[Opensim-dev] Still on Sim and Phys Frames per Second (FPS)
dz
dz at bitzend.net
Tue Nov 10 22:48:04 UTC 2015
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Michael Emory Cerquoni <
nebadon2025 at gmail.com> wrote:
> ..... Also if that was the intended goal why was this not coordinated
> prior to the break, to just go ahead break something and then call it
> progress while leaving stuff broken and then say oh someone else should fix
> that is quite unprofessional in any setting. We need to resolve this
> problem of viewer development or quite honestly this whole thing is dead in
> its tracks, without a constantly improving viewer OpenSim is looking more
> and more like a dead end. That said its never to late to revive things and
> start wallking the path to improvement, but as a group we need to stop
> focusing on the wrong things.
>
HUH??? Coordinated??? An independent group of developers who WANT
OpenSim to work used the appropriate forum to ask everyone about the
cause, and asked for suggestions on how to correct the problem... A
patch was generated and went through 3 months of iterations and VERY
open discussion.. The whole point of that was to notify the people who
participate and garner feedback from anyone/everyone in the community.
The FACT is there was general agreement among most of CORE and the
other participants that THIS WAS a step forward. I cant find
anywhere in any of these early discussions where anyone expressed the
unprofessional attitude you assert.
> What i see is people chasing ghosts of problems that are not the real core
> problems of what this project has and needs, with little to zero
> improvements as a result. Can anyone name a single improvement that has
> come from changing the stats? Where are the patches, where are the
> scientific write ups showing that this was a success, so far to me this
> whole thing with stats seems like a big distraction that is not only not
> beneficial so far, its causing strife between the developers.
>
Chasing Ghosts?? really, you don't want to go there AT ALL... WHERE
is the road map of the REAL CORE PROBLEMS??? How many times have people
stood and said I'm ready, willing, and able to help, Please tell me
what I should focus on? If you want to look for a failure of
communication I suggest you start there before you start blaming the folks
who have followed the very public lead of core and picked a problem that
is important to them!
Where are the papers?? The consensus of the participants in the
discussion was that the made up numbers were impacting the credibility
of those who were already publishing. It is also extremely misleading
to categorize MOSES as the only group interested in conducting these
performance measurement/improvement tests and publishing results...
Maybe you should review some of Christas' publications,, or the
serious gaming PhD thesis whose author bothered to speak up in favor,
Or maybe you just forget the years of Intel projects??? If you actually
READ the communications from MOSES you would understand that they
could NOT publish results of all the previously testing knowing that
the results were inaccurate.
> Personally I don't have the solutions, my time is very limited anymore and
> I cant spend the time I have in the past testing things and coordinating
> people like I have, we need more people to step up and do the right thing
> without making people feel like its being shoved down their throats.
>
>
AMEN! We do need people to step up... and a bunch of us did. We
were publicly ridiculed ( and that ridicule continues. ) We jumped
through ALL the hoops, we communicated with everyone we were told
needed to be involved, MOSES reworked, and resubmitted patches. They
spent the time to attempt to communicate WHY this was an important step
forward. We welcomed the discussion.. and honestly until the other day
It seemed like it was a success... All of a sudden, In the space of
3 days, we are informed that some mysterious user has whispered
their annoyance about an OBSOLETE feature in one of the viewers , and
because of this "comment" our efforts would be ignored in favor of a
solution proposed and implemented in the "backroom". Who is shoving
what down whose throat?
The community has spoken on the issue of incorrect performance measurement
figures being reported and agreed it IS a step forward. The fact is,
Melanie could have added her solution to the code base on her grid in
minutes and could have avoided this discussion altogether. There is NO
REASON why her fix needed to be included in core. Her assertion that
"someone else can recode the stats to use a new method of reporting "
is arrogant and ignores the fact that it is the most complex solution to
implement... (sound familiar to the unprofessional attitude you
attributed elsewhere??) She has demanded that the PHYSICS FPS reporting
field already provided in the viewer be populated with FALSE data and
seems to think it is reasonable that MOSES repeat the tortuous affair to
re-code ANOTHER solution and go through the process of convincing her it
is technically correct. Please just ask yourself.... How inclusive
is that?? Why would anyone who saw any of this step forward and
volunteer to do what members of core have been pushing folks to do
since 2009?
THAT, pure and simple, is the reason we cannot get people interested
in continuing to work with the project... That is not to say that the
work won't continue ON the project, it will just continue to be done in
splintered efforts by people who are basically fed up with dealing
with this disregard for the people who make the effort to participate
in this forum.
Just so I am clear... I AM NOT a member of the MOSES development group..
but I am a supporter of their efforts.. Outside of the time I spent
with Intel on the Science Sim grid, they are the most dedicated,
competent, and forward looking of the development groups interested in
OpenSim I have had the pleasure to work with. In my opinion,, if core
cant extend a hand and figure out a way to work with this group, they
are carving a BIG R.I.P. on the tombstone of OpenSim as we know it...
MOSES will build a simulator that dramatically improves the physics
capabilities and performance, They are likely to be the first to
implement an HTML based viewer, and (If we are lucky) they will
implement a scheme of distributed simulator services that will integrate
with the future of cloud based apps. I am proud to be allowed to
participate in their efforts, and , at the moment totally embarrassed
by how this project has reacted to them.
Doug Osborn
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://opensimulator.org/pipermail/opensim-dev/attachments/20151110/b8d02543/attachment.html>
More information about the Opensim-dev
mailing list