Talk:LlGetAgentSize

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)

I believe that it must always be an estimate because we do not have a standard pose to measure by. Even real people do not measure the same every time because we are squishy! The appearance values in the open source viewers should be good for most uses, the smaller for photographers and the larger for builders. The two are about one inch different so both will be close enough for regular humanoids. Both will be useless for tinies and quads :) --Cerise Sorbet 08:33, 15 January 2010 (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)