• All submissions to this site are governed by Second Life Project Contribution Agreement. By submitting patches and other information using this site, you acknowledge that you have read, understood, and agreed to those terms.
Issue Details (XML | Word | Printable)

Key: VWR-8394
Type: New Feature New Feature
Status: Open Open
Priority: Normal Normal
Assignee: Unassigned
Reporter: Argent Stonecutter
Votes: 31
Watchers: 8
Operations

If you were logged in you would be able to see more operations.
1. Second Life Viewer - VWR

Allow portions of the avatar mesh to be eliminated.

Created: 28/Jul/08 10:59 AM   Updated: 30/Aug/09 04:29 PM
Return to search
Component/s: Avatar/Character
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None

Issue Links:
Relates


 Description  « Hide
This is an alternative to VWR-812. There seems to be a number of issues related to the use of alpha in avatar layers, and since the avatar already has a provision for beng "truncated" (the head is omitted in mouselook, something that you could only see on First Look 57575 when looking into a mirror in Mouselook), it occurs to me that it might be simpler to have a set of flags on the shape of the avatar (or a new asset - visibility):

Omit body parts:

[] Head
[x] Right Hand
[x] Right Forearm
[x] Right Upper Arm
[] Left Hand
[] Left Forearm
[] Left Upper Arm
[] Torso (should this be further editable?)
[] Right Foot
[] Right Lower Leg
[] Right Upper Leg
[] Left Foot
[] Left Lower Leg
[] Left Upper Leg

If all the components are checked, the avatar might be represented by a "Baby Ruth" cloud that could be hidden inside a prim.

Advantages over VWR-812:

(1) No need to calculate an avatar mesh that won't be displayed.
(2) Allows for asymmetrical avatars ... the texture layers for avatars do not permit both left and right arms or legs to be hidden separately.
(3) Eliminates alpha layering issues.
(4) eliminates display weirdnesses (for example, seeing internal parts of the head through the 'hidden' back of the skull.
(5) Lower overhead to implement (needs only a few bytes).

If it's part of the Shape asset:

(6) No new asset needed.

Disadvantages:

(1) Less fine grained control.
(2) Doesn't act as a stalking-horse for improved clothing layers.

=============
Alternate user interface - sliders:

[0]========================[100%] Left Arm
[0]=====---------------------------------[20%] Right Arm
[0]========================[100%] Left Leg
[0]========================[100%] Right Leg
[0]========================[100%] Head
[0]========================[100%] Torso

Advantages:

  • Finer grained control


 All   Comments   Change History      Sort Order: Ascending order - Click to sort in descending order
Argent Stonecutter made changes - 28/Jul/08 11:01 AM
Field Original Value New Value
Link This issue Relates to VWR-812 [ VWR-812 ]
Moon Metty added a comment - 28/Jul/08 11:11 AM
Excellent idea.

Last friday, at the office hour on aditi, Periapse Linden told us that Qarl Linden is working in this direction.

Periapse Linden: "Qarl tends to do these little things that produce grid changing results. Sculpties, uv picking, and now the invisiprim solution"


Argent Stonecutter added a comment - 28/Jul/08 02:56 PM
The last time I exchanged mail with Qarl on this I got the impression that he was interested in eliminating the whole avatar and replacing it with flexible sculpties. Which is to be sure interesting (and I love the idea of flexible sculpties) but I think we need something between full prim avatars and invisiprims.

Moon Metty added a comment - 29/Jul/08 01:56 AM
Flexible sculpties? ZOMG!!1!!!1!

Personally I was thinking along the lines of numbering each face strategicly, using bitfields for different bodyparts.
Then it should be possible to turn each face on or off individually, or as a range. In most applications the masking could be done with just a handfull of integers.

I'm sure what's cooking in Qarl's kitchen will be very tasty though


Argent Stonecutter added a comment - 29/Jul/08 07:18 AM
Qarl's been talking about flexible sculpties all along. The idea was that the flex would be based on the alpha layer, so that areas that had a low alpha (high transparency) would move more.

Argent Stonecutter made changes - 01/Aug/08 05:49 AM
Description This is an alternative to VWR-812. There seems to be a number of issues related to the use of alpha in avatar layers, and since the avatar already has a provision for beng "truncated" (the head is omitted in mouselook, something that you could only see on First Look 57575 when looking into a mirror in Mouselook), it occurs to me that it might be simpler to have a set of flags on the *shape* of the avatar:

Omit body parts:

[] Head
[x] Right Hand
[x] Right Forearm
[x] Right Upper Arm
[] Left Hand
[] Left Forearm
[] Left Upper Arm
[] Torso (should this be further editable?)
[] Right Foot
[] Right Lower Leg
[] Right Upper Leg
[] Left Foot
[] Left Lower Leg
[] Left Upper Leg

If all the components are checked, the avatar might be represented by a "Baby Ruth" cloud that could be hidden inside a prim.

Advantages over VWR-812:

(1) No need to calculate an avatar mesh that won't be displayed.
(2) Allows for asymmetrical avatars ... the texture layers for avatars do not permit both left and right arms or legs to be hidden separately.
(3) Eliminates alpha layering issues.
(4) eliminates display weirdnesses (for example, seeing internal parts of the head through the 'hidden' back of the skull.
(5) No new asset needed.
(6) Lower overhead to implement (needs only a few extra bytes in the Body asset).

Disadvantages:

(1) Less fine grained control.
(2) Doesn't act as a stalking-horse for improved clothing layers. :)
This is an alternative to VWR-812. There seems to be a number of issues related to the use of alpha in avatar layers, and since the avatar already has a provision for beng "truncated" (the head is omitted in mouselook, something that you could only see on First Look 57575 when looking into a mirror in Mouselook), it occurs to me that it might be simpler to have a set of flags on the *shape* of the avatar (or a new asset - visibility):

Omit body parts:

[] Head
[x] Right Hand
[x] Right Forearm
[x] Right Upper Arm
[] Left Hand
[] Left Forearm
[] Left Upper Arm
[] Torso (should this be further editable?)
[] Right Foot
[] Right Lower Leg
[] Right Upper Leg
[] Left Foot
[] Left Lower Leg
[] Left Upper Leg

If all the components are checked, the avatar might be represented by a "Baby Ruth" cloud that could be hidden inside a prim.

Advantages over VWR-812:

(1) No need to calculate an avatar mesh that won't be displayed.
(2) Allows for asymmetrical avatars ... the texture layers for avatars do not permit both left and right arms or legs to be hidden separately.
(3) Eliminates alpha layering issues.
(4) eliminates display weirdnesses (for example, seeing internal parts of the head through the 'hidden' back of the skull.
(5) Lower overhead to implement (needs only a few bytes).

If it's part of the Shape asset:

(6) No new asset needed.

Disadvantages:

(1) Less fine grained control.
(2) Doesn't act as a stalking-horse for improved clothing layers. :)
Haravikk Mistral added a comment - 02/Aug/08 04:30 AM - edited
I like this solution. As I noted in VWR-812 though, it is possible that this could be combined with masking? i.e - a suitable mask (that treats arms/feet/hands individually) would allow avatar mesh polygons to be completely removed if they are entirely masked. Polygons that are not entirely masked would still have a transparency as a result of the masking.

However this has my support even implemented as described, as it's fairly simple but allows us to remove all the common problem areas (or the whole avatar!)

[edit]
Just noticed your mention of the "Baby Ruth" thing if all parts are hidden; I don't believe anything should be rendered if all items are unchecked, unless display transparent is turned on (in which case all missing pieces would be rendered in red so the location of the avatar is known). My main reason for posting VWR-812 is that I've made a full-prim avatar that unfortunately can't be made slimmer due to the base avatar underneath which is quite annoying, so I want nothing left-over to hide =)


Argent Stonecutter added a comment - 11/Aug/08 09:07 AM
Added alternate user interface idea – sliders.

Argent Stonecutter made changes - 11/Aug/08 09:07 AM
Description This is an alternative to VWR-812. There seems to be a number of issues related to the use of alpha in avatar layers, and since the avatar already has a provision for beng "truncated" (the head is omitted in mouselook, something that you could only see on First Look 57575 when looking into a mirror in Mouselook), it occurs to me that it might be simpler to have a set of flags on the *shape* of the avatar (or a new asset - visibility):

Omit body parts:

[] Head
[x] Right Hand
[x] Right Forearm
[x] Right Upper Arm
[] Left Hand
[] Left Forearm
[] Left Upper Arm
[] Torso (should this be further editable?)
[] Right Foot
[] Right Lower Leg
[] Right Upper Leg
[] Left Foot
[] Left Lower Leg
[] Left Upper Leg

If all the components are checked, the avatar might be represented by a "Baby Ruth" cloud that could be hidden inside a prim.

Advantages over VWR-812:

(1) No need to calculate an avatar mesh that won't be displayed.
(2) Allows for asymmetrical avatars ... the texture layers for avatars do not permit both left and right arms or legs to be hidden separately.
(3) Eliminates alpha layering issues.
(4) eliminates display weirdnesses (for example, seeing internal parts of the head through the 'hidden' back of the skull.
(5) Lower overhead to implement (needs only a few bytes).

If it's part of the Shape asset:

(6) No new asset needed.

Disadvantages:

(1) Less fine grained control.
(2) Doesn't act as a stalking-horse for improved clothing layers. :)
This is an alternative to VWR-812. There seems to be a number of issues related to the use of alpha in avatar layers, and since the avatar already has a provision for beng "truncated" (the head is omitted in mouselook, something that you could only see on First Look 57575 when looking into a mirror in Mouselook), it occurs to me that it might be simpler to have a set of flags on the *shape* of the avatar (or a new asset - visibility):

Omit body parts:

[] Head
[x] Right Hand
[x] Right Forearm
[x] Right Upper Arm
[] Left Hand
[] Left Forearm
[] Left Upper Arm
[] Torso (should this be further editable?)
[] Right Foot
[] Right Lower Leg
[] Right Upper Leg
[] Left Foot
[] Left Lower Leg
[] Left Upper Leg

If all the components are checked, the avatar might be represented by a "Baby Ruth" cloud that could be hidden inside a prim.

Advantages over VWR-812:

(1) No need to calculate an avatar mesh that won't be displayed.
(2) Allows for asymmetrical avatars ... the texture layers for avatars do not permit both left and right arms or legs to be hidden separately.
(3) Eliminates alpha layering issues.
(4) eliminates display weirdnesses (for example, seeing internal parts of the head through the 'hidden' back of the skull.
(5) Lower overhead to implement (needs only a few bytes).

If it's part of the Shape asset:

(6) No new asset needed.

Disadvantages:

(1) Less fine grained control.
(2) Doesn't act as a stalking-horse for improved clothing layers. :)

=============
Alternate user interface - sliders:

[0]========================[100%] Left Arm
[0]=====---------------------------------[20%] Right Arm
[0]========================[100%] Left Leg
[0]========================[100%] Right Leg
[0]========================[100%] Head
[0]========================[100%] Torso

Advantages:
* Finer grained control
Argent Stonecutter added a comment - 11/Aug/08 09:14 AM
Haravikk:

Avatar mesh polygons for the eliminated portions would not exist. This would be a truncation of the mesh, not a transparent layer. I don't have a photo of the effect I'm talking about, but when mirrors actually worked you could look at the reflection of your avatar in mouselook and see your head completely pinched off. The same thing would apply here: if you remove the foot using this tool your leg would pinch off at the ankle.

Hiding the base avatar completely: I don't care, I don't have a problem with that. Other people do, and what was actually implemented would be up to Linden Labs in any case.


bau ur added a comment - 09/Sep/08 10:34 AM - edited
Let me make clear the way I understand this suggestion, as I am voting for it. This is NOT redundant with the features that allow you to simply not see avatars if you don't want to see them (Advanced, Rendering, Types, Character). This is NOT a transparency feature.

This is an option that would let you to tell SL not to produce your avatar mesh, or parts of the avatar mesh, at all. The avatar mesh would then not be visible to anyone; it would not be drawn at all.

The grand niftiness of this is that, unlike many other good ideas, it should actually REDUCE the work of the servers and the client, by eliminating stuff that servers and client now have to to deal with!!!

If it is too hard at present to make each body part disappear individually, it should still be possible to have a single button in Appearance. Click "No Appearance" and, poof, your avatar disappears from view. Simple.

This is a very important idea and would revolutionize avatar design. I have many abstract and artistic avatar designs in mind that I simply cannot do at present. I am sure that this option would produce a surge of avatar creativity and quality. Imagine, for example, what Flea Bussy and Psyra Extrordinaire would do if they could attach creations to avatars without the avatars having to be visualized or else hidden with stupid flaky interfering invisiprims. It is completely win win. This MUST be done.


Tiberious Neruda added a comment - 26/Oct/08 07:47 PM
bau, I think a simpler solution, at least for hiding/removing the whole mesh, would be a 'new' radio button in the Shape Editor, similar to the gender buttons now, called 'Primitar' (which was in the earliest stages of SL as the only option), that only uses the bone data.

The only problem I can see is if the mesh is replaced by a 'Ruthcloud'.... this shouldn't happen, IMO. if you wanted a small av, or one with seethrough parts, why should you have to cover the cloud?

Also, bringing back the Primitar should mean at least slightly less work, since the code may still be hanging around.

On the other hand, being able to apply a translucent skin to an av and render it seethrough (to the alpha level of the texture, hidden completely if totally clear) would probably be the most flexible way to do things, allowing for the most avatar customization. The tradeoff, however, is it would likely mean completely redoing the way skins are handled.


Argent Stonecutter added a comment - 26/Oct/08 08:14 PM - edited
The problem is that eliminating the whole mesh is only useful for full-prim avatars, it's no use at all for things like robot arms and digigrade legs. This proposal is for something more flexible than that, and even if it's not quite as flexible as an alpha mesh it's a lot easier to implement.

Khyota Wulluf added a comment - 26/Oct/08 08:36 PM
I think this is a step in the right direction toward being able to replace the avatar mesh. So us furries can make better furry avatars!

Khyota Wulluf made changes - 05/Nov/08 08:19 PM
Link This issue Relates to VWR-951 [ VWR-951 ]
Khyota Wulluf made changes - 05/Nov/08 08:25 PM
Link This issue Relates to SVC-345 [ SVC-345 ]
Sue Linden made changes - 13/Nov/08 11:06 AM
Workflow jira-2007-12-22a [ 57769 ] jira-2008-11-14 [ 63960 ]
Sue Linden made changes - 13/Nov/08 11:26 AM
Workflow jira-2007-12-22a [ 63960 ] jira-2008-11-14 [ 71156 ]
Sue Linden made changes - 13/Nov/08 04:51 PM
Workflow jira-2008-11-14 [ 71156 ] jira-2008-11-14a [ 93606 ]
Sue Linden made changes - 13/Nov/08 05:07 PM
Workflow jira-2008-11-14 [ 93606 ] jira-2008-11-14a [ 99884 ]
Sue Linden made changes - 13/Nov/08 05:15 PM
Workflow jira-2008-11-14 [ 99884 ] jira-2008-11-14a [ 102960 ]
Sue Linden made changes - 13/Nov/08 05:27 PM
Workflow jira-2008-11-14 [ 102960 ] jira-2008-11-14a [ 107705 ]
Sue Linden made changes - 13/Nov/08 05:55 PM
Workflow jira-2008-11-14 [ 107705 ] jira-2008-11-14a [ 117049 ]
Sue Linden made changes - 13/Nov/08 06:19 PM
Workflow jira-2008-11-14 [ 117049 ] jira-2008-11-14a [ 125822 ]
Sue Linden made changes - 13/Nov/08 06:37 PM
Workflow jira-2008-11-14 [ 125822 ] jira-2008-11-14a [ 132842 ]
Sue Linden made changes - 13/Nov/08 07:00 PM
Workflow jira-2008-11-14 [ 132842 ] jira-2008-11-14a [ 141948 ]
uchi desmoulins made changes - 23/Jun/09 10:52 PM
Link This issue is related to by MISC-3003 [ MISC-3003 ]
Treminari Huet added a comment - 30/Aug/09 04:29 PM
This has my vote, it seems to be more well thought out than VWR-812, also I see the potential for currently existing content to interact with and be modified under this new feature better than VWR-812