Jump to content

Kwakkelde Kwak

Resident
  • Content Count

    2,879
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Kwakkelde Kwak

  1. I'm not 100% sure, but it is possible the hard lines of the box make the vertices double up...I'll have to try that when I have time. Anyway, 12 faces is the way it should be...you could test the very same thing but with a box with 4 polygons per side. If the hard lines cause the vertices to double up, that means it will have 48 vertices instead of 26 (I think).
  2. Publik wrote: Nope, have a second copy that doesn't have UVs and it exports better. Still looks to have too many though (24 vs 8) How do you mean "it exports better"? As I said, 24 vertices on a cube sounds like all the 6 sides are disconnected, making it 6 squares with 4 corners = 24. I have worked with maya, but a long time ago and not very long, there should be a way to glue them back together, I'm sure you can find that somewhere in tut or you could wait for the first maya user to read the post. Does this object without UV's also have too many faces?
  3. Are you sure it's the UV mapping and not the export from sketchup? People are having tons of weird issues with that... tripled vertices sounds like disconnected polygons, but that doesn't explain the extra faces...
  4. I'm not 100% sure, but I think SL has to double vertices on a hard (UV) edge, try UV mapping the box with one texture and see what happens... edit..oh also the faces, that can't be right.... nvm:) try using maya instead of sketchup...it's a true pain for mesh as far as I have read on these forums... is the box 12 faces when you upload from maya, but before applying the textures?
  5. Chosen Few wrote: Please explain. Apples and pears...well You are looking at it from a builders point of view, where you obviously are after as little data as possible, maximum looks with as little faces as possible. This can maybe..maybe be stimulated by lowering the number of available faces per object. I appreciate your faith on this matter, although I don't really share it as I said before. A griefer on the other hand is after as much data as possible with the least amount of efford. An often used griefers tool is the self-replicator or how do you want to call it, a real p
  6. You are comparing apples and pears now, or the two of us are. I was looking at it from a griefers point of view. I do not want to test too much of this or give peope any ideas, but if you have a mesh object and scale it up eventually the primlimit of the sim will be reached. Something will be returned... Make it bad enough and EVERYthing will be returned. Hopefully LL has programmed things in such a way you can't scale up when you hit the primlimit, or the object being returned is always the current object, but this is what I had in mind when posting. I have made a celtic collar in the past,
  7. Um, I'm not the OP:) A utilitarian virtual item? I don't think so... Only a limited designs of broadsword possible?....then the number of possible designs for shoes or chairs or games or buildings or vehicles or everything else is limited aswell? nah. I do agree the OP shouldn't make the sword if he/she's afraid for getting the Nintendo legal department after him/her...
  8. Um, I'm not the OP:) A utilitarian virtual item? I don't think so... Only a limited designs of broadsword possible?....then the number of possible designs for shoes or chairs or games or buildings or vehicles or everything else is limited aswell? nah. I do agree the OP shouldn't make the sword if he/she's afraid for getting the Nintendo legal department after him/her...
  9. I'm not going to state PayPal is 100% secure, but people still need your login data to ever access your account, do you think Linden Lab can access your money? Ofcourse not. It never hurts to be careful, but you can't blame Linden Lab for asking some form of verification.
  10. I'm not going to state PayPal is 100% secure, but people still need your login data to ever access your account, do you think Linden Lab can access your money? Ofcourse not. It never hurts to be careful, but you can't blame Linden Lab for asking some form of verification.
  11. Drongle McMahon wrote: "...I'm not quite sure how a graphics card handles the tucked together vertices on a sculpt..." It doesn't see them. The code that generates the mesh from the sculpt map removes all zero-area triangles before they get passed to the gpu. Thanks for that, I really don't know things like that..still the average sculpt will use more than half the potential faces I think, making it a really really inefficient object..
  12. Drongle McMahon wrote: "...I'm not quite sure how a graphics card handles the tucked together vertices on a sculpt..." It doesn't see them. The code that generates the mesh from the sculpt map removes all zero-area triangles before they get passed to the gpu. Thanks for that, I really don't know things like that..still the average sculpt will use more than half the potential faces I think, making it a really really inefficient object..
  13. I don't know what viewer you guys are using, but I am on "Second Life 3.2.1 (244227) Nov 1 2011 07:01:35 (Second Life Beta Viewer)" and I can definately attach well over 38 things, as I could with previous linden viewers, it's called "add" instead of "wear" and it allows 8 objects on one attachment point (not on all of them at the same time). I must have counted all the links aswell I guess...duh... 38 it is, which brings up something new though. I have 40 attachment points, 32 on the avatar, including the avatar center (which is for avatar shapes?) and 8 on the HUD. A bit strange we can't u
  14. I don't know what viewer you guys are using, but I am on "Second Life 3.2.1 (244227) Nov 1 2011 07:01:35 (Second Life Beta Viewer)" and I can definately attach well over 38 things, as I could with previous linden viewers, it's called "add" instead of "wear" and it allows 8 objects on one attachment point (not on all of them at the same time). I must have counted all the links aswell I guess...duh... 38 it is, which brings up something new though. I have 40 attachment points, 32 on the avatar, including the avatar center (which is for avatar shapes?) and 8 on the HUD. A bit strange we can't u
  15. Drongle McMahon wrote: In fact you can get away with one, most of the time. That's how I would do it yes, if people don't notice they collide a couple of inches outside of the wall, they won't notice colliding an inch inside of it either, a simple wall would be two triangles then, one with a door six and one with a window you can jump through would have eight..
  16. @Chosen I'm not quite sure about the 80 attachment points, or how different viewers handle this... the number is just a rough estimate and I'm sure I overlooked something.... I think you will not only fry your graphics card at a fraction of this rendermadness, you might take out a server or two in the process:)
  17. hehe happy to help, but you don't have to hide the box, just remove the vertices or polygons of that box and save yourself 12 faces in the upload.
  18. I bet you replied before my edit....sorry about that, use the "object C" method I described... Oh yes more editing in my post.... since B is an exact mirror of A, you could simply attach the two together aswell, mind you, do this from object A, the one that works. this will affect Prim cost and LOD distances ofcourse, since the object is now a lot bigger... You can then also detach the one half of it again, whihch is really the same as the "Object C" method, but without object C
  19. You have to mirror it before you make the DAE, not in SL:) If you don't want the object to "look" mirrored, do as I said and mirror it, then mirror the vertices back. You will get the exact same object, but without the negative scale, if your pivot point is dead center, you can also scale -100%...if your pivot isn't dead center I'd use the mirror trick, but you could also scale -100% and move the object. Oh and yes i think there have been some changes, I have models with the same issues, change was in version 3.1.0 I think. Grrr, sorry, if you mirror the vertices back, you will get the negat
  20. Steph Sidek wrote: 2011-11-05T15:01:55Z INFO: LLModelLoader::doLoadModel: Collada Importer Version: 1.4.1 2011-11-05T15:01:55Z INFO: LLModelLoader::doLoadModel: Dae version 1.4.0 2011-11-05T15:01:55Z INFO: LLModelLoader::processElement: Negative scale detected, unsupported transform. domInstance_geometry: Shops_n_Dock_02 Mirror your object before exporting your DAE and you are probably fine. If your object isn't symmetrical, mirror it anyway, then mirror your vertices back. (if you see a negative volume in "measure" you will get the error you got). It occurs when
  21. Innula Zenovka wrote: As I understand it, whether an item infringes on someone's copyright is a factual question, not a legal one. Now that's my whole point. Since this is clearly not the case. If you make something, you can copyright it, you can copyright anything. All this means is you have said you have made it and you own the rights and it is recorded. Nothing more than this. Now you can have recorded it, but that doesn't mean that according to law, you actually HAVE those rights. Utilitarian objects may be copied, no changes, no nothing. The original creator may have a piece of
  22. Okok, that's my lack of knowledge of the English language...but there have to be precedents no doubt. Ofcourse they can claim it, they can claim Canada if they want to... The difference between furniture and other RL items and a sword which isn't a sword, but a bunch of bits and bytes is obvious, making the situation even harder to judge upon. I don't thin I'd ever try to rebuild a digital item, but I would rebuild RL items.... From http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/unprotected.html Copyright protection is generally not available to articles which have a utilitarian function. Examples of the
  23. I'm not a lawyer or legal expert by any means, but I think you have covered most of the matter. You are forgetting one aspect though: CAN Nintendo claim copyright on the sword? With a lot of items this doesn't seem to be the case. Asking Nintendo will not provide you with a very satisfying answer I think. But keeping your fingers crossed and hoping Nintendo isn't going to sew is also not a very nice thing to look forward to....difficult..difficult. This is why I asked in another thread if there are some gamedesigners around who know these things and have dealt with them already.
  24. I'm sorry Tara, but that sounds like "Let's close our eyes, floor the accellerator and worry about hitting someone or driving off a cliff later". I like my designs to be original, my own, most are, some aren't. If I am building an industrial site and it needs cars, I am not going to design my own truck. That's just not going to cut it. In such a case I rather use an existing one (without using any trademarks).
  25. I did a quick test yesterday and scaled my currently unfinished model worth 24 prims up to 190, it could still be set to physical. But then again the physical model is very very basic, I'll do some small tests with it and see what happens... btw, I don't feel much for setting the physical shape to "none" for a vehicle, it would work for the wheels though I suppose.
×
×
  • Create New...