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

[Melanie]

You keep on about organizational things like a defined roadmap and
documentation. These are things generally produced by organized and
PAID bodies.

Core is a team of developers who just as soon let the code do the
talking. Few of us have any talent for doing big writeups and these
few are doing other things that take up their time, mostly in academia.

Core is consensus-based and there is no "boss" to set out a roadmap
everyone else has to follow. We all volunteer our time and
creativity for this project and to most of us, this is a
recreational activity, not work.

Admittedly, the project could profit from some guidance, but that
same guidance would likely lead to a loss of active developers, as
people who volunteer their time want to do what they like to do, not
what some roadmap tells them to. This discussion has been had before.

If it were at all possible, I would certainly take up that mantle,
but that would dis-mantle the team as it stands now. The current
team isn't interested in fulfilling expectations other than those of
their own and the users they are working with.

For most of the team, that is users of social virtual worlds who
could care less about accurate stats, but do care about three green
lights on the lag meter. They actually don't even care if the stats
show 11 or 55, as long as the lag meter is green.

I have had people (in other grids) tell me "This place is so
laggy!". I then would move my avatar around to test responsiveness
and find that there is no lag, so I would ask them "Why do you
consider this laggy? I can't see any lag?" and get "The lag meter
shows the sim is lagging" as a reply. These people, several people
in multiple grids, then announced to be going back to SL where there
is no lag.

Go figure.

We are there to make things work for the majority of our users.
Sorry to say, MOSES and scientists are not a majority. The thousands
of social grid users spread across all the virtual worlds are.

- Melanie

On 11/11/2015 00:44, dz wrote:
> I am  astounded  at  how much of the dialogue about this issue   you both
>  choose to ignore.
> 
> Please  publish the location of the ROADMAP of REAL CORE problems.... I
> will be  happy  to attend the  MOSES meetings  and attempt to get those
>  issues on their agenda.  Don't  blame people for working on the things
> that are important to them when that is the example set by core over a long
> period.   You expect people to help and  then denegrate them  for not
> attacking the problems  you REFUSE to document and share in public.
> 
> When  did  MOSES  get access to commit the patch???    The patch was
> accepted   after a significant amount of  conversation...    Everyone BUT
> you and Melanie  voted it  +1...  you can't rewrite the history and assert
> that the problem is because  MOSES committed a patch...  CORE committed the
> patch at the request of this community.
> 
> I have repeatedly asked for the identification of these mysterious  users
>  who are the source of this avalanche of complaints...   I apologize for
> assuming they resided on Melanies  grid...
> Now  that I hear   that  her users  aren't the source of the complaints
> I'm left to wonder if there is ANY justification for  reverting the
> stats..  PLEASE share with the group what the source of these complaints is
>   so we can begin a dialogue.  I participate in a LOT of OpenSim related
> forums   just for that purpose...   I haven't  seen  any of the  noise
>  that is  supposedly deafening.
> 
> Assuming "they"  truly are  upset, I haven't herd a peep  about  why it is
> appropriate  for some backroom decision  to override the consensus built in
> this forum over a period of months.
> I'm sorry,  I've tried  repeatedly to figure out  WHY it is important to
> revert, and all I keep hearing  is  "Melanie  didnt know it  would affect a
> lag meter"..   This  argument  was extended to include  " We have to
> accommodate users of viewers  that are NO LONGER being  maintained"...
>  HOW in the world  can that be a viable position for you to defend Neb,
>  when your rant  was directed at the importance of moving forward with
> viewer developers  or we are dead...??
> 
> I really  am trying  to figure this out,  but  all I see as responses   is
>   "You are  wrong,  I changed my mind,  it is  import to  someone  who
>  still hasn't  spoken on this list"   The  whole point of this list is to
> share the issues that are important.... Given the volume of traffic on the
> subject,  it obviously is.    Please  share  some  REAL information about
> the actual impact  so we can re-evaluate the  needs of the WHOLE community.
>      We  don't  know  WHO is  complaining,,  We  HAVE heard that you can
> turn the blinking lights into numeric representations ( even in the OLD
> meters),   We HAVE heard  that there is a JIRA for the  viewer team to
> remove/update the functioning of the lag meter..     Everyone agrees  that
> the lag meter  cant possibly be correct   so I find it impossible to
> believe that it is  INTEGRAL to the success of  Opensim.    All of use  who
> wanted accurate stats  could be  wrong,   but I'd  sure like to know  WHY,
>  not just have someone  pronounce  we are  and  implement yet another
> obscure  INI variable..
> 
> 
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Michael Emory Cerquoni <
> nebadon2025 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 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.
>>
>> --
>> Michael Emory Cerquoni
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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