Jump to content

Kwakkelde Kwak

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Kwakkelde Kwak

  1. I seriously don't think you (or any others apparently) are asking a very relevant question.

    The server load of either is minimal. All the server has to do as far as I know is pass on the data to the viewer and both types of boxes only cost a couple of kB.

    But what really makes the question irrelevant is this: full LoDs on a box? A mesh box doesn't need any LoD models, you use 6x4=24 verts and 6x2=12 tris, that's a lot less than the 54 verts and 108 tris (off the top off my head) prim box has on the highest LoD.

    So replacing a prim box with an identical mesh box would be wasting geometry, quite a lot as you can see.

    But to answer the question....just build yourself a mesh box, upload it to SL and see what the server cost is. It's 0.5 I bet :) That without a doubt  means LL thinks the differences between the two are so small, the boxes are of equal load. Overhead will determine the weight, not the actual object.

    If you still want a definitive answer, I'm sorry I can't provide that. Only someone who knows the ins and outs of the SL code and server hard- and software can answer this one.

  2. Naiman Broome wrote:

    Also another question is :


    is better to export lod and Hd version as one single mesh with different IDs or as two separate objects , that so in viewer can even be delinked?

    You should upload as a single model. Simple reason, you can't set your highest LOD lower than your lower LODs. I don't see any benefits to allow them to be unlinked anyway.

  3. Naiman Broome wrote:

    Is the 0.5 prim the minimum possible?

    Yes. As mentioned, the LI is the highest of the download, server and physics weight. The server weight has a minimum of 0.5. If the download and physics weight are a lot lower than 0.5 you could consider combining several objects.


    I also noticed that its ifluenced by the fact that I have two or one ID material , one for lods and one for main ,if I reduce that to just one then I shoudl get a better count , but problem is I have to renounce to a HD texture , Is there a way to load a highrerres one?

    The largest texture you can upload is 1024x1024. No way around that. You could set up your lower LODs in such a way they use the texture for the highest LOD. That's not always possible of course. Also take in mind the lower LODs don't need a very large texture, so let's say 10% (just throwing out a number) of your 1024x1024 should probably be plenty.



    Could I go further down under 1.1?

    Only one way to find out :)

    I suspect that if you reduce the texture IDs to one you would.

  4. Chic Aeon wrote:

    After awhile you get a "feel" for what the LI "should" be with reasonable LOD and good physics. But as far as I know there is no MAGIC poly number *wink*.

    Most important thing is the LOD models you use. If the object is large, make sure the highest LOD doesn't have a high number of polygons. If the object is small, make sure the lower LOD is fairly simple in geometry.

    Drongle made an analysis on this a few years back. I'm not sure if anything has changed since then, since that was written in the early days of mesh, but the principle still stands either way. It IS a bit technical.

    My advice would also be to build something very basic, upload it and then see what LOD model needs adjustments. The graphs Drongle made could behelpful to see where you can win the most.

    I understand this answer isn't very fulfilling, but consider the answer to the question: the highest possible number of polygons in your mesh is as many as will fit in a mesh, which is 100's of 1000's. (There's a specific number for that, can't find it right away), as long as you make the object very small, the physics simple and keep all LOD models lower than the highest at a single triangle. Well, I'm pretty sure that will still generate a LI of 0.5.

    If you want to do some investigation on your own, you can have a look at how others did it. Find a model inworld, open the development menu, show info, show render info. This will give you a white console at the right of your screen. Select the object. On one of the lower lines it will showyou the amount of KTris (1000 triangles). Now zoom out and cycle through the 4 LODs.

  5. Hard to see what's happening, at least on the screen I am using now. I suspect it's due to jpg compression. The part you point at looks the same to me as the area around the text you added.

    No matter how you upload your pictures, on the SL servers they are stored as compressed jpg2000 pictures. If you use very dark colours (or any small range of colours), you'll get visible artefacts. If it's concentrated in just one area of your texture, you could try to clone an area nearby (in PS/Gimp) which doesn't show the issue.

  6. Then again, actually "making" the stuff is only part of it as well...

    Besides, there are plenty of public domain models out there, one could upload those right?

  7. To me that doesn't say anything to be honest.

    If I should be suspicious of anyone who says they upload vehicle shells, I should also be supicious of anyone who says they upload houses, avatars, trees, furniture, statues etc. All models besides vehicles are just as often ripped from a game or downloaded from a 3D model site.

    Anyway, I wasn't helpful at all in this case so it doesn't matter :)

  8. I know perfectly well what a key frame is :)

    If, let's say, my animation has 20 frames and I only use the first and last of those to specify a bone transformation, I have only two keyframes, the remaining 18 are inbetweens. My question was if those inbetweens are stored as keyframes in SL, they are in my bhv files (which I have always used to upload my animations) but not in Poser or 3ds Max for example.

    EDIT To clearify the question... I mean the transformation between the file I upload and the file that is stored on the servers, not the transformation between the file on the server and the motion we see on screen.

  9. Kitsune Shan wrote:

    Also, something to keep in mind, DAE can save individual keyframes meaning that only those keyframes that have been animated would contain info saving a lot of data (ie. you would just get info of the keyframe that have been moved/rotated and the rest would be left blank instead of saving a keyframe on every single frame of the animation). We could get better quality animations in less footprint.

    I have a question about that. Can the internal SL animation files store keyframes? If not, this would only be helpful on upload, saving some microseconds once. If they can, this sounds like a good idea.

  10. Pamela Galli wrote:

    Da5id Weatherwax wrote:

    Well you damn well noticed it now. I make all my own meshes from scratch,I make all my own scripts and anims, and if I cant match the quality of a decent mocap house I still get as close as I can, What I sell is what I MADE. Rippers from other games are scum, they take the work of other artists and claim it as their own. That's bogus and actionable.I may not ber the best creator in SL but I AM a CREATOR - I make everything I sell. Folks that sell ripped objects are scum. Period.

    No actually what I noticed is, contrary to your claim, quite a few people in this very thread even, offering helpful advice.  This forum is full of helpful advice offered to anyone who asks, even when it is clear that they did not actually make the object they are trying to upload. 

    I only see one person responding after the OP stated the models weren't their own. Even that response is older than the last edit in the post where it was stated. Then again, I can only suspect the models are ripped models, nowhere did the OP say he wasn't allowed to use the models. For all we know, the models used are public domain mods.

    David, if you have issues with the uploader, contact the owner of the IP rights, which, if the models are ripped from the original game, is Rockstar.

  11. A png or tga file you upload to SL can have four channels: R,G,B and A (red, blue, green and alpha).

    A normal map or diffuse texture needs R,G and B to produce a colour. Specular maps or alpha masks for example only need one channel. To keep the memory/texture usage to a minimum, LL decided to combine some characteristics into shared maps. So if you have an alpha mask map (black and white), you paste one of the R,G or B channels of it into the alpha channel of your diffuse map. If you have a specular map (black and white), you paste one of its channels into the alpha channel of the normal map.

    This way we only need three maps to cater six characteristics. (Or eight really, since the alpha channel of the diffuse map can be used in three ways; alpha mask, opacity and emissive.)

    How to paste a channel into another map depends on the software you use.

  12. There are numerous ways to use maps in SL. They are all explained in the SL wiki. Not all your maps might transfer one on one to SL since it uses the alpha channel of the maps for various purposes, but there are a lot of options. You might have to copy paste a channel here and there.

  13. I had this issue with one of the viewers a couple of months back. When I used the standard viewer available at the time, it worked just fine. When the viewer in question was updated, it also was fine.

    I have no idea what caused it, but would simply suggest to use another viewer for uploading for the time being.

    Additionally, you could file a JIRA.

  14. Here's a very simple example:

    Make a white on black texture, I did it in GIMP. Load that into the Shininess (Specular) slot of your object. I dialed up the glossiness to 100. You can also play around with colours and with the 4th (alpha) channel of your normal map (which I didn't do here).



    You could play around with a repeated pyramid normal map, no idea if that gives interesting effects...

    • Like 1
  15. Ok, so I finally had a look at the rig myself in 3ds Max. I misread the pictures I had seen so far and thought the face bones had a beginning and end bone. Since this is not the case, some of my assumptions are simply not correct. However, if for some reason translations aren't an option, the extra bones can still make the rotational setup work. It would of course mean a lot of extra bones, two for all face bones. Think of the setup as one of those desk lights. Not a position the bulb can't occupy, as long as it's not too far from the stand.


  16. Stating I am obviously not an animator is..well stating the obvious, I made it clear in my previous post that I am not. I do fully understand the benefits of bone translations vs rotations.

    All I was asking for, since I am obviously not an animator, if someone could show the differences in a video which would take me forever to make. I missed your video in this enormous thread, it was pretty much what I was asking for.

    What I did not take into consideration is the fact that you translate both the base and end of the chain, that does make a lot of difference and can't be done by rotations. I suspect that if you weigh to the end and not the base of the chain, the results with rotations will be better. Still you can only move the bones in a plane rather than in 3D space, which is quite a limitation.

    Crazy idea... If translations really aren't an option, adding an extra bone to the chain might work. The first two bones shouldn't be used for weights, just the end one, which with two "hinges" can move around freely. Thinking the other way, If translations aren't an issue, you don't need a chain at all, so you can get rid of all the end or base bones

    Both smiles look a bit creepy though :)

  • Create New...