[Opensim-dev] Still on Sim and Phys Frames per Second (FPS)

Sun Nov 8 02:34:38 UTC 2015

There are too many viewers in the wild, having too many users that
are unwilling to switch or update, yet complain about "lag" which
they do not perceive, but which is indicated by a "lag meter" that
is geared to measure against constants provided by "that grid".

It is a given that the data sent to viewers WILL be changed to allow
viewer features to work properly again. It is also a given that
control over this will be given to users of OpenSim, allowing them
to see true performance data instead of expected data. However, that
option can't be the default in a world where the primary use of
OpenSim is to provide a social virtual world.

I had already suggested and here suggest it again to add more data
to the stats reporting that will track accurate and unfudged data,
but doesn't do so in fields currently interpreted in accordance to
SL standards by ALL mainstream viewers.

This will allow viewers which become aware of the new data to use it
to provide accurate stats and, for instance, make an adaptive "lag
meter" in place of the current, constants driven one.

The situation where viewer report an ERROR CONDITION because of the
desire of some to see "accurate" stats can not be sustained because
it undermines user confidence.

The choices are to accede to user demands while creating a way for
viewers to get "smarter" or to live in a world where the change is
introduced at source code level by grid operators without an
adequate correct replacement stat, therefore locking in the current
situation forever.

Please understand that core exists to guide this project in a way
that allows it's users to work, not in a way that upholds principles
over people.

- Melanie

On 08/11/2015 02:53, dz wrote:
> The issue is promoting accurate reporting of basic performance measurement
> statistics.  ( something that has  not  achieved  nearly enough serious
> attention )
> 
> Significant money and manpower is currently being directed at efforts to
> improve simulator performance.
> It is a simple fact that the continued funding of these efforts  relies on
> documenting the ACTUAL improvement  against the  ACTUAL original
> performance characteristics.
> It is impossible to justify these efforts  when the reported numbers  are
>  "made up"  and  THAT fact is not documented except in some obscure comment
>  left behind in the source code.
> 
> It is unfortunate that the original decision to include a  "Fudge factor
> multiplier" has created a pool of  mis-informed  users ( including myself
> and  the  viewer developers   ) .
> This mistake was complicated  by the fact that until very recently there
> was a philosophical divide that prevented  OpenSim and viewer developers
> from cooperating on issues like these.
> This decision to "play pretend" with performance stats effectively damaged
> the reporting credibility of everyone  who published  these inaccurate
>  results, It also created  a rift between the OpenSim and viewer developers
>  over the decision to NOT discuss  the impact  of  implementing the change.
>   The fact is,  there are  numerous places in the OpenSim framework  where
> numbers  are  "made up"  just so that  a number appears in performance
> reports.  That an effort is being made to correct those  sources of
>  mis-information should be welcomed.
> 
> It seems to me that the decisions  made by core  should be made in favor of
>  supporting the ongoing efforts  to accurately document and improve
> simulator performance.
> Justin realized this and lead many of the efforts  to add some measurement
> metrics.    Even  with those efforts, we still cannot  measure  basic
>  statistics like Events per Second sent to the script engine, or tie those
> events to whatever script is handling them.  This makes  identifying the
> scripts  ACTUALLY responsible for "lagging" a region impossible using the
> traditional  TOP SCRIPTS report in region manager window.
> 
> I would  agree that a simple solution might be to allow grid managers  to
> add back the Fudge Factor to appease their  vocal users, but  would
> disagree that the PROPER decision  should be to continue to report
> inaccurate results.  It would be  just as easy  to implement a  multiplier
> in the  viewer code "Lag Meter",  This  would also allow the accurate
> reporting of  statistics in the Advanced Statistics window  and
>  administrative reporting.  I believe it was also one of the suggested
> resolutions put forth by the viewer developers... It should be clear to
> anyone who has spent time in world  that the "lag meter" is incorrect...
> You can walk, build, chat  and TP with the same  level of sim performance
> as you could  before the  numbers were changed.  We've overlooked the fact
> that viewers have behaved  differently  in OpenSim and  "that other grid"
>  for years.   Why is it  "all of a sudden"  CRITICAL  that this one  viewer
> feature  HAS to be the same?   In these days  when  core developers  are
> releasing  viewers, I cannot understand the urgency of accommodating a
> minor feature of  one viewer whose developers have already demonstrated a
> willingness to work with OpenSim to tailor a configuration to meet our
> needs.
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Melanie <melanie at t-data.com> wrote:
> 
>> The issue here is the so-called "lag meter". Since removal of the
>> multiplier, this reports all opensim regions as laggy, without
>> exception. Users' trust in the "lag meter" is damaging OpenSim
>> reputation. This is not a value that is merely for display; the
>> viewer uses this value for computations that are then used to
>> "judge" a sim to be "laggy" if it's below 35 or so fps. OpenSim now
>> always reports a lesser value. This is damaging and needs to be made
>> configurable and by default match the viewer's expectations.
>>
>> - Melanie
>>
>> On 07/11/2015 16:38, Seth Nygard wrote:
>> > While I understand the arguments surrounding the original decision to
>> > report values closely matching "the other grid", IMHO doing so created
>> > an incorrect understanding in many users' minds of how things work
>> > and/or behave.  We are not that other grid and should never pretend to
>> > be.  Had figures been reported correctly in the beginning then there
>> > would be no confusion now surrounding this subject.  However avoiding
>> > confusion is a poor reason to roll back and once again report the
>> > artificially inflated values.   It is better to simply educate and make
>> > it clear that the value of 11fps is indeed the correct value to expect,
>> > and is in fact the true value things always have ran at despite what any
>> > inflated reported value said.
>> >
>> > It is true that many scripts and tools have already been written to use
>> > the inflated values but they can all be changed with relative ease.  The
>> > viewers already have many aspects that are different for Open Simulator
>> > so they can be changed easily as well for new versions also with
>> > relative ease.  All we need to do as a community is establish what the
>> > correct and expected values are and then document and communicate them.
>> >
>> > As a user, scripter, tool developer, and grid manager, I for one want to
>> > see true and accurate values for any and all metrics regardless of where
>> > they are shown or how they may be used.  I therefore am firmly against
>> > rolling back to any older artificially inflated values.
>> >
>> > Regards
>> > -Seth
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Opensim-dev mailing list
>> > Opensim-dev at opensimulator.org
>> > http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Opensim-dev mailing list
>> Opensim-dev at opensimulator.org
>> http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> Opensim-dev at opensimulator.org
> http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev