Kwakkelde Kwak

Drongle McMahon wrote: Can anyone give, point me to, a clear explanation of how the RGB values in a tangent space normal map are converted into object/world normals (essentially asking, how are the G and B axes set in the tangent plane relative to object and/or UV map space?). Not sure why you are exluding R and combining G and B. The RGB values in a normal map are XYZ direction values, compared to the default normal of the actual face they are on. It's a bit like a sculpt map. Here's an example with a hemisphere: On the left a real hemisphere, on the right the matching normal map. The direction of the normals on the left are represented in RGB values on the right. So if we look in a 2d section to make it more readable, we can see how the angle of the normal is calculated. (I'll leave out the maths because the picture shows it so much clearer.) The normal is calculated between (128,128) and the R and B value in the normal map. So at X=64 the normal is at a 60 degree angle. Ehh, is this what you were asking?

Drongle McMahon wrote: "We need these features now" I do agree. I would have given light maps the highest priority. I guess they are even more important as the amount of data in maps with baked lighting can increase threefold with the new maps. You might want to consider the extreme amount of geometry one can save by using normal maps. Where you can save 75% in textures by going one resolution lower, the example here saves 95% in geometry: normal mapped buddha The extra light map would be very useful and can save tons of memory, but I would never give it higher priority than normal mapping. Personally I would like to see the ligtmap aswell, with a 256 or 512 max. Specular and normal would be better off with 512 as a max aswell I think, I really do fear people are going to fill every object they make with three 1024 textures.

Another possibility I'm surprised I didn't see in any post yet, is leaving the linden home and buying a 512m parcel somewhere else on mainland. Land isn't that costly anymore and the premium membership allows a 512 tier free parcel, so it would be a one time, small investment.

As far as I know it's only possible when you use a plugin. If 3ds max does it on default I think it's a bit childish to say it does, then don't say how

Yes I only recently heard you can add all bones after the list in the dae. No idea how to write something like that though, the only scripting I've ever done is LSL. All the program needs to do, is change the number in joints array to 26 and add the entire list of bones in the next line.

Yes that's very annoying, there's a link in the wiki to a program/script that adds the bones, but it doesn't work for me. Tried it on both Win XP Pro (32 bit) and Win 7 Pro (64 bit). I can't program, but looking at how the dae file is compiled and what we need to change manually, it doesn't look very diffcult (for someone who can code) to write such a program, Wiz Daxter maybe? I'd pay for it if it's in the SLAv pricerange.

No idea if the virus scanner is causing any issues, it's not impossible but also not probable I guess. Only one way to find out for sure, but do you want to take that risk? I still don't see the connection between the high bandwidth and your memory issue though.

Straight out of max yes, no converting. Never looked at how 3ds max stores the textures in the dae file, I think I heard it had something to do with how the paths are stored. Anyway, I upload my textures seperately aswell.

Chip Midnight wrote: I've kept doing it because I have no idea what version of Collada the 2013 converter is putting out so I just stuck with what works. I'd try it just for the sake of argument to see if it clears up your problem. I've never had any issues getting multiface meshes into SL, Don't try it for the sake of argument, try it to skip an annoying step. As far as I know there is no need to export to fbx then convert to dae anymore. I don't use the 2013 converter, I use the 2013 exporter (which exports to 1.4.1). Still curious if it works for you aswell.

Someone75 wrote: The viewer uses about 720K kbps(700~mbps) at start up. After about 20 minutes it climbs to 850K. Another 20~30 minutes it hits 1000K then to 1200K and if I have anything else major opened on my pc it will crash because my computer has only 4GB of memory. I'm not the most educated person when it comes to the inner works of a computer, but aren't you talking about two completely different things? Why are you so convinced the high network rate is affecting your memory use? There's a nasty bug with high network traffic, but as far as I know that's a server issue so that should cause problems on every viewer..just crossed my mind. Your computer crashing after about an hour with both SL and something else "major" running, could be an indication of overheating of the GPU or CPU. So do you monitor your temps and if so, what are they? How much memory does SL use just before it crashes?

@ Drongle That's exactly why I asked, I remember you or someone else posting about that. As far as I know 3ds max doesn't have any problems with spaces though. @ Chip I removed that workaround from the wiki, since SL can read Collada 1.4.1 now. Are you sure you need the 2011.3 FBX converter? (and if so can you post for what specific features). I use 3ds Max 2013 aswell (the design version, but I can't imagine that's different from the "normal/game" version) and can use the 2013 Collada (dae) exporter for geometry, rigging, materials and UV mapping. I was convinced the conversion was no longer needed since the moment SL upgraded from Collada 1.4.0.

It shouldn't make a difference, but did you use spaces in the material names? Did you actually apply all the sub materials to the object? (do the different sides of your box have different material ID's) I'm using 3ds max design 2013 with the 2013 autodesk FBX exporter (I think that's built in) and have never had any issues.

What you say is very obvious, but not entirely true, at least it's not what I experience. When there is not so much to render, the fps will go up. When I am in a laggy place I actually see lower temperatures for my GPU (my CPU is so well cooled I can't say anything about that). I'm sure certain processes will heat up your GPU and some will just slow it down. All too technical for me, but lowering the settings isn't always the solution. @OP There are so many variables, why not try out some settings and find a nice balance between looks, acceptable fps and heat? Plenty of programs you can use to monitor the temperatures realtime (for example speedfan), you can see the fps in the SL statistics bar (Ctrl-Shift-1) or just go by what you actually see on screen.

As far as I know the "number of bones issue" as described only occurs in 3ds Max, what you posted looks correct.

The wiki might have some answers on where to look for memory savings: LSL_Script_Memory As stated in the wiki itself, it's not 100% complete or accurate, but it will give a good indication. (I'm a bit out of my comfort zone in the scripting area, so forgive me if I speak nonsense...) Looks like listed vectors and rotations are pretty demanding, more than the strings, but don't forget the strings that can really add up when the animation names are very long. On top of that, you can't really save anything on vectors and rotations by simply reducing their length, you can with strings. I assume the animation strings are listed in the script. Let's say the object has 500 animations. Naming them "A1, A2, B1, B2" etc will cost 22+2*2 bytes per pose, so 13000 bytes. If the poses ar called "relaxed_sit1" or similair that would be 22+12*2 bytes resulting in 23000 bytes. That's 15% of a monoscript more. No idea how the lists are compiled though, possibly they are cleared after (sub)menu use. One would have to read the scripts to see how that works. I think everything is loaded at once though.

So indeed just a display issue? good to know.

Hmmm that's not it. I (think I) noticed it before sculpts even existed and earlier than any of the other JIRA's mentioned. Obviously something is off though, let's hope LL can fix it.

Would be nice if someone could post that skeleton somewhere, you're not the first asking for one and I bet not the last.

Glad you got it solved, I'm wondering about something though. As I rememberit from "the old days", sitting on something without a target was easy and accurate. There was this box thing I used to sit on for hours, and many others besides me. Right click the upper edge and sit, always worked. Then suddenly, years ago by now, trying to sit on an edge took about 10 tries if it worked at all. I have one box I sit on quite offten these days, that seems to work fine again. btw the boxes I'm talking about are big boxes, a couple of meters in x and y direction. Just out of curiosity, does anyone know why?

By the looks of it, it's rotated for one, that should be an easy fix. About the scale I'm not so sure, but it looks like either the bones are far too close together or they appear too big for their actual size (if that makes sense). Could be a unit conversion issue maybe. 3ds Max suffers from that because of all those annoying Americans and Brits. How big the bones appear on screen in maya shouldn't matter though. Did you try the dae file yet? If nothing helps, your last resort is making the skeleton from scratch, that is not as hard as it sounds if you have the numbers.

Typical way of setting up blueprints in 3ds max is using a textured plane, that's how I do it and that's how I see it in just about every single tutorial.

I'd use an llTargetOmega in the child/linked prim (your record). Maybe the scriptwizzes in the other forum have a better solution, you could try there.

or rotate the UV layout, which might be a bit faster

CDEmery wrote: i know may are going to say "computer says no" but i hope there might be someone... I can't help with Mac issues, but thanks for making me smile!

Or narrow it down when you run into specific issues I didn't quite understand if your rig wasn't rigged at all or that the wrong bones moved your object. If the first is the case, make sure all 26 bones are specified in the dae file. If it's the second, I think either your bone names are in the wrong order or maybe your skeleton has some scaling/rotating isues. You need to keep the bones in the dae file where they are, then add the missing ones after it.