Toysoldier Thor

I can only imagine that the LL Commerce Team are all reading this thread is utter disbelief ... shocked how there is universal rejection of THEIR "cool idea". Of course LL Commerce Team does not believe is communicating with its customer base and they also have a long standing history of keeping all their plans and new features a big secret until late in their development / deployment cycle..... As such.... I can only imagine the next thing coming to the minds of Brooke and her team..... "OMG Now what do we do?? We already spent weeks of development on this feature that we all thought would be a cool idea...... we have to deploy this feature that we convinced our management would be a really cool feature. Its too late to publically announce that we made another big mistake... we have to deploy this now and prepare for the next round of anger and flames from our customers!! I guess Rodvik will hear about this flub of ours again.... when will we learn and start listening & talking to our merchants and customers:(" I suspect this stupid feature will be rammed in only because LL has quietly moved this too far to back out now. The concept is dumb and now rumours that it doesnt even work with TPVs.... here we go. I would have to think one of LL Commerce Team's inner circle of trusted merchants must have convinced LL that this was a good idea to develop. I cant believe the Team completely came up with this idea 100% by themselves.... if so LL... take note how valuable an Inner Secret Circle is for you as your alternative to talking with the general community.

Kylie Jaxxon wrote: Martin has a good point about the hidden folders I'm not a merchant, but as a consumer, I love this idea. I already have a folder in my inventory that is labeled "New" and I manually put everything in there until I have time to go through it, unpack boxes, etc...I don't like the way it is setup now, things are in one of two places, objects or scattered among my inventory list...makes a mess of it, IMO Time consuming for me, especially when I go on a shopping spree. This idea might make sense for you since the idea completely meshes with the way you do things but this will likely become a huge bucket of not only one type of inventory (like objects).... it will become an even larger bucket of all kinds of obkects that most SL residents will not sort out and move into the buckets on a weekly basis. For most I suspect it will become a huge junkyard.

This half baked idea from the Commerce Team shows once again how the team is so sheltered in their locked up rooms and not talking to ANY MERCHANTS coming up with their own ideas of what they think Merchants and Customers want... AND ARE WRONG AGAIN. This stupid idea will just create another massive collection bucket of junk. As so many have already said..... where did LL Commerce Team come up with this idea? Who Told them this was a good idea? How did this half baked secret new idea from the team become a priority over all the features merchants have requested and the LL Team keeps ignoring? Who at the LL Commerce Team is setting feature development priorities that wasted precious resources on this? WOW.... the continued demonstration of this team's complete disconnect with their customers is so obvious and yet Rodvik and Sr LL Management pretends this team is delivering and progressing LL's Commerce objectives. Pretty sad and such a waste of time and effort.

LOL I would feel comforted if I knew who Machimetrix was that was "covering my back" lol Honestly, if 3D modeling was the only thing I had going on in my SL / online life then I might be willing to pull my fingernails out to learn the Blender interface. But considering I am into sculpty making, sl merchant, art works creation (2D digital art and photography and photo manipulation), and singing, and RL art gallery development, and building in sl.... not to mention I have a RL job not related to any of this and I also run a RL side business not related to my RL job or my online life.... Taking on Blender is about as high on my priority list as would be the idea of solving world hunger. Would love to do it but just not feasible. again... I have no interest in rigging or animation. And I already have figured out the workaround on how to apply materials onto a baked texture. This is all good enough for me. I will leave the DEEP DIVE 3D Modeling concepts for those that want to focus on this technology. Im spread too thin already. But thank you very much for the new insights!!

Thanks for providing a description of the difference. I am not sure I am using a normal map when sculpting my shape as i never run across that term but heck... maybe i am and i dont even know it. LOL - simply put ... i take a basic 3D model shape (like a 3D plane or sphere) at a low poly count and start pull, yanking, shaping, basic 3d dimensions of the form. Then i divide up to a higher polycount and add more details. When it looks close to what i wanna paint - i massively divide up to a resolution that i can high res paint on the vertices. If that somehow is working with a normal map - then that is what i am doing. The good part for me is that my needs for modeling/sculpting are low compared to those that are using 3D modeling for animation or other more advanced things. I have no plans to create rigged mesh objects in SL. I likely will be staying with "static shaped" models and multi-object models. I just want to make sure i know the limitson texturing - like the multi-surface texturing. Why dont i use Blender? When I first started I used Blender. Even after a year of ... as i can best describe as... "struggling" with its hugely complicated UI, I was convinced by a highly talented IBM / SL Sculpty Creator to consider Zbrush. Although Zbrush had its own confusing hurdles, its UI is far far less confusing than Blender. That was back in 2.49. Recently I installed the latest version of blender and its UI only became more confusing. I only used it to import and immediately export OBJ to Collada. Anything beyond that was Brian-Hurting. There is no denying that Blender has a lot of power to do anything.... but I simply refuse to hurt my braincells trying to understand Blender's completely non-intuitive horrid UI. I like Sculptris (free and it using the amazing VOXEL sculpting technology that fits so well with my free thinking / free creating analog method of sculpting). Sadly it clearly needs a tool like Zbrush as its partner. I really think I would have liked 3D-Coat as it also supports Voxel Sculpting but it cost money and the trial period ended before I felt comfortable enough to decide to invest in that tool. I think i will wait until 3D Coat releases a native Collada Exporter for SL (the developers told me they were working on it). I already made an investment in Zbrush a while ago and even though until recently Zbrush has been used in a very limited fashion (because i didnt grasp the polypaint feature properly), I am now starting to see its strength. I also got all the free license downloads of the 3DDaz products but I am not sure how helpful they will be for me. All the other tools like Maya are way out of my price range if I recall they are very expensive. No use have a tool like Maya that costs more money than the revenue I would generate out of SL to pay for having the tool. I look at tools like that for professional creators that make their living off these tool. Not a fit for me. So in conclusion, I likely will use the tools I have, know, understand, and can afford to the best of their ability. If there are limits that these tools cannot address - like multi-texture zones on an SL Model... then so be it.... I will just avoid building SL mesh models with these features. I will go see this CGosity tonight when i have a moment.

I guess my limited past experience building 3D models (i.e. in the past 3 years I created 3D models of landscape terrains for the most part for export to SL Sculpt maps) might have me confused as to what the difference is between sculpting a 3d model vs "modeling" a 3D model. I have learned lately that Zbrush is not designed for rigging or as someone said "animating a model". It seems to only be able to make "static 3D models" and is awesome at texturing these models. Similar to your mudbox, Zbrush seems to be incredibly powerful at texturing models. Its PolyPaint seems to do exactly that you say you are doing in mudbox. I create a very low poly 3d model (lets say a 1000 polygon person head). Then I divide this low poly model 5 or 6 times to get the model up to - lets say 2 million polygons. Then I turn on PolyPaint and I can use several painting and texture application tools to paint color information onto each of the 2 million verices of the model. In fact, while I am polypainting the 2 million vertices model, I can freely even change the model's mesh design - even at the same time that i am painting the model. Since there is no UV yet assigned to the model, I am free to paint and shape this model any way I want until I am happy with how its shaped and painted. At this time reduce the model back to the lowest LOD of 1000 polygons and apply the UV Map to the model. Using a plugin tool called UVMaster - this is as easy as about 6 or 7 button presses to apply the UV map to the model. With the Model now having a UV map, I can now create an industry understood Texture Map from the polypainted model (since nothing outside Zbrush understands the polypainted information). This again is about 3 button presses for me to create any resolution of texture map for even the lowest of polygon models. My 1000 polygon model now has a 1024x1024 (highest for SL) or even higher available texture map. When I export this model with the texture map, it has proven to be pretty much dead-on accurate to what the zbrush model had. Thanks to the added tips from bouttime, using ZappLink, I can transfer the polypainted surface of the model to Photoshop in a few steps, where I can actually even bake on the material textures onto the polypaint (i.e. a shiny marble specularity onto the painted surface) and then automatically send this material baked painted texture back into PolyPaint in Zbrush. I dont know how powerful mudbox is but I have to say as I am learning more about Zbrush, free hand painting onto a 3d Model with no UV / mesh limitations seems to be one of Zbrush's strongest features. What I dont know and you might be right.... maybe Zbrush cannot do multi-texture zonings on a model. I would find it surprising if it couldnt since I have seen Zbrush create / work with multi-UV island models. But then the next potential hurdle is - even if Zbrush can create these texture zones on a model.... maybe the 3rd party Collada exporter tool might not know how to export it. PS.... no... I have never heard ot cgosity. What is it? How might it help?

StoneDwarf wrote: @ Toysoldier. Multiple texture surfaces? I assume you are trying to do the multiple materials trick to end up with several faces in-world, right? If so, why would you do this with or in Zbrush? You r right - that is what i want to learn - how to apply zones on the model so that when its exported to SL - a texture can be applied to these different zones. Why would I use Zbrush to do this? Because its my choice of modeling tool. The only other tool I know pretty well is Sculptris and it is near zero on any UV mapping controls. I guess its like asking why you would use mudbox as your 3D modeling tool. If there was a function you didnt understand in mudbox... why dont you use another tool that is known by the forum to do it?

The problem I personally have in attempting to even experiment with figuring out how Zbrush MIGHT create multiple texture zones / surfaces for export to SL is..... I dont know enough about the fundamental concepts that creates these zones and worse yet is Pixelogic's notorious habit of giving stupid confusing names/terms that dont align with any terms used in the industry. I might be looking for "UV Islands" for Zbrush on google and Zbrush might have termed them "UV Whatchamacallit". An experienced Zbrusher might know. I might send an email or postings somehow to the ZSculpty Plug creator - ShinyLife - to see if they have any instructions ... or worse yet if they even support the export of multiple texture surfaces to DAE.

Ziggy21 Slade wrote: Just to make my position clear. I don't like the idea of this legislation or the latest proposed versions of it. I also don't like, as I think you know, daft conspiracy theories and internet myths being quoted here as if they are facts, that is what my posts take issue with. Glad you clarified your point as your postings gave me the impression you were in full support of it. This is a hugely emotionally charged topic - as was clearly proven by the level of protest demonstrated to stop the bill. I mean how many times do you have an internet organization the size of WIKI actually execute a full day BLACK OUT in protest of a proposed law? It is rare and it should speak loads to the lobbiest that bamboozled this Texas politician to bring their written bill forward. You might be interpreting that presented theories are "facts" but you do realize that your "presented theories" also could be interpreted to be fact when they clearly are unproven theories as well. So both sides in this debate made theories about something that cannot be proven unless the bill actually did become law. The problem is that if our theories become proven after the bill were to have become fact.... there would be NO WAY to get us out of this stupid law. So... it is best to shut down a stupid law before it becomes a stupid law.

Ziggy, First of all I am happy that at this time this debate about SOPA is based on a bill that thankfully was retracted. If there is one good thing about the Internet its that politically motivated bills custom designed for mega-billion-dollar industries with powerful lobby groups still must face the even more powerful factor of the world-wide public. This includes all those voters that a misguided, lobbist-swaying, questionable intent politician so badly needs to further or even continue his career. Most politician are driven by two things... Power/Money and the strong desire to stay a politician. As such, it will be very hard for the movie / music mega corps to try to slide in these laws that try to pass their responsibilities onto others and remove the rights of other citizens in this world. So now that it is understood we are talking about a historical event that never was... Not many if any on this forum are debating with you Ziggy that a legit copyright holder of some content has the right to protect his/hers/its (I used "its" because the copyrights to many of the content that SOPA was really fine tuned to protect was the copyrights owned by a faceless major corporation that really has no creative skills in and of itself) copyrights as well as to dictate how the content can and cannot be used. Where you are in disagreement with almost all other posters in this forum and with everyone that saw SOPA / PIPA as a dangerous and destructive bill is in your belief when it comes to copyright protection, THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS. In other words you believe that: it is alright that laws should be put in place that transfers the responsibility, costs, enforcement, monitoring, and burdens of the copyright owner to the tax payers and the other major industries on the Internet with NO compensation to any of these non-interested players being compensated to protect YOUR copyright it is OK that anyone can be accused of and punished for a crime before being proven guilty or innocent in a court of law where the accused has a right to defending him/her/itself prior to punishment being rendered. SOPA was actually a fair bill designed for all copyright owners to use and that it would honestly benefit a small artist like me or garage musician or a SecondLife content creator. i.e. you believe the BS in the bill That the details of the SOPA bill would not have been abused by the mega movie / music industry to serve their purposes and crush any hint of what they believe is an infrigement of copyright in the blind goal to squeeze every cent of revenue from their copyrights. This is where you are on the other side of the debate with the HUGEEEEE outcry from all sectors of the Internet that massively protested against SOPA and PIPA. A simple question to you Ziggy. Do you ever wonder why if SOPA was such a fair and honest and upstanding bill, why did it come up against such massive worldwide protest ... including from some of the Internet's largest players like Google Wiki and countless others? Do you not honestly feel maybe there was something wrong with the bill that you so strongly believe in? Do you honestly feel that only those that agree with SOPA actually read the SOPA bill and everyone else that protested against it never read the bill?? I will give you credit that you openly admitted that your position in this debate is biased as you are a coattail rider on one of these mega-movie corporations and as unfair as SOPA was for most, it would have personally benefitted your short term goals. I know you dont really care that the bill would have penalized other industries on the Internet and that it would have stepped on basic human rights of any free citizen in this world and that several other major sectors of the internet were to go under. So it is hard to debate with anyone that so strongly believe in the principal of "THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS" when you are not on the side that will be injured. The fact that even you cannot argue is .... The responsibility, cost, burden of protecting a copyright falls 100% on the lap of the copyright holder. There are laws in place now that allows ANY copyright holder to protect their copyrights FAIRLY. You just believe that the responsibility of protecting copyrights should be place on others and that the rights of the copyright holder should trump all other fundamental rights that any human should be able to maintain.

The state of MP is just rediculously unstable and in such a mess. And we get no real value information or communications from LL at all. Just like last week's Valentines Day massacre where to date LL has not explained exactly what could cause MP to crash so hard nor any answers of exactly what they will do to make it more reliable. Clearly from today's outage - they have done NOTHING. again... where is Sr. LL Management to step up and explain LL's horrendous level of service from a Commerce Team that over the year clearly has shown they are completely out of control and over their heads.

When I get comfortable enough to fully understand how Zbrush UV mapping works beyond how UVMaster does its magic I will hopefully figure out how to perfect the process / technique UV mapping for animated seamless textures - like water and lava. I havent tried animating a seamless texture on one of the 5 mesh models I have created in SL. I could try it. But sounds lyou you are saying that unlike how a seamless texture flows across a prim or sculpty (i.e. seamlessly), this will not be the case with a mesh. Since my most common model shape for making landscape terrains sculpties has been PLANE type models, I have been practicing the creation of 3D Plane type models for import to mesh. There are a few gotchya's with plane type models but so far nothing too bad. but I am only using mesh models for art statues right now - not landscape terrains. Maybe I will quickly try creating a basic one to see how an animated seamless texture flows over a PLANE type mesh that is not too deformed. It will just be a single UV island model (since I dont yet know how to tell Zbrush to create islands). And thanks for the sympathy on this 4 year old JIRA. Last year I made an all out effort - right to Rodvik - to get this Jira looked at. I did end up getting Oz Linden to actually tease us and pretend that he was actually going to get this fixed but as you can see from the Jira comments.... OZ and the rest of the LL Staff slithered away quietly from this joke of a Jira. I am not sure why LL is so scared to fix this jira.

Sadly that is what i make and sell.... large waterfalls, long stretched sculpty rivers etc. and again - until the day that a mesh is not costly to the sim for being made very large on the sim, sculpty is still the best option for my customers. This is specially the case when a script is need to animate the texture and we all know the nice added penalty LL placed on mesh objects with a script in it.... something a sculpty is not penalized for. Of course for an animate - the script could be removed after the texture is animated soo this mesh penalty can be retracted. As for mesh UVs... i am still struggling to understand anything more than the basics of manipulating UVs for a mesh to do special tricks. For this specific problem and if I were to make a mesh waterfall or river I guess I could bake one large raging river water texture across the entire river or waterfall mesh that looks good painted over the entire surface BUT i dont think you can animate a mesh that was brought into SL with its baked texture during import. Even if a script could animate this baked texture it still would not work because the baked texture would not be seamless. So as the texture slides across the mesh surface, the seams at the initial edge would be seen. As for anything more complicated about using UVs to make more than one surface on a mesh.... I have asked in another thread and no one yet knows how to get Zbrush to create multiple texture surfaces on a model. I suspect its somehow done by creating a UV island on the model for each surface desired.... but that process in Zbrush is still a mystery to me. There is a workaround solution to the texture animation bug for prims / sculpties - a special script that must stay on the sculpty to keep it aligned with the set H & V Repeats. Of course this adds more load and lag to a sim but its my only option for my customers since LL refuses to fix this bug after 4 years. LL would rather we add more lag into our prims than for them to take a little time and fix this bug once and for all.

Its surely not unheard of for SL textures to do wonking things. There is a long standing bug (over 4 years old) that is a huge pet peeve of mine since it effects a lot of my landscape customers whereby a texture on a prim that is animated and has a repeat H and V pattern not the default (i.e. not 1 and 1) will return to the default H and V pattern of 1 and 1 if the viewer leave the proximity of the animated texture for a few minutes. This bug has been 100% proven and yet has been a bug for over 4 years. https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SH-2947 So it would not surprise me that texture behavior on a new type of surface on an SL mesh object would encounter unexpected results. If it is a bug.... the jira above is clear proof that LL will likely not fix the bug.

Thanks about the MRGB! WhatI meant about the UV islands is.... Is that how I can get multiple texture surfaces on a model in SL (i.e. if I had a model of a cube and i DAE exported it from zbrush to SL that i could drop a different texture onto each side of the cube?)

Its a nice Tip of the Day ..... IF your are an American. I believe since 2009, PayPal does not offer the Debit Card service to non-Amercians. Here is a clip from the PayPal User Agreement form I just got from the site... Availability. The PayPal Debit Card is no longer available to PayPal Account holders in Canada. This Agreement applies to current PayPal Debit Card (“Debit Card”) holders I am sure this applies to all countries outside the USA. But the benefit for me as a Canadian is that all my profits from LL comes into my PayPal's Amercian account - not my Canadian account. So since I do a lot of online shopping from Amercian oinline retailers, I dont have to pay a currency exchange fee since I can pay the American retailer from my American account.

So sorry for jumping on the coattails of this topic but my evolution of skills development with Zbrush for SL Mesh models is arriving at this topic / hurdle. So how are multiple materials defined in Zbrush to be exported by the Zsculpty .dae exporter? I have just started learning the basics of PolyGroups and I have a suspicion that in Zbrush, you might define zones of materials / textures on the model somehow via the use of polygroups but I am not sure exactly how. NOOB questions about mulitple materials / texture faces.... 1) Can I use different materials for each of these zones on the model or can a model only work with one Material? Right now if I change the material to - lets say a Shiny Marble look - the entire model surface changes. I would like to be able to apply a material to only one part of the model. 2) The term "material" has been used. Are we talking only about Materials or also zones of textures? 3) In Zbrush I use ZMaster for UV mapping my model - an awesome UV creator. But, if zones of textures seem to be determined by zones or islands of UVs, might this be a limit where ZMaster cant go? I have a feeling this is where Bouttime will likely know the answers to this regarding the topic in this thread for Zbrush.

Bouttime beat me to the punch responding to you iheartmyself. Its an complete myth that the creative spirit will be destroyed because of an abundance of piracy in the world. I am an artist myself. I evolved as one over the past 3 years. The art I have created since I started has maybe earned me a whopping $200 US. But my creative drive to create art is absolutely NOT DRIVEN because of the all mighty $. If some day my art becomes popular enough that I could earn even a fraction of an income to live off of, great. But I surely am not stiffled because I wont make money or because I think if i do become popular pirates will steal from me. I can tell you that this is true with almost all artists. It is also true with almost all musicians. I challenge you to find 3 Artists or Musicians that will post on here and say.... "because of the fear that my creations might be stolen - I dont want to create art or music or animation or make a movie". Another Myth that the Big $ music and movie industry is trying to BS the governments and population is that pirates are mainly stealing from those creative minds that were behind all those awesome movies, animations, music. In fact, the ones that are hurt by the pirates are not the actual creators that earn their money as a 9-50 salary. Its the Industry mogals that own the copyrights to their creations. The Billionaire corps are the ones that dont like a small portion of their profits taken from them. The REAL Creators will still have their 9-5 jobs and will STILL NOT get any royalties from the creations they make for Disney Sony etc. You have fallen too much for the BS that the movie and music industry has fed you. If you were an actual artist, musiciam, animator you would realize that your statement was wrong.

Yup Peggy so hypothetically, lets say I making a posting in this thread that makes a statement / accusation about YOU and one of YOUR PRODUCTS on markeplace that I may believe are accurate. Doesnt matter if my statement is correct or not. The fact that I clearly mention YOU and YOUR PRODUCT and made an accusation (regardless of its accuracy) without your permission in my posting... That is a FACT. That is not an opinion. I named names. That is not an opinion... That is a fact. I named YOU and I named YOUR PRODUCT. The fact is that regardless of opinion of the posting I made, I would have violated LL Forum TOS rules of "not naming names" and "not making any accusation of a violation by another member of of the forum". There is no opinions about that Peggy. The posters that I AR'ed clleared MENTIONED ME and MENTIONED MY PRODUCTS on MP and made an accusation of them violating copyright. Tell me where there is room for opinion?? No matter how you spin this to defend them... FACT Peggy That is what postings I ARed and that LL completely ignored and no punishment to the posters for these factual violations.

As an update to the process you suggested with how to bake Materials from Zbrush onto the texture map using ZapLink to PS.... On a model I just finished, I found a glitch that I could not get around and also a tip when follownig this workflow and ZapLink to PS. The Glitch.... It seems that when using zapplink to PS for a PLANE type model, the resulting re-import of the baked texture back to Zbrush leaves a lot of texture blends between the 6 layers - speciall between top and bottom images. I had to brush it out with a clone tool but I could not figure out how to stop it. Below is an SL rezzed mesh version of the model that i photo'ed. I red circled the flaws and remember that this is after I touched it up in photoshop. the reason i left it visible is because it just happened that the reflections actually were a side benefit to the artwork as it was water i was trying to create.... Another small annoyance about ZappLink re-import from PS back to Zbrush, if you press save on PS the first time and return to Zbrush to receive it.... Zbrush is a bit confused what happened and only offers you to return to PS. So you have to go back to PS - make a single small change that makes the SAVE button show up again - press SAVE and then return to Zbrush where it finally notices PS made changes to import. This happen consistently for me. Now for a few Tricks I learned.... > When you set the ZAPPLINK sides under Document Zaplink properties, make sure that the first side you set is the side of the model that has the LARGEST view. If you dont, then if the first view you set is smaller than a subsequent view, the images are sent to PS with the larger views cropped off. This was frustrating until I figured out the trick to this anomaly. > As for duplicating the Shader layer before Merging down the original shader, I have not see a difference if you do this or just merge the original shader to the main texture. The only difference I saw is that Zbrush complains a bit that what was sent back to it was not the same number of layers as what it sent PS. IT says.... merge anyways? And it works fine. > If you want to play more with a baked texture in Zbrush that you export and play with Photoshop... be ready that in PS you will have to flip the image back to the proper orientation before sending it back to Zbrush to be applied to the model. > A trick I am sure many of your SL Mesh Gods already know but it was a learning experience for me. After you create a DAE from Zbrush with the baked texture anddddd you decide afterwards to change the name of the baked texture, this will un-link the texture from the DAE file config data. I remebered that someone said the DAE file is moreso just a glorified XML document so I opened it up with a notepad editor, searched for the original texture file name and searched/replaced all instances of it to the new texture name. Worked like a charm when I imported it into SL. There is my update so far on SCULPTRIS, ZBRUSH workflows to SL...

Your right Porky.... Unfortunately for most SL Creators the copybotters that take another SL Creators / Merchants content and resell it right in clear sight of all have very little risk of being punished or even stopped. > In order for LL to even take action to stop the clear violator - LL need a DMCA first even though its 100% clear that he / she is a copybotter. I look at the major violation last month when some of the amazing builds from several respected builders like from the Looking Glass team were found to be selling on copy-botters sim. All the merchants / creators saw it, we all went to the sim to get an inventory of all this Italian copybotter had stolen before he locked the sim from any access. Yet until the DMCA is filed, this copybotter goes merrily on his way. > For most SL creators, the cost of any extended legal action against a copybotter would very quickly overrun any profits made from the content that was stolen. Since in SL we are dealing with Micro Revenue / Profit per sale, one bill from a lawyer for most would wipe out any profits. The copybotter knows that and knows generally most wont do anything. If there is too much pressure, the ALT poofs away and a new version shows up. So I agree with the statement bouttime made (i believe) that copybot attacks are moreso one of the costs of doing business in SL. Sad but true.

"VERONIKA state... That is a copy/paste directly from both Veronika's post and mine at the beginning of this post. It's absolutely unsupportable and without any facts to back it up. It's inflammatory and false. It implies dishonestly by LL and/or the poster. " ----------------------- It is absolutely supportable and proven as the posts made are still on the threads which were LL Forum Posting violations whereby I filed AR's against it for making unfounded accusations and NAMING NAMES... and the fact that the AR's did not end up with LL Moderator removing the violating posts.... FACT! End of Story. So yes... LL does allow violation of Forum TOS rules depending on who is doing the violating. FACT!

I wondered myself how DD was gonna solve the Valentines Day Massacre myself when LL commerce said with DD it will all be better. But since LL Commerce doenst talk much about the details of DD I assumed they did what you said Sassy and were fixing the stupid poor transaction processing that LL does now. If they are ONLY fixing delivery then DD will do nothing to fix the disaster LL created last week. That was just a PR gimmick to prmote DD. I have had almost no problems with Magicboxes in all these years. The midnight delays are backend server probs as you said sassy. The gifting is not a magicbox problem either. A ton of blame is put on magicboxes that LL has allowed to be blamed when they know full well its not. It just hides the crap backend system processes that LL didnt want to clean up / fix all these years and it allowed them to go onto their pet project DD. A Project that has now taken over a year for them to develop and still not fully deployed. A project that has also all but distracted an entire Development team from doing almost any other fixes to MP that merchants keep asking for. The broken transaction processing that Sassy explained and that showed its perfect example of what can happen to this flawed design will still likely be in place and DD will do nothing to reduce the risk of another V Day massacre. LL Commerce Team said a very fluffy statement with NO hard facts that they will be looking at improving backend systems to improve redundancies.... exactly what ? What exactly failed and what will be fixed? and When?

100,000 / 249 = $401.61 100,000 / 248 = $403.23 $1L difference to way 3 days for a payout vs 2 minutes = ($403.23 - $401.61 = $1.62 That math is simple and I will take my money in a couple minutes for the 0.4% penalty Not sure what math you thought someone got wrong. I was just rough guess $3. Less than $2 makes it even less sense to wait 3 days to exchange cash because they cant decide if they might need the money they are trying to exchange afterall.

Peggy Paperdoll wrote: The only "legal' action one can take is to file a DMCA take down to the site that holds the copyrighted material. The original creator of the material is the only one who can file the DMCA take down request. By law, the owner of the site must remove the content. If the owner does not do that then the filer of the take down can move into the legal system for further action. Users who are aware of the copyright infringements can best help by notifying the original creator of the copyright infringement and let them file the DMCA take down claim. Other than that there is not much we can do...........boycott the site and refuse to purchase content that we are sure came from the site is about all. But knowing where the content was obtained is impossible so that's a dead end. The way the DMCA law is written LL's hands are tied until the content enters SL and the original creator makes the DMCA take down claim is made. The best way to handle this is to notify the creators of the site and let them do what they must do to take care of the problem. Making a thread here is getting a little close to violating LL's policy about harrasment or "naming names". I know you haven't crossed that line but you're on pretty thin ice policy wise. Be careful since you could wind up getting into trouble trying to do the right thing (I doubt it would happen to you but it could....interpetation is key). Sadly Peggy, although LL Forums has a policy about "naming names" being a violation and that making unfounded accusations is a big no no... we have seen in recent threads that LL Moderators condones this action even when the violator has AR's filed against them for this violation on the forums. LL lets names be named depending on whom is doing the naming of names. So if you are not a friend of LL's then Peggy is right... dont violate any of LL's posting policies or else LL will punish u.