Rounded Corners - Wouldn't it be lovely ?

So the fact that you have to do multi-selection by first selecting all and then deslecting what you don't want, rather than just selecting what you did want in the first place, is the fault of sculpties?

Wings is a great little modeler, as far as freebies go, but don't pretend it doesn't have its share of issues.



Well, if you don't take your hobbies seriously enough to invest in them, that's your prerogative, or course. But don't go saying it's unreasonable for the average user, as if you somehow know better than everyone else what they should and shouldn't value. That's deeply insulting.

Everything you've said in this thread strongly suggests there's practically nothing average about you at all. So once again, I invite you not to project your own experiences and your own opinions onto everyone else, as if yours are the only possible ones.



Now you're just being deliberately daft, for the sake of arguing. You can't tell me it didn't occur to you that you could take that $600 Ferrari and turn around and sell it for $200,000. I KNOW you're not THAT foolish.




My point, exactly.

As I said, I knew you might say that. The purpose of that example was just to throw out something you couldn't deny, in order to demonstrate that "expensive" has nothing to do with any amount of money alone. Again, it's about what you get for the amount, not the amount itself. If something is important enough to you, you spend the money on it, and if it's not that important, you don't. It's that simple.

"Expensive" doesn't mean something costs above a certain amount. It just means that what you're getting for that amount is not, in your opinion, worth what you're spending. To me, and to a great many other people, a good tool that increases my enjoyment of an important hobby, or which increases the effectiveness and/or profitability of my work, is worth just about any price. And since some of the software I use costs thousands, I do consider Zbrush to be inexpensive. Seriously, they could charge 3 times that it would be justifiable.

Clearly, your own SL hobby is not important enough to you personally to justify the cost of what it would take to get the proper tools to get the most enjoyment you can out of it. That's fine. But don't use words like "unreasonable" to describe the behavior and feelings of others who DO find it to be that important to them. Again, that is more than a little insulting.

To use myself as a counter example, it happens that digital art has been my career for the past few years, so every penny I spend on it these days is a business investment. But it was a hobby long before it ever became a job, and guess what? I still spent a lot of money on it back then, too.

Another hobby of mine is I build guitars fr0m scratch. If that cheapest program I mentioned was indeed the equivalent of three months of your SL budget, then what I've spent on the tools and machines in my woodshop would pay for well over 50 years. And every time I build a new guitar, that would cover about a year and a half. And what I've been offered for them, should I ever choose to start selling them, would earn me enough to cover about 7 years for each one, not that I have any immediate plans to start doing that.

Why do I spend the money on these things? It's simple. I enjoy the activity, and the end results, far more than I enjoy staring at numbers in a bank account.

And I'm just an average mid-thirties person who makes an average mid-five-figure income, has a house full of furniture and other average things, nice TV's, 2 cars, a bunch of pets to feed, etc. I eat well, and I have plenty of savings, so it's not like I break the bank on any of this stuff. The point here is simply no reason a responsible adult with an average income can't find a way to invest a few hundred or a few thousand dollars a year into something that is important to him or her. Your insistence that that a handful of Benjamins is somehow a staggering figure is pretty hard to understand.

Don't get me wrong. I'm well aware that the economy sucks, and that not everyone can afford to do every last thing they want. But somehow I suspect we'd be having this same discussion even if things were booming. It's about comfort level, not about actual needs. Some people aren't comfortable spending beyond a certain amount on anything they don't see as absolutely vital, no matter how much liquidity they do or don't have. Personally, I think these people would be far happier if they'd just learn to live a little, but it's obviously not my place to tell anyone else what to do or how to feel.


And if all that isn't enough to convince you that it's OK for the "average person" might be OK with spending $600 on software, even though you're not, consider this. Let's say I purchase Zbrush, and use it to make an item I'm going to sell in SL for say L$2000. As you know, that's about $7 and change in US dollars. All I need to do is sell 85 copies of the thing, and my software is paid for. I can do that in a matter of days, or if things are slow, maybe a couple weeks. Nothing can be expensive if it pays for itself.



EVERY activity worth doing takes investment of some sort. I'm sorry if you're a member of that seemingly forever miserable "Everything I want should be free" crowd (not sure if you are you aren't, but you do appear to be when it comes to software), but that's just not how the world works.



Some will, some won't. But regardless, the $600 options is just one among a great money. There are plenty of viable solutions that cost a lot less than that, and many others that cost a lot more.

But since you seem to be insistent upon focusing on that one, you tell me. How do you explain the fact that Zbrush is such a wildly popular program, if this "average person" you keep referring to wouldn't ever dream of spending $600 on a program? And don't tell me it's because they all cracked it. Give people a little more credit than that.



30 years of experience, none of which involved using a non-existent mesh editor in SL. You opened the box on this one, man. You were quick to point out that my opinion on such a thing was not entirely weight-bearing because I'd never actually used it myself. Surely you're self-aware enough to realize that the exact same reasoning applies to yourself, an that your own opinion on the matter is based on imagination and assumption rather than fact, since you've never used the thing either. It doesn't exist.



So it's not about you, even though thousands of AVERAGE people have learned to make sculpties in Blender fr0m those videos you refuse to watch. And it's not about you, even though it's you who by your admission are " not driven enough to take another dive into Blender." Whom then, is it about? This hypothetical "average person" of yours is notably absent fr0m this discussion.



Give them Blender plus those videos, and success. Or give them Blender plus some hands on instruction, and success. Or for a certain personality type, give them Blender plus their own intuition, and success.

Again, just because you didn't get it in the first five minutes doesn't mean everyone else will always have trouble. Different people learn in different ways. The sooner you decide to realize that, the sooner we can move past this silly argument, and on to something more worthwhile.



Challenge accepted. Send me one, along with the surface textures, so I don't have to rip them (as you said, that's unethical), without the sculpt map, and I'll be happy to whip up a suitable equivalent fr0m scratch. It's really nowhere near as hard as you keep suggesting.




A crappy editor is a crappy editor, and a good editor is a good editor. Which window it happens to be in makes almost no difference. I'm sorry you keep refusing to see that. I can promise you, you'd be a much happier SL camper if you'd open your mind a little on the subject. But oh yeah, it's not about you. Nevermind.



Fine, whatever. I think you're dead wrong here, but this point is hardly worth continuing to discuss. We obviously can't properly address the question without conducting a large survey, which neither of us is about to do. Consider the point withdrawn. All the other (far more important) points still stand, though.

OK, like I suspected, you're assuming that LoD would be applied after the cut, not before. I can't see that happening unless the plan was to use it for sculpt animation, otherwise the LoD (and thus the shape) of the sculpt would change every time you changed the cut. And I don't see that:

1. Qarl Linden is philosophically opposed to animated sculpties using cuts. Been through that idea already.

2. If you were going to do it, it would make more sense to model it on llSetTextureAnim() so the animation would be done client side.

It free functionality that you get as soon as you can cut. It's the sculpt map that'll define whether it's one big sculptie or a few little ones. The only way to avoid it is not to add cuts at all.

For nurbs style maps that Qarl prefers, calculating the LOD post cut is the best way. It means that all the double pixels are actually useful and allows cleaner cuts with the extra points on curves. But even if it's done before the cut, 0.0 to 0.5 on a 32 x 32 mesh still ends up as 16 x 16..

Um, dude, I said that it's the best of the free tools. Nothing more than that. Why are you fighting me when we're in agreement on that point?

Whoa, slam.
Unlike you I'm not saying anything about what you should value, I'm saying that in a Second Life where 90% of the population doesn't value it enough to get even a single premium account, it's unreasonable to expect many people to spend hundreds of dollars on software for one corner of the game.

What, you mean like where I say I don't think I'm exceptional?

The resale value of a software "ferrari" isn't $200,000. Or even $600.

Slam. Another attack on something I haven't said.

And for most of the people in SL, you're talking about "it's a video game, dude". Until they get into it. Being able to get into it without spending money is pretty important. Remember the salmon?

Yeh, it's not. I live in RL, not SL. I have medical bills, a car that needs repair, and a busted pool pump.

It's entirely reasonable for you to spend whatever you feel is appropriate. It's UNREASONABLE of you to expect other people to do so.

Yes, because SL is competing with things that don't take thousands of dollars of software, between Poser and Maya and the rest of it, to get the best out of it. Every time LL dumps the requirement for another expensive program onto the users, that's another hit in the potential market.

Except that every time you change the cut the surface of the prim will crawl as the LoD changes. If the point of the cut is to create an analog to path/profile cut, then that will matter.

yes, but, to get back to the point, it's 16x16 whether the cut is done by transparency or by actually trimming the surface.

Yeah, though it just wouldn't be generated in the first place, so less work rather than extra trimming. The difference would come in the handling of the oversized map, which is where the pre / post cut LOD calculation would have an effect on whether 16 frames at 16 x 16 could be obtained from a 128 x 128 map.

It wouldn't be the first time that Qarl has disagreed with my ideas.. Actually I struggle to think of a time when he has agreed.

These cutting ideas are ones I had in mind when sculpties first came in and I tried to convince Qarl that his end capping solution was wrong. We'd have a pixel per vertex and 32 x 32 as the standard map size if I'd had my way

Fine, another point dropped. I don't think we're actually in agreement at all, but you ARE right that it's not a point worth continuing to talk about.



That wasn't a slam at all. You yourself stated that you don't feel the need for high priced software. Reiterating that as I did is no way an insult.



Weren't we talking specifically about content creators? Perhaps I misunderstood. This is a content creators' forum, is it not? How are the casual users of the world, who aren't going to make any content to speak of, in any way relevant to this discussion?



That's precisely the problem. You ARE exceptional, yet you keep implying that you expect most other people to think, react, and behave the way you do. That's simply not the reality.



Well, of course a piece of software isn't likely to fetch $200,000. That wasn't the point and you know it. But $600, that's doable. If I put a Maya license up for sale for $600 right now, it would be gone in 2 seconds. But again, that wasn't the point.

The point was just that you should weigh what you're getting against what you're spending, and that means considering all the aspects. If you'd enjoy owning a Ferrari, it's worth the piddly $600 to get one, vs. the hundreds of thousands it would ordinarily take. That's a no-brainer. And if you wouldn't, it would still be silly to pass up the offer, because you can resell the thing for far more than you put into it. Likewise, if you'd enjoy using a particular piece of software, then it makes sense to purchase it just for that reason. But if enjoyment alone isn't enough for you, then it can still be well worth it because you can sell the creations you make with it.

I'd appreciate it if you'd quit pretending you're not intelligent enough to grasp these points. Disagree with them if you want, but don't keep acting like you didn't get it the first time around by going off on these tangents.



Again, not a slam, not an attack, and you DID say it. Your exact words were "calling something that's 'under $600' inexpensive kind of boggles my mind."

My comments were in direct response to that. I was pointing out that it's not the $600 amount that makes an item expensive or not. It's whether or not that item is actually WORTH that figure. And to a lot of us, it absolutely is.

Sorry if that "boggles your mind", as you put it, but it is the truth.




I have no idea what "remember the salmon" might mean. But as for the "until they get into it part", what on Earth gave you the impression I would expect a brand spankin' newbie to invest hundreds of dollars on software before they've even yet figured out if they might enjoy it or not? We've been talking about people who have an active desire to make sculpties. Those absolutely ARE people who are into it.

OF COURSE people who aren't into it shouldn't be expected to invest. That would be ridiculous.




I have all the same kinds of expenses. Everyone does. But some of us still make it a point to buy some enjoyment when and where we can. I'd recommend giving it a try. It's up to you, though, of course.




I expect each person to spend exactly what he or she feels is appropriate, no more, no less. I thought I'd made that pretty clear. You're the one who's been spouting about what YOU believe is appropriate and inappropriate for others, not me. Don't try to turn it around.



Some of us have no problem with the principle that we should invest in the tools we need in order to get the most enjoyment out of the activities in which we've chosen to participate. If somebody else doesn't feel such investment is worth it, then he or she is under no obligation to participate. It's a simple concept.

This "I deserve to do whatever I want, just because I want to, and it shouldn't cost me a dime" attitude is frankly disturbing. Sorry, to have to put it this way, but for lack of better terms, it's childish, selfish, and unrealistic. (And no, that wasn't intended as a "slam", as you keep putting it either. It's simply the only way I know to describe the way I see the point of view you're describing.)



There's that word again. Maybe you should pick a different one? It's getting a little tired.

It's not an insult to point out that a group of people who routinely choose to publicly express misery are indeed miserable.




Now who's issuing the slams? A lot of us see SL as far more than "making virtual dolls". But even if someone sees it exactly that, but still wants to do it anyway, and still chooses to invest in good tools to do it well, why should that bother you? Judge not, lest ye be branded an A-hole.



Are you kidding? Come on. It's a statement of fact, just as your exact reciprocal statement was to me. I haven't used a non-existent editor, you haven't used a non-existent editor, nobody's used a non-existent editor. Why was it OK for you to point that out to me, but it's somehow not OK for me to point it out to you?



Now you're just being deliberately insulting. Who cares what percentage it is? The fact is Gaia has managed to achieve what no other teacher of Blender ever has, to my knowledge. She made it easily understandable to almost all personality types. That's an amazing achievement, and for you to belittle with totally irrelevant comparisons to the size of the SL userbase as a whole, or even the Blender user base as a whole, is frankly disgusting. I'm actually shocked, as I know you're a better person that that. You owe Gaia, me, and everyone who has benefited from those videos an apology.



Whatever. Anything will do.




I think you just hit on a key difference between you and me. I plan my builds in advance. I don't need to wing it to know how tall I want that steeple to be. It's all accounted for before the first prim or the first surface is laid.

I find this interesting, considering you're an engineer, and I'm an artist. Typically, engineers are the plan-in-advance type, and artists are the wing-it type. But perhaps when it comes to our chosen fields of expertise, we're all more meticulous than we think, and when it comes to things we just dabble in on the side, nobody likes to plan too much. I've never really thought about it quite that way before.

In any case, you're leaving out a huge piece of the puzzle. When I create a set of textures to go onto that church, they're going to be optically correct. If I resize part of it, I'd have to remake brand new textures, because the shadows won't line up anymore. If that resizing happened only in-world, then I've got a heck of a lot of Photoshop work ahead of me to fix the problem. But if the resizing happend in Maya, then all I need to do is rebake a new shadow map, and then apply that to the existing base texture, which won't take very long at all.

So while I agree with you that for mediocre or low quality content, working directly in-world could introduce a slight speed bonus, for high quality content, it most certainly would not. To me, working on an SL project means having not just SL, but also Maya, Photoshop, and possibly a few other miscellaneous graphics progams running all at once, and using all of them synergistically to create the whole.

This same model applies outside SL as well. For example, I'm currently doing sound and graphics for sitcom pilot. I order to do that, I'm working in Photoshop, Premeire, After Effects, and Audition, all at once. I'm constantly switching back and forth between programs to create what I need. There's absolutely no reason to want any one program to have the tools contained in another. My computer itself is the master toolbox, and the programs are just the individual drawers within it. In my opinion, that's exactly how it aught to be.

Yes, an artist can make a horse out of anything, but would it be realistic?.

If we don't care for realism then this whole thread is redundant, and all future feature requests relating to improving primitives are redundant. Nobody cares about fancy realistic graphics. Let's all just make stuff out of cubes! CUBISM YAY!!


Come on, let's stop pretending we don't care for realism.

Of course the horse was just an example. but if you look around you then you'll see that most man made things in the modern world are organic in design.

And the first post in this thread is basically asking for more organic forms - i.e rounded corners.

Who said that getting more realistic is the goal (or better said "the only goal) of value" ? I must have missed something during the evolution of this thread...
and "art" comes from "artificial". Aiming for realism is just one branch of art...

Why that ? I thought it started with the dream of having rounded edges and evolved into a discussion about how to improve the tools (more or less). Realism wasn't on the dinner table up till now.

Why so cynical ? Is that your answer to "i bet that a good artist could create a horse out of cubes" ? I was just pointing out that IMHO you are mixing up the capabilities of the tools with the capabilities of the artists. By no doubt you CAN create tons of good stuff with Prims. You can not do this within 5 minutes though, but you can learn to get creative with prims. Well, if Prims do just not serve your taste, then you won't get far with them. There is nothing wrong with this! The same is true for sculpties, its just another way to go with other capabilities. And yes, i understand that sculpties are better for organic stuff...mostly

It is just a fact, that the basic operation of the built in editor (rezzing a cube and stretching/rotating it to your wishes) is so easy, that a child of 7 years can do it within 2 minutes. I checked that several times. What the child actualy does with the cube is another story, but i tell you, children can get very creative ...

And apologize if my viewpoint is not yours. But i can't help and sometimes i feel free to say what i think even if nobody cares and/or i am the only one who thinks that way.

I quite like stylized stuff. But there's no doubt that realism is very popular in 3D worlds. Objects are very often judged purely on their realism. And realism is difficult to achieve with SL's primitives.

I suspect that many builders realize this and this is why they want the primitives improved. But I believe that Linden Lab will never be able to improve them enough to satisfy SL's builders.

So external mesh support is the only way forward.


Summary - No need for rounded corners when mesh support is coming.

Sure it is. Tone matters. Context matters.

Content creators, regular users, potential content creators, people who just mod stuff, they're all *effected*. I'm not leaving anyone out.

OK, let's not talk about the potential creators, let's just talk about consumers. They're the people who buy stuff, and they pretty much all like that stuff mod. No-mod stuff doesn't sell as well. WHY do they like stuff being mod? Because they can mod it. If they find they can't *really* mod it, they're not going to be as interested in buying it.



I'm glad you think so, but I know exceptional people, I work with exceptional people, and I'm no genius. I'm just an everyday Joe who's been lucky enough to have some skills that people think are rarer than they really are.

It wasn't? I didn't for a second think you were really talking about a real physical ferrari, on the up and up, for 600 bucks. I took it metaphorically.

Yeh, it does. It's like calling a Mac mini inexpensive. It's not, it's an expensive computer. I bought two of them because they were worth it to me, but I don't call them "inexpensive".

You are. I'm not. I never have been. I'm talking about the impact of sculpties on the world of second life, and the way they have increased the barrier of entry to people who don't yet know they want to do cool stuff. The people who *don't yet know* they want to do cool stuff are what I'm into.

Hey, you just agreed with me that it would be ridiculous. Maybe we can get some closure on that.


So do I, but the people who I think should become inspired by it, aren't.


If I had made the statements you attribute to me in this paragraph, I would apologize at once. However, I have not made a single one of the statements you attribute to me in this paragraph. I haven't attacked her. I've simply said that for the people I am concerned about the kind of investment of time or money that you're proposing is too steep a hill to climb just to find out if they're interested in swimming further upstream.

When I'm writing software I frequently "wing it". I enjoy sitting down and banging out code and throwing it on a compiler and debugging it on the fly. My coding style is intuitive and often idiosyncratic. The languages I prefer to use are interactive, real time, and reflective... so that I can extend the language into the problem space, rather than trimming the problem space down to the limitations of the language.

Baking shadows? I guess the equivalent would be something like, oh, fine-tuning the layout of a program. I don't bother doing that until I have to. It might look better if the tab bar is a pixel shorter, and the main toolbar buttons are bigger than the rest, but that kind of fine-tuning stands in the way of doing the next cool thing, and besides 80% of the time the layout library does a better job than I can, especially when the user shrinks the window so half the toolbar icons get shoved in the gutter menu.

Remember the audience I'm talking about. They're not going to bake shadows any more than I am.

God dammit. I'm drowning in a sea of text from Argent and Chosen!!

* gurgles *

Haha. Sorry about that. Point taken. I think it's time we can let this go. It's been fun.

;0 dunno if it's already been mentioned in all the 'sculpteez rules' shtuff ;0 lol but there's a famous old story about when the apple team was working up the first lisa/mac gui, and jobs berated the toolbox designer to add rounded corners to the set. at first the designer balked at it as unnecessary... supposedly jobs dragged him away from his office, around the building and outside pointing out allllll the rounded corners he saw along the way - street signs, rounded curbs, etc etc. yes i certainly pine for a built-in rounded corner ability for prims... t'would be very nice.

Freaky, I was going to post something about that

Anyway:

;0 lol aww, thanks for finding a source for it! i din't 'ave one handy cap'n. ahh bill atkinson, of course ;0 name was on the tip of my brain somewheres...

No, it could be done by

- specifying springiness to certain joints (per frame)
- defining "magnetic points" on the avatar
- specifying (per frame) which magnitic points on the avatar being animated should stick to magnetic points on the same or another avatar

and so on. No extra scripting required for this approach. There may be better approaches, but eventually, someone will define a way to animate avatars that responds better to differences in avatar shapes and makes necessary connections between avatars.

Totally beside the point of the thread, but you seemed interested.

Whoa! That's where the conversation went off track. Who said anything about wanting everything to be realistic? That's awfully constraining. I think you're right. The whole thread did suddenly become redundant. I will certainly agree that sculpties and full-mesh objects are great for making organic forms, but there's a whole lot more to art than reproducing nature. Frankly, I don't care whether all horses in SL are "realistic." I've seen some really cool horses made with standard prims.

All I said was "Wouldn't it be nice to have rounded corners"

And we got a fight between King Kong and Godzilla !!!!

It's obvious we have a number of very talented people on these forums that are fortunate enough (for whatever reasons) to be able to spend a lot of time, money and devotion to what is essentially (or seen by others) a computer game.

(as much as I hate using that "G" word)

Unfortunatly, I assume the vast majority are not in the same position (be it for skill, time, family, financial commitments on them)

And, harking back to the comment I have made (in different ways) a number of times.

As "Much as possible" I'd not want SL to turn into a world designed by the Elite.

I of course understand the 80/20 (or whatever % you care to calculate) but I'd not want it to go 90/10 or 95/5

And I'd suspect that even at 80/20 a LOT of that 80 can throw a few prims together if they wanted to, without too much time. effort and money.

I'd certainly not brand people who don't build quality stuff as lazy as they can't be bothered to learn.

Everything in SL can be produced using two tools....Gimp and Blender for ZERO cost. If people are going to bemoan that they're not easy to use or that the viewer doesn't have built in point-click-create-a-picasso style tools, then they're being unrealistic. This is where technology on the whole is today. We don't have neuro connections to our computers that can read our imagination and faithfully reproduce something we've conjured up with a click here and a click there.

With cost not being a factor with Gimp and Blender, and with the abundance of tutorials and videos for every aspect of content creation freely available everywhere on the net, it comes down to desire and devotion. All day long people post about wanting to know the secrets or shortcuts to make incredible things in SL. Rapidshare Romeo's are all lined up with their pirated 3dsmax versions and gigs of 3d models they've *warezed* and post wanting to know how to import them so they can no doubt become an instant Lindonnaire. While it's human nature to want to learn shortcuts and avoid the pitfalls others have worked through, don't belittle those that have spent their time and intellect learning how to get it done by insinuating that anyone can do it or that they're withholding secrets that could put you on their level. T'aint so, and these forums prove it.

Rounded corners? Hell yeah I'm all for that....considering I cut my teeth on filets in Rhino 9yrs ago. Am I worried about mesh imports? Nope. While the general level of construction and appearance of SL will improve (and hopefully the backend technology to support it), those that can create will finally shed their tethers and still be answering the same old questions "how do you do that? what's the shortcut?"

Evolution is just another way of improving the scenery while some things never change.

I suppose it's all about what "level" something is set at.

Reading some posting here, It reminds me of similar arguments many years ago from DOS experts, deriding and moaning about anyone who would want to use Windows (all the point and click and dragging stuff about)

I can do it 10x faster using the command line.

I think I'd be happy if there actually WAS a proper sculptie program, or something that was modified in some way as to actually give you what you made.

Really, be honest, if you are in 3D program and you draw a simple mesh cube, save it as a sculptie and upload into SL you should get a cube.

You should not get something that looks like it was a cube of ice cream that's been left our in the sun for a hour

If you are honest it's just a fault of the software/translation process which means the user has to put multiple points/layers on top of each other to achieve something that should just work.

If I play the drums for a music track, I don't think the drum recorder/sequencer should be constructed in such a way that I have to hit the same drum 4 times in a row, just to make sure the beat actually comes out on the audio track.

Yes, the human (with the current state of play) has to learn he has to put multiple points together to set a sharp point/straight face (or get the nice beat come out of his drum machine) but that does not mean it's right, or how it should be.

I guess, I can't fathom why anyone would support something that does not work correctly and the human user has to fudge to make sure it works.

Perhaps in time we will get something that actually produces the item on screen accurately as a scultplie without having to resort to this?

Nobody said that we want EVERYTHING to be realistic. I was just trying to show that primivitves are inherrently limited and always will be (especially in the realism department). So rather than have Linden Lab try to improve them it would be wiser for us all to embrace meshes and to stop thinking that creating with primitives is somehow easier than creating with external modeling tools. It isn't.

"All I said was "Wouldn't it be nice to have rounded corners"And we got a fight between King Kong and Godzilla !!!! " LOL @ Piggie

Yes!!! Rounded corners would, could be a nice feature and prim saver in the builders editor. When I first got into sl autocad was the experiance i had working with geometric shapes. Rounded corners is a common tool to use in autocad . Rounding produces a more finished look on some things. Strictly working with prims ,,, rounding is expensive in the amount of prims it would add . Being prim conscious , using graphics , shading to fool the eye into thinking the corner is softened or rounded is the best work around without using a sculptie.

Bleah.

Much better to make it a script, so you can specify WHICH avatar to attract to, and so you can make the animation snap to prims by UUID as well as avatars by UUID/joint. So you can have a motorcycle where the avatar is actually holding on to the handlebars even if they're a bit larger or smaller than you planned.