templates

[bruintje Omizu]

i try to find mytemplates  . So far i dont find them

Can somebody help me to find how to download my templates, please

 

[Argus Collingwood]

 

---

bruintje Omizu wrote:

i try to find mytemplates  . So far i dont find them

Can somebody help me to find how to download my templates, please 

---

Clothing Templates Clothing Tutorial Templates

 

[Ishtara Rothschild]

---

Argus Collingwood wrote:

 

Clothing Templates 

Clothing Tutorial Templates

 

---

I see that they've finally added a download link for Chip Midnight's more detailed template files. I highly recommend those over the standard templates.

--||-

[Cyndi Chapman]

I wish you the best of luck finding where you downloaded your templates to, or if you even downloaded them.  My personal thoughts are that people should first have a clue on how to download, use photoshop and or even know a little something about a computer before trying to create!  If you only know how to log into SL, well there is way more to creating clothing in here than just clicking the button to get in world....so please research and learn before you jump  into something like this.

[bruintje Omizu]

This i now my question .i didnt download my templates.I will find out how and where i can download my templates.

[Void Singer]

and they list the low (512^2) res versions as "improved" an the mid (1024^2) res versions as simply "templates" two links down..... I don't know anyone that still has the original supersize 2048^2 ones.

 

kinda annoying.

[Cerise1488303085]

 

---

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

---

Argus Collingwood wrote:

 

Clothing Templates 

Clothing Tutorial Templates

 

---

I see that they've finally added a download link for Chip Midnight's more detailed template files. I highly recommend those over the standard templates.

---

Ha. Really LL deleted the links to those and even the old Linden templates. We are only lucky that the files were forgotten on S3 and not deleted too. I had to find their locations in old download histories and Amazon metadata to recover them.

 

[Cerise1488303085]

 

---

Void Singer wrote:

and they list the low (512^2) res versions as "improved" an the mid (1024^2) res versions as simply "templates" two links down..... I don't know anyone that still has the original supersize 2048^2 ones.

 

kinda annoying.

---

1. I am not "they".
2. Chip's tempates ARE an giant improvement over the old LL ones, do you disagree with that? Unfortunately the old ones had to be rescued too because the LL copies of the CMFF collection did not cover all body parts.
3. The larger templates are not listed first because they are hosted outside [ this was not always so, they were hosted on the forum until LL destroyed the attachments ], and the description for them has not changed since 2007. If you have a better description for them, you know how to edit the wikii and edits are far more useful than bitter pointless whining.

 

[Void Singer]

 

---

Cerise wrote:

1. I am not "they".
2. Chip's tempates ARE an giant improvement over the old LL ones, do you disagree with that? Unfortunately the old ones had to be rescued too because the LL copies of the CMFF collection did not cover all body parts.
3. The larger templates are not listed first because they are hosted outside [ this was not always so, they were hosted on the forum until LL destroyed the attachments ], and the description for them has not changed since 2007. If you have a better description for them, you know how to edit the wikii and edits are far more useful than bitter pointless whining.

---

 

1. sure you are.... third person, indeterminate =P ... well you were until you just told me you are the one that edited them in (ps I was including Anne in that, since I presumed she added the link to her copies)
2. I don't disagree that they are better than the originals (I think I still have those somewhere, they're horrid), thanks for rescuing them, my only point was the comparitive valuation.
3. The order wasn't really a concern, and yes I remember well the various disasters of hosting all the way back to the original scripting wiki. I'd have edited them, but didn't feel comfortable overriding people's resources they had personally added...
4. a numbered list? really? over a point of mild annoyance and clarification?

ps
not bitter, not whining, imformative, so not pointless.... and since you've spoken up as the editor in question, I now know it's ok to tweak the descriptions.... thanks =P

 

[Cerise1488303085]

 

Void.

You take these little passive aggressive snipes at me and others every day. You know perfectly well how to use the edit history, and how to edit the wiki, and instead chose to circumvent the "no naming names" policy and get in a little snipe at me by couching it in "they". If you do not like the way I wrote that, put up or shut up, it is a wiki.

And no, it is not effective to spin a twisted justification that the "they" was generic, you knew or should have known who did the edits, the information is right there under your nose. You are simply trying to weasel out of the "naming names" rule because it is more fun to routinely insult people.

Yes, in isolation this comment could look silly, but you do this daily. You need to stop the aggression.

 

[Void Singer]

sorry, but you are seeing something that just isn't there... why would I look at the edit history for resources linked to specific providers (namely, LL and Anne O'Toole in this case)... it's perfectly sensible to assume that the person who provides the resource added the link for it.... right? I know that's what I did.

I litterally had no clue that you were the person who posted those up, because I had no reason to go looking at the edits page and dig through to see who added what or when. and I really don't like mucking in other peoples personally provided resources, even if there is minor point of annoyance. and even without all that, I've checked who did an eedit maybe 3 times ever in the years I've been here... because who doesn't usually matter, only what.

trust me when I say, that if I wanted to be insulting to a particular person, I'd make it quite clear who that was, even if I chose to avoid the "naming names" policy (which I haven't in the past so why start now?). I would have thought it's obvious that I'm pretty blunt with my opinions, and I don't pull punchs or do sneak attacks.

up until this moment I've had nothing but admiration and glowing praise for what you've done in this community. That you think I'm mounting some stealth campaign to snipe at you is nothing short of shock and awe to me. my answer to that is "no, just NO"

[Cerise Sorbet]

Viod, **bleep** you. **bleep** you very much.

[Josh Susanto]

Don't get discouraged by people who assume they have better creative ideas than you do simply because they have more technical experience.

Finding such things has become second-nature to me, but I still know jack diddlysquat about computer technology, and it seems that even to people who should be able to give you an easy answer, it either isn't at all obvious to them, or they simply choose to be difficult because it provides them with a tiny portion of the feeling of control that otherwise feels utterly lacking in some other part or parts of their life.

It's really amazing what kind of stuff you'll find if you set Google image search to 1024x1024.

http://www.google.com.co/images?as_q=templates&um=1&hl=es&rlz=1C1SNNT_enCO408CO408&biw=1639&bih=720&output=search&tbm=isch&btnG=Buscar+con+Google&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_sitesearch=&safe=off&as_st=y&tbs=isz:ex,iszw:1024,iszh:1024

With a little patience, you'll scroll down to this...

http://www.google.com.co/imgres?imgurl=http://annotoole.com/CMFF/CMFF-Master_Template-Lower.jpg&imgrefurl=http://annotoole.com/CMFF/&usg=__qy0yXgl07C2BNx4T5tVctaMg2T0=&h=1024&w=1024&sz=253&hl=es&start=260&zoom=1&tbnid=88ctWLUQJchPRM:&tbnh=121&tbnw=121&ei=6HCjTeiNK82YOrXIhDU&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dtemplates%26um%3D1%26hl%3Des%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG%26rlz%3D1C1SNNT_enCO408CO408%26biw%3D1639%26bih%3D720%26as_st%3Dy%26tbs%3Disz:ex,iszw:1024,iszh:1024%26tbm%3Disch1%2C3781&chk=sbg&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=1018&vpy=160&dur=118&hovh=224&hovw=224&tx=98&ty=123&oei=5XCjTae6KIOK0QGZ0bSfBQ&page=7&ndsp=44&ved=1t:429,r:40,s:260&biw=1639&bih=720

And get this...

http://annotoole.com/CMFF/

 

[Void Singer]

 

---

Josh Susanto wrote:

Don't get discouraged by people who assume they have better creative ideas than you do simply because they have more technical experience.

---

Actually Cerise has more web tech expertise than I do right now (I could see it in our comparative forum ignore tools for the old jive boards, even with the differing styles, and said as much back then and hinted at it recently).

 

your google skills are good, but did you notice that page was already linked in the mentioned resource above? heh

[Chosen Few]

I've read through this thread three times now, trying to figure out where exactly were the "snipes", as it was put, that served to spark the, uh, 'bleep war'.  I just can't see it.  I don't know if someone was just bored, and looking for a fight, or if there's some history between the two participants, of which the rest of us are unaware.  (And please, don't anyone recount that history, whatever it might be, if indeed it exists.  We really don't need to know.  It's none of our business.) 

Whatever's actually going on, I'm gonna suggest you both let this one go, guys.  As a reader, I can promise you, the argument appears to make absolutely no sense.  It just seems to have popped up out, totally of left field, for no particular reason at all. 

I haven't a clue what you two are on about, and I very much doubt many other readers can tell either.  Whatever it is, it's a discussion best had in private, or not at all.  The rest of us really don't need to hear it.

 

Not to be a stone caster, I'll of course readily admit I've been involved in my share of equally inexplicable battles, myself, on occasions when someone or other has decided to fly off the handle for no reason I can fathom.  I'm always bewildered when that happens, but unfortunately, I'm not always able to resist the temtation to fire back when I feel falsely and unfairly accused of having had malicious intent for a post.  In such cases, it often takes a random good Samaritan to jump in and say, "Both of you, stop it!", in order for me to be reminded I probably should have had the good sense just not to have responded in the first place.  There's no way to win in these situations, after all. 

So, call me the random good Samaritan this time.  I mean this in the nicest possible way: "Both of you, stop it!"  

 

 

By the way, the link in question, the one that just said "Clothing & Skin Templates", now says "Higher Resolution Clothing & Skin Templates".  Everyone happy now?

 

[Josh Susanto]

[your google skills are good, but did you notice that page was already linked in the mentioned resource above? heh]

Yes, thanks.

I wanted to show how to find things without opening the door to demotivational efforts by people with unrelated issues.