Jump to content

Jenna Felton

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


1 Neutral
  1. Cathy Foil wrote: Those making and selling animations will want to clearly label their animations as "Rotations Only", "Rotations and Translations" or "Translations Only"... I think that is a good suggestion. But I think also mesh head creators will have to classify their mesh by what sort of expressions the mesh will accept. Because the customer buying the mesh head will rarely understand why the particular expression will not work with the mesh, but they can learn that some expressions will go and some not. They must not even understand what a rotation and what a translation is, but when they know this mesh fails on expressions using translation than they know which expressions the customer can look at and which are not worth of spending time for looking at the demos for them. Also, when the mesh head or fullbody uses the expression override (be it the suggestion of polysail or LL implements the feature request for it) this must be explained too, since that is a big plus in having predefined best looking expressions (since made by the mesh creator themselves) and probably simple to use new expressions made by third party. However, there will be a load of new information falling on the head of the to the mesh wearer and I think they have to be prepared for it. So I think there must be an explaining post somewhere targeting the customers and explaining that there is a slides vs. expressions problem, that some expressions can not work on some meshes, what an expression override is (if there will be a ready to use solution) and probably a simple to understand video about what translations and rotations are, how they affect the mesh and why some mesh can not accept translations in expressions. A bold request, sorry, but I myself am not good enough to make an easy to understand explaination and having deep understanding of the topics technically. Cathy Foil wrote: I probably am not explaining my self well enough. The program that is setup to use your web cam watches your face for expression and when it recognizes an expression say like when you smile it recognizes that you are smiling and sends a signal to the viewer you are logged in with to play a pre-recorded smile animation. So it wouldn't matter how big your smile was in real life it simply play the animation named "Smile". This can be done by expression overrider (assumed it is available.) The web cam program will just start recognized expressions and they will run overriding animations. Needs a service that sends signals from the clinent computer to the LL server running the agent. Can be done by LL or probably the web service which the expression hud worn by the avatar offers and client web cam program is registered into.
  2. This is getting very long already and every time I have time to read the thread gets 10 new pages But I am glad how it is going on, and that there are debates, since it schows the topic is so important, and I am glad Bento team is stil waiting with release before all issues are resolved. The rest of the post can be pointless, as I am neither an avatar designer not animator (although I have an intension to make my very own full bento mesh body myself some day) so you can ignore the folowing when it is pointless. However, when I read the debates about sliders vs. expressions, I get a feeling the goal is to have sliders and expressions in the same extend the default avatar shape allows. And I beleive there is a mistake in this.At least in theory. There are exactly two default meshes, a male and a female mesh. They are changed by the shape sliders or animations. Some sliders morph the shape but I think it is irrelevant as we want emulate morps via bones. But the point is, the default avatar mesh is only one of two meshes that every one uses and changes via sliders and animations. Everyone has one of them. While there will be legions of avatar designers and each of them will create dozens of different mesh bodies. Now, when we want change all the mesh bodies via sliders and animations/expressions in the same range the default avatar mesh allows, than I beleive we get into a situation that you can take a mesh body (or head) from designer A, replace skn and use the shape sliders and you get the look of mesh body from designer B. When it happens, the mesh bodies will become replaceable. And then you can think what happens. People will take cheaper bodies when they look like the more expensive. Prices will fall probably down to dollaraby level. Or DMCA reports will snowing. Neither of them I'd like to see. Expressions are good. Sliders are good also. But I think shape sliders should change the mesh only slightly, just to make the mesh unique but the mesh must stil stay recognizeable. And when the range the sliders change the mesh is limited, perhaps the expressions will stil work well on them and not destroy the mesh? I think when it is possible this way, the goal must be limited on that. I am not sure if the mesh format allows to restrict the range of sliders and animations.When it can not, I think there is stil a simple way for the mesh creators to restrict the sliders. Put a notecard with the mesh listing the bounds of every relevant slider. There is such a notecard with the mesh body I wear and mesh head I wear and I have no problem in following the instructions. Animators will have to get the same information from the mesh designer in same or other possible way. Just some thoughs I got by reading the next 10 pages
  3. Thank you (Bento team) very much for opening Bento to the Agni, expected it soon but not so soon that is cool. And for updating the skeleton files. However,there is a problem, or better to say stil, because I noticed it since long time. When I import the .dae files (mesh + skeleton) into Blender, I see the skeleton broken. Some bones are minimized and their head tips do not catch the tail tips of their child bones in the line. You can see it by comparing the leg lines with hind lines:  The same problem I have when I import into Blender 2.75 and into Blender 2.77a. Is there a way to import it in an unbroken way or do I have to corect this manually? It seems not too hard, although I am not sure if I can do it without a mistake.
  4. Hello DS, response to you, althought it would be one for the whole human avatar subproject. That looks cool, yes, I played with the Manuellab addon a little, the customization is really good, very many options and it looks as if Manuel took a long study about body types, shapes, and this makes me respect that work. And when i look at the hands and feet, that is a dream of hands, really. Well, body needs more complexity at some places and there are number of places that are way too complex, like eyebrows or wimpers, eyeballs or teeth, they use much too much vertices for SL. However, apparently Manuel will make a simplier version, or the mesh designer could simplify the body themselves. I am really support the idea of a resident-driven standard of human and humanoid avatars so the avatar and clothing designers can work together very much like the legacy avatar mesh designer (that is LL) worked together with the legacy clothing designers (that were the system layer clothing) That would improve SL very much if it would be possible. But, I thnk the part about open source avatar based on Manuellab, needs really a separate thread, which I'd suggest Gaia opens herself and posts a link here. I am sure there would be interest to talk about the standard, implementations and everyting else around it, but that topic tangents the Bento topic only and is not a part of the Bento topic. Hope it not sounds rude, was just an idea. Something around the idea of resident-driven hummanoid avatar standard. It must not remain by a hummanoid one only. I am not sure at the moment, but perhaps Bennto could birth a few other standards, for horses, pets, animals, dragons and more. Which could be handled in similar way, standarticed open source mesh that avatar designers could adapt on their own needs while the accessory for the final avatars would be similarly useable on all of the avatars based on that standard one. Perhaps its too early to talk about it yet.
  5. Not sure if this is too late to add bones, but I was just talking with a friend about hair cuts and then it came up, that you could make changeable hair styles when there was bones for hair in the skeleton. I think 2 or 3 chains of 3 bones parented to mSkull would allow to get dynamic hair and change hair style. At least 2 chains for tails left and right, one of them or both you can use for ponytail. It needs be different bones than used for (for example) wings or face because you want probably wear hair to the wings or mesh head. Just an idea. I am not an avatar designer, so this suggestion needs being verified by those who mesh avatars and/or hair.
  6. Thank you Code for liking the contribution I added the "[bENTO]" prefix to the Jira name. I was not sure at the time of wriging if i should. The post does address an issue that is there since mesh avatars and not just since bento, and it is also scripting issue. But bento has the ability to solve it. So I decided to add the prefix thank you for reminding on it. Edit: Managed to miss the meeting, forgot about the daylight saving time... When no one brought up the topic today, LL has more time to reply
  7. Something that doesn't seem to have been covered in this thread is how Bento will affect existing content. This is true, I realized that too, after reading this thread. The idea of polysailis also good and it has a good chance to be implemented, I think, when LL not accepts your idea about extending animation override. However, I dared to think about it, as i am also a scripter rather than mesher or builder and to post a feature request for it: Animation Override for built-in animations. I extended it to all built-in animations because not only facial expressions are affected, but also hand poses may be and, if there any, also animations that use morphs on other parts than face or hands. I also added a second way to implement this parallel to the llSetAnimationOverride because although we also want override avatar animations but it may be something different internally. But I hope it will be to do as easy as copy the llSetAO code and paste into new functions Tomorrow is a Simulator User Group where it is a good place to discuss the idea and what way is better to go.When i manage to come there and there will be time I'd bring it to discussion. However, either way it will be going, I'd suggest to open a new page in the wiki, similarly to the one for RLV protocoll for maintaining the communication protocol (when the polysail solution will it be), the both scripts (avatar part script + expression API script for the furniture etc.) and selection of the expressions/poses to override. I think such a protocol / standardized access to custom expressions is a necessarity, otherwise a Bento avatar is not complete.
  8. Thank you for your Answer Nalates Yes thats corect, waiting 24 or even 48 hours (two days) is generally a good idea. Also it is important to log in to the beta grid with the SL viewer (and not with SL Beta viewer despite the name) as first. The second login can be with any viewer. This worked for me as i had once the problem that the Aditi session was not stored somehow. Yes, as far i was also told, the inventory on Aditi is managed by weaker hardware than the inventory on Agni. This was the main reason why i started the tread. Now after i was thinking more, i beleive the idea of packaging stuff was correct. As far as i know there are shared asset servers that are keeping the content of the assets, for example content of notecards or the pictures. The inventory itself is than just like an index telling who has what assets in their inventory. Which is simply a large list of names and asset keys organized in folders like the content page in a book. Due the inventory transfer Agni to Aditi only this content is tranferred, not the files themselves (they are stil on the shared asset servers.) Also the smaller this index is, the less work should the inventory database have. Hence, when i package, say, all the furniture i have into a box, than only this box is in my inventory and takes only a single entry in my inventory database. The inventory transfer brings only this entry to Aditi. Now when i rez the package box on ground than this box comes from the shared asset server. And as long i dont unpack it into my inventory (on Aditi), nothing goes to the inventory server. This means, the idea to rezz all the package boxes and pick them up after the inventory transfer can work but has little benefits. When i do it, than the box of furnitures does not go to my Aditi inventory. But i can leave this box in my inventory, too, let the tranfer routine bring it to Aditi, and as long i do not unpack it, my Aditi inventory has just a single entry for this box and that probably does not hurt. 10,000 items per folder is a crazy number I think i have just a few folders with one or two thousands items, for unorganized objects and landmarks, but i am working on them: when i open that folder i get a huge scrolling problem. I suppose a folder with 10,000 items would bring the viewer to a real winter-sleep once i open it.
  9. Good evening I know there is a routine that exports all our inventory from Agni (main grid) to Aditi (beta grid). To initiate this routine all you need is change your password. The question is, is there a way to organize my inventory in order the export routine has less to work or also in order the inventory servers on Aditi can work with the inventory on Aditi easier? An example to make the question some more concrete: When I package all my stuff in boxes (you know, by rezing a prim, putting there my stuff, take the boxes and removing the stuff from my inventory) than i have on the first view less items in my inventory, but the packaged stuff is a part of the boxes that are in my inventory, it is still present and available somehow. Now when i change my password, the export routine brings the boxes to Aditi. Now when i rez the boxes i should be able to take the exported stuff out of the boxes. Hence, the packaged stuff was still exported to Aditi. Why i am asking this, there is plenty of stuff i need on main grid but don't need on beta grid. For example most clothes, landmarks and notecards, skins and shapes, furniture, vehicles etc. That are more than 20.000 items i do not need on Aditi but they would make a load on the Aditi inventory servers when exported. My first idea was to package all the stuff into boxes, than change password. But I guess, the export routine will still bring all the stuff to Aditi. When so, than probably the only way to avoid the full export will be to rez the boxes somewhere for 2 days and remove them from my inventory and after export pick up the boxes again. Is this correct, or does packaging the stuff into boxes still a good idea for the Aditi inventory servers, even if the boxes are exported with the content, so i could leave the package boxes in my inventory before i change my password? Best regards, Jenna
  10. The avatar you want check the ping must have a RLV-enabled viewer and possibly an active relay. Unless you implement that check by a device and give them the device, than the device can communicate with the viewer directly without a relay. But their viewer must understand the RLV commands. Your viewer must not be RLV-capable. This is an interesting idea actually to implmement such a thing and test on myself how much the ping value calculated this way differs from the ping value shown in the statistics bar. If i get time i'll try that
  11. Principally it seems to be possible to test how good is a connection of the avatar and how good is the avatar's machine by using a RLV-enable viewer. RLV has a number of commands awaiting a response from the viewer. For example a "@version=channel" command. The protocol is this: A scrip in avatars object (e.g.) relay opens a chat listen on a channel, e,g, 222, than issues a command llOwnerSay("@version=222"); This is a message sent by script directly to the viewer using by the avatar.The string "@version=222" is thus passed over the server - viewer connection and is delayed in respect of the connection speed. The viewer receives the message and understands as command to reply the viewer's version on the channel 222 (if the viewer supports RLV, if not it just displays the message.) The response again is sent over the viewer - server connection and is the faster the better the connection is. The script in the scripted device receives the message and calculates the "ping" value. However, in most cases you have a device that is owned by you and not by the avatar. In that case there will be also a step 0, when your device sends a RLV Relay message towards the relay worn by the avatar, This message is a command to request viewer's version and this will make an additional delay by script - script connection. From the step 1 on, there will be three delays until you receive the viewr's response, those in steps 2 and 4 are caused by the viewr - server connection and are as bad as the ping of the avatar's machine. The delay in step 3 is caused by the machine itself and determine how fast the machine is but can also hapen because of the virus scan program and similar loads at the moment. So with this technique you can quess the avatar's ping but not measure an exact value, but principlly it is possible. PS. Two links about that RLV version checking command RLV Relay specification
  12. Hi Eden I think it is because RLV is something not everyone who uses SL needs in the viewer. If you sail mostly or even only, you not need RLV. And if creators tools come alive you not need RLV for gridwide teleporting. So RLV is a partial solution used by part of residents. The SL viewer needs only stuff every SL resident uses mostly. So the current solution is to have the official SL viewer and the third party viewers implement the RLV. This solution works actually good. Perhaps the better solution would be modular viewers when the SL viewer offrs a framework for plug-ins (one for inventory, one for world map and so on)and you as user simply install the plug-in you need, like it is done by Eclipse. Than RLV would be simply a plug-in to install. This solution needs plently of work i think, though.
  13. The Problem Some residents do experience inventory problems last times when the inventory in Aditi, especially after password change (made to update the Aditi inventory) breaks. And I also read from indirect sources that the inventory on Aditi is on smaller hardware so there are needs to cull out data that are not used. As I understood the asset index for Agni and Aditi are in separate databases while asset server has the files on disc (notecards, LMs textures, objects and so on) and every asset index just links the files for avatar and object inventories. This makes it easy to look up the inventory: Loading index is faster than the files. But you have than to maintain both asset indexes for Agni and Aditi. You must keep them in sync, for example by copying the Agni inventory (the asset indexes) into Aditi inventory so you have an updated inventory there. This also wastes resources because you have to maintain two index databases with almost equal data, the one for Agni and one for Aditi, while for many residents that data are even not used (the residents not went to beta grid yet or went and left for good.) And the question is now how to cull out the unused database indexes. I have a suggestion to solve that problem which bases on two principles: Don’t use redundant indexesHandle the beta inventory as joint of the inventory in Agni and items added in beta grid. How to do that: In the first step flush out the avatars inventory in beta grid except for items created or acquired in beta grid. When the viewer in Aditi requests inventory from the server, the server passes the request over to the Agni inventory server. The result is then extended by items and folders the user added in Agni by creating the folders, notecards, objects picked fromworld etc. So you always see the full inventory and everything you own in Aditi or agni. You see them here automatically, without needs to copy everything from Agni to Aditi first. Now, if the user tries to perform an operation on inventory that affects the Agni inventory, and the operation would remove or alter the items (can you alter an item without making a copy?) than the operation is rejected with an error message. For example You are in Aditi and want to give out an item that is in your Agni inventory and is no copy. This would remove the item from Agni inventory – fail.You have selected an item in inventory and hit delete button, but you are in Aditi and the item is in Agni – fail.You open a notecard that is in your Agni inventory, edit and save it – accept. The new copy of the edited notecard is now in your Aditi inventory. If you go to Agni, and open this notecard, you still see the old text.You are in Aditi and rezz an object from inventory, or put this object into another object rezzed inworld. The object is in your Agni inventory and is copy. Ok, the new copy of this object is created and is in your Aditi inventory if you pick up the object fromworld.You are in Aditi and upload a mesh or image or sound etc. That all lands in your Aditi inventory which is in fact an extension of the Aditi inventory. You are free to rezz the mesh or use the notecard etc. If you go to Agni, you will not find the item in the place it is in Aditi.You are wearing a clothing layer or attachment, and this is in your Agni inventory and no copy. Because you have read access, the viewer can wear or attach it with no problems.You can also modify the item, the changes are saved in your instance of the item in Aditi, the changes are not passed over to Agni.This way you have always a read-only access to your current Agni inventory from Aditi and must not change password in order your inventory updates. And the server load of the Aditi inventory is minimal, so you not need to cull out anything. Actually you need only to change the servers (I hope) and add a new error message, or even extend existing error notification by new text, i.e. I hope by now this suggestion doesn’t affect the viewers at all. But i would to go farther and extend also the viewer. I’d like to see the properties of inventory items extended by a new grid field telling if this is an item in Aditi or Agni inventory, so you can see if you have full access to the item or the read-only and you must not await the error message if you was wrong. This field the viewer has to display than at some way. Possibly even more: “this item is in Agni inventory”, “this item is a modified copy of an item in Agni inventory” and “this item was acquired in Aditi”. If you go to Agni, the viewer displays only the first possibility. Limits This design doesn’t support deleting Agni inventory from Aditi login. Sometimes it is necessary. For example most Agni landmarks don’t work in Aditi and your favorites list is full in Agni, and you want it to list way other landmarks in Aditi. Although you can put some favorite landmarks in the favorites list also in Aditi, but have than troubles to find them under the amount of not working landmarks. The solutions of that are filtering and hiding, which needs more altering of the viewer. Filtering means you can set the viewer to filter folders and types of inventory items that are only in Agni inventory, so you don’t see them in Aditi. The filtering should be a separate setting for each folder and inventory type, so you can filter out all Agni landmarks or those in favorites list but nothing else. Hiding means you explicitly hide an item or a folder from being shown in Aditi. This way you can refine the hiding criteria. The disadvantage of that design is further, that by hiding or filtering inventory parts you create data for inventory index and can potentially make relatively much of them so the benefit of incremental inventory design looses. For this reason I’d suggest to support filtering by grid property for every inventory item (this setting doesn’t increases with inventory), but restrict individual filtering and hiding only to the top-level folders and system folders (that are top-level actually) and their direct content. The subfolders and their content should be no more individual filter- and hide able. That's all. Hope it willl give some constructire ideas, or start a usefull discussion. Greetings Jenna
  14. I have the sae theory like Freya A default script that you always create by clicking "New script" in contents tab of the build floater is telling "Touched" in local chat if touching the object. The script is called "New script", eventually with a number appended to it (if the prim has nother item called new script" and is always edit-able for the one who created it. The content should look like in this page: Hello Avatar The script does not interract with other scripts and since created accidentally should not harm others if deleted. If you can't see such a script, than the reason is possibly an other.
  15. Yes Darien, and thanks for replay. Yes, the script looses permissions if copied out of inworld object and if copied with object copied inworld. But it retains permissions if the object is taken into inventory and copied there. And i am pretty unhappy with the fact that once granted permisions can not be taken back, unless the owner of the object holding the script makes some mistake like resetting the script. The owner of the object gained avatar permissions can use the permissions in another means than the grant was intended to, and the victim can do nothing about it, or at leas i not know any way to, say revoke animation permission given to a griefing object pretended to be a hug attachment . However, i may be wrong. I see there is a message for revoking permissions if the script is on the sim, as far i can understand the definition. Edit: To be honest, i can't figure out how this message works and even it this message is sent when you decline a permission request, or really to revoke a permission granted once. My indirect informations state, this message is sent to revoke permission granted to a script available on the sim but not to a script in an attachment.If so, returning to the sim to revoke teleport permission seems not a good idea for me, since the griefing teleporter may send you out on sight before you take it the ability to do so. I've also not found a button allowing revoking permisions in Firestorm viewer. The only place dealing with permissions i found is Privacy tab in Firestorm settings. Permissions being revoked this are just two, animation and taking control, as far i can read on the help page. Especialy for dangerous permissions like debit or teleport this is an issue.But also animation permissions can be used for grief. This proopsal was a try to give a possible answer to the issue. I tried to keep the overhead low, so a permanent traffic for every script action is not a good idea. This made the complete design very complex.
  • Create New...