Jump to content

Scylla Rhiadra

Resident
  • Posts

    22,656
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    228

Everything posted by Scylla Rhiadra

  1. I have a slightly NSFW version of this (no bra), but it's not sufficiently "nude" to belong perhaps in the Adult forum anyway.
  2. As I think I have mentioned before, I actually have a folder consisting of what I call "floor clothes." Weirdly, it's almost all women's clothing, and especially panties and bras, however -- apparently men never undress.
  3. I could provide copious instances from fine art of images that are very clearly not "realistic" (yet alone photographic), but that look vastly more lovely than a merely documentary photograph of the same scene would look. But maybe a better analogy might be those who prefer high-quality digital recordings of music, and those who think that old-fashioned vinyl actually sounds better, even if it is not as "faithful" to original sound.
  4. That is, as Katherine says, awesome! I've used "Find edges" in Affinity to do something similar, but your version is much crisper, cleaner, and has a wonderful hand-drawn look! Bravo!
  5. Yes! In fact, I've made some effort to find the kind of comfortable undies that women actually wear when they 1) aren't expecting anyone to see their panties, and 2) don't want them riding up their . . . well, nvm. (I won't even get into control top panties and Spanx!) Anyway, yes, I have a few sets of large, comfy, naughty-bit covering panties which I mostly use for pics.
  6. Where did all this start from? RIGHT. The suggestion that PBR looks more "realistic" because it mimics (and that is the correct word: it's not actually doing the same thing) the way in which reflectivity and other features of light are determined by the inherent properties of the object upon which the light is playing. So, question. Actually, TWO questions. Do PBR landscapes actually look more "realistic"? Or do they merely look more like what we have come to expect to see in CGI and triple A video games, as representations of a "realistic" look? And secondly, which is more important? That it look "realistic"? Or that it look good? Because these two are by no means always the same thing.
  7. Well, I enjoyed it. I'm not actually a linguistic relativist (or determinist): I think that the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (and indeed the basis for Orwell's idea of "Newspeak") is simplistic. One can't argue, for instance, as Reagan memorably did, that if the Russians had no word for "freedom" (and they actually do, of course) they therefore don't understand the concept. I'm really just arguing that language is one of the means we have of reflecting and, to some degree, controlling our understanding of the world around us, and that it changes as culture changes, while also functioning as an agent of change -- it's a kind of feedback loop. For me, a classic example is the language we use to describe same-sex attraction and sexuality. The word "homosexual" (and "homosexuality") didn't even exist until relatively late in the 19th century, and terms such as "gay" and LGBTQ+ are even more recent. The term in English used most frequently before that was "sodomite," which on a purely denotative level "means" the same thing as gay, more or less, but is not an "identity" in quite the way that "gay" is (any more than "bank robber" is an "identity"): it instead describes an action or behaviour. My understanding is that the beginnings of the idea of what we would today call a "gay identity" or "culture" begin in the late 17th century with the stirrings of so-called Molly culture. The rise of terms like "homosexual" (coined by an Austrian psychologist) reflect a new way of thinking about same-sex attraction, associating it not merely with a "sinful behaviour" (sodomy), but with a "scientifically verifiable" psychological profile (i.e., an identity). And terms such as "gay" reflect both yet another new way of categorizing / thinking about it, as well as an attempt (and a pretty successful one) to use language as an agent of social change. Anyway, enough of this. Who'd have thunk we'd end up down this path?
  8. It behooves me to admit that I missed that opportunity.
  9. lol ok. I'm too used to seeing people advertise that they'd like to RP someone's pet cat, or house plant, or something.
  10. This is an udderly stupid analogy. Can we move on?
  11. I'm sure you've seen this, but in case you or someone else hasn't . . . If AI does make it into SL, you're doomed.
  12. This has not occurred to me. Really great point.
  13. Your best bet for finding this will be in the Role Play forum https://community.secondlife.com/forums/forum/320-role-play/ Or possibly in the Your Avatar one. But I'd try Role Play
  14. Peeve: People who post art (painting or photos) that has been censored with bars across nipples, or blurred out bits. Why would you post a defaced version of a work of art? (Unless the defacing is part of the art, of course.) If the only way you can display it is by screwing it up, then don't display it.
  15. Not sure if this is significant or not, but my dance partner was having this issue on Sunday night, but on Alchemy. (He went so far as to share a pic of me with grey skin -- there's the way to a girl's heart, eh? "Look how awful you look in this pic!") I mention it on the off chance that this is not just an FS problem.
  16. I agree. Less heat and more light would be helpful. (And yes, "cult" is tongue in cheek, but I'll stop using it.)
  17. Yes. There are are. This IS fixable, or at the very least can be mitigated. So, instead of dismissing the issues people are having, let's talk about what those are.
  18. Agreed! I am very grateful to both, not merely for the very useful information they've provided, but also for their work on their viewers. And others, many of whom are firmly in the pro-PBR camp (and to be clear, I am not "anti-PBR" myself) have also been really great about providing assistance here. Extrude created a really easy to use materials packer, for instance, that I've used, and Qie (who is among those who is both an enthusiast and a critic of how this has been implemented) has done some really useful experiments. There are others, months and months ago (I'd have to search to find their names) who walked me through PBR materials here. I've learned SO much -- and mostly from people who like PBR. There's an enormous difference between those who are here to share their knowledge and insights, and those who have merely grabbed the nearest set of pom-poms, quite happily (and in some case knowingly) oblivious to how this is impacting on many people.
  19. I have no objections to people singing the praises of PBR in SL. I think it can look very nice -- and I think it will look better, over time. What I do object to is the denialism that I've heard almost from the outset (in the FS Beta Testing group) that there is a significant portion of the resident population that is struggling with this -- either because it's made their SL look ugly (which is actually not that difficult to fix) or, more seriously, because it's hit their performance and FPS hard. We can quibble about what percentage of people have been hit this way, but one way or another it is undeniably a significant number. Someone who thinks that PBR is just great, but is also willing to concede that it's causing problems that need to be addressed (Henri and Nagachief are two examples) I have no problems with. It's when the denialism becomes an excuse to shrug and do nothing that I get annoyed. The other aspect of this is that this new toy, which will be fun to play with (I have been doing just that myself), has been set up in such a way that it's really only accessible to so-called "power users." Setting up a basic reflection probe is not terribly difficult, but I suspect it's beyond the capacity for many; configuring it is a nightmare. To some degree, the same is true of EEPs, which now need to be tweaked -- which is why so many people are relying instead upon a very unsatisfactory cheat, reducing exposure. We're leaving people behind. Those who care, care. Those who don't, because NEW SHINY! . . . are a cult.
  20. Totally! None of these shots are BAD. (And the two PBR ones I could fix up in a photo editor in about 30 seconds.)
×
×
  • Create New...