Phil Deakins

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.

I actually think that LL may move in the direction of more V1-like aspects. I'll explain... When they created the V2, it was a disaster. Almost everyone hated it with a passion, although a few - a very few - liked it. The V3 is different though. It does away with the big ugly black thing on the right of the screen, and gets back to a near minimal cluttering of the viewing area. Some previously simple things are more awkward so it does have plenty of faults but I, as a V2 hater, use it with my main av for choice. I also use Singularity with my alt for some things that the V3 is very bad at - profiles, for instance (web-based profiles are an epic fail). So the LL viewer has already moved from the disaster that was the V2 towards the V1, and they may make further steps in that direction without ever becoming a V1 lookalike. But for a pure V1 interface, Singularity is the best I've seen. I believe it has all the advances that any TPV has and it really does look and behave like the V1. So much so that, when I tried its V1 skin, I no longer liked it, and I use a different skin. ETA: Somebody shouting like hell in this thread just reminded me of something in a book that I once read. It was a book of humorous things that happened with vicars and such. After one vicar had delivered his sermon from the pulpit, and the service had ended, someone found his sermon notes still in the pulpit. At one point in the notes it read, "Shout for all you're worth. Argument very weak!".

Sassy Romano wrote: Yes that may be so but then that's a seriously hopeless home router because a router that is typically to handle a family at a current typical bandwidth should be able to handle a good number of open connections. Otherwise the suggestion is that only one family member could be using an application such as Second Life at any one time. My point was that to suggest that two viewers is "OVERLOADING" as an opening statement is probably the least of the issues. (Probably). Further, it's not the home router that's at fault here then, it's the design and implementation of a process that leads to fail. Thus, Phil's statement that mesh doesn't work, is wholly justified by the poor implementation of the protocol handling chosen by LL. What we need then is for Phil to repeat his test with his router in modem mode and that will rule out his router... It wasn't a test so it can't be repeated. I posted at the very time that I saw it (2 customers) in my store.

Theresa Tennyson wrote: The reason I seem to be attacking Melita is because of the beginning of this thread: MELITA WANTED THE ONE THING SHE CAN'T HAVE. She can have the V1 interface if she uses a third party viewer. She can use a Linden Lab viewer if she gets used to the new interface. I've given her advice as to how to do either of those. But she CAN'T HAVE AN UPDATED LINDEN LAB VIEWER WITH THE V1 INTERFACE, which is what she was asking for. There's no way that's going to happen. That should have become clear over the past three years. So she needs to do one of two different things. She needs to make a decision which she apparently has made no preparation for despite being given ample notice of this. THAT'S why I'm exasperated with her. I'll help all I can with whatever decision she makes. BUT SHE HAS TO MAKE THAT DECISION. Melita, I apologize for speaking behind your back in this post. I will now answer your initial question. THE CHANCES ARE ZERO. There is absolutely no need to be as rude as you have been to Melita (you still owe her a big apology for your rudeness to her), and absolutely no need to shout like hell. Any reasoning that you post is ignored solely because you have a habit of being rude and now of shouting like hell. You really ought to learn how to communicate in a way that people will take notice of what you say

That's right, Coby. I was forgetting about that. I don't think that Melita would have a use for materials though.

Marigold Devin wrote: As for trusting TPVs; LL trust them enough to have the developers of same helping them with their own Second Life official viewer, which means you can trust them as much as you can trust the employees of Linden Lab (and the big question here is, how much do we trust the employees of Linden Lab (no answers required, only in your own head). In a way, you are right, and, in a way, you are not - imo, of course LL, the company, is on a par with bigger internet companies as far as trusting their programmes to run on our computers is concerned. On the other hand, the small groups of unknown people who produce the TPVs are nowhere near on a par with them. You only mentioned the LL employees though, but, if you trust a company, you are really trusting the employees. The fact that LL and one or more TPVs confer over some things really doesn't add anything to the TPV's trustworthiness. If LL had been conferring with the Emerald team over things to do with the viewer, it wouldn't have made any difference to what happened. Even the Emerald team didn't know what was happening, and it took one of them to smell a possible rat and investigate. LL wouldn't have known about it even if they were conferring. All in all, I'd much rather put my trust in a company like LL, whose employees risk their jobs if they are discovered doing something underhanded, than in a group of unknown hobbyists like the TPV producers. Having said that, whilst I know it isn't risk-free, in recent times I've been accepting the risk by using a few of the more popular TPVs. The first one was the one produced by the guy who discovered what was happening with Emerald (I forgot its name). Then I used Phoenix, then briefly FireStorm, both in spite of the fact that they are produced by some of the people who produced Emerald, and now Singularity. All of them as secondary to my use of the LL viewer.