Jump to content

Kwakkelde Kwak

Resident
  • Posts

    2,879
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Kwakkelde Kwak


  1. 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?

  2. 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...

  3. 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?

     

     


  4. 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 pain when you don't have estate rights. So this is what I had in mind when I made the comment. Come to think of it, maybe as little data as possible per object, but as many objects as possible is more rewarding for a griefer, for visual purposes. In that case my line of thinking wasn't right.

    but...

    By lowering the maximum number of prims in a mesh object (or prim equivalence really) to let's say 255, you will make sure nobody makes a rediculous object as we both suggested, the 130k ones. I have no idea what kind of object would be 255 and how much detail it would have, but after playing around with numerous kinds of meshes in SL, I'd say 255 allows a fairly nice build. At not even that big a size you said the 130k faced object exceeded the maximum supported prims on a full region. with 255 as a max you can rezz 59 objects. So making the restriction the same by lowering allowed faces per object, that would result in 131000k / 59 = 2200 faces. Now that sounds really really low to me.(I have the nagging feeling I am completely miscalculating this, but my point is a couple of lines down the post..)

    The thing that really worries me, isn't land impact though or griefing. The real renderhell always was and always will be in attachments. So with a 255 PE as a limit for a linkset, you won't come close to the horrific 255 x 130k = 33 million faces you can have now for every attachment point. I think it all comes down to that. No idea what is reasonable for one attachment, but let's say 10k faces. That's 33k times lower than what's possible now. So 130k faces / 33k doesn't leave a lot of faces per object to say the least....:) Now I am curious how many faces a 255 PE mesh can hold at the small size of an attachment. I'm sure it's a LOT higher than 10k, but closer to that than to 33 million.

    Anyway, I think we're on the same page, just a different paragraph.

     

    For the celtic collar, well I think what I have built back in the day can easily be described as overkill, I wouldn't have brought it up if I thought otherwise. But this is SL, not a game. You can't compare the two one on one I think. There are a lot of similarities, they use the same kind of software and push the same kind of hardware and building for either one means balancing looks and resources. But as I understand people want 80 fps for a game, where I think the 20-30 fps I normally get in SL are very acceptable for the purpose of SL, which is a social platform rather than a high performing game. 10-15 fps occasionally is no problem for me, I get annoyed when it drops lower. So following that logic I think you are "allowed" to push the sytem a bit more if that's what it takes to obtain a certain look. Alpha layers can't come close to actual prims with metal shine. I do agree that when you can build an object at the fraction of the weight (and this is ofcourse measurable) and at 90% of the looks, you should go for that option. But the 90% is very subjective in two ways. The number itself is subjective, some might say 40% of the rendering cost and 60% of the looks should be the turning point, others 5% and 95%. Next to that it's very subjective what "90% of the looks" means. As for your example, first of all, looks good and sounds very reasonable to render. But it's nothing like the tubular celtic thing I have made. Mine is a real mesh (yes let's confuse everyone by using this term..I mean in a chickenwire way of mesh, not a 3D program mesh), so two polys per section won't cut it, maybe 6 would be enough rather than eight , but two certainly won't.

    I'd post a pic if I knew how..something is wrong...grrr ....seems to work now...

    screenshot - collar.JPG

    I'd post a pic of the doorway aswell....grrr..

    screenshot - arched doorway.JPG

    The doorway (5.0x0.9x7.0m which is rather large for a RL door, don't blame me, blame the person who wants it:))

    The arch has 16 sections I think 24 sections, which look like the above in the picture below...sketch section.JPG

     I could make the section slightly different, using 20 instead of 24 faces...or use a box with textures, which would still be 8, again this is very subjective.

     

    All I ment when I said the doorway doesn't have sections like you descibed, was to show out of the 800 faces, none are useless. I never thought you ment me, afterall you've never seen the thing:)

     

  5. 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, around 120 prims, almost all of them half torusses. (This was in my early days so yes I know it's renderhell, but it's still well worth it i think and the single prims are so small LOD makes sure it's not all that bad) to make a torus look any good it would have to have at least 24x8 sides, so 12x8 for half ones. this is 192 faces each.  In total this is almost 23k. It does look like quite a lot, but a slightly more complex celtic knot could easily double it, you are still a long way from 130k, I agree.. Anyway that was just an example, I'm sure there are other items that could use so many faces. I am building a house right now, most of it using mesh. I like building blocks, so it won't be one object, but it could have been 2 objects given the size. One doorway costs 800 faces at LOD high and to be honest it's quite simple, but it has an arch. There are around 15 doorways, I could use forty windows and I like nice roofs. Add some cornices and columns and I bet 130k is easily reached.

    Whether you can use 64k vertices or 2k vertices in one object doesn't make a difference I think. Some people do know how to build efficiently, some don't. A limit like this isn't going to change that. (there are no surfaces like you drew in my builds btw, a wall is 2 faces, wall with a square door is 6, square window 8, and the wall section of my arched piece is 11 with some minor changes I could peel 100 from the 800, but they'd still be changes I don't want)

     

    EDIT you posted while I was typing:) .....region full when trying to rezz? the whole thing was about worn objects, that should be possible right?

  6. 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...

     

  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. 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.

  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. 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..

     

     


  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. 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 use them all at the same time. ( btw this is good news, we can only have 1 billion faces to render instead of 2 billion)

    Limiting the 64k? I'm not for that..I am however for a limit in prim equivalence or something. You can use 64k in the highest LOD and still get a reasonable object I think by using low numbers for the other slots, although I wouldn't know what kind of object it could be, maybe jewelry or something which won't show until you are very close.

    Some limit would be nice I think, since this stuff is a griefers wet dream.

  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 use them all at the same time. ( btw this is good news, we can only have 1 billion faces to render instead of 2 billion)

    Limiting the 64k? I'm not for that..I am however for a limit in prim equivalence or something. You can use 64k in the highest LOD and still get a reasonable object I think by using low numbers for the other slots, although I wouldn't know what kind of object it could be, maybe jewelry or something which won't show until you are very close.

    Some limit would be nice I think, since this stuff is a griefers wet dream.


  14. 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..

  15. @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:)

  16. 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

  17. 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 negative scale again...but....

    what does work is this: make a new mesh (something simple), edit it, selct "attach" then attach your buggy object. You can see the scale is good again, but now it's attached to some shape you don't want.... so remove those faces again from the combined mesh and it works. You will have to rename your object..and the pivot will be moved, but it does give you an uploadable object.


  18. 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 you mirror one half of your object , then select the new object and attach the old one, do it with the original object selected instead.


  19. 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 paper that says he has the rights exclusively, but any court of law will tell him "too bad".

    The creator may have a case if the "utilitarian" object is also a piece of art, or something similair. That can't be copied without permission.

    A virtual sword cannot be described as utilitarian in any way, so my best guess is Nintendo can copyright it, they probably have those rights even. Anyway, I wouldn't build that sword if you are planning on selling it or showing it on a public sim...

    You are allowed to build it and look at it yourself:)

    All this is my interpretation ofcourse, but it makes a lot of sense to me...

     

  20. 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 these types of "useful articles" would include lamps, bathroom sinks, clothing, and computer monitors. Under the Copyright Act, the only copyright protection available to these items is for "features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article."

     

    Generally....sigh:)

  21. 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.

  22. 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).

  23. 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.

  24. This is not black and white at all, the copyright that is. You mentioned logo's and names, those aren't copyrighted, but are trademarks and those are well protected. This means you cannot use them at all. You can't use them in your objects, you can't use them in your advertisement in a "inspired by...." kind of way.

    For shapes however it's another matter. I'm not very sure myself on this, since some "shapes" like artwork do have copyright. Other objects like furniture or shoes or cars do not... Unless the creator can claim it's art. Then there's something else. Recently there was a Louis Vuitton lawsuit against an artist who used one of their bags in a painting. The judge ruled in favour of the artist in the end because of her freedom of expression and her interest should count higher than the IP infringement counts for LV...in this particular case. As I said, not black and white at all, just make sure you don't mention the original name at all and you should be fine. If you want to be 100% sure you can use something, there's only one thing you can do and that is getting permission from the original creator (who probably isn't all that original).

    Chosen Few reacted on a similair question in another thread...

×
×
  • Create New...