I might be wrong, but doesn't Viewer 2 already cover some the things you
want? Creating links to other outfits, and putting them all in the new
outfit folder(not sure what it is called, atm). It does put everything
together, so if you buy new hair you would have to redo them, I think.
On Mon, Mar
I like this idea!
To translate it back to it's purest abstract form,
we would like to be able to construct outfits in
an object oriented way: be able to derive an outfit
from other outfits.
The "folder link" would be a pointer to the "base class"
so to speak.
However, we have to solve the follow
> This method as several disadvantages: it's a lot of work, I
> have to find back the folder outfit that I'm currently
> wearing, there is the danger that I accidently click 'replace
> outfit' in the last step and it causes often two or three
> rebakes instead of one.
>
> What I'd like is an i
Hi Nyx and list,
I (finally) realized that there IS something that would
be a great improvement of wearables that won't be too hard
to implement :).
I don't have a solution (yet), but let me describe the
problem, and maybe the list can come up with the solution.
I store wearables in folders, and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
i'm not sure if i've not suggested this before, what if the wearable
type identified which types of shading, cuts gradients, parameters etc
go along with it, that way the client would be able to know how to
interpret the data, how to cut etc and the or
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 0
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Nyx Linden 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
On 2010-03-25, at 13:55, Nyx Linden wrote:
> Specifying an arbitrary order in inventory that is unrelated to
> wearable type is absolutely trivial.
> The difficult part comes when you go to render your baked textures.
How about this?
For clothes that are modify, add an option "change wearable t
On 2010-03-25, at 12:48, Nyx Linden wrote:
> My initial answer to that request is "we don't have time to
> implement that right now", but I'd be happy to have a more in-depth
> technical discussion as to how that could be implemented in the
> future.
OK, I can live with the awesome knob set
All,
If layers are to be truly arbitrary, then we would need to go all the
way with it so that items can be sold as only 1 item and not on multiple
layers w/ xfer. Argent's got the idea partly in one of his posts.
Of course, multiple wearables of the same type at once kind of wrecks
the argume
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 7:55 PM, Nyx Linden wrote:
[snip]
> As I stated previously, I'm not completely stuck on the current
> structure, its just one that I know I can finish and ship in the given
> timeframe. I can think of ways to re-re-architect the structure yet
> again to enable this reque
Specifying an arbitrary order in inventory that is unrelated to wearable
type is absolutely trivial.
The difficult part comes when you go to render your baked textures.
Currently each baked texture is specified by a "layerset" which is a
vector of texture layers in rendering order. So the upper
Interesting topic. Thought I'd share some thoughts.
1. I like the idea of wearables being in folders allowing the user to
drag and drop the article in different folders to taste. This allows the
user to choose where the wearable goes.
2. Adding to that, we can create limits on the o
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 01:48:39PM -0400, Nyx Linden wrote:
> My initial answer to that request is "we don't have time to implement
> that right now", but I'd be happy to have a more in-depth technical
> discussion as to how that could be implemented in the future. If the
> community is able to
Arbitrary wearable re-ordering (if you want to be a superhero with
underwear over your pants) is a rather difficult problem. I'll get into
more detail once the forums are set up, but its probably beyond what I
can reasonably do for this project cycle. I'm open to ideas from the
community on how
Argent Stonecutter wrote:
>
> On 2010-03-25, at 11:08, Nyx Linden wrote:
>> 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
The advantages of this:
* Automatic insertion that makes sense
* No need to edit (no-mod) items
The disadvantage:
* Still can't wear a shirt over a jacket, or
a designated "undie" over a "pants".
* Giving an outfit to someone else might
change unexpectedly change the order in
which the ite
On 2010-03-25, at 11:08, Nyx Linden wrote:
> 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
Wow great discussion so far - these are a lot of the issues I've been
thinking on for a good while now, and I'm glad they're being brought up
immediately.
I'm still working on getting the forums set up, where this conversation
would ideally take place, but in the meantime, I'll try to respond on
Kitty wrote:
> If someone sells a full-top + high pants combination they wouldn't have to
> struggle with defining which shirt layer goes on top of which other one by
> messing with numbers - since those will still result in conflicts with what
> it's being worn in combination with - but you just l
> Ah yes, using the descriptions would avoid the need for extra
> protocol changes.
>
> I'd suggest to use the keywords "skin", "tatoo", "underwear",
> "shirt", "jacket", but also allow "shirt 2", "shirt 3", etc
> to put things inbetween shirt and jacket.
Doesn't most of the confusion stem fro
> That's actually what I would like to avoid, specifically.
> That forces the creator to continue to dictate whether your
> underwear goes on top of your pants or not. There's no added
> flexibility for the resident in that.
>
> Here's why I'll be an advocate of just a few extra numbered
> lay
22 matches
Mail list logo
