Avatar Shape Slider Value Changes
complete
Ghostship Captain
Numerous avatar shape slider values have increased.
Some examples:
Height, Body Thickness, Hover, Head Stretch, Egg Head, Brow Size, Upper Cheeks, Lower Cheeks, Cheek Bones, Eye Opening, Eye Spacing, Outer Eye Corner, Inner Eye Corner, Upper Eyelid Fold, Eye Bags, Puffy Eyelids, Eyelash Length, Eye Pop
Log In
Kyle Linden
complete
UPDATE: Issue resolved in the latest release of the Second Life viewer https://releasenotes.secondlife.com/viewer/7.1.6.8745209917.html
Kyle Linden
complete
UPDATE: Issue resolved in the latest release of the Second Life viewer https://releasenotes.secondlife.com/viewer/7.1.6.8745209917.html
Kyle Linden
in progress
Hello everyone!
Thank you for all the comments and investigation. This issue was introduced in our latest Second Life release viewer 7.1.5.8443591509. Our immediate plan is to revert the change that caused the issues with the Avatar Shape slider values. At this time we believe the issue is limited to being only a numeric display difference, and does not change or harm existing shape data.
The next Second Life viewer we promote to default release will include this fix. Optimistically, it will ship as soon as next week.
Meanwhile, for anyone that does need to make Avatar Shape slider edits, please use a version of Second Life that is older than the default release and remember to select Skip update when prompted. The prior release of GLTF Maint. 2 may be used until the issue is resolved. https://releasenotes.secondlife.com/viewer/7.1.4.8149792635.html
Please follow this issue or the status blog for updates. https://status.secondlifegrid.net/
Hope Dreier
Please, if it ain't broke don't change it. Shape numbers are critical to making things look 'right'. Please revert to the old values.
RedPandaCakes Resident
0-100 is perfectly fine leave it all the way it is. focus on other things. i vote revert all too max 100
Solution Spyker
C'mon guys, don't change things that don't need changing. Leave the sliders alone. 0-100 is a sensible number range to deal with. My shapes are already tied to that range.
Darcy Darkheart
I know you cant fix everything and make everyone happy but with over 98% of the community liking the slider values the way they were why not just leave them alone and fix things that aren't going well.Please revert it back to the way it was.
Kara Foley
Please revert this back; this is NOT an item that should be arbitrarily changed.
NatyHerberg Resident
i had been noticing that when i reshape, the body part tend to increase/decrease/increase/decrease. Is an intermittent issue while using the appearance box. As for my body fat, it has automarically increased without me touching any button at all. Hope someone post any solution please.
Lethra Resident
I've heard people complain about a lot of things in SL, but the 0-100 shape slider values are not one of them. Unless this has some tremendous functionality that will make Mark Zuckerberg poop his pants, this should at least be given some lead time so creators can adapt to it.
Beq Janus
This seems to have been entirely arbitrary change made without consultation.
Ultimately you have gained higher precision in your shape control.
It was made in response to a bug report relating to saving hand size of 36. More than that I can't tell as it was tied to an internal Linden legacy JIRA.
The next paragraph is speculation as to how that report ever got to be made.
Hands seemingly have an internal range of 0-60. If we assume that someone was trying to save a handsize of 36% that would be 36 x (60/100) which is 21.6. I can only guess but it seems likely that 21.6 gets rounded up to 22. Which when it gets reloaded later is closer to 22.2 (37%) and thus someone got flustered because they absolutely could not live with 37!
Back to more solid ground. The decision made was to remove percentages and use the underlying ranges instead, this is not a change to the underlying data as best I can tell but effectively rescales the entire body slider UI which will be very confusing to anyone following tutorials or just used to sensible consistent scales.
There is a good argument that access to the full precision is a good thing. What surprises me is that this happened without any consultation or testing. Someone arbitrarily decided to make this and nobody questioned it.
Beq Janus
Looking more closely at the history, this change was reverted, but I think it was then accidentally reintroduced. LL will be able to confirm.
Load More
→