Kwakkelde Kwak

Olyphaunt Offcourse wrote: if I recall correctly most of the more popular 3D programs are over 400$ to purchase. You can add a zero and then some for the professional ones

Hmm, overlooked the lindenpart... Even though there shouldn't be a problem for anyone...the lindens like to delete any objects over their land, even if the center isn't.... Only one way to find out what happens, good luck:)

Maybe it's too obvious, but you could have set the "limit select distance" in the drop down menu.... Either uncheck that or move closer to the prims centre.

Maeve Balfour wrote: Kwakkelde: Mirroring the UV.. hmm... actually, you can flip the axis of the textures within SL in the build menu, so this probably duplicates the effect you are referring to (if I am reading you correctly there, that is) - Still, its always handy to have multiple methods of achieving something. Not quite... If you do it in SL, you will limit yourself to 4 unique textures (times 2) because you can only mirror the entire "SL face". You can rotate and mirror some UV islands within the same map, so every unique texture has 4 (rotation) times 2 (mirror) is 16 different uses. 16x8 gives you 128 different "tiles". I said mirror half the UV, maybe I wasn't clear..I ment mirror half the islands on every UV map.

Ah, good to know, didn't take the time to test myself... either way with a setup like this, it is how it is. Welding the verts together before exporting the DAE won't make a lot of difference.

completely forgot "your" way keeps the "old" way of primcount intact..very true, no test needed, thanks for pointing that out... collision prims for sculpts, things like that, would result in big big numbers with the "new" way.

Next to rotation you could add a mirror modifier to half of the UVs, for even more variation....

Maeve Balfour wrote: The final mesh floorspace (46m x 54m) came in at 5PE (672 vertices / 336 triangles). The vertice count is probably higher than it should be, due to the overlaps of the imported meshes during construction, but it is within my tolerances in relation to the final PE cost / visual quality. (I have not tested whether welding the duplicate vertices would destroy the pre-made UV-maps or not (time restrictions on my part mostly)). First of all nice tut, i'm sure many people will find this useful. Welding the vertices shouldn't destroy your UV maps, but it would be pointless since the uploader will pull them apart again. Every UV island has its own vertices on the edges so the only way to save on them would be making a square of 4 duplicate quads (or more) as far as I can think of, that would seriously destroy your initial goal of getting rid of the tiling effect. And that would save you a whopping 4 verts (like the ones in the far corners of your mesh.) Also the verts don't count for display cost I think and I bet that's the one that's determining your landimpact. oh..edit:) not four (which would save six verts), but two duplicates to save on two verts, but that doesn't change what I said...

you can use: if (message=="close")llSay(0,"the vision fades");

Same question:) ...can you give an example? I tried a very simple setup, two linked boxes. If I add the VolumeDetect script to the child prim (and take it out again) the Landimpact is still 2 for the set. This is until the child prim physics are set to "none", then the impact is 1. It's a simple test, I know, but I can't see how the VolumeDetect will ever lower the primcount more than a prim with no physics.

JJValero Writer wrote: Do not make the door frame with one prim. Made it with three prims. With mesh do not think in prims, think in vertices. Every mesh primitive have the physics of one cube due the physics with the form of the mesh is very expensive in computer time. Imagine calculate the physics of one very complex statue. Perhaps will be possible in Havok 2056 running in a quantum computer. This is the reason that if anyone made one room/building/store in one uniq primitive, nobody can enter due the entire building will have the physics of one big cube. (Just as in the sculpts) However, many mesh primitives linked in one object, can have less land impact that all those primitives without link. Just to be clear this is definately not the case for Second Life. For Open Sim this might be so. Physics shapes can vary as much as the visible shape. Also if the physics are well thought out they won't be expensive to calculate at all. You can get away with far less faces than the SL prims use most of the time, by using single planes instead of boxes for example. The doorframe as a single mesh shouldn't cost more than a single prim. If the physics are those of three boxes, cost will be 3 x 0.5 = 1.5 prims (and 2 when not linked to the wall) In that case you could just as well use three actual boxes, set to convex hull, instead of mesh.

Void Singer wrote: [...] Setting volume detect true before linking a prim as a child allows specific prims to be effectively phantom within the linkset. there are cases where this will be a better solution than setting the physics shape. That makes me curious...When would that be a better solution?

In some cases there's an easier way to texture a sculpted item. If there are no angled or curved faces and you want one fabric for the entire object, simply set the mapping to planar. As I said it only works on a limited number of objects, but you can use a very small texture without parts of it being stretched.

I think Drongle is right here, if that is the shape that's shown after hitting the analyze button, it should be the shape you walk into inworld. I got a closed shape after analysis, even though the DAE was open. One other thing regarding the FBX to DAE. That's a step you don't have to take. You should be able to export straight to DAE. You still didn't say how you made the physics shape btw. There are dozens of ways to construct something as basic as that, did you already try something else? As I remember it I edited the lowest LOD into the physical shape and it went solid inworld. By making an entirely new one with a simple plane as startpoint, I fixed my physics issue. First one also had triangles at the end, (tried something else, sorry I don't know what that was, but it didn't work aswell) the one that worked had only quads. No idea what made the difference, but it worked. The other objects that did work for you, what kind of objects were they?

Looking at the doorframe and seeing how thin it is, I think there is a very easy solution. You can simply set the physics type to "none" once linked. This is however not the solution for the actual problem. Can you post how you constructed the doorframe before exporting? and did you hit the "analyze" button before the final upload? I had the same issue a while back, also with an object somewhat like a doorframe. I modelled a new physics shape with another technique but with the same shape and then it worked fine.

That's exactly my point. People will set their boxes to convex hull and not the torus and sculpt rubbish. The result? more prims on every simulator, more lag. EDIT..and if your experience is most meshes are not well built right now that's no good news for the future, since I think it's the better builders picking up on it the soonest. Let's hope I'm wrong and maybe people learn to build better. Changes in LI in mesh are caused by the physical shape, often it doesn't need one at all. So linked or not linked to anything else shouldn't make a difference for mesh I think. Bad physical numbers for a mesh convex hull have nothing to do with the qualify of the build in the first place. If it's built right, it has its own shape for physics.

You can also keep "some" physics by setting prims to convex hull rather than prim... this closes holes in prims, but in a lot of cases they are only visual anyway... does wonders for the primcount...but as you said..it's an open invitation for 'cheating" the system and I'm not quite sure if I really like the options...

PeterCanessa Oh wrote: The length is not a problem as scripts can use llRegionSay() to be heard throughout the whole region. Yes I realized that after posting:) It would have been a minor problem anyway. PeterCanessa Oh wrote: Physical objects may fly off sim - and into a neighbouring area where scripts are disabled. When turning the prims physical I'd be inclined to make them temporary too so they all die and are cleaned up. A new copy of the building can be rezzed instead of reassembling the old one. If that isn't possible then the OP will have to be careful not to lose any parts! Making the objects temporary will make the resulting effect less desirable I think, visually. If you do that, it's not possible to have the building fall into pieces and then leave it in its collapsed state. Well you could rezz a non physical collapsed building for the time being, but the pieces would never be in the same place as where the physical ones ended up. You could do a measure and let the objects die if they fall too far. Or rather the other way around, make all objects temp so they will die, but if they end up near the building, set their state to permanent. This will make sure a piece, ending up on a plot with scripts off, doesn't get stuck. On our building platform we used to have something very similair to this. A physical column with 9 ceiling pieces that turned physical when the column was touched and fell over, the effect was very nice. I didn't script it, but I'm pretty sure the objects went non physical as soon as they were too far away. Ofcourse this was only a set of 10 prims, not 200.... Anyway, by doing this you could prevent losing any pieces in 99.99% of the cases, but with 200 prims there's always that chance you lose one or two anyway. Rezzing a new one instead of moving all the pieces back to their orginal position sounds like a better approach. Oh and do make sure all objects are turned non physical after a short time, or you probably won't be able to move or run a script properly with 200 physical pieces on the floor. EDIT... Only one way to find out if the load is acceptable, make 200 temporary physical objects and let them fall down. Also take in mind that what is barely acceptable to you might not be acceptable for others you share server hardware and software with... but that's up to you, I'm not the police.

Not that I am a very good scripter and I certainly do not want to break anyones spirit... but all I see is lag, lag, lag. Turning 200 prims physical is a tremendous load, even if they only have eachoter to bump into, which I expect is not the case. Physical objects also have the tendancy to fly off sim. On top of that you would need a listening script in every single prim adding to the lag. A minor problem is the length, since a single scripts shouting out the commands only reaches 96 meters both ways. The scripting itself should be fairly easy, but as nice as the idea is, I personally would never do it. I hope a good scripter will tell me I am stupid and none of this is true..but I seriously doubt that.

Not that listening on an obscure channel like 88 will create a lot of lag...you still could very well do without it. why not let the basket refill if it is both empty and the toucher is the owner?

I think right now Marines own viewer is very close to the latest V2 by Linden Lab.

Chosen Few wrote: One of the commonly held myths of copyright is the concept of "percentage of difference". People say it all the time, "If it's ___% different than the original, it's not a copy." Every tell of that tale seems to have a different number. Some say 10%, some say 5%, some say 30%, etc. But what none of them ever seem to ask themselves is how do you actually quantify 'differentness' or 'sameness'. The direct answer is you can't. The larger, more important, answer is it doesn't even matter, because that's not how copyright works in the first place. Of course you're right, I understand and I should have been more clear than trying to explain myself in pixels. All I ment was if it is exactly like the original it is infringement and if nothing of the original is left it is not. Anything in between is grey, including shades hard to tell from either black or white. If the infringement was measured in percentages, I could mirror a texture and claim it is 0% like the original ..

Thanks for the link, it's very informative for anyone with questions regarding copyrights..maybe I should watch it again, I have a terrible memory. Chosen Few wrote: The design of the dress itself really couldn't be copyrighted. It's utilitarian article. This is true...and it's not. It certainly is what the video was about though. After watching it the previous time, I found a nice article about furniture. Same copyright "rules" apply to those. However there is more to most utilitarian objects than just utilitarian pieces. From LexisNexis (2) Conceptual separability from furniture's utilitarian aspects - The Fourth Circuit noted that the conceptual separability test is a conjunctive one: the decorative elements adorning the GIC and EMC lines must be capable of separate identification from the utilitarian aspects of the furniture, and they must be capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the furniture. Regarding the first inquiry, the Fourth Circuit held that the decorative elements on Universal's GIC and EMC were conceptually separable from the furniture's utilitarian aspects. As for the second inquiry, the Fourth Circuit held that the sculpted designs were not inextricably intertwined with the function of furniture. They were artistic and aesthetic features that could be conceived of as having been added to, or superimposed upon, an otherwise utilitarian article, and they were therefore capable of existing independently of the furniture. This isn't the article I read earlier, but it's about the same case I think. Anyway, it's the artwork on the side of a truck, the carving on furniture, the picture on a t-shirt that can be copyrighted, not the utilitarian vehicle, chair or piece of clothing. But if you make these things an important part of your creation you can make sure it can't be copied.

Shelby Silverspar wrote: You have to change more than just a pixel if you want to avoid copyright infringement. That's my whole point. It's the BEGINNING of a grey area I said. What if you change two pixels? I'd say infringement. How many pixels need to be changed before you can say it's no longer a copy? If you have changed every pixel it certainly isn't. If you changed no pixels it certainly is. Black...white... guess what's in between.

Not if the seller doesn't litterally say so. You can USE the templates, but you can't sell them on. why? because there are copyrights.... Ofcourse it's legal to use them, they would be pretty useless if that wasn't the case. But that wasn't the question.... What if the buyer changes 1 pixel and sells it on as their own template...call me crazy, but that is the beginning of a grey area if you ask me.