Kwakkelde Kwak

Perrie Juran wrote: Oh and do your sanity a favor and BACKUP." Can't say that often enough, no matter what kind of drive one uses. I was dumb enough not to have made enough back ups when my second drive failed me the evening before a deadline. That was one LONG night.

You must abuse your drives a lot worse than I do... anyway, those are my experiences as well. "tick grind tick....nothing". Makes my skin creep.

The whole problem is it is not an opinion. It's an assumption you post as an answer to a question about SSD's. I think the OP rather hears about tests and experiences than some random assumption.

MizzKittenzz wrote: Every PC savvy person knows that you do not turn a PC off daily, let alone even weekly... Eh... You mean "not weekly, let alone daily" maybe? Anyway, that's just complete nonsense. Yes you may save a few cents at the time but in the long run you'll pay more for killing your hard drive. Two of my hard drives have failed me so far. On both accounts it was the heads coming off. Leaving your computer on all day, every day will not prevent that. I don't know where you live, but leaving your computer on all day costs quite a bit more than a few cents. Please don't tell me you also leave the car running when you don't use it. It will lengthen the life of many expensive components in the engine, but is it economical? Your TV, do you leave that on as well? Maybe your stereo equipment? Let's say my computer draws 5W when in sleep mode. I don't use my computer 16 hours a day. Let's assume the PC goes into sleep mode the second I don't use it. 5x16x365=212000Wh=212kWh. 212x€0,25=€53,-. So every two years you can buy a brand new SSD. It doesn't really matter anyway, since in either sleep or hibernate mode, your hard drives are powered off. So let's say you keep your computer idle. Instead of my low estimate of 5W, let's say the computer uses 50W. Then we're at €530 a year. You could buy a whole new computer after two years. EDIT, oh I see Maddy sneaked in while I was editing...

MizzKittenzz wrote: So you're saying you turn your PC off? That's not smart. Again my husband would know more as he has worked in IT etc for a long time and has many degrees... Just search for ssd RMA and warranty failure and people who lost data... That's your choice but again I still stand by the 2-4 year longevity. Its your opinion that I'm wrong, you too have no proof in that. You can use it if you want but I won't. Of course I turn of my PC. Every sane person does that. Not turning it off will probably be good for the lifespan of just about every component in your PC, since the temperature will remain more or less constant. Turning it off twice a day will most likely not harm the computer to such an extent that the technical life will be shorter than the economical life though. If my PC lives to a respectable age of 5-10 years, that's good enough, I don't need it to last 20+ years. The longer it stays on though, the more energy it will use and the more chances there are for virus infection to name some things. Leaving your PC unattended for many hours a day is also a fire hazard. I'm sure there are plenty of cases where SSD's have failed. Isn't that the case for HHD's as well? It's not my opinion that you are wrong. It is my conclusion after reading many articles on the subject, that you probably are though. If you can provide some proper documentation that indicates otherwise, I might change my point of view.

MizzKittenzz wrote: Its up to you if you want to try them or not but I still stand by the lifespan. Most users do run their PCs all day everyday... You still stand by the lifespan based on....nothing? Perrie nailed it right on the head when he said everyone should know for themselves if they want to use an SSD or not (or something along that line). That's no reason for saying things you can't back up. The test Perrie linked doesn't reflect real use, but it's an indicator the SSD does better than the manufacturer's claim. No manufacturer claims a life of only two years I think. I don't know if most users run their PC every day all day. I was under the - maybe naive - impression that most people went out for school or work and spent some time in bed every day. As you can see in my picture, I have mine on for about eight hours a day in which, going by the numbers, I apparantly turn it off twice a day on average. Still not a single error or retired block according to the S.M.A.R.T. thing.

As I said I'm not completely sure how reliable that piece of software is, but the two year lifespan seems to be an urban legend. I read about it all over the internet, but I've never seen a single post where someone says their SSD stopped working after that short period of time. The software estimates alright, but it's not a random prediction, lifespan of an SSD should be far easier to predict than that of a HDD, which can fail at any given time because of mechanical failure (as I said that happened a couple of times with my own hardware). The SSD firmware makes sure data is spread over all cells in a way every cell is used the same amount of times. The amount of written data is recorded, as is the time it took. Since the lifespan of a single cell is perfectly predictable, the estimate shouldn't be far off. If you download movies all day long, all year around, the two year might be accurate. With normal use, a couple of GB a day, in my case about 5.8GB as shown in the picture I posted, ten years doesn't sound very far fetched at all. That doesn't mean you shouldn't back up your important files. You always need to do that. With SSD's that might be even more important, since you won't get a warning "tick...grind...tick...tick" shortly before it fails. Then again, pretty much all parts that can fail on an SSD are also found on a HDD.

MizzKittenzz wrote: with an SSD, you'd be lucky to last a whole 3 years as the typical lifespan is more so around 2yrs... I don't recommend just running on a SSD unless you'd have a backup. The typical lifespan of an SSD is 2 years? I'm not sure how reliable the program I just installed is, but my SSD is about 20 months old now and according to the program its health is perfect and it has another good 8 years in it. That's more than I can say for most f my HDD's. I have all my programs installed on it, my current work and a small portion of my library. I guess it depends on how you use it.

That's correct:) I'm not going to tell people how to run their SL, but sculpties should be built in such a way they look correct from a distance. Cranking up your LoD is a workaround, higher than 2.0 is out of the "normal" range. Higher than that is buried in the debug settings for a reason. @Perrie If I had a solution I'd post it of course. "System overload" is a user/creator issue, so LL can't do anything about that without limiting our (building) tools. I suspect LL should be able to prevent the crashing though. Let's hope they find a way.

As I said months ago in this very thread, I'm sure LL can optimise things on their end. But as long as the general attitude towards detail is the one as seen in the post above yours, there's only so much LL can do. The 500MB is a limit for textures, not VRAM as a whole. More importantly, although I never looked closely at this issue, it appears to be a viewer issue, not a graphic card issue. So even a 6GB card could cause problems.

Do you have both global and local units set the right way? Did you set the units correct in the exporter? Did you check both the object and the skeleton are scaled at 100%? To me it sounds like the skeleton is too big.

I don't have to escape this problem and I never turn down my graphic settings either.

I don't care about the ToS, LL has to respect my authoritay!

You can count me out as a customer, I already have a book.

Vivienne Schell wrote: No, this is an exclusive Linden (coding) problem. And with the users... it´s like with the hen and the egg. While LL is the hen. It's an exclusive Second Life problem, sure. I would put it in the policy department before the coding department though. Every restriction LL suggests can count on nothing short of outrage. I can't blame LL for allowing some terrible content if that means we all get to keep SL as it is. I rather face some lag than having to walk around in some generic world only a handful of people can contribute to.

If people add too much detail to their builds (which they do, I'll be the very first to admit that), you have the option of turning down a lot of detail yourself. Turning off advanced lighing for example, would (should?) stop all normal and specular maps from entering memory.

Vivienne Schell wrote: And this workaround will fail finally and forever once creators start using excessive bump maps as materials. If people would use 512x512 textures instead of 1024x1024 ones, they could add both a normal and specular map and still use less memory.

If your object has a skin modifier in 3ds max, the exporter should write that information in the dae file. What kind of exporter are you using? For the 2012 version of 3ds max you can use the fbx 2013.2 plugin.

Michelle Torricelli wrote: I have looked into the dae file like the wiki says but the area for <Name_array id="DefaultClothingItemController-Joints-array" count="26"> is not in there at all. 3ds Max exports only the bones with weights into the dae file, so unused bones in the skin modifier won't be in it. Search for "Controller-Joints-array" instead, make sure you have the line where it says "Name_array id", change the value to 26 and add the missing bones or all 26 bones (after the bones already listed) in the next line. It's all in the wiki page you linked.

Do you have an NVidia video card and he an ATI video card? If that's the case (or just the second part of it), he could try updating/switching drivers.

Medhue Simoni wrote: Well, you can think they, we, are all hobbiests, but when LL last released numbers in 2010, I calculated that I was in the top 5% of businesses that profitted off of SL. Now, I know my own circumstances, and income. So, I wouldn't say that a bunch of hobbiests some how magically supplies LL with millions of dollars of profits every year. You lost me here. Whether you are in the 0.5% or 5% range, it's still the people paying tiers who put bread on the LL table. The buyers, not the sellers. I never said we are all hobbyists, I said many of us are. That means you can't compare the SL economy to the RL economy. In RL I need to make a living, in SL I don't. You can't participate in a RL society by making a loss month after month, year after year, which is what many people in SL do. Those are the people paying the LL staff. Unlike what Philip Rosedale said, SL is entertainment, not a new country. Are there hobbiests? Of course! Is every hobbiests dream to do it full time? For most of them, yes. Do they have expenses to pay? Yes. Do they own a sim? Maybe. Do they pay for that with lindens they earned. Probably. OMG, we have professionals, making millions. We have thousands of creators squeaking out a living. We have tens of thousands of hobbiests, which are easily paying rent. OMFG, we have a dang economy. And the crazy parts is, after every1 takes their cut, like magic, thru the most free market that ever existed, LL makes out like a bandit. I can only speak for myself. I have plenty of hobbies, I don't think I'd like to have any of them as my full time job. And my RL job, as much as I enjoy it, I probably wouldn't want to have as a hobby. Not "every1 takes their cut" in SL. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of users makes a loss. If that's not the case, we're headed for disaster, since if somehow everyone pulls money from SL, there won't be any left in SL itself to go around. Imagine if LL decided to impose it's will more into the economy. Every time it does touch something that is part of the economy, they pretty much ruin it. The success that SL has gotten, it gets inspite of LL's mistakes, and because of the free market that it has created. I don't know, but much like the child labout law, the situation might be that the rules make so much sense, you don't get the idea they are there. Did you ever read the ToS (law)? Have you ever tried uploading something (tax)? Did you ever build something? (building code)? Let's take the last one, building, the thing that makes SL SL. People can build and sell pretty much whatever they want. I'll be the first to acknowledge that makes SL a very special place and is one of the main reasons I am still around after all these years. However, if you compare a 3D game with SL, you can't get around the fact that performance in SL is a lot, lot lower, unless you have a top of the line computer and internet connection. Even then it's mediocre overall. If LL would stop limiting the polycount/triangle count for uploaded objects and the amount of objects we can use on a simulator, SL would grind to a halt in notime. We wouldn't see any gamelike objects anymore, just objects meant for static renders. Why? Because people do not know or do not want to know what harm those objects cause. Because an object with 10 times (optimistic thinking) the geometrical detail looks so much better in a side by side comparison with a game-ready one. Look at avatar attachments, some avatars are wearing as much polygons as an entire sim can hold. It doesn't stop people buying them. Maybe if they did some investigation (which they can, I agree), they would buy something else. Unfortunate fact of the matter is, most people don't investigate, they just look and buy. Don't get me wrong, I believe in a market where people can compete and try out new things, just not a 100% free market. Boundaries need to be set and adjusted continuously to keep the system working. In a virtual world without any of the risks of RL, those boundaries don't have to be that strict so the market can be more free. You can't kill anyone, so we don't need any rules for safety. You can't go bankrupt in SL, not in a way you can go bankrupt in RL. In SL you usually pay up front. If you can't pay, you won't get any goods or land.

I'm not your friend, buddy....I'm not your buddy, pal.....I'm not your pal, guy

A post about SL:) Medhue Simoni wrote: What I find extremely interesting, is seeing how those same forces, that greatly affect real life markets, affect the SL market. We see the same types of pushes. The whole SL market is completely unregulated. And for a great part it's run by hobbyists who don't expect a return from their investment, since their fees aren't investment at all, but just funds for having some fun, and IP thieves. Not exactly a good platform to compare to the RL economy/society. Standard sizing was 1 that cropped up and was completely brought about by a group of creators. As much as I was against it, It really was the only valid way to make mesh clothing. Which, if you want to make the comparison, resulted in something kind of workable at best. Now that LL (our SL government) set the standard with fitted mesh, things should be a bit better. I do agree they are far from perfect, but not as far as 5 standard sizes. The people that can destroy me, you and any1 else, are those that work in government and write laws. They are the people to fear. Not some random criminal. I don't fear any Linden. They could put me out of business tomorrow if they wanted to. All they have to do is cancel my account. LL, our government, set up the SL world in such a way I indeed do not really have to worry about some SL criminal. Worst thing they do is asking for a "replacement" when they really want "an extra copy". It's still possible to ruin someones business if you set your mind to it. I'm not going to offer ideas here other than the idea that it is possible. Just give it two minutes of thought and I think you'll think of ways too.

Medhue Simoni wrote: I never said No regulation. Indeed you pretty much started out with saying that. However, in that very same post you also say "Ok then, you give me an example, and I will explain how the regulation is counter productive." Doesn't that imply that according to you, all regulation is counterproductive? Or were you assuming that I couldn't come up with an example that wasn't counterproductive? Or did you really mean "most/all regulations have drawbacks" instead of all of them being "counterproductive"? That's quite a difference. I'm also talking about the federal government, not local cities or states within the US. Each city or local community should decide what regulations they need, and what benefits them. They should never be mandated by the federal government. OMG, we rode bicycles without helmets! All our parents should be in jail for neglect. Let me point out that (not) having to wear bicycle helmets is state law, not federal law. They should never be mandated by the federal government. Of course, the US is a bit different, as it is a collection of states that cover a vast area. We aren't talking about a country like Germany. It would be more like the EU tells Germany what it can or can't do. So, I think when people hear me say something they think is extreme, it's really just their perspective that is skewed because the US is thought to be 1 country. Bad example, since Germany s a federation of independent states, just like the US. I get the point though, Germany is a lot smaller than the US. Then again, 80 million people is still a quarter of number of residents of the US, not exactly your typical US state amount. Free market and a lack of EU involvement are causing quite a bit of issues in Western Europe. People from "the east" will work for lower wages than those from "the west". Life is a lot cheaper over there than it is here. Employers also take advantage of the situation and station their headquarters in "the east" to cut costs. Then there's the big issue with exploitation of these cheap laborers. In some cases it's so bad at the end of the working period, employees have to pay the employers. Thank you free market. My point about laws being arbitrary goes beyond just something like a speed limit, which is not a law but most are just city ordinances. Part of written law's arbitrary nature has to do with language itself. The language is almost always subjective to the reader. That was just an example to point out how I view the arbitrary nature of laws. The laws being open to interpretation, which I see as something different, is not a bad thing by itself, although it gives the (richer) party with the longest breath a big advantage in court. Say your father was charged with child employment when you were a kid. It wouldn't take a genius to point out to the judge you weren't there as an employee, but just to help out and spend some time with pops. The tighter you set those laws, the more complicated they get, you'll have to make exception after exception after exception. That's the opposite of what you'd like to see I think. Child labour laws have subjective language. Take, for instance, child neglect cases that have made the news. You're talking about child labour law and give an example about child neglect. I can't follow your logic there. These regulations will ultimately create monopolies around the pot growing business, just like any other highly regulated market. The regulations keep the smaller businesses from competing against the mega producers, as that is really what they are meant to do. It is always the largest corporations in an industry that goes to the government and asks for regulations to limit their competition. I don't know the regulations regarding cannabis in those two states, so I can't comment on that. You don't give anything to go by either, other than saying it's overregulated. I view things quite differently than you here though. Regulations here make sure big companies can't create a monopoly, which is the exact opposite of what you are suggesting. Recently, a supermarket chain bought some other chains (surprise, free market) and was forced to sell a part of them, so their market share wouldn't get too big. I've seen what this free market policies did here in the past decades. Supermarkets lowering their prices (again free market) below cost price in many cases, so smaller businesses couldn't compete anymore. They went out of business so supermarkets either lowered their service or raised the prices again. You can hardly find a proper butcher or greengrocer anymore. What you can find is a fourteen year old who doesn't know a potato from a carrot. In a completely free market, regulation would be far superior. In many industries, standards get created and agreed upon by most of the workers in that industry. The industry eventually creates a seal of approval, or a certification. In which case the industry is open to corruption just as much as the government would have been if they had set the standard. Do you see what I mean tho, when you have this central authority that will take brides for favors, it will happen, and it will destroy your nation. So we are back where I started this post. You implying that all regulations (by a central government) are bad. I know politicians don't always play fair, plenty of examples here in the Netherlands. That doesn't mean it will destroy this nation. It also doesn't mean the alternative of having no government regulation at all would be better. Some people will simply always exploit the system, no matter what system that is.

grrrilla wrote: I copy/pasted the SL Avatar folder into Pro Poser->runtime->Libraries->Character folder, but when I open Poser and try to add it to the Library it tells me 'that folder doesn't seem to be a runtime folder'. I guess it works the same as Poser 9. For some reason there are a whole bunch of character locations. If you use windows 7 (or vista or 8), your own files should be in C:\Users\Public\Documents\Poser 9 Content\Downloads\runtime\libraries\character\SL Avatar. (the 2 avatars file is a pz3 file?) There should be two cr2 files, two obj files and two png files. pz3 files can be used, but not for the library. If it doesn't work, just contact Smith Micro. One of the benefits of paying for your software is having the ability to get some proper support.