Sculpted Prims:Clarification Page - Revision history

Cerise Sorbet at 21:41, 9 April 2010

2010-04-09T21:41:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:41, 9 April 2010
Line 73:		Line 73:
	Funny thing is, the only thing that took me a little while to understand was why pixel order mattered at all - the obvious answer to my question being, to give it a sequence of connections so that it doesn't make wild mistakes in which vertex connects to which.--[[User:Al Sonic\|Al Sonic]] 20:35, 30 April 2007 (PDT)		Funny thing is, the only thing that took me a little while to understand was why pixel order mattered at all - the obvious answer to my question being, to give it a sequence of connections so that it doesn't make wild mistakes in which vertex connects to which.--[[User:Al Sonic\|Al Sonic]] 20:35, 30 April 2007 (PDT)

	:[http://forums.secondlife.com/~~showthread~~.~~php?t=180494&page=2#post1491568~~ Here] is a forum post with attached example images , re: making a sculpt map for a cube.		:[http://forums-archive.secondlife.com/8/75/180494/1.html Here] is a forum post with attached example images , re: making a sculpt map for a cube.

	:Oh, BTW, another question which popped into my skull recently... when you say a 32x32 grid, is that 32 ''verts'' (31 squares in between), or 32 ''squares'' (33 verts)? --[[User:Deanna Trollop\|Deanna Trollop]] 05:37, 2 May 2007 (PDT)		:Oh, BTW, another question which popped into my skull recently... when you say a 32x32 grid, is that 32 ''verts'' (31 squares in between), or 32 ''squares'' (33 verts)? --[[User:Deanna Trollop\|Deanna Trollop]] 05:37, 2 May 2007 (PDT)

Nulflux Negulesco at 05:10, 25 June 2007

2007-06-25T05:10:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:10, 24 June 2007
Line 110:		Line 110:

	:Note, however, that what you are doing now, finding separate scale and positioning values for each "frame" of the animation, is a little more work, but provides the best quality sculpt. Producing a sculpt map based on a bounding box which overshoots the geometric bounds of a sculpt degrades the quality, by not using the full 0-255 range possible. --[[User:Deanna Trollop\|Deanna Trollop]] 09:23, 24 June 2007 (PDT)		:Note, however, that what you are doing now, finding separate scale and positioning values for each "frame" of the animation, is a little more work, but provides the best quality sculpt. Producing a sculpt map based on a bounding box which overshoots the geometric bounds of a sculpt degrades the quality, by not using the full 0-255 range possible. --[[User:Deanna Trollop\|Deanna Trollop]] 09:23, 24 June 2007 (PDT)

			:: Thanks for the reply Deanna, but I don't see how I can animate an organic shape without changing the bounding box in some way. For example, a sculpt of a human arm. It bends in 3 places, so if you start with the arm outstretched then bend the arm, you end up changing the bounding box of the sculpt. To complicate matters even further, by changing the bounding box you not only alter the scale of the object but also change the origin of the attaching point of the arm (in this case the shoulder). The 'little bit of work' that I use to rescale and reposition the object is actually quite a lot of work if I am doing it on a regular basis for every frame of every sculpt animation that I create, especially since the scaling and positioning are entirely different for each set of sculpts.

			:: Even with identical bounding boxes in Maya, I still have to alter the prim to properly scale and position the sculpt in SL. There has to be a cleaner way to do this. --[[User:Nulflux Negulesco\|Nulflux Negulesco]] 25 June 2007

	[[Category:Sculpted Prims]]		[[Category:Sculpted Prims]]

Deanna Trollop at 16:23, 24 June 2007

2007-06-24T16:23:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:23, 24 June 2007
Line 106:		Line 106:

	Note - I only work in Maya 6.5, I'm not sure if my problems are directly related to this application or if all sculpted prims suffer from this issue. --[[User:Nulflux Negulesco\|Nulflux Negulesco]] 23 June 2007		Note - I only work in Maya 6.5, I'm not sure if my problems are directly related to this application or if all sculpted prims suffer from this issue. --[[User:Nulflux Negulesco\|Nulflux Negulesco]] 23 June 2007

			: What you are describing is the result of each individual sculpt map being produced from a separate bounding box, based on the individual geometric min and max values of each sculpted object. This is something I'd taken into account in writing my exporter for MilkShape. Originally I had considered giving an option to set the center of the bounding box to the absolute world origin, but now that I think about it, it would be better to have the option of calculating one overall bounding box from the min and max of multiple sculpts.

			:Note, however, that what you are doing now, finding separate scale and positioning values for each "frame" of the animation, is a little more work, but provides the best quality sculpt. Producing a sculpt map based on a bounding box which overshoots the geometric bounds of a sculpt degrades the quality, by not using the full 0-255 range possible. --[[User:Deanna Trollop\|Deanna Trollop]] 09:23, 24 June 2007 (PDT)

	[[Category:Sculpted Prims]]		[[Category:Sculpted Prims]]

Nulflux Negulesco at 04:38, 24 June 2007

2007-06-24T04:38:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:38, 23 June 2007
Line 90:		Line 90:

	:Yes, reversed vertex order does render as "inside-out." I tried that with my sample cube map, by value-inverting the red channel, essentially mirroring the vert coordinates on the X axis without changing any of the vertex-to-poly assignments. --[[User:Deanna Trollop\|Deanna Trollop]] 19:58, 5 May 2007 (PDT)		:Yes, reversed vertex order does render as "inside-out." I tried that with my sample cube map, by value-inverting the red channel, essentially mirroring the vert coordinates on the X axis without changing any of the vertex-to-poly assignments. --[[User:Deanna Trollop\|Deanna Trollop]] 19:58, 5 May 2007 (PDT)

			I understand most aspects of sculpted prims but there is one issue I have not been able to overcome. The issue relates to the positioning and scale of a sculpt that is exported multiple times with slight adjustments to produce frames in an animation. For instance, I have created a human appendage that has 4 positions. In the first position, the scale looks correct. The problem arises when sculpt texture 2,3 and 4 are applied; even though the 'prim' position and scale are identical, the sculpt is rendered using positioning relative to the sculpts center. What this means is that as the sculpt texture changes, the relative center and relative scale of the object does not correspond to the previous sculpt textures scale and position. In order for the sculpts to become the right scale, the actual prim must be repositioned and rescaled.

			To give you a real example to work with I have taken the scales and position information for the 4 sculpts, all resized to the correct scale and repositioned so that the sculpts appear to originate at the same location. What I need help with is an equation or function that will allow me to gaurantee that these sculpts will become the right scale and in the right position when they change.

			Sculpt 1 - (Scale = 0.579,0.550,0.550) (Position = 94.015,152.798,24.992)

			Sculpt 2 - (Scale = 0.683,0.660,0.652) (Position = 94.080,153.220,25.066)

			Sculpt 3 - (Scale = 0.956,0.856,0.909) (Position = 94.184,153.641,25.076)

			Sculpt 4 - (Scale = 0.863,0.805,0.831) (Position = 94.159,154.065,25.162)

			I have heard rumors about animating sculpts via Flash at some point in the future so I assume someone has found a solution to this issue. If so please share it with us, I am going mad trying to figure this out ; ) My goal is to allow the user to resize the appendage normally and have a script calculate the correct scales and positions for each subsequent sculpt.

			Note - I only work in Maya 6.5, I'm not sure if my problems are directly related to this application or if all sculpted prims suffer from this issue. --[[User:Nulflux Negulesco\|Nulflux Negulesco]] 23 June 2007

	[[Category:Sculpted Prims]]		[[Category:Sculpted Prims]]

Gaius Goodliffe at 00:17, 27 May 2007

2007-05-27T00:17:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:17, 26 May 2007
Line 20:		Line 20:

	: Clarification request: The above statements imply that 0v = -0.5m, 255v = 0.5m, and 127v = 0.0m, but this cannot be precisely true -- at least one of those figures must be off. I'm writing some programs to generate shapes, and for the sake of making accurate calculations and rounding most appropriately the results, I'd like to know which of these figures is not quite correct. Is 0.0m precisely equal to 127v, 127.5v, or 128v? If not 127.5v, then in one direction the distance either cannot quite reach 0.5m or can go over 0.5m a tad, which is it? --[[User:Gaius Goodliffe\|Gaius Goodliffe]]		: Clarification request: The above statements imply that 0v = -0.5m, 255v = 0.5m, and 127v = 0.0m, but this cannot be precisely true -- at least one of those figures must be off. I'm writing some programs to generate shapes, and for the sake of making accurate calculations and rounding most appropriately the results, I'd like to know which of these figures is not quite correct. Is 0.0m precisely equal to 127v, 127.5v, or 128v? If not 127.5v, then in one direction the distance either cannot quite reach 0.5m or can go over 0.5m a tad, which is it? --[[User:Gaius Goodliffe\|Gaius Goodliffe]]
	:: Additional info: I experimented a bit and I think I have the answer. It appears that 0v = -0.5m precisely, 128v = 0.0m precisely, and 255v = 0.496m approximately. Either that, or JPEG ~~compressed~~ is messing up the position of my positive Z pole. Can someone confirm? If so, in the above chart, it should probably say (128,128,128) = <0.0,0.0,0.0> rather than as it currently reads. --[[User:Gaius Goodliffe\|Gaius Goodliffe]]		:: Additional info: I experimented a bit and I think I have the answer. It appears that 0v = -0.5m precisely, 128v = 0.0m precisely, and 255v = 0.496m approximately. Either that, or JPEG compression is messing up the position of my positive Z pole. Can someone confirm? If so, in the above chart, it should probably say (128,128,128) = <0.0,0.0,0.0> rather than as it currently reads. --[[User:Gaius Goodliffe\|Gaius Goodliffe]]

	If the scale of the prim were <2,1,1>, then of course you'd multiply the X components of the above vectors by 2. (Any corrections to this, Qarl?)		If the scale of the prim were <2,1,1>, then of course you'd multiply the X components of the above vectors by 2. (Any corrections to this, Qarl?)

Gaius Goodliffe at 00:16, 27 May 2007

2007-05-27T00:16:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:16, 26 May 2007
Line 20:		Line 20:

	: Clarification request: The above statements imply that 0v = -0.5m, 255v = 0.5m, and 127v = 0.0m, but this cannot be precisely true -- at least one of those figures must be off. I'm writing some programs to generate shapes, and for the sake of making accurate calculations and rounding most appropriately the results, I'd like to know which of these figures is not quite correct. Is 0.0m precisely equal to 127v, 127.5v, or 128v? If not 127.5v, then in one direction the distance either cannot quite reach 0.5m or can go over 0.5m a tad, which is it? --[[User:Gaius Goodliffe\|Gaius Goodliffe]]		: Clarification request: The above statements imply that 0v = -0.5m, 255v = 0.5m, and 127v = 0.0m, but this cannot be precisely true -- at least one of those figures must be off. I'm writing some programs to generate shapes, and for the sake of making accurate calculations and rounding most appropriately the results, I'd like to know which of these figures is not quite correct. Is 0.0m precisely equal to 127v, 127.5v, or 128v? If not 127.5v, then in one direction the distance either cannot quite reach 0.5m or can go over 0.5m a tad, which is it? --[[User:Gaius Goodliffe\|Gaius Goodliffe]]
	:: Additional info: I experimented a bit and I think I have the answer. It appears that 0v = -0.5m precisely, 128v = 0.0m precisely, and 255v = 0.496m approximately. Can someone confirm? If so, in the above chart, it should probably say (128,128,128) = <0.0,0.0,0.0> rather than as it currently reads. --[[User:Gaius Goodliffe\|Gaius Goodliffe]]		:: Additional info: I experimented a bit and I think I have the answer. It appears that 0v = -0.5m precisely, 128v = 0.0m precisely, and 255v = 0.496m approximately. Either that, or JPEG compressed is messing up the position of my positive Z pole. Can someone confirm? If so, in the above chart, it should probably say (128,128,128) = <0.0,0.0,0.0> rather than as it currently reads. --[[User:Gaius Goodliffe\|Gaius Goodliffe]]

	If the scale of the prim were <2,1,1>, then of course you'd multiply the X components of the above vectors by 2. (Any corrections to this, Qarl?)		If the scale of the prim were <2,1,1>, then of course you'd multiply the X components of the above vectors by 2. (Any corrections to this, Qarl?)

Gaius Goodliffe at 00:14, 27 May 2007

2007-05-27T00:14:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:14, 26 May 2007
Line 20:		Line 20:

	: Clarification request: The above statements imply that 0v = -0.5m, 255v = 0.5m, and 127v = 0.0m, but this cannot be precisely true -- at least one of those figures must be off. I'm writing some programs to generate shapes, and for the sake of making accurate calculations and rounding most appropriately the results, I'd like to know which of these figures is not quite correct. Is 0.0m precisely equal to 127v, 127.5v, or 128v? If not 127.5v, then in one direction the distance either cannot quite reach 0.5m or can go over 0.5m a tad, which is it? --[[User:Gaius Goodliffe\|Gaius Goodliffe]]		: Clarification request: The above statements imply that 0v = -0.5m, 255v = 0.5m, and 127v = 0.0m, but this cannot be precisely true -- at least one of those figures must be off. I'm writing some programs to generate shapes, and for the sake of making accurate calculations and rounding most appropriately the results, I'd like to know which of these figures is not quite correct. Is 0.0m precisely equal to 127v, 127.5v, or 128v? If not 127.5v, then in one direction the distance either cannot quite reach 0.5m or can go over 0.5m a tad, which is it? --[[User:Gaius Goodliffe\|Gaius Goodliffe]]
	:: Additional info: I experimented a bit and I think I have the answer. It appears that 0v = 0.5m precisely, 128v = 0.0m precisely, and 255v = 0.496m approximately. Can someone confirm? If so, in the above chart, it should probably say (128,128,128) = <0.0,0.0,0.0> rather than as it currently reads. --[[User:Gaius Goodliffe\|Gaius Goodliffe]]		:: Additional info: I experimented a bit and I think I have the answer. It appears that 0v = -0.5m precisely, 128v = 0.0m precisely, and 255v = 0.496m approximately. Can someone confirm? If so, in the above chart, it should probably say (128,128,128) = <0.0,0.0,0.0> rather than as it currently reads. --[[User:Gaius Goodliffe\|Gaius Goodliffe]]

	If the scale of the prim were <2,1,1>, then of course you'd multiply the X components of the above vectors by 2. (Any corrections to this, Qarl?)		If the scale of the prim were <2,1,1>, then of course you'd multiply the X components of the above vectors by 2. (Any corrections to this, Qarl?)

Gaius Goodliffe at 00:14, 27 May 2007

2007-05-27T00:14:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:14, 26 May 2007
Line 20:		Line 20:

	: Clarification request: The above statements imply that 0v = -0.5m, 255v = 0.5m, and 127v = 0.0m, but this cannot be precisely true -- at least one of those figures must be off. I'm writing some programs to generate shapes, and for the sake of making accurate calculations and rounding most appropriately the results, I'd like to know which of these figures is not quite correct. Is 0.0m precisely equal to 127v, 127.5v, or 128v? If not 127.5v, then in one direction the distance either cannot quite reach 0.5m or can go over 0.5m a tad, which is it? --[[User:Gaius Goodliffe\|Gaius Goodliffe]]		: Clarification request: The above statements imply that 0v = -0.5m, 255v = 0.5m, and 127v = 0.0m, but this cannot be precisely true -- at least one of those figures must be off. I'm writing some programs to generate shapes, and for the sake of making accurate calculations and rounding most appropriately the results, I'd like to know which of these figures is not quite correct. Is 0.0m precisely equal to 127v, 127.5v, or 128v? If not 127.5v, then in one direction the distance either cannot quite reach 0.5m or can go over 0.5m a tad, which is it? --[[User:Gaius Goodliffe\|Gaius Goodliffe]]
			:: Additional info: I experimented a bit and I think I have the answer. It appears that 0v = 0.5m precisely, 128v = 0.0m precisely, and 255v = 0.496m approximately. Can someone confirm? If so, in the above chart, it should probably say (128,128,128) = <0.0,0.0,0.0> rather than as it currently reads. --[[User:Gaius Goodliffe\|Gaius Goodliffe]]

	If the scale of the prim were <2,1,1>, then of course you'd multiply the X components of the above vectors by 2. (Any corrections to this, Qarl?)		If the scale of the prim were <2,1,1>, then of course you'd multiply the X components of the above vectors by 2. (Any corrections to this, Qarl?)

Gaius Goodliffe at 00:00, 27 May 2007

2007-05-27T00:00:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:00, 26 May 2007
Line 19:		Line 19:
	*50% Grey (127,127,127) -- < 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 >		*50% Grey (127,127,127) -- < 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 >

	: Clarification request: The above statements imply that 0v = -0.5m, 255v = 0.5m, and 127v = 0.0m, but this cannot be precisely true -- at least one of those figures must be off. I'm writing some programs to generate shapes, and for the sake of making accurate calculations and rounding most appropriately the results, I'd like to know which of these figures is not quite correct. Is 0.0m precisely equal to 127v, 127.5v, or 128v? If not 127.5v, then in ~~which~~ direction ~~can~~ the distance either ~~not~~ quite reach 0.5m or go over 0.5m a tad? --[[User:Gaius Goodliffe\|Gaius Goodliffe]]		: Clarification request: The above statements imply that 0v = -0.5m, 255v = 0.5m, and 127v = 0.0m, but this cannot be precisely true -- at least one of those figures must be off. I'm writing some programs to generate shapes, and for the sake of making accurate calculations and rounding most appropriately the results, I'd like to know which of these figures is not quite correct. Is 0.0m precisely equal to 127v, 127.5v, or 128v? If not 127.5v, then in one direction the distance either cannot quite reach 0.5m or can go over 0.5m a tad, which is it? --[[User:Gaius Goodliffe\|Gaius Goodliffe]]

	If the scale of the prim were <2,1,1>, then of course you'd multiply the X components of the above vectors by 2. (Any corrections to this, Qarl?)		If the scale of the prim were <2,1,1>, then of course you'd multiply the X components of the above vectors by 2. (Any corrections to this, Qarl?)

Gaius Goodliffe at 23:56, 26 May 2007

2007-05-26T23:56:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:56, 26 May 2007
Line 18:		Line 18:
	*Blue (0,0,255) -- < -0.5, -0.5, 0.5 >		*Blue (0,0,255) -- < -0.5, -0.5, 0.5 >
	*50% Grey (127,127,127) -- < 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 >		*50% Grey (127,127,127) -- < 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 >

			: Clarification request: The above statements imply that 0v = -0.5m, 255v = 0.5m, and 127v = 0.0m, but this cannot be precisely true -- at least one of those figures must be off. I'm writing some programs to generate shapes, and for the sake of making accurate calculations and rounding most appropriately the results, I'd like to know which of these figures is not quite correct. Is 0.0m precisely equal to 127v, 127.5v, or 128v? If not 127.5v, then in which direction can the distance either not quite reach 0.5m or go over 0.5m a tad? --[[User:Gaius Goodliffe\|Gaius Goodliffe]]

	If the scale of the prim were <2,1,1>, then of course you'd multiply the X components of the above vectors by 2. (Any corrections to this, Qarl?)		If the scale of the prim were <2,1,1>, then of course you'd multiply the X components of the above vectors by 2. (Any corrections to this, Qarl?)