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

Tue Nov 10 22:56:13 UTC 2015

Doug I participated in MOSES grid as well and my experience there was
terrible, far worse performance than i experienced in any other grid, I
took part in the FCVW build and planning and experienced a multitude of
problems on MOSES platform that just do not exist in the core opensimulator
software.  And this is what I mean by chasing ghosts, MOSES is fixing bugs
in MOSES for MOSES that just do not exist in the core software.  You can
feel however you want and if you feel embarrassed then go work on MOSES
software, no one is stopping you.  I do agree though that this whole thing
is quite a huge embarrassment for the project.  It still does not change
the fact that to date no improvements have come from this change and all
its done is cause arguments, the reason their code was not accepted is
because it was not suitable for core, end of story.  They wanted us to
accept patches unconditionally and sorry, that is not going to happen.

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 5:48 PM, dz <dz at bitzend.net> wrote:

>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> Opensim-dev at opensimulator.org
> http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>
>

-- 
Michael Emory Cerquoni
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://opensimulator.org/pipermail/opensim-dev/attachments/20151110/c045d5f2/attachment.html>