stuff in SL were RL-sized, then it would mean that everyone had to change their camera positions and move in confined spaces in an awkward way. That's not the way SL is and any attempt to make it that way is totally pointless because SL works very well the way it is by default. (3) People often say that SL has a steep learning curve. You suggested making it even steeper by having people, including new users, learn to move using 2 hands and alter the camera position from the default, both of which are things that need instruction on, because it's not obvious how to do them. Why? When the normal way of moving, and the camera default, work perfectly well, why steepen the learning curve?

Czari Zenovka wrote: What I want to experiment with is using convex hull on some of my prim furnishings. I've read a tiny bit on the subject, but have heard (again anecdotal) evidence of people using convex hull (however that is done) on an existing prim-built item, thereby reducing the number of prims/Li. I don't have that many items rezzed on my home parcel and I noticed last night that I'm using a lot more prims than would seem normal for the number of items I have rezzed. (Although, it could be my breedable dogs using prims *sighs* Whyyyyyyyy did I step into that? lol) Changing an object to Convex Hull is very simple. Get the object in Edit, select the Features tab, click the Physics Shape Type drop-down list and select Convex Hull. Then compare its LI to see if any gains or losses have been made. A lot of gains can be made. I've done it with every item that I sell where both a gain is made and it doesn't interfere with functionality. You can't walk into the open space of a convex hull object, so convex hull is no good for pagodas and 4-poster beds, for instance, but it is good for tables because you don't want to walk under tables.

Jennifer Boyle wrote: I have my camera just in front of my face. It is a more immersive experience for me than having it behind me. In the open, I would completely agree - if I'd ever tried it But go into an RL sized 12'x12' furnished room and you can't see well enough to negotiate the furniture, because you can't see the floor just in front of you without the awkwardness of manipulating multiple keys, and even then it's just awkward.

Coby: I'm replying to both of your posts in this one - in chronological order. I ma not, and never have been, thinking about a "sweet spot" in terms of avatar size etc. So your arguments against that idea don't apply to me. Yes, I agree that RL size furniture works perfectly well for RL size avatars. Where it doesn't work at all is when you put them into an RL size room. You said that a room needs to be slightly bigger, but you didn't say what size it needs to be, and I did ask. I also said that i would test your room size if you provided it. Saying that SL is not RL may be a very poor argument to you, but it is absolutely true. Yes I know that a bigger avatar needs bigger everything. That's the whole point. It's why furniture and rooms are bigger in SL You said, "RL dimensions do work excellently in SL - in avatar sizes and object sizes. Rooms need to bigger than in RL due to avatar movement clumsiness and due to limited view on the flat screen.". And that's the whole point again. Rooms do need to be bigger. RL size room don't work in SL. That's what I've been saying. But you also said that rooms need to be "slightly" bigger. They need to be a lot bigger, but I'm still waiting for the dimensions. You also said, "• by learning to use the mouse and keyboard simultaneously in moving • by adjusting the camera to better position than the viewer default". Sure. Just because a few people don't want to adopt the attitude that SL meters are not the same as RL meters, let's have everyone learn to use SL in an unusual way, and change the default camera position. None of which works well enough anyway. And finally... I don't care about 3D software. We went through that the last time, but it didn't make any difference. If you adopt the attitude that SL meters are different to RL meters, then all the bigger stuff in SL can be seen as being RL sized. because it's so awkward to use RLm = SLm, it's doesn't make any sense not to adopt that attitude. Just have avatars, buildings and furniture sized to suit the SL world, so that they look like they do in RL, and have done with it. It's really very simple AND very sensible. This argument can never be won by the SL=RL thinking because SL does not lend itself to RL sizes, and using RL sizes is much too awkward in SL.

I was into renting out skyboxes within a few weeks of arriving in SL. I took the size more or less from the size of a skybox that I was renting. Actually I made mine a bit smaller to save a few prims. I made the furniture for them too. Everyone was larger than RL back then so thinking about RL size didn't come into it. It's only through forum discussion and continuing to make furniture that I realised why it has to be bigger than RL. What I don't get though is why the RL-size evangelists can't or won't see that it doesn't make any difference. SL is a different world and sizes should be according to it, and not according to a foreign world - RL. Also, and I've argued this before, there is no reason to assume that SL meters are the same as RL meters. If a person decides that SL meters are SL meters and RL meters are RL meters and that they just have the same name (like the U.S , Canada, Australia, Linden Lab, etc. all use dollars), then sizes in SL can be seen as the same as RL sizes, only the SL meter is shorter than the RL one so it needs more meters to have the same sort of space. It's only a matter of adopting the attitude that SL meters are different to RL meters. I honestly don't see why they are so keen on making RL and SL the same. It doesn't make any sense to me in an environment (world) that doesn't suit it.

LOL!

Maybe that's the reason, Ceka. The largest room in my house is 12'x12' and some rooms are smaller, of course. Most houses in the uk don't have any larger rooms that mine, although some do. Bedroom are usually smaller though. So I tested with 12'x12' room, put a double bed in it, etc. etc. It just doesn't work. Try it. It's quick and easy to do. Just make a hollow 12'x12' box and cut it back to leave a door opening. Then put a typically RL size box in it for the bed, and walk around in it. Yes you can do it but you can't see whether or not you're going to walk over the corner of bed. But them imagine other pieces of furniture in it as well, and imagine how you would negotiate the everything as you walk around the room. Once you tested it, you'll fully understand what I mean. ETA: I should say that Coby and I will probably never agree on this subject, but we won't fall out over it. I'll still love her as I have ever since she looked so small and cute standing next to my kitchen units

The walls aren't the only thing. THE things are the cam position is RL size rooms and the inability to move the head - to see where you are with respect to stuff that's in the room. Those are the two reasons why is doesn't work. As I said, a few people really want to use RL sizes for everything, and they do manage it, but to do so, they accept the awkwardness of it all. It's just too unnatural which is why I say that it doesn't work. In other words, it can be done if you accept the awkwardness but, to my way of thinking, that's not working.

Freya Mokusei wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: I'm meaning that RL sized avatars can't work well in RL-sized rooms, because of the way we see in SL - from behind the head - and our SL heads don't work the way our RL heads do - they don't move to see where our feet are, for instance. It means that a typical RL sixed living room can't work well enough in SL, even with RL sized avatars. I assume you mean to say something a little more insightful than "third person perspective doesn't look the same as first person perspective", but I have no idea what it could be. ETA: Yeah, you're confusing physical size and camera perspective/field of view, which are two separate and unconnected issues. Cameras don't work like eyes, so drawing the equivilence here is silly - RL physical size works because SL only uses an atomic and consistant unit of measurement (meters). Departing thread because nonsense will follow. Depart you may, but it doesn't mean that you can get away with that piece if misinformation. The only things that matter in this little debate is the camera position and the inability to move the head to look around. Nobody suggests that the default camera position works indoors with typical RL-size rooms. If nothing else, that's more than enough to say that RL-sized things and avatars don't work in SL. The only way that a few people (wrongly) claim that RL sizes work is if each user radically changes his/her cam position, and, imo, that would be silly to expect.

Coby Foden wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: ... the reason why it occurred to me that standard sizes might be a cause of the diminishing avatar height trend ... I think it is mesh objects (houses, furniture, vehicles, etc) which will cause avatar heights to go shorter. Why so? Well, the bigger mesh objects are made the bigger the LI will go. So I guess that makes designers thinking of making things close to RL sizes instead of 1.5 times or even two times bigger as has been the practice so far. That will lead people to notice that unrealistacally tall avatars do not go well with RL sized objects. That may well be the ONLY reason to have RL-sized things in SL, and it would cause avatar heights to tend more towards RL-sized people. But, imo, it's not a reason that trumps the awkwardness of having things sized suitably for SL. But if it wasn't for that, there would be absolutely no reason to create things (avs, furniture, rooms, etc.) to RL sizes. It's SL and not RL, and scales need to be suitable for the SL environment and system. Apart from the increased LI of larger mesh, there is no reason whatsoever to make SL things the same sizes as RL things. It's silly to do so when it doesn't work anything like suitably sized things.

Coby Foden wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: On the contrary, Coby. It was proved that RL sized avatars cannot work indoors in SL - unless that rooms are unrealistically huge, that is. No Phil, it was not proved to be so. It was just your idea, to what - unfortunately - you still seem to cling to. RL sized avatars are happy with RL sized furniture, vehicles and other stuff. They would need only slightly bigger rooms than in RL to be able to move about easily. They definitely would not need unrealistically huge rooms as you are claiming. On the other, hand very tall avatars will need a lot bigger rooms - unrealistically huge - and a lot bigger furniture. Or am I thinking something wrong here, what do you think? These are the facts - not opinions. :matte-motes-nerdy: One of your facts is definitely an opinion You said that it's my "idea" when in fact it's my fact based on my actual building and testing it. I built an RL sized room (a box) and put an RL sized double bed in it (another box) and made my avatar RL sized, and adjusted its cam position according to what was said in the thread. Then I tried to use the room and it didn't work - and it can't work. Or perhaps I should say that I could move in the room (obviously) but the suggested cam position and especially the inability to move my head meant that I simply couldn't see where my feet were with respect to the bed, so it doesn't work. On top of that, I only had a bed in it. RL bedrooms have much more than a bed in them. Not only that but, also because the head can't be moved like an RL head, the walls interfered with the camera. Those are facts - not merely my "idea". However, you did say that it needs a slightly larger room, which implies that you agree that using RL measurements doesn't work - as I said. My room was 12' x 12' I don't remember its height, but a typical RL height would mean that the ceiling would probably get in the way too.. How much larger would you suggest? Tell me the room dimensions and I'll test it again. ETA: If you, or anyone, can provide me with room dimensions that are only slightly larger than typical RL room dimensions, I'll test it again and, if it does work reasonably well, I'll change my mind, but I can't see that happening because my test already showed that it doesn't work. The only time it will work is when it's possible to use headsets with SL so that the view can change with RL head movements.

Ceka Cianci wrote: you are talking about the world itself and how everyone has different sized builds and that furries and vamps and fairies exist? or that we can't really get a golden ratio with these sliders? I'm meaning that RL sized avatars can't work well in RL-sized rooms, because of the way we see in SL - from behind the head - and our SL heads don't work the way our RL heads do - they don't move to see where our feet are, for instance. It means that a typical RL sixed living room can't work well enough in SL, even with RL sized avatars. It's been argued that it does work, because a few people persevere with RL sized everything, but it doesn't. They merely persevere in the face of it not working like RL does.

On the contrary, Coby. It was proved that RL sized avatars cannot work indoors in SL - unless that rooms are unrealistically huge, that is.

Ceka Cianci wrote: if we ever getthe deformer..the push for RL sizes may fade too..but then again..who knows.. it may be bigger than fashion since it's been going on for so long hehehe The push for RL sizes can never succeed in SL for reasons that we've gone into in great depth in the past. I.e. it can't work indoors in SL.

Conifer Dada wrote: Digressing slightly.... On the subject of large avatar sizes - I go to a club where lots of 'joined today' and other recent newbies visit. A lot of the newbies are maximum height. My theory is that this is because that makes their avatar look bigger on their screen, since they are unaware that it's possible to change the camera viewpoints in debug settings! To continue your digression slightly, the reason why it occurred to me that standard sizes might be a cause of the diminishing avatar height trend is because I was talking with a friend the other day, who said that in her early time in SL, she was the shorty on average, but now she taller than most others, but she hasn't her altered height at all through the years. That was still fresh in my memory when I read about 'standard sizes' in another thread today.

Got it. Thank you folks. I understand it now.

I've been reading about standard sizes in a thread about mesh clothes. What are standard sizes? The reason I'm asking is because I'm wondering if it might be the reason, or part of the reason, why avatar heights are tending to be shorter than they used to be.

I've been reading about standard sizes in a thread about mesh clothes. What are standard sizes? The reason I'm asking is because I'm wondering if it might be the reason, or part of the reason, why avatar heights are tending to be shorter than they used to be.