Carlo,
I've been given the resources (my time, QA, release, and external
development) to do this project in one project cycle, not two. It is yet to
be seen, but it would not be surprising if my time and attention is needed
elsewhere next project cycle, as our list of tasks to do far outweighs
Jonathan,
I have no disrespect at all for Nyx. And yes, it's highly appreciated
that he asks us for input instead of just implementing it.
Still, if nothing in his original design is going to be changed
then the effect is almost the same; except if this list is
convinced that his original design
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
This clean slate would need additional texture swatches for the other
components of existing types of wearables, including the gradients for
the different cuts (sleeve length, cleavage amount etc
On 26/3/2010 10:39, Argent Stonecutter wrote:
>
> On 2
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 06:56, Carlo Wood wrote:
> It bothers me a bit that we (you) would choose to go
> for an implementation that is not the best or the
> ideal one, ONLY because you want to push out a new
> feature "in time".
>
*Carlo, it pains me to see you have this attitude towards the
Li
Nyx Linden wrote:
> It would also require completely de-constructing the current layers
> system, and rebuilding it based on the added parameters (I'd actually
> argue making the parameters part of the links used to create an outfit,
> not the wearables themselves but that's a side note).
A whi
+1 A 'change type' feature isn't needed for this project.
Nyx's proposed category layout can override the type as old types are
just hints. Possible with an ability to just drag-n-drop a wearable
between categories.
The proposed outfit list would allow more for arbitrary lists that
wouldn't de
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Argent Stonecutter
wrote:
Doing this right (ie, starting from a clean slate, or going to 'new
type' clothing with legacy wearables mapped to the new scheme when
edited):
1. All tops would have a lower part. It would just be empty for many
wearables.
2. The defaul
On 2010-03-26, at 08:17, Carlo Wood wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 07:39:39AM -0500, Argent Stonecutter wrote:
>>> Assume that the project will result in jackets
>>> (the canonical example) can be tucked in and/or being
>>> worn under shirts. Would you really still need it to
>>> be converted t
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 07:39:39AM -0500, Argent Stonecutter wrote:
> >Assume that the project will result in jackets
> >(the canonical example) can be tucked in and/or being
> >worn under shirts. Would you really still need it to
> >be converted to a shirt?
>
> If the project was going to achieve
On 2010-03-26, at 07:06, Carlo Wood wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 05:41:10AM -0500, Argent Stonecutter wrote:
>> I'm not proposing "wear as undershirt".
>>
>> I'm proposing "convert this into an undershirt".
>
> But with what goal?
I've got dozens of vests and shirts and jackets on the "wrong"
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 05:41:10AM -0500, Argent Stonecutter wrote:
> I'm not proposing "wear as undershirt".
>
> I'm proposing "convert this into an undershirt".
But with what goal? If the goal is to be able to tuck
a jacket in and wear it below other shirts, then I think
it's too much of a hack
On 2010-03-25, at 18:56, Nyx Linden wrote:
> However, if you'd like to code up a conversion routine for snowglobe
> or a third party viewer, please do so! Let me know if you need any
> information about our wearables system to do so.
Wait a second, are you saying that if a viewer allowed "wear
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 10:48:24PM +0100, Latif Khalifa wrote:
> Not to mention that some span over more than one bake, like jacket,
> tattoo and alpha. I don't think changing wearable type is feasible.
+1
The type is the type. Converting types will lead us nowhere.
--
Carlo Wood
_
It bothers me a bit that we (you) would choose to go
for an implementation that is not the best or the
ideal one, ONLY because you want to push out a new
feature "in time".
Personally, I'd first design how I'd want it to look
from the user point of view (what most of the discussion
from the commun
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 07:56:00PM -0400, Nyx Linden wrote:
> further that such a system would only be effective for wearables you
> have copy + mod permissions for. No worries for your own creation, but
> few sold clothing pieces are so liberal to my understanding.
Imho, the usable part be a "
On 2010-03-25, at 18:56, Nyx Linden wrote:
> Its more than two sliders. Quite frankly I don't believe this is an
> acceptable solution to ship in our main client for this particular
> issue - a user would expect "wear as undershirt" to "just work".
I'm not proposing "wear as undershirt".
I'm
It would also require completely de-constructing the current layers
system, and rebuilding it based on the added parameters (I'd actually
argue making the parameters part of the links used to create an outfit,
not the wearables themselves but that's a side note).
-Nyx
Mike Monkowski wrote:
>
Argent Stonecutter wrote:
> On 2010-03-25, at 15:44, Nyx Linden wrote:
>> I'd argue that's an insufficient solution. Parameters such as sleeve
>> length and color have fairly dramatic impacts on how a wearable
>> appears. Converting only the textures would result in a fairly
>> disappointing res
Nyx Linden wrote:
> Interesting proposal, and one probably worthy of further investigation.
> My concern with this plan is that the conversion from one wearable type
> to another is very much non-trivial. The wearable parameters (sleeve
> length, etc) have no relation to each other between weara
On 2010-03-25, at 16:48, Latif Khalifa wrote:
> Not to mention that some span over more than one bake, like jacket,
> tattoo and alpha.
Yes, I explicitly noted that already in my previous message:
>> For clothes that are modify, add an option "change wearable type",
>> between compatible types.
Th
On 2010-03-25, at 15:44, Nyx Linden wrote:
> I'd argue that's an insufficient solution. Parameters such as sleeve
> length and color have fairly dramatic impacts on how a wearable
> appears. Converting only the textures would result in a fairly
> disappointing result, I think.
As a user, I w
Not to mention that some span over more than one bake, like jacket,
tattoo and alpha. I don't think changing wearable type is feasible.
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 9:44 PM, Nyx Linden wrote:
> I'd argue that's an insufficient solution. Parameters such as sleeve
> length and color have fairly dramatic
I'd argue that's an insufficient solution. Parameters such as sleeve
length and color have fairly dramatic impacts on how a wearable appears.
Converting only the textures would result in a fairly disappointing
result, I think.
-Nyx
Argent Stonecutter wrote:
>
> On 2010-03-25, at 15:07, Nyx Li
On 2010-03-25, at 15:07, Nyx Linden wrote:
> Interesting proposal, and one probably worthy of further
> investigation.
> My concern with this plan is that the conversion from one wearable
> type
> to another is very much non-trivial. The wearable parameters (sleeve
> length, etc) have no rela
Interesting proposal, and one probably worthy of further investigation.
My concern with this plan is that the conversion from one wearable type
to another is very much non-trivial. The wearable parameters (sleeve
length, etc) have no relation to each other between wearables. For
example, "sleev
> Again, if any open source developer wants to look at the code
> architecture and draw up a plan for how this can be done in a
> reasonable amount of time, I'm all ears. My current ideas on
> how to implement this would push us well out of the timeframe
> that we were hoping to ship this set o
26 matches
Mail list logo
