Jump to content

Scylla Rhiadra

Resident
  • Posts

    21,141
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    201

Everything posted by Scylla Rhiadra

  1. I recall back in -- 2010 I guess? -- I managed to really annoy a lot of forumites who were posting in a thread pretty much identical to this one by regularly contributing a fashion critique of the team uniforms. I think, in fact, that I made predictions based on how nice the uniforms were. Drove some people bonkers! Bwahahahah! Ah, memories . . . Yours is an equally valid criterion though. And maybe more enjoyable?
  2. When you become a more experienced shopper, you'll be amazed at how much you can buy in 18 seconds!! I jest. Yes, as everyone else has suggested, this is stupid. I'm not sure I wouldn't boycott such a place in the future just out of principle. They're not actually helping themselves, and they sure aren't helping the platform. And welcome to SL!
  3. In Black Dragon (but not, I think, Firestorm), you can turn shadows off on individual projector lights. That's potentially useful because one can currently only employ 2 projectors that cast shadows in a given scene. There may be instances where one wants more than 2 directional lights in a scene, but you don't need them all casting shadows. Imagine for instance a long wall with multiple sconces, all casting light in a cone downwards. With BD (and I'm 90% sure this is the case because I think I've done it) you could have, say 3 or 4 projectors in a scene shining directionally downwards -- but set only two of those to cast shadows. One MAJOR improvement (for me anyway, because I use a LOT of lights typically in a single scene for pics) is that there is now no limit to the number of point lights you can use at once.
  4. Yeah, I've been using the FS Beta (and Alpha before that), as well as the PBR-enabled Black Dragon, so I know that projectors (and shadows) are working in them. I'm just confused by Animat's comment which, if I read it correctly, applies to the gITF standard and suggests that SL's projectors aren't part of that. What he's calling "cone" lighting sounds like projectors -- directional lighting -- but without shadows? I'm sure I'm just getting all of this very confused though.
  5. Wait, what? No projectors or lights that cast shadows and ambient light????
  6. I know, but I don't want to peeve our very nice mods. Let's just say that, whatever it was, I lol'ed. A lot. Nearly three dozen times in fact! True this. Reminds me of a Canadian joke about American beer which I may have told here before. Why is American beer like making love in a canoe? Because it's ****ing close to water.
  7. Good news, if that's so. I haven't tried this in the latest version; I'll have to give it a go. Thanks!
  8. If this is true, then it is "fixable." And they've just decided not to do it. Stupid.
  9. And this is the other stupid thing that, so far as I know, they've not fixed. Were I cynical, I'd say this was a deliberate move to speed up the adoption of PBR viewers. You say "most viewers." Is there one that has fixed this?
  10. Yeah, this remains my main complaint about how PBR has been rolled out. I can take a hit to my FPS and compensate, but in my experience most existing EEPs either don't appear as good in the PBR viewers, or actually look downright awful. And it's ironic, because this is supposed to be about making SL look better. And it won't, for a very great many users, because they're inexperienced with messing with EEP, there is no guidance on how to tweak them for PBR, and LL itself has done almost nothing to update the library or default EEPs. It really is a job half well-done.
  11. Hmmm, maybe? I'm not really much of a sportsball girl (except for baseball, which I do love), but in the past I've followed both the Euro Cup and the World Cup a bit, almost entirely because of the forums. Not a big fan of the canary yellow Ukrainian uniforms though. 😬 Canada generally calls this "soccer," btw, because we have this incredibly dull game called "Canadian football" that is somewhat like American football. Happily, though, here in Toronto, it's usually "football" because of our huge immigrant population. And we have a football team, Toronto FC, that is quite popular. The city generally goes nuts during these tournaments. I live on the outskirts of Little Portugal, which is actually also Little Brazil, and if Portugal or Brazil win a game, the entire neighbourhood for about 8 city blocks square gets shut down as the party moves out of the sports bars onto the street. And when ANY team wins, you can expect cars honking the horns and sporting flags to be parading through the city. It's kind of cool. I like it!
  12. I am not sure I see the point. People use Firestorm because of the interface and additional tools. The mobile interface is of necessity entirely different, so a FS mobile viewer wouldn't reflect the things that people like about the computer version anyway. And, while I suppose they might integrate a few new tools into it, the capabilities of a mobile viewer are also going to be pretty limited. AND it would take them forever, and distract them from their main business. FS is already 6 months behind the LL viewer (and a few others) as it is.
  13. Savages. This may be more of a consideration for the future then, when (or if) all of this new eye candy attracts newer, younger users. (I'm not, however, holding my breath.)
  14. How many people actually use voice? Almost no one in my circles of friends does -- at least, not in communal settings.
  15. As predicted: "The new viewer is more demanding on hardware, and while there have been a lot of enhancements and optimisations that go a long way to offsetting the increased demands, some of you, especially those who already struggle with performance, are likely to find things more challenging." This in interesting, though, and may hasten the adoption of a PBR viewer even by those who might want to hold off for performance reasons. I wonder how quickly we'll see PBR terrain adopted? "Moreover, for terrain, there is no possibility of backwards compatibility. Once a region has updated its terrain to PBR, non-PBR viewers will see nothing but the base colour (probably grey/white)." I have to admit, although I've been using off-and-on both the FS PBR Beta (as it now is) and the BD PBR viewer, I'm not entirely looking forward to this, especially as I'll be struggling with EEP settings for a while.
  16. Sssssshhhh! (said gently) This is Truth and Reconciliation Day on the forums! 🙂
  17. Yeah, the irony didn't escape me. That said, I try to respond by my own standards, and I'd rather be "wrong" in offering up an unnecessary apology, than be "wrong" by refusing to give one where maybe it is deserved. I'm more than willing to give Arielle the benefit of the doubt on this.
  18. Very much so, again because there was no property involved. In a novel from 1740, Samuel Richardson's Pamela, a 16 year old servant girl is locked up by her master, who wants to "seduce" her. She manages to get a letter out appealing for help to the local Justice of the Peace, who shrugs and essentially says "Who cares?" because no "families" (i.e., propertied families) would be hurt if she is seduced / r*ped. In the poor classes, common law marriages were also quite common for the same reason.
  19. In general -- and we're talking mostly about those of the middle class and above, because no one much cared what the poor did -- women were betrothed at a much younger age than men. Usually, that's because of property: one wanted to snag a younger woman so that you'd have a good chance of her producing heirs, and because, if she were "off the market," there was a better chance of her not screwing around on you (and potentially producing bastard heirs). But even "love matches" usually featured disparate ages, and this continued well into the early 20th century. Emma, in Jane Austen's novel, is something like 17 years younger than Mr. Knightly, and even Elizabeth Bennet is 7 or 8 years younger than Darcy. So Brodiac can relax for a few decades, probably.
  20. This is ringing a vague bell, because I think you did say something at the time, but I don't remember the full context. It's entirely possible I misrepresented you, because I misread stuff too, but the odds are reasonably good that it was not intentional, or designed to "hurt." Whatever the case, you really and truly do have my apologies for that. I value discussion and even disagreement -- and I appreciate the perspective you bring to this forum, even if I seldom agree with you -- but I am disappointed with myself when, as occasionally does happen, I fight "dirty."
  21. Indeed. There is a sort of gesture people make about age and sex, where they note that Juliet is only 13 in the play. Which is true. What is interesting, though, is that Juliet's own father thinks she is too young to marry: when he arranges her marriage to Paris, he urges him to wait a few years because she's not old enough for marriage (or sex) yet. Another bit of interesting context is that our cultural understanding of "childhood" has changed a lot over the centuries. And of course "teenage" is a very modern category. Kind of, but by the Restoration women were allowed on stage. Which meant playwrights could add a new wrinkle: the "britches" part. In the 17th century, women's boobs were pretty much on display, but women's legs and pelvis were not, and the skirts of dresses were designed to obscure their lower halves. So playwrights devised scenes in plays where an actress (who were of course mostly youngish and beautiful) had to be disguised as boys. That meant they'd be dressed in tight-fitting britches, which showed off their curves to good advantage. And yeah, men would go to plays just because they knew they'd have the opportunity to see Nell Gwyn, Anne Bracegirdle (her real name!), or whoever in tight fitting pants. Sex has always sold well!
  22. I don't either, Arielle. But I don't doubt that it happened. God knows, I screw up too.
×
×
  • Create New...