Difference between revisions of "Talk:LlGetAgentSize"
(addition not multiplication) |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
:It's hard to get a linden correction unless it's something that causes a bit of trouble on the mailing list or jira. -- '''[[User:Strife_Onizuka|Strife]]''' <sup><small>([[User talk:Strife_Onizuka|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Strife_Onizuka|contribs]])</small></sup> 17:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC) | :It's hard to get a linden correction unless it's something that causes a bit of trouble on the mailing list or jira. -- '''[[User:Strife_Onizuka|Strife]]''' <sup><small>([[User talk:Strife_Onizuka|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Strife_Onizuka|contribs]])</small></sup> 17:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
It is definitely addition and not multiplication, verified against both Cool VIewer and Snowglobe corrections. These constants work well across shapes. --[[User:Cerise Sorbet|Cerise Sorbet]] 04:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:48, 14 January 2010
1.125 appears to be incorrect as a way to find true height. I believe 1.1057 gives a more accurate result. --Pussycat Catnap 04:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- IMHO the multiplication method stinks to high hell. I would like to see some raw data with different avatar configurations (tall shoes, no shoes, big heads, small heads, long chests, short chests, etc). -- Strife (talk|contribs) 19:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
For an accurate result (with just one av) I am using 1.4*vector and am assuming that the size is a result of the distance from the base of the foot to the hip center * 2 or something like that. I have to agree with Strife (again). This whole situation is simply 1/2 baked nonsense. And as a matter of interest why is there no Linden qualifying what the absolute truth is instead of the users having to guess (again)? -- 
Eddy (talk|contribs) 00:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's hard to get a linden correction unless it's something that causes a bit of trouble on the mailing list or jira. -- Strife (talk|contribs) 17:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
It is definitely addition and not multiplication, verified against both Cool VIewer and Snowglobe corrections. These constants work well across shapes. --Cerise Sorbet 04:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)