Toysoldier Thor

At the time your AVATAR AGENT entered into the purchase agreement, your AGENT did not divulge to the seller who the REAL LEGAL PURCHASER WAS. So, as such the agreement can only logicall be between the agents. Or worse yet, based on your understanding of contract law..... since both the buyer and seller agents are not legal entities... what you are suggesting is that the sellers agreement in general is completely null and void. So basically full perm sellers have NO PROTECTION legally in SL since obviously the agent cannot enter into any agreement - its not legal in the eyes of the court - and the buyer is not a legal agreement entering entity since the agent cannot enter into any agreement.... So I guess its a free for all. LL does not force you as an SL AVATAR to openly and publicly reveal your RL identity nor all of your Agents you control. Since this is clealy information not readily available to any other resident in SL - including the seller Avatar agent, it sure would be interesting so see your court case go up against a seller that you made the assumption YOU were the buyer and that the seller didnt clearly state your RL identity is the buyer. IF by default the Purchaser is the RL human as you state or even if a Seller clearly states that the RL human is the buyer and that only one of his AVATARS can use the asset.... I guess this seller must take his products off the MP.... since MP is designed to make sales between AVATARS - not HUMANS. Even if the Seller wanted to sell on MP - MP has no way to collect the RL Buyer's informtion prior to you making the legal purchase agreement as a human buyer. The seller cannot force you to agree to the terms of the agreement prior to pressing the BUY button and to provide your RL info to the Seller prior to pressing the buy button. So... if you ever do get taken to court for your assumption - I would hope you post a thread in this forum telling us if you won or lost on this case. I would be very curious to see if your assumptions on if the courts sided with you or the seller.

You are correct - each up to each person to run their lives and businesses any way they want. If taking chances in entering an agreement whereby he/she clearly knows of and sees a loophole that the other party's agreement because the other party didnt provide them with a 20 page long agreement prior to entering a purchase agreement and whereby this person sees an opportunity to bend or break the intent of the agreement of the other party simply because he/she didnt want to get clarification.... that is a viable way to run a life / business in SL or RL. I tend to run my RL business more conservatively and safely to avoid future potential conflict, costs, risks to my own business operation by not taking advantage of loopholes in agreements, getting clarification on factors that I know of and am concerned about, and NOT letting the control and fate of my business operation be decided on HOPES that the courts will side with me if this poor assumption ever ended up taking me to court. Everyone runs their business to their own level of operational risk and ethics. In this I will completely agree with you.

ansd would the courts of law not also stipulate that for the Seller to have an agreement with an AGENT of the RL Purchaser, that the RL Purchaser must divugle to the seller the RL-Agent relationship prior to the selling agreement being transacted? So you are saying a court would say that a a Purchaser can remain anonymous and have its Agent execute a legal transactions with a Seller whereby the Seller cannot control if the RL Purchaser divulges his/her agent's relationship? Somehow I see your case would be on shaky ground. Your Agent decided to enter into the agreement with my Agent - the agreement is between agents - not between the RL entities. Again - the seller can be explicit and make sure buyers like you wont make assumptions.... but I still think the better practice you should follow as a buyer in SL is for you to clarify your rights when this assumption you are making is not stipulated. Does this not make sense? Or would you rather take the risk and be willing to potentially be taken to court (where you might or might not win) simply because you didnt want to clarify the agreement you entered into? Logic to me seems that its best to avoid a future legal confrontation..... but thats just me.

the courts will side in favor of what makes sense and what could be fairly assumed based on the situation. BUT... I would turn the statement around on you Rival... the BUYER should be certain of the terms of the agreement set out by the seller. If you are not sure of what the terms mean or if the terms did not state something that you want to know the seller's interpretation of the situation.... CLARIFY with the seller. Its always better in any agreement you enter to understand what you are buying into and not assume - it will potentially hurt you in the end or the seller but it could have been avoided if you only would not have assumed. But sadly some people in life would rather take a risk and let a matter get resolved in ugly legal actions that could have been so easily avoided. You should always ASSUME the worst case scenario in the agreement - not the best case scenario in the agreement. In this way it could only get better from there. Not worse. but again - its your call how you want to deal with creators and what risks you want to get into. This is just my opinions.

Rival Destiny wrote: I have to disagree with your assumption. While I am not 100% certain of what would happen in a court of law, I would think that your rl person would be the only one to appear and would be consider by the court to be the agent of the alts. As far as my rl info - if a seller required that I would most definitely comply if the license stipulated that I give that info. I have no problems with that. Also, know that my comments are only in regards to the selling/buying & use of textures for builders. And that I always comply with the license under which they are sold. Also as I've said earlier, some texture creators include in their license that alts are permitted to use their textures. Some say alts are NOT permitted and others say nothing about alts. I use my best judgement when making decisions. So, bottom line, I think it's debateable and would have to be settled in a court of law as to who's assumtions are accurate here. So look at your point I highlighted in RED. If you believe that you the RL purchaser is the ASSUMED "purchaser" in any creator's license / purchase agreement then why would most creators even take the time to refer to the rights of your avatars in their agreement/ And I am no lawyer either but I cant see how if this was brought to a RL court of law, that the courts could easily be convinced that since the purchase was happening automatically BY the BUYER in SL / MP and that the purchaser is only known to the seller as an AVATAR in this virtual world.... that the Seller could very easily shut down any argument from a RL buyer that he / she was the understood default "purchaser" in the transaction. Come on... think about it for a minute. We sellers make dozens or more automated sales to buyers a day. The buyer - unless MP will make changes that can force you as a buyer to fill out a purchase agreement form that will capture your full RL information and register all your SL ALTs in the agreement - is only an avatar to the seller. Unless you tell me otherwise - I do not know who you are in RL and nor would LL provide me with this information and in most cases except for you and a few others - most of my buyers would never divulge their RL information and who all their alts are. If this was an actual prerequisite of buying full perm sculpties and textures, my sales would sink to almost nothing. You have your opinions and I have mine.... but mine is base on common sense of the situation where the sale is being made. My recommendation to you is that before you make any serious creation and re-selling decisions using the full perm assets of another creators.... you should not ASSUME your rights in the agreement. You should CLARIFY your rights. and one of those assumptions you should surely get clarified with the creator BEFORE you buy his / her assets is who does he / she think is the BUYER in the agreement. I can say with a strong level of comfort that most creators will tell you that the agreement is with the AVATAR. All I am suggesting to you is.... Dont Assume.... Clarify.

With regard to transfer of another creator's assets / content to an ALT.... Since everyone SHOULD assume that purchase agreements are between AVATARS... then the agreements / license terms should be honored in this manner. With that said... many of my fellow full perm creators have very similar / common terms in their agreements, but if a full perm sculpty or texture creator says that "you cannot transfer the stand-alone sculpty / texture asset to any other avatar or account holder or to a different world etc. etc." it pretty much means what it says. It means you cannot send the creator's sculpty map or texture file as a stand-alone asset to your alt, or your friend, or your account in another virtual world. BUT (and again each creator may have different rules) for the most part, if the sculpty map or texture is part of a more complext build and the Purchasing Avatar send this complex build to another ALT to sell... that would be deemed acceptable to the creator of the full perm sculpty map or texture for an ALT to sell a complex creation with the creator's full perm asset in the creation. BUT BUT... the RL person behind the ALT of this complex build he/she is selling with the creator's asset should be able to answer the creator of the sculpt /texture which ALT created the complex build he/she is selling so that the creator of the full perm asset can check their records that this other ALT did in fact buy the full perm assets that allowed that Alt to create the complex build. This is only fair for both parties. Since the Selling Alt of a complex build that includes a Creator's full perm asset is not on the selling records of this creator, the seller should be able to at least answer which ALT created the build that has the Creator's assets. I personally do not care if the Selling Alt of a complex build is selling this complex build with my assets in it... but I do care if this ALT created the build with my full perm assets and he/she was not a PURCHASER of my assets.

Rival Destiny wrote: Morgaine Christensen wrote: Has to agree with you about the sculpts. Most licensing I have pretty much states license is to the purchaser (i.e. the AV that purchased the item) and requests that you not give away the items full perms to anyone. Technically, making a scuplt item then giving it full perms to an alt would be a violation of the licensure. I don't disagree with you about the licensure. I would like to see builders items licensed to the RL person, but unless there is a court challenge or LL sets a policy, I think licensure will be left in the wilds. This is a real grey area IMO with regards to the 'purchaser'. Unless it states in the license somewhere that the definition of 'purchaser' is the 'avie' then myself, I would consider my real life self to be the purchaser. And if there is no definition of 'purchaser' then I would look to the license to see if it stipulates that textures may not be used in an alt's creations. If not there either, then i would see no reason why not to use them. Keeping in mind of course that we are all on our honor to following that license. Also, keep in mind that some texture creators have in their license that alts are permitted to use them. OK I have been reading this thread on the sideline and although I dont fully agree with some of the opinions posted here, I have to chirp in on this posting. Why would you come to the assumption and conclusion that when YOUR AVATAR in a VIRTUAL WORLD makes a purchase from a seller in a virtual world that has absolutely ZERO direct access or knowledge of YOU the RL person.... that YOU the RL person is the purchaser of the transaction that happened on a virtual world. You are 100% wrong on this assumption in my opinion and are making an bad assumption. Unless you are willing - as a RL purchaser - to provide me the Seller with your RL information and contact info which is not the case when an SL Avatar buys a product from my SL avatar - then the only assumption any person SHOULD come to is that the purchase is between AVATARS - not between RL USERS. So... unless the seller explicitly states otherwise on who the PURCHASER is - one should / must assume the purchaser is your Avatar account - and NOT your RL person. As for some of the other comments here.... Each Full Perms Creator / Sellers permissions and agreements are unique to them but the Purchaser is obligued to follow these agreements and if the purchaser is not sure of the agreement or interpretation of the agreement - it is the Buyer that should take the effort to make sure they understand the creator's terms. It only protects the buyer in the end. My agreements are with the AVATAR and not the HUMAN... because quite frankly... how the heck can I have an agreement with a party that is not known to me.

thats why your concept up UV stacking didnt make sense to me since i never read nor came across any functions or tools in Zbrush or UVmaster in adjust the map that was created. But I will ask the Zbrush GCosity group if they know how its done. Again, right now its not a feature I need but its always good to know what potentially can and cant be done for future reference.

What was confusing in the thread of Stacked UV maps was that I got the impression it was being suggested that you can stack many UV MAPS onto a model and I thought there was only allowed 1 UV MAP for a single model. What is actually being stacked is not the MAPS but areas, coordinates, islands on a single map.

Thank Chosen, This does help confirm that somehow a UV map can be manipulated. In Zbrush when I create a UV map of a human body, by default I see a single island UV on the map with both arms and legs extending from this one island on the map. So I understand you are saying that I can somehow manipulate this UV map to drag the location of the left arm of that UV map on top of where the right arm is on this UV map. The problem I have now is trying to figure out how in Zbrush one would manipulate the actual generated UV map. Its not a skill I manditorily must know as I currently use the brute force - yet simple - process of simetrical painting of the entire models I have worked on so far. But it sounds like this technique of manipulating a UV map to do things like you say might come in handy in the future. I just dont know how this happens in Zbrush or even what Zbrush would call the process.

Hoaghes Beaumont wrote: "The problem is when I have a wood floor, say. One 1024 texture is going to be blurry; I need it to repeat." This should actually be very easy to solve by laying out your UV´s correctly. I am using 3ds max by the way but this goes for pretty much any 3d program. Just stack the UV´s of the parts you want to have the same texture on top of eachother on your layout. The same is done lots of times, for instance if you have a jacket with two similar sleaves, or even have a symmetrical face that is mirrored left to right. Instead of laying out the entire object and painting the same texture twice, thus using precious texture space, you stack the mirrored parts on top of eachother and use the same texture for it. This is how you could tile a bowling alley with using a texture instead of a procedural map. I hope I explained this somewhat clearly. Some people stated ZBrush and using Zapplink for texture baking..In Zbrush you can actually render out the baked material straight to your diffuse texture and save it out, and you can allso use Multi Map exporter (or something, under plugins) and bake out all your maps like Ambient Occlusion, specular, diffuse, etc. in one pass and then blend em together in photoshop. In 3ds max baking shadows into a texture is as simple as setting up your lighting, selecting your object and hitting render to texture, you can then select exactly which passes you want to bake. Cheers and good luck with your bowling alley The concept of stacking UVs that you described as well as ohter is just not registering with me. I thought a model / mesh can ONLY have 1 UV so how can you point a left arm segment of a UV map overtop of the Right arm and use the same texture map. I undeerstand how this would make sense for symetrical models. I just can visualize this Stacking concept. Are there video tutorials on how this can be done? I know Zbrush - but is this UV stacking happening in the 3D modeling tool, or is this a manipulation in Photoshop, or is this stacking happening in SL? As for Zbrush rendering a Material manipulated texture, I had once tried rendering the different maps out and blending them into each other in Photoshop and the results were OK. It seemed to work much most effectively in ZapLink (although with a bit mroe work and sometimes with weird reflection anomalies if you dont mask out the area causing the problem) but maybe I am missing the workflow you were suggesting. I have installed the Multi-Map plugin but I have not tried it yet. I might have to play with this more. Thanks for the ideas and thanks in advance if there is anyway you can explain this Stacked UV concept better.

I would agree. OR they could rename this forum to MESH & SCULPTS since honestly most creators of mesh are still or have been long time creators of Sculpties. There is still a big market for sculpty so any chit chat on it or questions on it is valid. Unitl then (or even if this were to happen) feel free to ask Sculpty questions in here since there is no specific place in the community forums to place sculpty topics and the experts are in this forum. Added Comment: Although I suspect LL doesnt want to promote Sculpty so they would not be agreeable in renaming this forum to MESH & SCULPTS even though it would be a logical idea.

Pamela Galli wrote: Soooo -- no one has any ideas about how to texture a large floor to incorporate baked shadows? If you have the texture map - why dont you take it into photoshop and paint the shadows onto the texture map? Are you painting the texture outside SL in your 3D modeling tool? If so can the shaows be part of the material texture (like the material lighting and specularity is)? In Zbrush you can use zaplink to photo all sides of the model which takes the texture & material effects to photoshop where you can merge down the material effects into the texture - then bring this merged/baked texture back to the 3D model where it can become part of the UV Mapped texture for SL. The shadows and specularity of the material map merged awesome into the texture map with this process. Might not be what you are needing and I dont know how you do the same thing in any other 3D modeling tool.

thinking back what could have caused this ticket - I remember back in early february / late january when I created a new forum thread to tell the rest of you that I noticed a Delivery notification happen 1/2 hour before the sales notification was received. My thread was removed from the Merchant forum by the moderator and the moderator PM'ed me saying that he removed the thread and that they were going to investigate this issue and not to re-open a new thread on the topic. Thats the last I heard about it. So now over a month later they open up a ticket only to tell me not to bring up support issue on the thread if I wanted to get support??? LOL I didnt ask for support - I just wanted fellow merchants to know and see if they saw the same thing. This was a very valuable use of LL Support's time.... Thanks for all your help?

ROFL..... Maybe this is a NEW LL Support. They address and solve problems before we know they are going to happen. Chances are its moreso them finally getting around to dealing with a comment I made on the forums so long ago that I cant even remember it and they are just now getting to it. No that I wanna be a Negative Nelly!

LOL so here is a funny one.... I havent really been focusing to much on the Merchant Forum chat lately - just browsing over the 100's of emailed Merchant forum postings as they fly into my inbox each day and deleting them. Then an hour ago I get 2 LL Support emails out of the blue. The first one is an email from LL to me that they have created a Case # under "General Marketplace Issues" for me for something I have no clue. Then I get another email minutes later from LL Support that they updated the email to simply tell me basically that I shouldnt expect support from the forums for an issue I wasnt even sure I brought up in the first place. Case: 01367818 Avatar: Toysoldier Thor Type: General Marketplace Issues Status: Information Requested Dear Toysoldier Thor, Thank you for choosing to participate in the Second Life Community! As a friendly reminder, our forums are not equipped to support customer service inquiries, and as such we request that this correspondence is handled via our ticket system at support.secondlife.com. To ask your fellow Residents for assistance with an issue, we recommend using the Second Life Answers section of our community site (http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Answers/ct-p/Answers) I do apologize that you are having some issues with receiving notifications out of order or sometimes not receiving them at all. If you are continuing to have this issue please respond back and let us know more about what this issue contains so that we can properly help you resolve this or answer any questions. If any new issues arise please go to our Support Portal to submit a new case. https://support.secondlife.com/?lang=en-US Thank you for being a valued resident of Second Life! Have a great day! Kind Regards, When I opened the ticket they created the description says.... Resident is not receiving Marketplace sales notifications in correct order and sometimes not receiving the money. LOL... I am waiting for them to close their own ticket they opened just to tell me they cant help me. :) snikker. I have to say - LL made me laugh today. Good timing!

The point I was trying to make might be best explained in an analogy. So lets try this story... HD, you are now magically a long time successful designer and manufacturer of fine sports cars. Your sportcars are well renowned for the incredible shape, design, lines, features, and of course their amazing horsepower output. Customers have been impressed and flock to your cars for years. With all that your cars offer the market, due to limitations of the technology available to you and any other manufacturer of sportcars, gas milage was not one of them. For this generation of vehicles, your cars averaged 10mpg. Not great but about normal for cars of this horsepower and amazing design. Then the automotive industry introduces a new revolutionary technology for you and all other manufacturers to leverage. This technology allows you the pack in even more horsepower and ironically it also can be used to potentially improve gas milage at the cost of horsepower - at your discression. So you wisely decide to use this new technology and completely overhaul your line of sportscars to create a completely new sportscar completely based on this new technology. You release an amazing new car design with even better and more precise lines and double the horsepower.... and with all this, you are even able to increase the gas milage to 20mpg! Your customers that actually bought your previous generation of sportscars had no real issues with your cars getting 10mpg because it was acceptable considering all the other aspects of what they were paying for. So when they see your new design with revolutionary more accurate lines and better horsepower... and then find out you even doubled the gas milage to 20mpg... honestly... they instantly love the new car and well... nice that it now can hit 20mpg - but they really didnt care in the first place. So... all of a sudden you showcase your new sportcar to the critics of the automotive technology industry (you know - the ones that are easy to critisize but likely will never buy one of your cars since they couldnt really care less about the design or horsepower of your car - they care about the new technology you used and how you are using it). So you show them and ask them "what do you think"? A couple of these critics say.... "What?? Im not impressed at all. 20mpg? Thats terrible! You could have easily got 50mpg or more - especially if you would have replaced some of those fancy fenders with some basic plastic designs and if you would have reduced the horsepower and gutted your design. Im not impressed since you did not use this new technology wisely" They dont care that you would have to give up on all the critical factors of your sportscar that makes your car an industry leader and highly desirable. They only cared that you didnt push the new technology get the most mpg out of your car. That was what frustrated me.

Hey HD... regarding Zbrush and this build.... Generally how did you approach the build inside Zbrush? In Zbrush is this one large Tool with all the bike parts being SubTools of the Bike Tool? or were major sections of the bike a tool with subtools and then you somehow aligned them within SL? Did you ever use PolyGroups? Did you do all your texturing of the bike parts in Zbrush or where and how?

Good to see you to and Great to hear you are another ZBrusher!! It seems to be a lonely place to be in the SL Mesh community to be a Zbrush user. I am really appreciating the power of Zbrush and to see your creation using it further inspires me. And I do agree with you that ultimately minimalized poly counts becomes as much something that needs to become an internal positive challenge as opposed to a burden - especially when in the modeling tools you dont have these limits. Its best to try to foster these positive feelings early - even though for the most part I am using Mesh now for creating artistic static forms which can be more forgiving on LI factors. I am exactly like you in that I will try to reduce poly counts but I wont give up beauty and accuracy of the final mesh just so that I can accomplish the lowest LI on SL. I also dont like having to resort to Texture simulation of an actual shape unless I absolutely have to. Its takes me back to the days of making a cube prim dresser and apply textures on the 6 walls to make it look like the dresser actually had shape. So I tend to side more to the keep it more real and accurate then the lowest LI at any count. Just my thoughts.

HD.... It was good to see this thread and your latest build using Mesh. Your bike creations have always been awesome ( I got one). I am still a Mesh building noob so my post is more simple.... Its an awesome looking build ! I know all mesh builders should always look at how to squeeze in as much LI efficiency as possible, but if this becomes the #1 priority then mesh building in my opinion becomes a chore instead of a creative freedom to enjoy. In my early days of Mesh building I see LL's Mesh LI penalties in the analogy of LL giving us a 5 gallon pail of lego blocks and then making us feel guilty and slapping our hands if we try to make any creation with more than a handful of what is in this pail of lego. I understand the general logic of the LI penalties of mesh but that still doesnt stop me from having these feelings. And going to the LL LEA art Sims where Mesh Artists build amazing high rez mesh creations with little concern for rationalizing vertices.... I envy these artists because LI has no meaning for them since Prim rationing is not a factor nor do thay have to worry about LI to make their works commercially viable - they have no plans to sell their art. So I envy them as they get to use mesh models like we all can work with inside out 3D modeling tools befor decimating the model for SL. Just my feelings... AWESOME JOB HD !

Helium Loon wrote: Toysoldier Thor wrote: Since the deformer would clearly fall into LL's definition of a new function that impacts a SHARED EXPERIENCE on the grid, it doesnt matter if this new feature was highly demanded by the SL community... it doesnt matter that Qarl's efforts have been Group Funded exclusively by the community with no LL involvement.. Until LL endorses and actually incorporates Qarl's code into their viewer, no other TPV can release this cool Deformer code onto the SL grid. I don't think the deformer would fall into the category of 'altering the shared experience' restriction on TPVs. Here's Why: For the deformer to work, it utilizes the shape information passed to the viewer to render the various avatars correctly (since otherwise, the shape would have to be pre-applied and a whole deformed avatar mesh would have to be downloaded for every avatar!). Therefore, everything needed to render all the avatars shape is already available in the viewer. So, a viewer could deform meshes anyway it wants to for rendering without affecting anyone elses experience of the SL environment. Those without the deformer code would continue to see SL as it is today, those with it would see rigged meshes deform to match the shapes of the players wearing them. Therefore, by Oz's own definitions, this would NOT affect the 'shared' SL environment....only the individual viewers presentation of it to its user. So the deformer project (in this regard) does not fall into the 2.k rule in this way. But, any server-side alteration required for it to work would HAVE to be implemented by LL. If it requires those, no TPV can implement it without LL providing the server-side changes. So, unless a TPV manages to hack around that limitation and send stuff to OTHER clients and the server which somehow causes them to see deformed rigged meshes where they shouldn't........it won't be excludable on those grounds. Actually this is not the case and Phoenix has arleady point out the DFORMER as a perfect example of how the new policy could impact new innovations like Deformer to the SL Grid. And unless you have found a posting where Oz has since stated that the deformer is NOW NOT impacted by this new policy, Deformer falls within the spirit of the policy. "COMMON EXPERIENCE ON THE GRID" Lets use this example... I am wearing a full meshed clothing outfit that I bought and I happen to have a TPV that has fully incoprorated the Deformer code that automatically adjusts my mesh clothing on my avatar so that my viewer see my clothing fitting 100% properly (i.e. I have not taking 1/2 hour to adjust my mesh and my avatar shape so that my body parts dangle thru the clothing). So to me, thanks to my deforemer TPV - my mesh outfit looks AWESOME! And anyone else that has the same TPV with the deformer code would also see my avatar looks 100% awesome in my clothes. Then I go to a club and 10 of the 80 Avatars at the club use LL's Main viewer that does not have the Deformer code because LL didnt want to incoprorate the code or doesnt have time right now. So when they look at my avatar from their LL viewer - they witness a different SL Grid experience - a degraded one - since they see me dancing with my covered body parts dangling outside the clothing. In fact, if I am a woman and my breasts / nipples are clearly popping out past my top - not only is it a different and degraded experience to this user - it would mean to a portion of the population I am actually violating G and PG sims for being nude. As such, the DEFORMER clearly falls within the new LL Policy of "stiffle innovation in the name of Shared experience". It is not a policy based on if the server or viewer is responsible... it is clearly based on the rule that LL wants ALL USERS to experience the SL Gird activities and objects on their viewer the same way. Deformer would violate this.

Amphei Jierdon wrote: Thanks @ Maeve for the information. Here's one more designer crossing fingers, so the Lindens will build in Qarls code. Yes you and many others that Sell and/or buy Mesh Clothing better REALLLYYY hope LL incoprorates Qarl's code into the LL Viewer because as of Oz Linden's recent announcement of TPV policy changes, this code CANNOT go into any other viewer until LL decides it goes into their viewer (part of LL's recent "Squash Innovation" policies & initiative). Since the deformer would clearly fall into LL's definition of a new function that impacts a SHARED EXPERIENCE on the grid, it doesnt matter if this new feature was highly demanded by the SL community... it doesnt matter that Qarl's efforts have been Group Funded exclusively by the community with no LL involvement.. Until LL endorses and actually incorporates Qarl's code into their viewer, no other TPV can release this cool Deformer code onto the SL grid. You might not mind this policy or you might hate this policy but that is Oz Linden's new policy. I heard rumours from the blogs that LL has expressed that they would be interested in incorporating Qarl's Deformer into their viewer..... but then we run into another issue due to Oz Linden's Squash Innovation policy..... Even if LL has shown an interest in the Deformer function for their viewer, the speed at which they decide to incorporate this code is the next question. LL is hurting bad for Developers and are majorly backlogged on SL things to fix - much less to create. LL could decide that they do not have time to put the new Deformer into their LL Veiwer for 10+ months or even years. So even though Phoenix and other TPV have the time and ability to incoprorate this code in possibly weeks, they and all of us cant do anything but sit back and wait for LL to release it. Just thought you all should know this if you didnt.

Who is taking over for Charlar on these Usergroup meetings and Mesh?

I will not respond / counter- point your entire posting to me... it will just go back and forth.... but Toysoldier Thor wrote: and since the results are no longer available to the public, one has to reasonably suspect that it was because this quarter's results would have showed that the already negatively trending stats on a declining SL Grid was declining much faster. It would have likely shown that: the pace of SL sims being abandoned is increasing faster than a linear pace. the marketplace sales were flat or even declining over past Year / Quarter and/or that the sales are not a net positive to the inworld transactional sales (i.e. it would prove what most of us have already realized that MP is eroding inworld sales and having a negative impact on inworld sim usage - closings of stores and malls) Rodvik's arrival as CEO has done nothing to stem the decline in SL resident registrations and hours logged in. None of the above are reasonable suspicions, they are fanstastical and fanciful. Where does the idea of a MUCH faster decline come from.? Why do you feel Rodvik would need to conceal his personal poor performance from you, you don't employ him and the people that do know full well what the economics figures are.? So you say that NONE of the aboce is reasonable suspicions he? So without and release of the quarterly results from LL to prove your point... how can you post that my points are not reasonable? Because they go against your reasonable optimistic opinions which in your mind "must be facts"? Your statement on my suspicions are not provable since ... like the rest of us... you have no stats from LL to prove that them wrong? And since my suspicions an extrapolation of the trend of the results from the past few quarterly results, how could you make a statement that mine are wrong if they were trends from a proven pattern? Since you say and somehow believe I am wrong then that means you believe and have proof that LL's SL statistics have somehow magically bucked a multi-quarter trend and completely changed directions. Show us this proof on your belief. As Josh said.... since LL decided to hide these stats from the population from now on.... they have given all of is the freedom to make what ever speculation of the real results for this quarter that we want. I personally believe the SL stats are following a proven downward trend... you seem to believe LL has mgically turned it around and is on a growth swing after 2 years of bad stats. the difference is that I am not going to call you a liar or wrong - I just dont believe you predictions.

Madeliefste Oh wrote: Toysoldier Thor wrote: If they did... the logical question and related fear is.... WHY? LL has endured criticisms of their results in the past and still released. Why did they decide to stop? Apart from not wanting to reveal declining figures, a reason might be they don't focus any longer on businesses as customers. For a long time LL aimed to sell SL as a business platform, where corporations can hold their meetings, meet businesspartners, advertise their products and so on. In my opion the aim from these quarterly reports was not to inform current customers and merchants about the in world economy in the first place, but they were a marketing tool for pulling new corporations into SL. Now the targetgroup LL aims for has changed. It is the consumersmarket that they focus on now. This target group doesn't need to be convinced by economical figures to get them as customers. So the marketing tool 'quarterly reports' became superfluous. That is a good possible theory assuming that within the last 3 months Rodvik has officially determined within LL management that "LL no longer sees the corporate customer / enterprise customer to be a viable primary target customer for the SL gird" This would be interesting as to why LL has officially admitted defeat on attracting the corporate customer in the past 3 months when their outward visible strategies to target this base of users were abandoned a long time ago. LL's enterprise SL in a box product from 2010 was dropped only months later. Many of LL's largest corporate supporters already left SL last year (like IBM). So.... what made Rodvik decide in the past 3 months that SL will no longer attract the corporate customer and therefor there is no longer a reason to cater to them (like these quarterly results). As such, I do not believe LL dropped Quarterly Reporting because they decided to stop catering to the Corporate customer. Even if you are correct and LL was only producing these results as a marketing tool to encourage and attract and retain corporate customers.... (sorry but i need to LOL here) their recent quarterly reports in the past year would be the worst marketing tool they could come up with! i.e. Attention potential and current Corporate customers of SL.... look at our sliding / sinking usage and popularity results! If this doesnt convince you to stay.... nothing will