Help with Pictures and Lighting Please

But, I will admit I was a little bored a bit ago......but not anymore. The Nationwide NASCAR race at Talladega just started.......LOL

But, there's one more thing I wanted to point out.....if you choose to call it "rattling your cage", I'm sorry. That is not my intent at all. I use both the environmental editor and my "body lights" to get what I want in a photo (or anything else I might see a need for in the lighting of my avatar in SL). I have found that you can tweak the lighting to get more light on the subject.......however, for what I want it's mostly just not quite right. Either too much shadow in the wrong places or too little shadow in in the right places......or any combination of the two. And despite what you say about the editor, I have yet to find a setting that does what I want it to do most of the time (for photos). I did my "body lights" trick and it worked for my needs.........I thought I would share what I found with anyone who wants to know. You disgree with what I've done.......that's okay with me. But, to tell others that my way is wrong is just not true.......you actually don't know what I'm looking for in photos. You have your idea of what I SHOULD be looking for and insist that your way is better........or, in your words, the CORRECT WAY. Sorry, Chosen, for what I'm doing you way is exactly wrong. And that's something you just never seem to understand.......it's your way or the highway. If you could bring yourself to understand that part you might not experience these "pick on Chosen" episodes.........at least as much as you seem to get.

And, for the record, I have a great deal of film photography experience...hence how lighting works on a subject of a picture. My guess is that I have more than you.

I do respect your input on many things.....but when I disagree (which I do on several occassions) I don't often go off on you pointing out my percieved "flaws" in your statements..........something you might consider doing. If you still think I'm trying to rattle your cage, it's obvious you are not near as intelligent as I think you are. Smart, yes.......intelligent is starting to be in question.

Take care my friend......I'll continue to read your posts and use what I can.

Actually, my interpretations is that it all started when one person decided to accuse me of saying things I hadn't said, with alleged intentions that were not actually mine, and then that person invited you and two others to back him up by issuing thank-you's to you after berating me. And at least two of you fell for it.



You're reading things into my comments that just aren't there, Dakota. At no time did I say anyone was "anti-Windlight" or that there was some sort of "campaign" in progress. All I said was that it's a sensitive topic for a lot of people right now, one to which many happen to be reacting with undo emotion, and frankly put, extremely poor judgment. There doesn't need to be any sort of organized campaign in order for that to happen. A sizable percentage of people have chosen to react negatively to the subject. That's all. Take it for what it is.




Once again, you're reading things in that are not there. I don't know what's worse, the fact that you have the audacity to pretend to know my motivations, or that you have the poor taste to post your comletely unfounded suspicions almost as if they're fact.

There is no "contemptuous attitude" on my part, veiled or otherwise. And there is no "larger issue". When I saw this thread title, the ONLY thing that went through my mind was "Oh, that's a subject I happen to know about. I bet I can offer some help." Then I read through what had already been posted to see if the question had been satisfactorily answered yet, I determined it wasn't, so I offered my knowledge on the subject. It was only after certain individuals reacted so negatively, and the negativity itself became the topic of discussion, that I started to think about previous reactions in other thread on the same first subject.

Why you might refuse to take any of that at face value, I don't know.

What I do know is that these repeated attempts to twist my words into what they never were and never would be are starting to move out of the category of simple ridiculousness, and are now bordering on disgusting. If you're truly unable to accept that what I've said here was meant only literally, and that there was never anything more behind it, then there is no point in continuing this conversation. Had I actually meant any of the things you claim, I would have had no problem just coming out and saying so. If you can't believe that, that's your prerogative.

I'd like to accept your apology, Peggy, but I cannot believe you're sincere when you say it was not your intent to try to rattle me. You really expect me to believe that when you said "some 'expert' piping in with 'that's BS.....do it this way' crap. You do that often.", that wasn't meant to be a deliberate insult?

Look, I'm sorry for you if you feel personally insulted somehow when flaws in your methodology are pointed out. But as I said, that's your own problem, not mine. I'd encourage you to look inward at those times, and not lash out as you did.

When people show me a better or more efficient way to do things, my first response is always to thank them, not to get defensive about it. My ego is not so tied up in having to be right, and it's certainly not threatened if I'm proven wrong. What's important is that the best possible information always be made available. The question of who said it is not relevant, whether it happened to be me or anyone else.



I'm glad to hear that, but I must admit I'm having trouble reconciling that with what you said on the subject earlier. If you recall, you said you felt the environment editor was not intuitive, and that it takes you hours to only maybe get something close to the result you want.

In any case, it sounds like as of now we're a whole lot closer to being on the same page. All I ever said on this subject was that the best thing to do is to set up your base lighting in the environment editor first, and then if you want to use local lights to compliment the scene, just as you would do in RL, great. That seems to be precisely what you're saying now.

Where I think we still differ is on whether or not to attach the lights to the avatar. I see that as a totally unnecessary step. It takes longer, and IF someone then were to go walking around with those lights attached, they would cause problems. Further, if you want to photograph an avatar already wearing attachments as part of the outfit, then you'd be unable to attach the lights in the first place. Any way you look at it, leaving the lights unattached while posing the avatar on a stand is faster, safer, and more universally applicable in all situations. And there's nothing wrong with my pointing any of that out.


I never said it was "wrong". You really must learn to stop being so defensive about this. Let go a little. And even if I did say the information was wrong (which I didn't), that still wouldn't reflect badly on you in any way. People point out ways in which I can improve what I do all the time. It's never a problem for me like it apparently is for you.

What I actually said was "there's no need to attach lights to your avatar". I then mentioned that doing so can be wasteful and potentially destructive (and I've explained my rationale for that many times now). From there I went on to explain a more efficient way to achieve the desired results. That's it.

Again, why that's such a problem for you, I have no idea.


When you use these generalizations like "never" and "always", you really expect me to believe you're not trying to get under my skin?

In any case, I never ever say anything is 'my way or the highway'. When I offer an answer to a question, I fully explain why I feel my solution is a good one, but I never say it's the only way, or imply that people are somehow inferior if they do it differently. And if I feel a previously presented solution is less effective or less efficient, I explain my reasoning on that too, but none of that means there's anything bad about the person who presented it. For the then thousandth time now, there's absolutely nothing wrong with disputing facts or techniques. You're more than welcome at any time to disagree with any method I ever offer, and to present your arguments for why you think you're right. That's what discussion is all about, after all.

The one who's rejecting other people's input here is you, not me. I simply stated why I thought a particular method wasn't the best one. You decided all by yourself to make it about me personally, rather than about the information. Big difference.

You don't like me, fine. I get it. But kindly keep that to yourself when the topic is not about such things. There's no place for it in a discussion of technical matters.



Huh? This is the first time an incident like this has ever happened.


Good for you. With that being the case, I would expect that the concept behind the environment editor would be a snap for you. Sorry to hear it wasn't.


Look if you think I'm wrong about something factual, by all means point out the flaws in my logic. It's really important that you do.

But that's a far cry from pointing out what you think are flaws in my personal character, which is what you've been doing here. Disputing information is fine, and is welcomed. Insulting someone personally just because they dispute your information is downright disgusting.


Again with the insults. On the one hand, you insist you're not trying to "rattle my cage", but in the same breath you accuse me of being "unintelligent". How do you possibly rationalize that?




P.S. Sorry, but something just occurred to me, and I couldn't adding this little joke to my post: You said you're watching NASCAR right now. Do people who watch NASCAR really have a right to question other people's intelligence?

Ok here I am the "culpert to this bash Chosen" thread. LOL In all seriousness it was NOT meant to be so. I cannot be in SL very much at a time anymore and have spent everyday since the new release trying to figure out the lighting and just couldn't get it. Meds/ eyes = frustration yes. For what ever reason I just wasn't getting what I needed so I decided to ask for help.



Chosen I read your threads because usually they are helpful but after asking you several times in the past and telling you why I need a tad more help with understanding you would in "words that you use" tell me I need to do it by myself that you gave me help and thats that. Which only frustrates me more. As you can see in the quote above it pretty much is exactly what you did here. I took it like it was wrong for me to ask for help. Oh ok I asked for someone to share with me instead but help would have been just as nice.

Again look up what the effects of high doeses of 02 does over 10 years to a persons memory or fuctionality not to mention many meds, Darvocet, Dilaudid, Flexiril etc. It does make understanding things a bit dificult.

I understand my problems are my own not yours and you chose to help or not but the way you came across in your response was downing to me and evidently others read it the same way. I dont know these other people for them to post how they felt. And you thinking I did this to bash you is really a strange assumption to me. All I did was thank those three for giveing me the help without the redirick or making me feel lesser then thou. It was not to "trick" them or fall for it as you put it. I always thank people who respond to my posts so it wasnt a ploy to have them attack you.

I am sorry if you feel you were bashed. Again it was not intention and I dont go around likeing to hurt peoples feelings either. I did appologize and rather if it was one sentance or a million sentances the bottom line is I acknowleadged that it could very well be my fault for "tripping out" and that I was sorry. I dont know what more I could say to you except for I was sorry if it was me being sensitive.

I have gone from being in sl 16 hours a day to maybe being able to be there 2 now and to try and understand things yes it is frustrateing but it was more than that the help you gave me in your post was things I have done many times and it still was not working hence my asking for help.

Ok so please dont think the 3 people I thanked for helping with alternative messures fell for anything. It was purely a thanks for responding to my thread. And so sorry that my name you will not forget in fact I can picture it on a post-it . I am trying to be funny here with that statment before it is taken wrong. And thank you for your response also.

And do not feel sorry for me Chosen just understand that you never know about the person behind the name and interpitation of type same as chat can be taken in alot of diferent ways. I am not sure if you step back and reread your posts but your words can be taken very negitively just like anyone elses. So let me say this response is not a bash post at all or to get on you it is purely my reply to yours and not to feed the flames. As you put it "I'm not doing "IT" again".

Chosen please except my sorrys.... sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry................

Wait a second - two posts ago you were complaining about how you and others like you were "taking a beating" from a set of "chronic complainers", presumably because of your lack of disdain for Windlight. That was explicit. Implicitly, you seem to be indicating that some of these "chronic complainers" you've been taking a beating from are here in this thread, and you didn't want to start more trouble by naming them. No, you didn't say these folks were "organized", but I don't remember saying that you said they were either.

You still have yet to explain how somebody's request for help with lighting has absolutely anything to do with that person's "emotions" anent the "sensitive topic" (i.e. Windlight) which they never brought up, but which you keep alluding to anyway.



So you juxtaposed another thread's issues on this one. Hardly a mortal sin by any stretch; still, it's not warranted. That's all I'm saying.

The fact remains, you are the only person who brought up people's "sensitivity" about Windlight. Up until then, the only thing people in this thread claimed to have a problem with was what they perceived as a condescending attitude on your part. So, tell them they're mistaken, fine - but you're going off the deep end. I think it's pretty clear that some peoples' "sensitivity" to a "certain issue" didn't have much of anything to do with the reactions to you of the participants in this particular thread.



Now you're starting to lapse into hyperbole. If it's not hyperbole, then you seriously need to calm down - this is just a message board on the internet. People will disagree, sometimes strongly, and people will misinterpret, sometimes vastly, but there's no reason to wax poetic about how "disgusting" everybody here is.

Thanks for that, Zazas.

I'm still puzzled about one thing. What were these past interactions we supposedly had? I can't help feeling like maybe you've got me confused with someone else.

In your first reply to me (which I confess I did not read as carefully the first time through as I should have), you said you pulled skins of mine out of your stores when you found out they were stolen. But I don't sell skins. So to whomever they belonged, it wasn't me.

You're now saying that you've asked me many times in the past for help, but I've been unwilling. I'm really trying hard here, but I honestly don't remember any such requests from you to me. Have we ever met in-world? If we have, and I just don't remember, then I'm sorry. I do know you're not on my friends list, I don't have your calling card, and I've never received any notecards authored by you.

I'm also reasonably certain we've never communicated through the forums before now. I just did a search, and with the exception of this thread, in not single one of my 5000+ posts have I ever typed the word "Zasas". Likewise, according to Search, this is the only thread in which you've ever used the word "Chosen". So if we did talk, we didn't address each other by name.

I'm now glancing through the 189 threads in which you've ever posted, looking for any in which I may have posted as well. So far I don't see any titles that ring a bell.

Please tell me when and how we allegedly interacted before. I'd really like to know.


In any case, I am sorry if you felt I was belittling you or just dismissing you in my first response here. I didn't see it before, but now it seems to me that what bothered you the most was my closing paragraph, in which I suggested that you learn to use the editor rather than relying on other people's settings. I can see how if you'd already been struggling with the thing, it could be frustrating to read that suggestion.

But how you took it was not at all how it was meant. As I saw it, I had by that point already answered your question as asked. You said you were looking for "the best settings", to which I responded with turn down the intensity of the sun/moon, turn up the intensity of the ambient light, and bring the color sliders into alignment with each other. From my point of view, that was a perfectly sufficient answer, and it seemed only natural from there to close with something to the effect of "OK, now go ahead and try what I just said instead of waiting for someone else to try it". That was all I meant. I'm sorry things got so bent out of shape after that.

First, I wasn't complaining. I was simply commenting. What is is. It doesn't have to be positive or negative. It can simply be.

In any case, what you saw there was my thought process unfolding in real time. I wrote what I was thinking as soon as I thought it. As I said, it was only after we got on this subject that it occurred to me to think about the fact that similar arguments about the environment editor's usefulness have happened in the past.



I think I've explained it pretty well, actually. But as you seem to have missed it, I'll indulge you.

For reasons I don't pretend to understand fully, when the topic of lighting comes up, people have a tendency to get testy and argumentative about it. That is a simple observation based on my own experience, not in any way indicative of any perceived conspiracy theory or "movement" or "larger issue" or whatever you want to call it. The fact is I answer a lot of questions in a lot of threads, and as I sat here responding to this particular one, it happened to occur to me that some of the reactionary commentary here is similar, at least in emotion level if not fully in substance, to other reactions I've seen in other threads on the same subject. And as that thought occurred to me, I typed it out. That's all. Again, please don't read more into it than is actually there.

Now, what does that have to do with what's happened in this thread? Again, I thought I explained already, but I will now spell it out as best I know how.

The reactions to my posting in this thread were extremely overly emotional and reactionary by at least two people. There was absolutely no rational call for that level of intensity. My initial post, while admittedly not my best tutorial work, was quite benign in its level of emotionality. The only difference between it and the ones that came before it was the fact that it suggested using the Windlight tools alone to solve the OP's problem, while the others suggested different approaches. The OP, having already been frustrated by those very same Windlight tools, then decided to take out that frustration on me.

That made this post just one more example in what is becoming a long list of threads in which people have over-reacted with hot emotions to the subject of Windlight. The realization that that was the case happened to come to me while I was writing a reply to one of your comments. I considered it to be an important revelation, as at least from my point of view, it did cast some light (no pun intended) on the present situation. So I included it in the text of what I was writing at the time.

Is that clear enough?



No, that's not what happened at all. What did happen was you made a comment which inspired me to think about the similarities between this thread and some others, and I responded honestly and candidly to that comment. It wasn't "unwarranted" at all. As I said, it was simply an observation, and an attempt to formulate some understanding of an unnecessarily overly emotional situation.



I may have been the person who brought up the explanation for what I thought (and still do think) was going on, but I'm certainly not the one who brought the over-emotional reactive attitude into the thread. All I tried to do at first was offer a technical answer to a technical question. Then, after a couple people freaked out over it, I eventually thought out loud about one possible cause of their reactions. That's it.

The ones who went "off the deep end", as you put it, were the ones who reacted so strongly, not me.




Again, you're reading things that aren't there. First, as I implied before, I'm perfectly calm. This situation, as distasteful and disappointing as I might find it, has no power to alter my mood, nor do any of the people contributing to it. I'm made of a bit sterner stuff than that.

Second I didn't say anyone was disgusting, let alone everyone. What I said was I find certain acts to be bordering on the disgusting. That says nothing in itself about my assessment of the people committing the acts.

Once again, I invite you to stop trying to twist the meaning of what I say. Take it as its said, or ignore it.

Despite having a legit Resident Answers topic, this thread almost makes me want to dip into the Archives. Everybody's so... *spunky*. This part doesn't sound correct to me. AFAIK, all the light comes from a point source at the origin of the light-emitting prim, regardless of the prim's scale. This reminds me of something quite off-topic, but fun. In the RC viewer, find a busy gathering and turn on Advanced / Rendering / Info Displays / Avatar Rendering Cost. (Actually, those easily embarrassed may want to try it at home first. If the number overhead is under 1000 or so, it should be safe to go out. )

Chosen............I'm just a brat. Not a vindictive troll so please take what I want to say in that light. I, like most here, readily accept your expertise on graphic texturing and eagerly read your explanations on the subject. But, your experience is almost 100% Photoshop related and many here don't have that program (for whatever reasons.......mine being the expense of such a program). That experience of yours certainly helps with lighting for photography since Photoshop is primarily a photo editing program. I've read most of your posts regarding texture creation and your stickies too. But they are all geared to the use of PS (quite understandable) and some of us get questions on how to do it with another graphics program.......mine is GIMP. You always sluff such questions off and spout your opinions on using the "industry standard" instead of some "open source" program that (in your opinion) is the most unintuitive graphic program out there. Perhaps that is the base for my aggrivation with you.............you've shut down many a poster in the texture forum, including me with your answers. That does not help the asker at all. In my case it sort of turns me off to any answer you may put forth..............not fair, I know, but it does do that for me.

Now to the topic at hand. You did the same thing in this thread when you dismissed a couple of posters response by saying whatever we do to get the end result is not the way it should be done. You insist that everything we want to do can be done with the environental editer. And, it might be possible..........though I don't think so. Anyway, no matter, I can't do it so I found a way to get what I wanted by doing what I do and I told Zasas my method. Instead of simply telling your way and letting it go for Zazas to decide which method to explore you chose to put down any other suggestion. That is what irritates so much. I can guarantee my method works and it's easy to do (for me anyway). I tried the editer to get what I wanted and kept going in circles with it so I reverted to my film photo experience for a way to get there. I could not find a way to "bounce light" to my avatar using the editer (if you know of such a way, please share). And for what I was looking for that is what was required. I could get the overall lighting to something I liked but there were still shadows where I did not want them. I thought since I can't bounce light in SL, I can spot light using the light feature for prims......and I did that. I decided to make it wearable for convenience (my convenience only) so I would not have to adjust the lights if I spun my camera around for a photo opposite the photo I just took. That is what I "created"........it works. Yet, by your dismissing my method as wasted efforts because you know better, I got a little testy. You are known, in these forums, as an expert (and you are on many subjects) but in this case you are not completely right.......in fact, I believe you are completely wrong in your assessment that the environmental editor can get the lighting to what many may what for their photos.

And, I'm not frustrated. I happen to like Windlight. I sort of "developed" my method quite a long time before Windlight ever came into being........maybe a year ago? But, mostly I did not use it and almost forgot about it. Only thing I had to change was creating a preset at 12 noon (adjusting the gamma for more overall light) in the editer when before all I had to do was choose "noon" in the old viewer and it was lite well enough for my lights to work. It's not a big problem really.......it's just the percieved attitude I get from you that no one knows the "right" way to do anything except you. And that is just not true. I, for one, have some expertise in photography lighting......but I'm not a pro nor am I what anyone would call and expert......only a pretty good amatuer who knows how to light a scene for a decent photo

I don't want to continue this conversation because I'm not mad........not even in the least upset. But I did want you (and others) to know where I'm coming from. People offer help here all the time. Some, I see holes in what they are saying but I only offer my help if I can........I never tell them that what others have said is not correct. Or in the case of textures tell them that my graphics program is superior to yours and I should invest in your program with real money before you will help me with the finer points. I don't even ask questions in the texture forum anymore because of that...........and seldom answer for the same reason.

This is perhaps my root problem with you.........and I'm sure you picked up on it mentioning other threads when I've spouted off to yiou.

Don't worry.........I'm sure we are argue again sometime I really do like you.

See, there's the root of all this trouble. That's the only difference you see, for whatever reason. Other people obviously saw a couple of other differences.



No, no, and no. This is not any example of a thread "in which people have over-reacted with hot emotions to the subject of Windlight". This thread had absolutely nothing to do with Windlight, at all. It was about lighting, nothing more, nothing less. You seem to be unable to seperate these two seperate issues.



And now people are responding to your thoughts. That kind of thing happens when you publish something to the internet. You may not agree with all the responses, but that doesn't make them unreasonable, or "disgusting". You say people are "twisting your words", but come on - so many different people "twisting" them in the same way? Maybe it's time to consider that the problem may be the words you've chosen. As the saying goes, if five different people tell you you're drunk, perhaps you'd better -walk- home tonight.



What??? A negative judgement of a person's acts is -necessarily- a negative judgement of that person, by extension. You can't say something like "I don't think Smithy is dishonest, I just think he tells lies." It's a non sequitur.

Well, I appreciate your honesty if not your actual comments.

I think you give me credit for a little more power than I actually could ever have. I can assure you I could not "shut down" anyone even if I wanted to. Every single person is free to respond, or not respond, in any way they want, always. I'm just one voice among many. I happen to post more often than most people, but that doesn't mean I control anything or anyone.

As for my opinion of GIMP's interface, well, as you said, it's just my opinion. The fact that I choose to share it sometimes can not and should not stop anyone else from sharing their own. But I never ever ever "sluff off" a legitimate question. If I don't know the answer, I simply don't respond to the thread. Once again, you seem to be making things up that I've never actually done or said.


Again, you're making things up. You really should cut that out. Look at my actual words, for crying out loud. I simply said "there's no need", not "you shouldn't do that". I did point out some of the problems that can arise from doing certain things, but that's the only responsible thing to do in order to give as complete an answer as possible.


No, I didn't say "everything". I said the base lighting should be taken care of in the environment editor, and that local lights should be used to compliment it, not to fight with it. That's exactly what you said in your last post. So what's the problem?

And by the way, to answer the OP's question as directly as possible, the fact is everything he specifically asked about absolutely can be done in the environment editor. Local lights can be added for enhancement, but they're not required.


I didn't "put down" your method. I simply pointed out some of its potential drawbacks. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. The fact that you keep suggesting there is is starting to get a little disturbing.


I'm sure it does work. That was never in question. What was in question was its potential for causing other problems, it's efficiency, and it's universality.

Look, taking the photos under midnight conditions, and then using Photoshop (or GIMP, if you insist) to recolor it to look like noon would work too. But I wouldn't recommend that, since it would take a lot of unnecessary time and labor. By the same token, your described method also involves unnecessary time and labor, along with some other potential issues. It would be irresponsible for me knowingly to fail to point that out. I'm sorry you refuse to see that.


Everything you just outlined is exactly the right thing to do. That was never in dispute. What I took issue with was simply the question of attaching the lights to the avatar, nothing more.

But speaking of "going in circles", exactly how many times am I going to have to keep re-explaining what I just said? This is what, the third time now?


Now you've lost me. How could spinning the camera possibly change the position of the lights, whether they're attached to the avatar or not? When you move the camera, everything else in the world remains stationary, including lights. Only the camera itself moves. So what am I missing?


I don't pretend to know exactly what kind of effect you were going for. It's entirely possible that local lighting may have been necessary for your specific situation. But I still cannot fathom why attaching the lights to the avatar would be necessary. And regardless, the fact remains that local lighting is not necessary to answer the OP's questions precisely as they were asked. For that, the environment editor is more than capable.



Great.


OK, now I see at least one area where you were having trouble. Increasing the gamma would not serve to eliminate undesirable shadows on the avatar body, which by the sound of it, was one of your most important goals. But increasing the ambient light intensity would do exactly that.


Look, I'm sorry if that's the perception you get from me. That's certainly not how I intend to sound. I do state the things I know with a certain confidence, and I'm never shy about pointing out when I think any particular method or technique is inferior to another, but that doesn't mean I think I'm the only one who knows what I'm doing. I learn from other people as much as they learn from me.

There's certainly no shortage of people who jump up to the plate to tell me when my facts are incorrect, or when my techniques could stand some refinement or improvement. When that happens, if the other guy's information is better than mine, I always thank them for it. If I still think mine is better, I then present my arguments as to why. Emotional outbursts and personal insults are not part of the equation, either way.

Thank you, Chosen, for your brutally honest post...............see ya on the forums

No, one person grossly misinterpreted out of frustration, and then two other people jumped on the bandwagon.




Excuse me? You seem to be under the impression that what you just said actually makes sense. How on Earth could they be separate issues? The very lighting we've been discussing IS Windlight! Or did you not know that?

The environment editor, which is the main feature we've been arguing over, is the interface for controlling Windlight. It only exists in Windlight-enabled viewers. Or did you not know that either?

If that's not enough, take a look at the original post. The poster stated that he's now using 1.19.1 (the main Windlight viewer) and that he's having trouble because "the lighting is all changed". Well, what's changed about it? That's right, Windlight. The 1.19 viewer uses Windlight; the previous version did not. That's the change right there.

Where's the disconnect, Dakota?




If people want to respond to anything I've actually said, I've got no problem with that. But when people accuse me of saying things I haven't, that does border on disgusting behavior.


Three constitutes "so many"? The first one at least had the excuse of being sick, tired, and frustrated at the time. He/she and I have since reached an understanding about it, I think.

The second seemed to be taking an opportunity to hash out past grievances, which had almost nothing to do with what I actually wrote here. Grievances, I might add, which I did not even know existed, and were present only in the mind of person who has repeatedly invented incidents that have never actually happened, in what I can only assume is some sort of attempt to justify the attitude she's been presenting.

Then there's you. I'm not sure what your motivation is here. Perhaps you just want to be able to tell me I'm wrong. Perhaps you felt sorry for the OP after he/she misinterpreted my words and reacted so hurfully, and then after rushing to the defense, you felt compelled to keep going once you'd started. I don't know. What I do know is there's nothing wrong with what I've said here in any way, and just because you say different doesn't make it so.




I'm sorry you can't see the difference, Dakota. That's a real weakness on your part.

People are complicated. They say and do things all the time that do not define them as a whole. It's entirely possible to be disgusted by something someone has said or done, but still think well of actual the person.

Want an easy example? By most people's account, Martin Luther King was a great man, right? Well, he was also womanizing, lying, cheating bastard at times. But those things are not what defined him as a whole person. He also did a lot of bad things, and lot of truly great things, amazing things. He WAS a great man. But he was a terrible man. He was all the things that every one of us is. Great, terrible, good, bad, admirable, loathable, greedy, generous, petty, grand, proud, humble, beautiful, and yes, even disgusting. It's all in there for all of us.

I can say the way Martin Luther King treated women was in many ways disgusting, while at the same time still recognizing that that's not all he was, and that the larger part of him was great. By the same token, I can say that the way you've seen fit to twist my words has been somewhat disgusting without having to believe that you yourself are bad. In some ways, I'm sure you are bad, but I'd like to think that in most ways you're not.

I hope you're able to accept that as truth.

I'm back and looks like this thread has gotten long and more serious then it should have. If I would have had the fore thought that this is how it was going to go I wouldnt have asked for help and opened up this can of worms. But since I was the OP I want to tell everyone I'm so very sorry that this thread has gone where it did.

Chosen in answer to your questions the other times I have asked for help was in the Texture thread dealing with PS7 and you know that old hallo effect verse the patch and alpha channels. We never posted by name to each other so would be difficult to find I'm sure with all your posts and I believe SL has hiccuped and some of mine has disapeered. But it was a long long time ago, I still have PS7 and lets just leave it at that.

Now as far as the store and skins well that goes to show you how well my brain functions LOL It wasnt you and I did mistake you for someone else that I did pull out my vendors from the malls that persons skins were stolen and put out to sell there. I wont name names on who but it wasnt you. Again I am so sorry for the mistaken idenity.

I dont know what else to say except for I wish my post hadn't of went this way all I wanted was someone to help but it did. And all I can do is appologize to all the posters in the thread and all who have taken the time to read all of it.

I promise to do better the next time I start a thread but will certainly not respond to any replys I dont like when being sensitive or frustrated. Big Hugss to all