Medhue Simoni

Lexi Zelin wrote: Sorry if any of this sounds stupid or whatever cause I REALLY am confused here Also, now, if you transfer out your lindens up to $20,000 LL will send you a W9? ummm when did they tell us about this!? THEY DIDNT. A big name mesh creator brought this to our attention yesterday and im just so confused... LL what are you doing!? Cause I really feel you are planning for a bigggggggg fu*k us over fest.... Hmmm, this implies to me that LL has some insider knowledge of moves the fed government is going to take. This also makes me wonder if the new TOS has something to do with this. I seriously wish LL would just say what the heck is up. That new free trade agreement is being hashed out right now, and there is much talk of a complete redo of IP. Of course, this all circumvents the laws of each nation involved, but why would politicians care about that. To them, it's all good.

Freya Mokusei wrote: I'm familiar with this issue, there's no need to repeat yourself. I know what 'perpetuity' means. I'm asking for clarification. The UCCSL's position is this:- Trinity Yazimoto wrote: This is not about the copies but about the licence we have to give to LL on our creations. We want to give some limits to this licence and here, about the perpetuity of the licence. LL's position (according to their comments on New World Notes and from Peter Gray) is that they need this licence (as it is currently written) to offer their services. The limits you seem to be advocating will, at best, complicate the process. The limits might even specifically prevent LL from offering services that they currently provide, especially in the case of Account Recovery. How does limiting the Second Life platform (and tying up Linden staff time, determining Original vs. Copy) help us, as residents? Saying that it's 'not impossible' doesn't really help either. I don't see how you plan to make this 'not impossible'. Well, actually, LL's excuse is nonsensical. The products won't transfer easily from SL to any other platform. About the only thing that could easily transfer is mesh objects. As some1 that sells to almost every single 3D market, I understand than every market and every platform needs a specific type of content. They also need completely different contracts. It doesn't make any sense to have 1 TOS to rule all markets. Any of the creators can currently sell to any game developer right now, without any help from LL. This means we retain all rights, and we dictate the rights. If LL wants, they can easily help us without making any claims at all on our creations. The way I see it, if I allow LL to get involved, it will complicate things even more between me and my clients or customers. How could adding another party not complicate things more, especially when they are making claims on those actual products. All other 3D marketplaces have reasonable agreements. Why should LL be special? If LL wants to sell us on something, they claim will greatly help us, then they have to actually express what they think this future will be like. They have to explain themselves, not just do and expect trust. We have no reason at all to believe anything they say. It is much more reasonable to assume their actions are short sighted, as it is not LL's rights that are being infringed. The best way to settle the fears of the merchants, would be to actually talk to them. LL doesn't want speculations, then that is easy to fix, and any normal person would understand this. We, tho, have to deal with a corporation, which seemingly has more than 1 brain. So, 1 person's word means nothing at all. The only thing that means anything in a relationship with a corporation, is the contract.

Storm Clarence wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: Storm Clarence wrote: The last part is, at best, condescending. Mr. Gray already wrote of his intention to modify; the "if any" is a slap-in-his-face. The new TOS was a "slap-in-the-face" of all content creators. Considering how long LL has dragged this out, I'd say it's another "slap-in-our-faces". 1 thing to never forget is that we are the customers. We promote this platform for free. We help the users. By taking this long to revise the TOS, they are showing just how important we are to them. I will adjust my time management accordingly. I understand the frustration, Medhue, but UCCSL slapping back is emotional; and this is business! It is not a victory for UCCSL. Mr. Gray responded on Nov. 1st. Today is the 14th. "We are currently reviewing what changes could be made to resolve the concerns of SL content creators ... We are optimistic that we will be able to arrive at a mutually agreeable and beneficial way forward, and ask for your group's continued patience as we work to do so." In the new letter to Mr. Gray the statement "other ideas" is superfluous until the main objective of having the TOS wording changes is achieved. Do you not agree with that? The statement "if any" is a direct and emotionally spun challenge to Mr. Gray. PS If the wording doesn't change I will probably be looking at other options, too, but, until then... PPS If you show corporate America emotional weakness *they* will squeeze your nuts even harder. That, Medhue, is a fact. It is a money game, period. Keep the emotional responses within the group and at meetings, but not in open letters and on this forum. The actual date that Mr Gray responsed was Oct 24, not Nov 1. It does seem to be much longer tho. I probably haven't unloaded anything in about 3 months now. I can only guess, but I think this message to LL is a response to Mr Gray's letter. I'm sure that most of us are worried that LL will just release another unexceptable TOS, and we'll have to do this long process all over again.

It will take more than a week to get the funds. When it gets into your Paypal account, then you can buy things online, or use your Paypal debit card to get the money thru your local cash machine. If you don't have a Paypal debit card, you should sign up now, as it will take awhile to get the card.

Storm Clarence wrote: The last part is, at best, condescending. Mr. Gray already wrote of his intention to modify; the "if any" is a slap-in-his-face. The new TOS was a "slap-in-the-face" of all content creators. Considering how long LL has dragged this out, I'd say it's another "slap-in-our-faces". 1 thing to never forget is that we are the customers. We promote this platform for free. We help the users. By taking this long to revise the TOS, they are showing just how important we are to them. I will adjust my time management accordingly.

Goto Process Credit. There should be a few options there to send your money to PayPal. To get there, look on the left side of your Dashboard or any other normal SL page, and you will see Linden Exchange. Click on it and more options will open up. Process Credit is 1 of those options.

Oh, and this video I created shows turning off joint limits in both Poser and Daz. For Daz, there are literally half a dozen ways to turn off or change the limits, and this is the other most common way. The video is lengthy tho and has other stuff you probably don't care about right now, so you can just forward the video to about 6:20 and there I show Poser first, and then Daz.

It totally slipped my mind that I created a video about joint limits in Daz. The sound is kind of crappy. Don't think I had my nice Go MIC back then.

RobertEroicaDupea wrote: My question is, will another program, like Daz, enable me to move the SL avatar limbs further than I can already in Qavimator? There are some poses I would like to be able to do but because some limb movements are limited, I can't seem to make them. Will Daz (or another pose program) allow me to move the limbs further? Yes! You can turn the joint limited off, or extend them. You can also do this in Poser, Blender, 3ds Max, or Maya. Slat is another free program and it has no limits on joints, it just shows you where the norm limits are in the graphic editor. It doesn't have IK controls tho, which Daz does, as Sassy mentioned. You can download SLat from my website. It's pretty easy to use, if something like Blender seems too intimidating. Click on the first image on the page to download SLat. It only works on the PC, not Mac. http://www.medhueanimations.com/pages/freebies

I'm guessing for Blender?

Nice! So, let's sum up the ending here and highlight your ridiculousness. I jump into the conversation, pointing out the fact that you are making fallacious claims against creators without any proof of your claims. You then try to discredit me with your interpretations of my statements. I reaffirm my position. You accuse both Dres and I of ripping. I ignore your last ridiculous claim, and point out the irrationalities of your claims and the harm it does. You give up! I'm sure that most regulars on the forums have seen me be the nicest guy in the world, and seen me be pretty brutal. IMHO, there is a place for both. I'm all for people having and expressing their opinions, but there is a line when it comes to accusing merchants without first proving your case. I don't care what the perception might be, as perceptions are not facts. If you are going to accuse people of ripping, you should, at the very least, post an image of that product in the actual game. How hard is that? I've seen it done before in the forums, and it was a hardy debate about if the product was actually ripped. My conclusion was that it was ripped, and I have no clue who this person was that was selling the car. Nothing was against the TOS in the forum, as the creator's name was never brought up. I'm sure others looked up who it was, but I seriously didn't care who it was, as it doesn't matter to me. As far as your last claim, I'll just say that, I hope it shows how much of your opening statement was grounded in reality. I spoke up against this kind of rhetoric because I feel it truely hurts the community to insinuate that there are ripped items from other games everywhere, or that SL merchants are just rippers. If there are cases of ripping, I'd love to see those cases debated in the forums, with wireframes and all. No TOS needs to be broken, and no merchant has to be directly outed. This is the responsible way to handle ripping in SL, IMHO.

Rya Nitely wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: ‘The part that bothers me the most tho, is people or creators being accused of things that there is no proof for. There is much more harm to be done in falsely accusing others than the benefit of protecting some game company's ripped content.’ then this ‘To get back on topic. I'm actually for allowing any1 to publicly shame any business in an open forum. This would much better impact the IP issues. No1 would want that kind of attention. The shame alone would stop 90% of it.’ You really should decide where you stand before you start posting. On your first point - There is obvious proof of content theft in SL. And nobody pointed a direct finger at anyone. If you think I did IM me and give me the name(s). If you can’t give me specific names then stop insinuating that there has been finger pointing. Then your second statement sounds very much like a contradiction of your first. But I don’t agree with your ‘publicly shaming of any business’ because as you pointed out in your first statement, this could be dangerous. I might hint at wrong doings but I would never directly name and shame, or give enough hints to out anyone. Sometimes, I think people choose to read things however they want, instead of what was clearly stated. Please read my words carefully. I try to choose them carefully. I was clearly talking about false claims and judging without any proof at all. That is much different than knowing and having proof, and then shaming some1. When I say to shame some1, I'm implying that the facts are all in. Why would you shame some1 without the facts? To make yourself look bad? As to your suggestion that the things you pointed to have obvious proof, then why in 6 pages is there no proof? You publically shamed every1 that was selling Halloween stuff. You even insinuated that some1 made masks that are an IP infringement. What masks are these and how exactly are they ripped or some infringement? The mask was the only thing you pointed to directly. Just because you think they are, does not mean they actually are. I went and looked, and I couldn't find more than a few items that might be questionable in everything labeled with the Halloween tag. So, because a few might be, somehow all these people are Rippers, or we should all be on the look out for ripped halloween stuff? It's completely ridiculous. What I see constantly, are people making excuses why they won't create or chase their dreams. Reality has little to no affect. They chase ghosts instead of dealing with the real problem. It's akin to drinking their lives away. They want a crutch, something to lean on and say, "See, it's not my fault." I see this Ripped content thing, that comes up periodically, as just such a crutch. Is there RIPPED content? Sure! Is it everywhere? Definitely not! Is this something for any SL resident to to fear? Not really! No more than any other things in SL. Let's look at this rationally. What is the % of ripped goods in SL? 5%? Most likely not. My best guess is probably around 1%, and even that is questionably high. So, we have people willingly allowing 1% of something to taint their outlook. Sadly, this kind of attitude is prevelant in society today. Hey, what is the point of doing anything, as some1 will just rip it, or they'll rip something better. Right?

Teagan Tobias wrote: Let me correct your statement in a different way. Medhue Simoni said: The reason I can sue some1, is because they agreed to a contract, not because they government created laws. The reason you can sue someone, is because they agreed to a contract, backed up by the laws the government created. With no government and no laws, no, you can not sue someone. Why would they even talk to you? The “ With no laws your only recourse to the contract would be your army against there army” is a dramatization of a lawless state, a state with no government and no laws. (and no lawsuits) They might need your service. They might think that resolving the problem is worth the later benefits. They might want to resolve it because of their future projects, and how this breach of contract may hurt them. Heck, Comcast just sent me a plea to join back up with them, waving the dispute I had with them 10 years ago. They realised that because they wanted to charge me for BS, and I cancelled and refused to pay them, they lost 10 years worth of payments. No court necessary, and my life was not impacted at all. I could really give you thousands of reasons businesses settle. Let me know if you need more.

Magnet Homewood wrote: I will probably regret poking my nose into all but ... it's a big nose! Menhue, good luck stopping anybody from doing business with you as a punishment, on the Marketplace. Perhaps it's a small point to make, but the discussion was about SL and you claim it's one way to make them worse off. Of course, I see your point, but I would not say that this point refutes anything I've said. I chose to do business in SL. It's not the only option I or any1 else has. We chose to do this because we see a benefit. If we were to be ripped and our stuff resold, we'd lose that benefit, and hence stop selling. These are all free decisions to be made. It's all about weighing the benefits and loses. People could easily rip any of our products. Why don't they all do it? Why don't half do it? Why don't 10% do it? I'll take a guess that many understand that if everything was free, few people would ever make anything new, and they appreciate and understand the work and talent it takes. As the internet should have shown, laws don't really stop anybody. The reality is, we all work together because we all understand that we benefit in some way or another. To get back on topic. I'm actually for allowing any1 to publicly shame any business in an open forum. This would much better impact the IP issues. No1 would want that kind of attention. The shame alone would stop 90% of it. Yeah, you'd think this would be just crazy, but I think it is more akin to every business having a nuclear bomb. Few serious businesses would misuse it. Hey, I'm radical tho, lol.

Teagan Tobias wrote: Medhue Simoni said: The reason I can sue some1, is because they agreed to a contract, not because they government created laws. No, the laws are what give your contract bite. With no laws your only recourse to the contract would be your army against there army, or, brute force. I really should not need to point this out, but I just refuted all that in my last comment, the 1 you quote from. Why any free thinking person would assume that force is the only recourse, is beyond me. I certainly would not beat the crap out of every person that ever did me wrong, so why would I send some army to uphold a contract. The reason people try to uphold contracts is because they benefit in some way from the transaction. Simply by refusing to do business with them, the person that broke the contract is now in a worse position. This is logically obvious by the fact that they were transacting in the first place. The ultimate point of a contract is to establish under what condition both parties are willing to do business. The ultimate conclusion from a broken contract is the halting of exchange between the 2 parties. Not WAR. The market is peace. It is voluntary cooperation. Anything created by the government is the opposite, and by it's very logic, not what the people want. If the people, in fact, actually wanted something, it would be produced by many, many people in the market.

Sassy Romano wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: The little guy tho, can easily enforce his "copyright" by choosing who he sells to, and having them agree to terms. and what if the other party breaks the terms of the agreement? What recourse does the little guy have if not to progress legal action through the very same legal framework that you don't appear to support? (or did I misunderstand?) Well, court systems don't have to be handled by government. There are many systems online that are created to handle disputes. As a creator, I have many options. Obviously, the person infringing on our contract thinks my product has value. I could immediately cut him off, and every company he does business with. I could chose to use a court system to hold the person accountable to the contract. I could stop selling content altogether. I could change the way I sell items to better protect myself. I could inform the public and shame the person socially. Notice that there are also strict laws again libel, despite the actual right to free speech. Again, who writes the laws? The point is, I have many options, none of which have anything to do with federal laws. The reason I can sue some1, is because they agreed to a contract, not because they government created laws.

Rya Nitely wrote: Thanks for stepping in and setting it all straight, Medhue. I hope others, like myself, who thought this was an issue and who were unnecessarily concerned will pay attention to your very clever post. Nothing to see here folk - all of 9 pages of wasted words and time. Business as usual and all is well in the SL world.....regarding this subject, anyway. What a relief, hey I know I feel much much better now If you ask me, threads like this are really more about dancing around people's insecurities. What exactly is the issue, even if they were ripped, which again has never been proven? If the issue is that some1 is selling something without permission, then contact the creator. If the issue is that people fear the content is better than their own, or affects the actual market, then state that concern, and talk about that. The part that bothers me the most tho, is people or creators being accused of things that there is no proof for. There is much more harm to be done in falsely accusing others than the benefit of protecting some game company's ripped content.

Sassy Romano wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: "All that said, I do care about my own IP" "Oh, and as a Libertarian, I do not believe IP is valid." Pick one, any one... I explained this in my post. Copyright is the only part of IP that is logically valid. All other forms of IP are simply rich people using the government to protect their wealth. Look at the name in itself, Intellectual Property. Now, property rights are an essential part of having a free society. Without property rights, most of society and the division of labour would stop in it's tracks. The reason we have property rights is because 2 people can not use the same tool or appliance at the exact same time. Property rights keeps society civil. Now, think about the term Intellectual Property again. It doesn't make any sense linguistically. This is because knowledge is not a rivalrus commodity. Millions of people can all use the same knowledge all at the same time. IP is a construct, created entirely by Government, and can only be enforced by government. The reality is, the rich established a way to keep all competition out of the market by having their buddies in government write illogical laws to protect them. In turn, by fooling average people into filing for patents, the largest corporations in the world can steal any idea they wish, with practically complete immunity. The laws are written to only benefit those which already have wealth. Now, copyrights, which is also a play on words to imply the right to own ideas, is a more logical thought process, mostly because it doesn't need the Government to be enforced. How it is enforce by corporations is a whole other topic. The little guy tho, can easily enforce his "copyright" by choosing who he sells to, and having them agree to terms.

Gosh, I seriously hate this topic, hence why I didn't comment until now. @Drongle = That's a great point! I also like the Cingh quote. Now, the reason I hate this topic is it is all speculation, and no proof at all. Just a big bag of assumptions leading people to a disgust in something, and agonizing over what should be done. When the post was originally posted, and only had 50 views, I read it and ran to the MP to see what this was all about. What did I find? I found a bunch of stuff that takes all of an hour to model and texture, some maybe more. This is coming from some1 that doesn't model much, but even I could do most of it in a couple hours each. This is not a statement about the creators skill, or talent, but about saying that it is simple stuff to make when you do it on a regular basis. It's goofing off for an afternoon. I'm also not saying that the none of it was any good and didn't take days or weeks, or aren't great models. Is it all stolen? I have no effing clue. I'm not a big gamer, and couldn't tell you if anything is from any game, except maybe Far Cry, and Hitman, cuase those games rock, lol. Is any of it IP infringement? Well, here's the thing about IP infringement, you can't know until the creator says it is. It is up to the creator, not the government, or LL, or any1 else. So, by the very nature of those items in question being there and being sold, you would have to assume that none of it is IP infringement. Now, you can argue that a companies past history might show that they enforce their IP rigorously, hence leading to a logically conclusion that they would not be happy. Outside of that, you basically have nothing at all being done wrong here. If I was a game company, I wouldn't give a crap if people ripped stuff from my game, unless they were making a commercial game with it. All that said, I do care about my own IP, and not about what others decide to do with theirs. I especially don't give a crap if some1 rips some Skyrim character. As far as I know, the creator of the game is not in the business of selling Skyrim characters. I do care when some1 who is in the market of selling 3D content gets livelyhood ruined by some person who has no reguard for other's hard work and passion. So, to sum this up, I see a bunch of pointing fingers but no evidence, beyond pure speculation, that anything there was illegal, nor a violation of any1's IP. I'm sure some of it might be, but again, there is no real evidence being presented, but mostly "I think this is ripped". Plus, you can talk all you want about game content, I'm just not all that impressed with it. It's the same stuff I see everywhere. It's normal, not unique. Some are OK, but again, why rip content and sell it, when you can make something similar in a few hours, and do whatever you want to it. Oh, and as a Libertarian, I do not believe IP is valid. So, I don't believe 1 person should be able to own a name, or an idea, or a word, or whatever. On the other hand, I do believe in copyright, because this is only an agreement between 2 people. As an independent creator, no law created by rich government cronies with the hands out, is going to protect my decision to create. What will protect me, is the risk of not getting my content if it is used in ways I don't approve of. It's not LL, or the US that tells me some1 is abusing the use of my creations, it's my customers.

Chic Aeon wrote: I have no plans for Unity but why do I keep reading that they take HALF and you say 70% return so 30% to them? The "reporter" in me wants to know. I've said the phrase "they take half", and I was refering to Daz and Renderosity. They also have a lenthy submission process. This is how they validate charging half, cause of their "quality control". If you have every bought things off of Daz, you know that the qc is hardly worth it. So other sites charge half also, but those were who I was talking about. Unity also has a sumission process, but I have no idea how long it is. Like I said in the other thread tho, sell on your own site. You make up the rules there.

If LL wants an example of what I think is a decent TOS or licensing agreement, they should look at Unity's. I've been thinking about converting some of my stuff for Unity, as most of it fits very well in that market. Even my Lycan Avatar was a very simple import, even still using the SL rig. Setting the rig up in Unity is a snap. Plus, all my animations fit all their characters using their Mecanim system. Of course, I likely won't be selling on their website, but just using my own. That said, Unity gives you back 70% of the sale, which is not too bad. Here is their EULA: http://unity3d.com/company/legal/as_terms

Darrius Gothly wrote: During the majority of my professional career, I earned the biggest paychecks by performing a function I called a "Reality Processor". Simply put that was a position that took the ideas of someone else then applied my knowledge, skills and available tools to turn the idea into a saleable property. When the "Idea Man" recognized the necessity of partnering with the "Reality Processor", we did some amazing (and amazingly profitable) things. Sadly though there usually came a time when the Idea Man began to think he was the only necessary part .. and thus he would break the partnership. Without fail, the direct and often rapid result was the spectacular cratering of the entire venture. While I agree in part that "Ideas should be free", the protection of those ideas and the proper conversion of them into viable products is the real fuel in the engine of business. Some people are not only prolific enough in the creation of good ideas, but also wise enough in choosing which to retain and which to give away, that they can and do become very successful while also acting in a very beneficial and philanthropic manner. Benjamin Franklin is an example that springs to mind rapidly; giving away his invention of the Lightning Rod yet protecting his Printing Press by licensing third-party print shops to use it. With all that said, the bottom line truth is: Good Ideas are not free nor are they easy. Coming up with a good and potentially profitable idea is, for some people, a once or maybe twice in a lifetime event. The tough part is recognizing when an idea truly is unique, new and "Mine". Sadly many people leap directly from "I thought it up" to "therefore it's mine." They don't stop to think about what is at the core of the idea or even consider that it isn't even new. I would be willing to bet that the US Patent Office rejects a giant pile of "Bent Metal Paper Retention Device" (aka "staple") patent applications every month. You might want to talk to your friend and ask him to write out in explicit terms exactly what about "His Idea" was the new and totally unique part. That little exercise may cause him to realize that what he thinks is "His Idea" is really not that new nor even his. On the other hand, it just might be that he's right and you have unintentionally borrowed a unique idea and the clear statement of that idea might just open your eyes to your accidental infraction. Based simply on your description, I honestly can't tell which way this might go. Hopefully the end result will be that you wind up still friends and with a resolution that benefits you both. I think you probably hit the nail on the head. What he initially said to me, was he wanted to make Minecraft animation off song parodies. Of course, I'm thinking, how are you going to make the songs, or get them? Does he sing, I have no clue. I don't. I won't air all my BS here, but I hope that gives you a sense of the conversation. What he thought he was gonna bring to the table, I have no clue. I told him straight out, that I thought it was a good idea for what I'm working on now, and I would definitely be using the stuff to create something watchable in Blender, as I have alot of special effects to learn. I'm just venting here. Sometimes it just feels good. The sad thing is, he likely burned his bridge with me.

Storm Clarence wrote: Magnet Homewood wrote: ... it is about being able to use your ideas and change them however they want too. Magnet, I can really appreciate your sentiment above. The way I look at the world is a tad different. Just thinking about the above gives me Goosebumps. I have a fair amount of work (ideas) in the open source world. I admire and respect the people and companies that have developed or changed and/or matured my work/ideas, and for the better. I also help to better my peers and collaborators work/ideas. To me life is beautiful just knowing I am able to think enough to develop new ideas and share them. Remuneration is a big part of it: if LL gets fat so will the creators. If not directly from LL then from one of the channels they are opening. If LL moves your product to Desura, then why can't YOU move your product to Desura? Now here, I can kind of agree with you. IMHO, Ideas are free, and should be traded freely. Having ideas is awesome, but they accomplish nothing until some1 does something with those ideas. Personally, I have hundreds of ideas a day, and give them out freely to any1 I think can actually do something with them. Even the ideas I might want to keep to myself, there is no point in my keeping it from some other person, as we can all profit from it, if it truly is a good idea. I just had to deal with this "MY idea" attitude the other day, and I'm pretty offended by it all. A fellow creator, which wouldn't even know how to make a mesh if I hadn't pushed him, told me I'm stealing his idea. WTF! What idea? The reality is, I've been talking about making animated videos for years now, and working toward that goal. He shows me a video of people making Minecraft animated videos, and I thought, that would be a great tool for me to learn to render in Blender. SO, I made an animated Minecraft video to learn more features in Blender for my future projects. Now, all of a sudden I stole his Idea. His idea was to have me animate his project. Because he saw others doing this first, now I can't? It's ridiculous. Saying you have an idea and yet knowing nothing about how to get there, means you have nothing. This dude comes to me every time he is working on something, either asking for advice, or help to learn how to do something, which I have given him for free for a long time now. I thought he was doing the same when he pointed to the Minecraft videos. Now, I'm the 1 stealing ideas just cause I made an animated Minecraft video. Again, ideas are free, and you shouldn't talk at all, if you actually think you should benefit just because of an idea, nor listen as you might end up stealing some1's idea. The ideas are the easy part.

You know, the weird part is that their answers don't really make all that much sense. There's only 2 items that could port over to any game, and those are meshes and textures. Textures can be gotten by game developers just like people in SL get them. So, we are left with only meshes, which does not include rigged meshes. That's what all this is about, selling our object meshes? It's nonsensical. Maybe if people sold huge city building sets, or every tree in the world set, which some people do but not enough to supply every game dev's needs. Things for games really should be specially made and geared toward game devs. I'm sure many more SL creators would create for this other market, but that doesn't explain the TOS BS. Even if LL made a Unity plugin that made all SL content work in Unity, SL creators would still have to create their products, or package them in a way that better caters to those game devs needs. If they are creating such a plugin for game engines, LL should have mentioned that a long time ago. This would be something to cheer, but I doubt that is what is happening. Basically, outside of creating some miracle Unity plugin, I don't understand at all how LL thinks SL assets can just port over into other games, outside of just object meshes. Do they forget that we actually do make the stuff and understand how they work in game? For example, I know how to make a fully animated character for Unity. The fbx or dae files contain all the animations for that character. You can import an SL dae file into Unity, and get it to work, but it doesn't come with animations. Hmmm, I really should just release my Lycan Avatar for Unity devs. Sorry, sidetracked. My point is tho, that even if LL could sell our content, it would be much, much better for us to create the content specifically for those platforms, than just sell our SL assets as is. Now, if LL wants to open another market that specifically sells to game devs, I'm all for it. That would be a great idea. Heck, all they gotta do is charge less than 50% commission, and they beat every1 else. But...... none of this compells me to be ok with giving LL unlimit rights over my creations. I don't need LL to sell my creations to game devs. I pay for services right now that are already do that quite successfully. I only need LL to focus on their core product. You know, the 1 that pays for salaries and that breakfast table.

Da5id Weatherwax wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: it would be cool to have a shortcut key that allows you to cycle thru UI's, instead of opening more windows. Ctrl-Up is your friend there... it toggles the subwindow that currently encloses the pointer fullscreen... So there I am in the 3d view fullscreen tweaking seams [ctrl-up] toggle back to my personal default view where I can see properties and an image editor as well, U to unwrap, slide the mouse into the (small) image editor, [Ctrl-Up] to set that fullscreen and tweeak the UV layout, [Ctrl-Up] back to my default view... you get the point Its at the stage where my right middle finger and thumb pretty much do the combo as a single keystroke. Particularly when frequently switching between watching the anim play out in the 3d view and making fine edits in other windows you might find a little of the same might fit your workflow too Yes, that is very cool. Now no more hunting for that sweet spot to change my window size.