To scale or not to scale?

[Ozwell Wayfarer]

This week my internet is down while we switch ISPs , which is a bummer for my store, but has meant I can focus more on creating my region using SOAS.

While I was building some structures a thought came to me. Should I be building to scale? Bearing in mind that many of these items will eventually end up on the MP for general sale.

I am an advocate of correct scale, however the default avatars all tend to be rather tall, and the default camera position is rather high. This can be fixed, but doing so requires your visitors to do a little work.

So my question to you, dear readers of the kitely forums, is would you be prepared to adjust your avi size (shapes will be provided) and your camera position (guide will also be provided) to visit a region? I have a feeling it may be too much bother for some people, and I would not wish to impose too many barriers on people being able to come and enjoy my work.

So I guess what I am asking here is not if building to scale is good (thats a no-brainer ) but rather if it is practical within the current paradigm.

[Constance Peregrine]

I have my shape I import into all grids and I like it...so I doubt I would change it for anything...just my 2 cents.

[Dundridge Dreadlow]

I always build to scale. Scale is good.

However, in developing computer games, a good rule of thumb is to build about twice the size of a normal building, real world ceilings, doors and rooms "feel" absolutely tiny when any computer character enters. This of course is even worse with avatars over 2 metres.. This also makes interior design significantly harder, but that's the price you pay for less cramped accommodation. It is (mainly) due to camera angles not being the same (ie, less than half) as human field of vision.

Luckily most public buildings have high ceilings and are larger than private ones. Just assume a normal sized person is riding a horse and you'll be fine scale-wise

You would be better off trying to get people to change their camera angles.
People tend to react very badly to being shorter and distorted.

[Keith Selmes]

building to scale is good (thats a no-brainer

agreed. With the caveats that:
avatar navigation can be difficult, so building entrances and interiors need to allow for that
and
we're building in blocks 256mx256m, so we can be constrained for space , compared with reality.

but rather if it is practical within the current paradigm.

Don't know. my usual avatar is roughly scale human size, and built to scale is what I expect.
As to camera angle, I'm usually happy with mouselook, and flick back and forth pretty quick.

I've no idea how many people are using original size avatars, but I'd hope that more are realising how old that is.

[Marstol Nitely]

I might change my dimensions if I was intrigued enough. There would have to be some sort of a good buzz about it to make me want to change those settings (like Minethere I use the same settings in more than one world). But if I learned there was something significantly different and/or interesting, I would probably do it with a sigh, wondering why I had to at all, and I might not do it as quickly. That's just me though. Hope it helps.

[Sarge Misfit]

I prefer building to scale, but I will make allowances for camera use and perception (does it look right).

I will add a couple of bits of info that might help others.

The smallest parcel we can subdivide to 4m, which is almost exactly 13 feet. Which means that 4m high walls give you 13 foot ceilings. A 2-by-4 is .05m x .1m so walls that are .1 metre thick is to scale. Doors (not door frames) are almost exactly 2m tall and is between .8 and ,9m wide

Handles (the part you hold on hammers, fishing rods, etc) are .04m x .03m x .1m

Table tops are generally .75m above the floor while counter tops (and stove tops) are generally .925m above the floor.

Purple is much better than orange.

[Keith Selmes]

There's an Ener Hax blog post on the topic, and some useful comments and links below
http://iliveisl.com/building-to-scale-or-to-eyeball/

[Marstol Nitely]

Good info Kieth and Sarge!

Just one question for Sarge, is purple really better than orange?

[Constance Peregrine]

Good info Kieth and Sarge!

Just one question for Sarge, is purple really better than orange?

thinks it is a scientific fact...

[Marstol Nitely]

thinks it is a scientific fact...

Nope, just looked it up. Purple isn't an actual color. It's an artifact of the ways our eyes and brains perceive color. It is a mixture of colors - usually red and blue. We cannot see pure purple light (no such thing), but we can see pure orange light. So at least scientifically speaking, wouldn't that make orange better?