Yup, makes sense if you can put wearables anywhere.
Better than having a category called "shirt" and then fill it
with shirts a jackets.
Bottom line, also Jacek wants to be able to determine the order
of anything that might give a different result with a different
order.
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 07:49:29PM -0500, Jacek Antonelli wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Nyx Linden <n...@lindenlab.com> wrote:
> > We're trying to make the system as flexible as possible. Think of it
> > this way: you have a bunch of 'categories' or 'slots' - one for each
> > type of wearable (pants, shirts, jackets). Inside each category, you can
> > have multiple items up to a reasonable maximum. When you "wear" a shirt,
> > it gets added to the top of the list of shirts that you are wearing. If
> > you don't want it to be on top, you can push it down below other shirts.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > there is not a concept of a "shirt1" slot, vs "shirt 2" etc - the list
> > of your shirts can change size according to how many shirts you want to
> > wear at the time. The order in which you wear your clothing is
> > completely up to the end-user who is constructing the outfit.
> >
> > a couple things to note with this approach:
> > 1) the listed order of clothing probably will change to something that
> > makes a bit more sense.
> > 2) the list is wearable-focused, not texture-focused. Hence tattoos
> > won't be split up into upper/lower/head, as they are a single wearable item.
> > 3) the "order" will be able to be changed frequently and will not
> > require any change to the item itself - only how it is stored in
> > inventory. Hence, you don't need mod privs to re-order a shirt.
> >
> > Thus, pants are not inherently set to "pants 3", they're just pants! The
> > consumer of said pants will determine if there are any other pants above
> > or below it. This has the other advantage of allowing you to take a
> > single pair of pants ("blue jeans") and having it be the bottom layer in
> > one outfit, and the 3rd layer in a different outfit, even if they refer
> > to the same wearable item!
> >
> > I hope that clarifies the proposed design - I hope to get more detailed
> > information up in a central location sometime next week. In the
> > meantime, keep poking at the proposal on-list!
> >
> > -Nyx
>
> I really like this design, for the most part. But I think it would be
> much better, and would address everyone's wishes for more flexibility
> in clothing order, if a few things were changed:
>
> 1. Instead of having categories for each wearable type (shirts, pants,
> shoes, etc.), have categories for "layer" (as when getting dressed in
> RL):
>
> * Outer Layer: jacket, gloves, shoes
> * Inner Layer: shirt, pants, and skirt
> * Under Layer: underpants, undershirt, and socks
> * Body Layer: skin, tattoos, and (maybe) alpha
>
> This is just an example. I'm not picky about the number of layers, or
> what they're called, or which types go in which layer. But the idea is
> that higher layers render on top of lower layers. The same is also
> true within each category, an Nyx said: higher items render on top of
> lower items.
>
> 2. When a wearable is worn, it goes to the top of the appropriate
> layer (as above). But the user can open up the outfit editor and drag
> the wearable to any layer they want, or reorder the items within a
> layer. I think this would be a good solution, because wearing clothes
> would "just work", yet users still have total control over the order
> of layers, with a simple and natural way of modifying the order.
>
> - Jacek
> _______________________________________________
> Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
> http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev
> Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
--
Carlo Wood <ca...@alinoe.com>
_______________________________________________
Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev
Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
