Rahkis Andel

Spiritum Sciavo wrote: I can't recall offhand the function of it, but simply press Q while in the UV window to toggle that on or off. Sorry I couldn't be of more help than that. Let me guess: You didn't read any of the other comments?

That's a very moving argument. If there is a class-action lawsuit against LL, I hope that argument is given verbatim. The only problem is, even if this is taken to court and any part of the TOS is deemed unenforcable, there is already language in the TOS that states that all other portions will still remain valid. It won't make me feel any better to know that I still can't login to SL or open a new business there, because that is what I intended to do before all this happened. It sounds like this will be a VERY uphill battle.

The double sided option does make a difference in the 3D viewport. Turning double-sided normals off on each object is a known method of speeding up a slow viewport in some cases. When you turn double-sided normals on, it tells the 3D view to shade each side of the poly-face based on normal direction; the front side of the face will be shaded normally and the backface will have inverted shading. With double-sided off, both sides of the face will be shaded the same (So you won't be able to tell if there are flipped/messed up normals). With backface culling on, only the front side of the face will render at all (therefore having double-sided on in this case has no effect, so it may as well be off). So long story short, Gaia is right that you may be better off having double sided off and backface culling.

FYI: You can go in and out of UV sculpt mode by pressing "Q" in the UV/Image editor. That key is easy to hit on mistake and before I knew about that mode, I was stuck unable to do anything until I searched through every key preset in the Image editor to figure it out.

Somehow, I feel like this is too dumb to be a dumb mistake, to incorrectly paraphrase you. Surely, I opened my mouth too soon -- I think I can be forgiven as impassioned as everyone is over this. Granted, my opinion is unchanged, but my opinion is speculation echoing fear. Clearly, the issues of what can and cannot be uploaded (even if it already has been) is far worse than any future "competition" on LL's part. It sounds like your hands are more tied than most, and after all I've seen of your helpfulness here on the forums and what business you must have brought to LL in this time, I can only find your situation ironic. The ones actually helping SL be a lucrative and content rich platform with great user-based support are punished while those who couldn't care less keep on keeping on.

IvanBenjammin wrote: ...I was cautiously optimistic, but now I'm just cautious Yep, that's me in a nutshell.

Before reading that blog post, my opinion was that there was nothing to worry about -- LL will change the TOS in response to the backlash they are getting, right? No harm meant, I figured. In retrospect, that stance feels naive. I see little other explaination than "business as usual". I guess the silver lining is that if virtual worlds have a future (and I believe they do), it's been abundantly clear for years now that the future isn't Second Life. Second Life is just too big in it's own market to compete with. I've always thought that the reason for the lack of SL alternatives that are significantly better is simply that no one with the means to supercede SL is willing to try so long as they have the market tied up. If LL cashes out, displaced users and content will have nowhere else to go but to alternatives (hopefully open source ones). Finally, progress will be made towards something much better than Second Life. Optimistically speaking. I hate to root for the worst case senario, but I am of the mindset that "change is almost always for the best in the long-run". We'll just see what happens. Until something gives, I have no choice but to suspend any plans of making content for this platform.

It's hard to say, but my guess is that you had some object-level transforms unapplied.

I'm going out on a limb here, but it could possibly be an LOD problem.

I don't know. Define rather high. A head is probably one of the more complex things you could upload, so it probably is high. Also, since you were just test uploading it, I am assuming you didn't already have LODs ready, so you probably just used the same mesh for all LODs. In that case it would be really high.

No, they don't need to be on different layers at all. They only need be separate objects. When you export, you'll use the "export selected" checkbox and will select all the parts you want exported including the armature.

My strategy for the eyelids would be to model them in the closed position. When I'm ready to animate them, I would separate the eyelids from the rest of the head, duplicate them and move them into their appropriate positions. I'd use blend-shapes, but you don't have to. Edit: just to explain, in my experience it's easier to open closed eyes than to close open eyes. That's why I model with the eyes closed. And as for the jaw, my thought is that if you just weight the jaw to the jaw bone, it should move. I am not sure if that's true or not, but it's my guess. I'm with you, though. The seam would be a deal-breaker for me.

Let me give you some quick advice. Don't worry so much about how the model looks when you are making it. If you take any game character you've ever seen and stripped them of their textures, you'd see that they aren't what you thought they were. They are not perfectly smooth at all. Likewise, when you apply textures, the blockiness will not be noticable. Long story short, you'll need a few duplicates of the eyelids at different positions from opened-to-closed. All of the above will be uploaded with the head, so in game they will be linked and you'll use a script to cycle their transparency. How to write that kind of script is a question for the scripting forum. Also, I could be wrong, but I don't think the separate jaw is technically necessary with a mesh head. Rather, I know I'm not wrong since I've seen it done, I just don't know exactly how it is done or what the potential consequences of doing it that way are.

Nice. I'm glad you figured it out, because I wouldn't hold my breath on it getting fixed.

Hmm, maybe see if this issue has come up in the bug tracker. If it's a recent "bug", it might still be getting worked on.