Jump to content

Kwakkelde Kwak

Resident
  • Content Count

    2,879
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Kwakkelde Kwak

  1. I don't agree, hardly ever do....I'm stubborn like that This is what wikipedia has as a definition: "A software bug is the common term used to describe an error, flaw, mistake, failure, or fault in a computer program or system that produces an incorrect or unexpected result, or causes it to behave in unintended ways." And this is what LL has as a definition: "Render weight represents the amount of work your computer must do in order to display an object. " I would say we are looking at a humogous flaw that produces a completely incorrect result. Nothing suggestive about it.
  2. Hmm root prim or child prim shouldn't make a difference as far as I know, just the fact there's a mesh in the set. I think if you had left the scripts out of the boxes ( which is ofcoursenot going to happen, that's why you have those boxes in the first place) you would be looking at something like 12 prims instead of 24. Size should matter, but I've seen my boxes count as less than a prim at house sizes. These were basic boxes though, no hollow or twist modifiers applied. Anyway, for prim efficiency you did well I guess:) you got yourself a free chair.
  3. Looking at the picture, you are after a very small cylinder. If you aren't, just ignore this post. I'd advice to use a ring instead of a torus. Not only will the result be a real cylinder shape, it will have a fraction of the rendering cost. As far as I can think of without starting up the viewer, all deformations work the same as for a torus. ( to make it very small, hollow it and cut path, you can make 0.25 mm thin cylinders I think , with a point at one end though) I'm not a big fan of these micro prims, but that's off topic and rather irrelevant here:)
  4. There's this weird bug I have been experiencing with that physics from file button in the beta viewer I'm using..not sure if it's the latest viewer, but anyway... Click it once and things go grey, click it again and it works... maybe that's the case for you aswell...I'm happy you got it uploaded correctly and I bet so are you Oh and i think if you link three together they will only cost 2 prims on your parcel...
  5. The Prim impact is measured by a number of factors, including scale, since the smaller it is, the less distance it takes to flip to a lower LOD, which makes the render cost lower. That's why it went from 6 to 2. Best is to scale in blender yes, that way you will see right away what it will cost inworld. If this is inconvenient for some reason, you can set the scale factor in the upload menu, third tab, next to physics ( I forgot what it's called). I do this for a truck I am working on. I build it scale 1 to 1, so it makes sense when I build it, then I set the upload scale 20% higher so it matc
  6. I think Chosen's entire point is awareness, it's mine anyway. In a way by looking at draw weight or the directly related prim weight, you are already doing that. By mentioning the LODs you do so even more. Don't forget as you again stated yourself, the 40k is imaginary indeed. I bet a lot of models on the marketplace are using too many faces on the lower LODs, which means they have to be rendered without being seen. That's just as useless and wasteful as hidden faces on any LOD. Saying others make high poly models justifies doing the same is the same as the "if your friends jump off a cliff.
  7. wiked Anton wrote: applauds the residents who went to all this trouble, but they shouldn't have had to, this all should have been taken care of by LL......and it totally pi__es me off that they continually seek the profit and feel to supply less and les, or at least shirk responsibility for their product. we maya a well just send them money every month for doing next to nothing Supply less and less? I don't see how you can state that, at all. The last year LL has given us mesh and a V2/V3 viewer that's very usable. Also I've noticed performance gains, although that might be something not
  8. You never needed a UV map for the physics. What did change (and possibly is "unchanged" in the latest project viewer) is the fact the physics shape needs one of the materials from the visible models. This wasn't the case before V3.1 and it's without a doubt what's causing your problems. LL admitted it didn't make a lot of sense, so it's very possible they changed it back.
  9. No you are 100% right with the LOD, as you mentioned earlier already if I recall correctly. It all comes down to data processing cost. When you have your lowest LOD set to next to nothing, there's next to nothing to send to avatars and next to nothing to render for those same avatars, I bet you already grasped that. It's not a complicated, but a very big formula. The number of triangles make up the base cost of an object, but only at the LOD they represent, so the distance multiplier for LOD high is nowhere near as big as that of LOD lowest. So indeed you can "get away" with a huge amount of
  10. Exactly what I said.... Professional modelling (something which isn't my job btw) works the same, except it can involve airports and hotels..multiple times....
  11. Medhue Simoni wrote: [...] And believe me, it takes alot longer to make animation than a model. ...] I do some animating and it takes lot less time than my modelling... that doesn't mean I am a faster animator or a better one or a slower builder or a worse or better one. All it means is I put more time into my modelling, you put more time into your animating...I'm sure your animations are a lot longer and more complicated than mine. Medhue Simoni wrote: [...] If I waste a hundred verts, I'm not that worried about it concidering what is currently considered efficient in SL. Overal
  12. The thing is not "yes I can reduce this or that" but "hey I can do without this data without changing a single thing about the looks. You say you have to make about 400 faces invisible. As far as I can see it's only the four flapping pieces, I made a duplicate and it costs me 4x64 faces, which is only 64%. Looks, exactly the same. This is what I ment. I can't argue on the balance of detail vs resources, but it makes no sense to me to waste so many faces on...well nothing but building convenience really. But that's just me, if you can build items that people like and make twice as many because
  13. I think the 1 SL face makes no difference whatsoever, it shouldn't... the 1100-4500 for 400 faces sounds more like a bug to me than just being illogical. JIRA?
  14. Medhue Simoni wrote: Transparent items in a mesh take a very serious hit. Without anything being transparent on the tool, it's weight is 1100. With 1 SL face being tranparent, the weight jumps to 4500. That is illogical. That depends on the actual number of faces affected, to me it does sound rather high though indeed.
  15. I really replied for the 1000 points for the standard avatar. Medhue Simoni wrote: A high poly gun in the 3d circles could be 30k polygons, but in SL, 5k polys is probably considered high for a gun. At the same time tho, you need at least 1k in polys to get a decent looking gun with any detail. I'm not the polypolice, nor do I want to be:) But 30k polygons can not easily be justified I think. It depends on a great number of factors though. Some you have control over as a builder, some not. You can set the lower LODs to keep the pressure on the servers and graphic cards within normal
  16. I'm not going to give a full reply on this, it will be more fun to let Chosen do that... One thing I have to say though. The fact LL only counts 1000 for the avatar is probably because (unless you want to kill your entire 5 year wardrobe) you have no choice. I would even say they could set it to zero. This doesn't reflect the costs, I know, it's a formula and you can't state 2000 is twice as good as 4000, all you can say is the lower the better. BTW don't get me wrong, I fully agree a 10 faced cylinder around the leg wouldn't look good just because it matches the SL avatar... Objects in S
  17. Maeve Balfour wrote: [...] Plus in this manner, you can have shadow effects WITHOUT needing individual prims dedicated for the effect (ala the old shadow prim concept from the "olden days" of building). So a big plus in PE savings as well. :matte-motes-smile: PLUS if the shadow texture is a dedicated one, rather than a shared texture... you can turn it off and on by script. When it's off you have two useless triangles, but that shouldn't be a big problem... There is one small catch though, adding a shadow plane to the mesh will make the object quite a bit larger in some cases, raisin
  18. Publik wrote: Yeah, and determining new weighting shouldn't be that hard...Something like: list linkset = //whateverinteger weight = 0;// loop through set{ if(linkset[index] == MESH) { weight += // weight of mesh }else // PRIM and MESH { weight += 1; }} Do sculpties calculate differently as well? Yes they could have left the "old" way of counting intact, even with a mesh in the linkset. That shouldn't be hard. The thing is I agree it's fair to do it the way they do it now, with SL prims represented by their actual weight. I also think they can't change th
  19. Yes typical how the Lindengods have done this, it's a great idea, primcost according to render/serverweight, but only if there's a mesh in the set. That's just asking for very very clumsy linksets...It does show you however how inefficient some prims really are, but I don't think it will do any good. People will link their boxes to meshes and the rest to eachother, only adding to the data traffic...... edit: or even worse people will unlink a set on a full parcel and they will find it in their inventory in pieces because the seperate parts cost more than the set...
  20. Oh as I said earlier we're on the same page alright, different paragraph maybe.... But one has to play the devil's advocate here and there to make a point or to keep things enjoyable hehe... very annoying your post was eaten, that happened to the first half of mine aswell yesterday...looking forward to your reply
  21. It's not that hard basically... if you link something simple like a standard box to a mesh it will cost less than one prim, if you link something with lots of faces like a torus to a mesh it will cost (a lot) more than one prim.
  22. There really is no answer to your question. If none of your vertices or faces are wasted, you did well, the amount is irrelevant. To me personally it looks good for that number, but that's just me:) A sculpt has 2048 triangles btw, so you're little over 1 if the 2500 is what you see in the upload window...
  23. I'm not sure, it could be a wrong texture channel....
  24. Drongle McMahon wrote: [...] This ca increase (or sometime decrease) the contribution of the ordinary prims to the linkset land impact. [...] Already working on the table for this Drongle?
  25. Chosen Few wrote: Maybe the best solution would be simply to limit the maximum total poly count that avatar can be wearing at any one time to a reasonable number. I'd define "reasonable" as something in the tens of thousands. Obviously, the billions that are allowed now are well beyond unreasonable, by any definition. If the limit were, say, 50K (which is still absurdly high for a realtime character model), that number could be divvied up any which way among all the attachments. They could all be in a single mesh, or it could be 1300 in each of 38 separately attached meshes, or whatever
×
×
  • Create New...