Clothing: Another L$200 Wasted!

The problem is not so much the pants. Pants going up to the navel doesn't look good unless it's a special highwaisted design.

Skirt + underpants layer for the "tucked in" look. You need to see what layers the designer has provided you with. If it's only shirt layer - don't buy.

And if you need a good khaki pant for all the tshirts with special text/prints you got already, Artilleri has some that goes all the way up to where the shirt level starts. And they cost much less than 200L. Damn, I would never spend 200L on just a single pair of jeans!

LikeA has labelled some of their jeans as lowrise. They add on new stuff so I won't be surprised if they have highrise jeans too. And they had free pairs for group members, so you can try a pair and see if you like the quality. (The designes isn't English and he call them lorize, not lowrise... but you understand what the meaning is)

Edited: Min Fairweather said the same as me about underpants layer. That gives the best look!

That is a very nice puppet, Puppet. I hope you get to chew on it after Mardi Gras.



Kidding aside, I fully agree with your gripe. Why not just make pants that come as both hip huggers and all the way to the waist? It's like one touch of the button and doesn't waste a clothing layer.

I've also had the same complaint about belts. I don't know many guys my age group (admittedly Paleozoic) that go without belts, except some golfers wearing abominations called "sans-a-belt" pants in lurid colors. Why can't designers draw belts into pants more often? It looks incomplete without a belt to me.

I have made a fairly convincing prim belt, but it does disappear into my muscles in the back (when I'm in rare human form that is). If I had the patience to make clothes, I'd make all pants with belts.

Unfortunately, even this is not the best option. I do not want my shirt to take up 2 freakin layers. What if I want to wear some cute panties on the underwear layer



Designers can make things as they wish, but they really really should picture it so that you fully understand how it fits!!!!

They aren't up to the navel! Just the waist. I know that it's possible for an "all the way up" pair of pants to look way too tall, but I suspect that more often than not has more to do with males giving their av shapes foot-and-a-half-long paunches than with the positioning of the clothing layer boundaries themselves.

Not true - have you never worn a jacket open? A jacket will only cover the exposed lower back and sides, not the tummy.



Some of us know where to shop and how to make clothing look good. I think Brann shows the open front jacket very well here:



Lil wanders away laughing

I have some shirts and tshirts that do just that, and they look really neat with the low cut jeans, because they do fill in that gap (both tucked and untucked)

I would certainly have something to laugh about if I wore the jacket illustrated. For one thing it is styled for a female av, for another it looks like an open shirt, which is much the same thing as an open jacket in principle.

The thing about the linden jacket is that it appears to have an extremely waisted cut so it generally doesn't look right on male avs when open. It doesn't necessarily follow that the layer is suitable for the purpose simply because it is called 'jacket'.

Lambsakes, even the linden shirt can be fitted loosely.

Yes, that one is an open shirt, but still done on the jacket layer, so it fits the way things on the jacket layer would fit.

If an open jacket is made well, then in my opinion, the only avatars that seem to look really bad in it are the ones that have bodies that are not really proportioned properly (male and female both). Too many women create an extreme hourglass figure and too many guys just have too large chest and shoulders. However, there are many many jackets that are not designed well and do not look good on anyone, open or closed.


My biggest pet peeve about the so called 'jacket layer' is that it fits INSIDE of skirts. Anyone with even half a brain knows that a suit jacket never ever should be tucked into a skirt.

I was very careful to avoid the typical 'ant-waist' look so many guys finish up with when they exaggerate the build of their torsos. While I have quite a chunky build, my shoulders and chest aren't disproportionately large in comparison to my waist because I have quite a bit of body fat, love handles and so forth to square my shape out.

I guess it comes down to a matter of taste because, to my eye, jackets only just manage to look right on male avs when they are closed. I am used to seeing the fitted styles of women's clothing, open or closed, in RL and I can accept the SL corollaries quite easily because of that but it just doesn't wash with male avs: jackets for men tend to have a looser, boxier style in RL and any texture attempting to replicate that in SL just looks weird - in a Peewee Herman kind of way.

Things don't improve when texture artists attempt to add 'interesting' folds and drapes with the result that many guys finish up looking like Peewee after a restless night sleeping in his suit.

For that reason, I tend to use the jacket layer for items best suited to a snug fit such as bomber jackets, tees, tanks, sweaters and even undervests - anything but a jacket that *should* have a smart line. What I wouldn't give to have a decent replication of classic Armani, or even one of those numbers the old chick bought for her toyboy in Sunset Boulevard but it isn't going to happen until they refine the avatar mesh.

Then you won't get lowrise pants. Plus, us chicas like showing off our lovely flat tummies.

The actual answers are:

1. Buy shirts that are long (only available on the jacket layer or underpants+shirt combo). I generally make all my t-shirts and baseball jerseys on both jacket and shirt layers just cuz of this. However, the ones on shirt layer won't cover the gap. Underpants+shirt combos are only worth it for special clothes. They are a pain to wear and obviously muck up the underpants layer.

2. Get LL to offer an improved avatar mesh with new clothing options. This is really what's needed.

EDIT: For clarity

My question is who wears shirts like that? Shirts that stop that high up are the equivilant of a female shirt that is intentionally cut to expose her belly button. Look at where your avatars elbows are, the end of the shirt is not far from them. A more standard T-shirt length would be for the bottom to be near ones wrists or fingers.

IMO, the proper way is to make the shirt on a jacket layer so it is a more realistic length. (Longer)

It could be the group of people I hang around, but I don`t know anyone who *doesn`t* wear low cut jeans. I agree though, the product title/ad box should state they are low cut.

The pants you are wearing are not low cut at all, it`s the shirt that`s the problem.

If in doubt as to if it is the pants that are low cut, or the Tshirt being too short

you can always make a system pair of pants set at max waist height and see if they meet the tshirt (or make a system shirt and see if it meets the pants at max length)

Suit jackets are usually open below the button that is buttened. So if there is nothing underneath the navel will show.

If a shirt or a top to be worn under a suit jacket goes to the bottom of the shirt layer, and the pants go to the top of the pants layer, they will meet and no skin will show.

I have no objection to showing a little flesh at the waist in either RL or SL (in RL on the non-flabby peoplel; in Sl everyone has the figures the wish they had). However, if the pants or the shirt do not go to the waist, they should be labeled as such. And if a three piece suit (jacket, pants, cami or other shirt layer top) is advertised as "professional", it should be professional and not show flesh at the waist.

Mary

The shirt "stops" that high up because it is supposed to be tucked in. It would look that way too, if the pants were painted all the way up like they're supposed to be.

ivalde have long been my favourite designer. i have well over 100 of thier outfits. i like to mix the somewhat 'old fashioned' styles of the 1920-1960 years with a bit of goth, punk, and rockabilly. a $300 ivalde outfit works great for this and is both great quality and a bargain.
unfortunately i think i will have to stop shopping there though, as she appears to have recently changed her perms on new outfits. among other sins the one that stands out most is NO MOD GLITCH PANTS!

Nooooooooo

/me goes off to cry

Yep, you think you would get more quality for 71 cents US nowdays

The correct way to make a tucked in shirt these days is to provide the customer with an "underpants" layer that is an extension of the "tshirt" layer. This underpant layer lies nicely beneath the pant layer the jeans are on, and problem is solved.

I`m not being rude but the outfit you have on looks like something one would see in mens fashion pre 2006. It has evolved greatly since then. There are so many more progressed options for you out there.


I would love to be able to agree with this statement, "if the pants were painted all the way up like they're supposed to be."

...But whoever made the SL mesh did an extremely poor and unrealistic job.

If I were you, I would nicely IM the creator of the pants, let them know you were expecting the pants to go up higher than they do, and see what they say, maybe you`ll get a refund.

Next time you go tshirt shopping, check the product content..Does it come with a jacket, shirt, undershirt, underpants, (ans possible pant) layers? If so you can usually assume you will no longer have any issues with low rise pants as a shirt with that many compatible layers is going to cover any gap issues.

If you`re not into this layering thing, I`m afriad youre going to be writing more of these posts in the future.

/me imagines Jesse flouncing off in a huff at this point, nose in the air and wrist limply flapping . . .

Pep (not homophobic but susceptible to cliched images)

I imagine Jesse sitting at his PC, grinning and lol'ing at all the silliness that takes place in these forums.

I certainly do not imagine him doing what you described, actually I do not imagine anyone doing that.

it not as if they are paid 71 cents to produce the clothing. a shit product is a shit product regardless of the price.
an ivalde outfit is roughly $1.15usd. the next 100 outfits i buy is $115.00usd that ivalde will not see.

have i mentioned the NO COPY pieces yet?

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/facepalm.jpg

Actually, I`m wondering why you want me to be gay so badly? Not going to happen.




Oh you know me so well.

I bet you know what I`m about to do, too.

Wait for it...wait for it...

Oh you know me so well.

I bet you know what I`m about to do, too.

Wait for it...wait for it...