[Opensim-dev] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Still on Sim and Phys Frames per Second (FPS)

Thu Nov 12 14:26:02 UTC 2015

We looked into modifying the client about a year ago as part of our initial design reviews.  The licensing issues surrounding the client were so complex, we simply abandoned the effort.  This is why we are working on the HTML5/WebGL JavaScript version, to eliminate the client problem altogether.

Michael, the fact that you don't understand how proper simulator statistics reporting would benefit those who are trying to improve simulator performance means you should probably not be involved in the discussion.

Douglas Maxwell, Ph.D.
Science and Technology Manager
Virtual World Strategic Applications
U.S. Army Research Lab
Human Research & Engineering Directorate
(c) (407) 242-0209<tel:%28407%29%20242-0209>
________________________________
From: opensim-dev-bounces at opensimulator.org [opensim-dev-bounces at opensimulator.org] on behalf of Michael Emory Cerquoni [nebadon2025 at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 12:06 PM
To: opensim-dev at opensimulator.org
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Opensim-dev] Still on Sim and Phys Frames per Second (FPS)

All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web browser.

________________________________

I think the big problem is the viewer teams are slow to pickup these changes and fixes, most of the viewer projects seem quite dead to me at the moment, there have been major fixes we have all been waiting quite a very long time for Singularity to do, I cant speak with certainty but this project seems at best to be on pause.  Replex is no longer being updated, Kokua is no longer being updated, I can not say what is really happening with Firestorm as their involvement has always been through what seems to be a high power telescope from very far away.  Most of the other viewers all seem to serve a niche purpose.  We have OnLook viewer now which is designed with the intention of serving only the needs of OpenSimulator and not Second Life, but quite literally no one has volunteered to be involved.  What bothers me about saying get the viewer teams to fix it there is only one response, what viewer teams?  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.   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.  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.

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:48 AM, GarminKawaguichi <garmin.kawaguichi at magalaxie.com < Caution-mailto:garmin.kawaguichi at magalaxie.com > > wrote:
I quite agree with what Seth wrote.

GCI

Le 09/11/2015 16:05, Seth Nygard a écrit :
Let the FPS wars begin so there can be confusion everywhere...
Now those that want to can set a ridiculous fudge factor and show 11000000FPS - WOW, look, waaaaaaay faster than "that other grid"!

I firmly disagree in adding anything that allows artificially inflated metrics for any value.  At this stage the configurable fudge factor is an even worse "fix" IMHO.

The correct fix is really to communicate the correct value(s) and put pressure on the viewer developers to fix their lag calculation(s).  People can be expected to update their viewer(s) which is not an unrealistic expectation.  People running old and/or unsupported viewers already have a plethora of issues they need to be aware of and things that don't work right, so why is the lag indicator any different?

If we must have this user configurable then, instead of a fudge factor value it should be a simple boolean setting such as;
ShowArtificiallyInflatedAndIncorrectFPS = false;
ShowArtificiallyInflatedAndIncorrectFPS = true;

On my grid I have made it a point to inform everyone that the calculated lag indicator is broken and the 11FPS is in the correct and normal value.  I also point out that what used to be shown was in fact a falsified and artificially inflated value to make things look like "that other grid".  Most people simple say "Oh yeah, I never paid attention to that anyhow.  It doesn't work right any of the time anyhow".  Many then say they looked at the wiki but couldn't find any information on what to expect.

If whenever people ask for documentation the standard reply from the dev community is "read the code" then why is it so hard to ask for, and expect the viewers to be fixed and updated?

-Seth

_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev at opensimulator.org < Caution-mailto:Opensim-dev at opensimulator.org >
Caution-http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev < Caution-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/20151112/44860567/attachment.html>