Scale

[Penny Patton]

Now you're just being silly and nonsensical.

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

Well I didn't mean to be silly.

First or second comment? or both?

[Penny Patton]

Both are mangling logic pretty harshly.

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Penny Patton wrote:

Both are mangling logic pretty harshly.

---

You really baffle me.

You say building twice as small returns better detail. I say building twice as small on a plot 4 times as small returns less detail, because you only have a quarter of the prims to work with. How is that anything but pure and simple logic, let alone mangling logic?

You say you proved you can build more detailed and as proof you give one half of the comparison. What should I compare your builds with? Any random sim? One I built myself? Those aren't twice as big as yours(or small depending how you look at it) How is that mangling logic?

I really really don't get it.

 

EDIT, with mesh and scaling there's a whole new can-o-worms, since they would have to built differently at different sizes..this as a sidenote.

If you want four times the space, you can also keep the double size and get a homestead. That way you even have more room since you have 4 borders for off sim building.

[Drongle McMahon]

"get a homestead"

Alas, only if you can afford a whole region first :matte-motes-crying: (or want to trust a landlord).

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

Well at least one of the builds shown had a waterfront and off shore building. Chances that's a mainland sim are very slim. Btw, my partner and I rent full regions or homesteads since 2004 or 2005 now. I can say I trust the landlord alright.

Anyway it was just an alternative, with added benefits and added downsides, the fact you can't tell who those nasty laggy CPU neighbours are not being the smallest.

[Penny Patton]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

You say building twice as small returns better detail. I say building twice as small on a plot 4 times as small returns less detail, because you only have a quarter of the prims to work with. How is that anything but pure and simple logic, let alone mangling logic?

---

Again, we're not building in a vaccuum here, we're building within SL's tools and limitations. Whether you build a chair (or a window frame) at 1=1 scale or double size it will be the same number of prims, easy. No one is arguing that so using it as an example is just silly. (Unless you build it in mesh where doubling the size could increase the land impact weight.)

However, when you're talking about an entire house or all the way up to a full sim build you run into prim size limits and so you wind up using more prims to create structures no more detailed than the same structure at half size.

 Considering a single prim can be turned into a fairly detailed chair, bench, desk, table, lamp post, etcetera, saving one prim here or there adds up quickly to a lot of additional detail.

I'm also not saying "smaller is always better", I'm saying when you build to scale you're much closer to the "sweet spot" for SL's tools and limits in terms of detail and area. If you go much smaller than that, say half size, you begin to hit minimum prim size limits and the issue of not having enough prims to fill up all your area. I'm not certain if some long gone Linden made things that way intentionally but the concept was lost on the other Lindens and buried under a growing pile of bad decisions or if it's just a happy accident, but that's how it works out. This is also why using extreme examples misses the point entirely.

 

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

You say you proved you can build more detailed and as proof you give one half of the comparison. What should I compare your builds with? Any random sim? One I built myself? Those aren't twice as big as yours(or small depending how you look at it) How is that mangling logic?

I really really don't get it.

---

 The examples I provided were a full sim build, a quarter sim build, and a 2048sq.m. parcel.

 

 

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Again, we're not building in a vaccuum here, we're building

within SL's tools and limitations

. Whether you build a chair (or a window frame) at 1=1 scale or double size it will be the same number of prims, easy. No one is arguing that so using it as an example is just silly. (Unless you build it in mesh where doubling the size could increase the land impact weight.)

---

Two things you keep out of your posts.

1) Megaprims

2) The fact that (in my experience) the vast majority, and I mean rather 99% than 95%, of all the prims used aren't at their size limit.

I won't deny that you will win a prim here and there, in fact I said that in one of my earlier posts. So indeed per sqm you have slightly more detail. With the 3/4 of the space that's won, you can do two things: abandon it or use it. (yes I know I am being "silly" again) Abandoning it will reduce your prims by a factor 4. Using it means you need to build somethng on it and that will probablty cost more than the handful you've saved. Then as I mentioned the reduced performance if you decide to let go of 75% of your land.

I'm sure there are cases where the 1:1 is "better" than the 1:whatever, if you want to leave proportions out of the equasion. The thing that strikes me in your way of informing the crowd, is it sounds like your 1:1 method is the final cure for all the evil in SL. Sure there are plenty of benefits, but you seem to overlook or at least ignore a ton of downsides and you seem to be very selective in your answers. I call that tunnelvision. (which in some cases can result in spectacular things btw, so don't take offence please)

 

---

I'm also not saying "smaller is

always

better"

---

Hooray, it did sound that way. I know you didn't think so:)

 

---

, I'm saying when you build to scale you're much closer to the "sweet spot" for SL's tools and limits in terms of detail and area. If you go much smaller than that, say half size, you begin to hit minimum prim size limits and the issue of not having enough prims to fill up all your area.

---

Not having enough prims is a non argument in this sense. Sometimes I run out of prims long before I am done, then it's back to the drawing board, sometimes I have half of them left. (yes exaggerating again) It is highly dependant on what the simowner wants in use and looks.

---

I'm not certain if some long gone Linden made things that way intentionally but the concept was lost on the other Lindens and buried under a growing pile of bad decisions or if it's just a happy accident, but that's how it works out. This is also why using extreme examples misses the point entirely.

---

I haven't found any global sweetspots or any proof of their existance, sorry.

---

 The examples I provided were a full sim build, a quarter sim build, and a 2048sq.m. parcel.

 

---

 

Yes so against what do I compare 1) the full sim 2) the quarter sim and 3) the 2048 parcel (which hasn't got any 64 meter prims btw I think) ?

 

[Iohannes Crispien]

"Meter is a meter everywhere - even in SL, it's the exact same meter we use in RL."

It isn't a matter of meter, it is a matter of scalability.  I'd been looking at this issue revently because of trying to figure out 'realistic' height for a mountain on a SL sim.  I looked up the size of Mt. Everest, and it's at 29,035, or 8,850 meters.  In this case, to build to realistic meter setting as in real life, this would go beyond what the average sim could manage for height. Therefore, you actually have to scale down mountain ranges considerably to 'fit in the box', so to speak.

[Chosen Few]

Welcome to the forums, Iohannes.  I'm glad you found a topic that interests you, but was it really necessary to resurrect a thread, six months after its natural death, just to tell us there are no realistic mountains in SL?  I'm pretty sure we all know that.

A "mountain" in SL is 20 or 30 meters high.  A "Mount Everest" in SL would be 100 meters high, since that's the maximum land height of any sim on the grid.  8,850 meters is just a wee bit outside that range.

Thinking of SL land in terms of RL meters is not even worth considering.