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

Thu Nov 12 21:44:08 UTC 2015

Please read:
"... Those region operators who still want accurate data reported to legacy
viewers and accept the lag meter breakage can still set Normalized55FPS to
false..."

Melanie didn't add a 66fps variant :)
Regards,

-----Original Message-----
From: opensim-dev-bounces at opensimulator.org
[mailto:opensim-dev-bounces at opensimulator.org] On Behalf Of Melanie
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 20:24
To: opensim-dev at opensimulator.org
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Still on Sim and Phys Frames per Second (FPS)

Putting some code where my mouth is :)

commit 8c7f47574040aa116dfb57e8c380e1fad60e5d1a
Author: Melanie Thielker <melanie at t-data.com>
Date:   Thu Nov 12 21:13:44 2015 +0100

    Add some values to the SimulatorFeatures cap's OpenSimExtras
section:
    SimulatorFPS: The actual optimal FPS of the simulator, un-fudged
    SimulatorFPSFactor: The fudge factor that is applied to the stats sent
to the viewer
    SimulatorFPSWarnPercent: The percentage below which a lag meter should
go to amber
    SimulatorFPSCritPercent: The percentage below which a lag meter should
go to red
    To display the real values, a viewer would divide the reported FPS by
the SimulatorFPSFactor and use that to calculate the percentage of
SimulatorFPS. E.g. reported is 55fps, SimulatorFPSFactor is 5.0 and
SimulatorFPS is 11.

With this, legacy viewers will see 55fps but the viewer now has enough
information to show the real FPS. Viewers would have to implement code to
handle this.

Those region operators who still want accurate data reported to legacy
viewers and accept the lag meter breakage can still set Normalized66FPS to
false.

- Melanie

On 12/11/2015 19:35, dz wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Michael Emory Cerquoni < 
> nebadon2025 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I would also like to remind everyone that MOSES does not run stock 
>> OpenSimulator code, they use the back end Simiangrid and are making 
>> decisions about core code based on this, I have done extensive 
>> testing and even helped try to make the MOSES grid run better, took 
>> part in their FCVW Conference, I and the entire build team 
>> experienced issues on this grid that I could not recreate on any 
>> other grid.  I personally do not want decisions being made that will 
>> effect core services by a team of developers who are not even using 
>> these services but what do I know according to doug I of all people 
>> should not be part of this conversation anymore.  This is the last 
>> thing I have to say about this, I am done talking about MOSES and their
needs.
>>
> 
> 
> 
> I sure  hope  all of the non-core developers following this discussion 
> realize..
> 
> A.  This has  NOTHING to do with the  MOSES patches  that were 
> rejected ( except for the  attitude from the  core respondents).
> The  crux of this discussion is about a backroom decision to revert a
patch
>  that WAS accepted.   The history of the submission and acceptance of that
> patch has been documented extensively.
> 
> B. The  MOSES development team was NOT the only party pushing this change.
>   NUMEROUS members of the core team and the developer community who 
> make the effort to participate in this forum overwhelming agreed  that 
> the patch was a step forward.
> 
> C. Every request for inclusion into the discussion for  WHY it is more 
> important that obsolete viewer features  that NEVER correctly reported 
> how  the MADE UP 55 FPS figure related to actual performance have been
ignored
> in favor of responding  "  Someone  complained to a member of core".   The
>   last word  from Melanie on that topic  was  basically " ...maybe  if 
> some of the  (capital B) budget  was  put in our pockets,  things 
> could have  gone differently..." (paraphrased).
> 
> D. The  fact that MOSES  uses a modified version of the OpenSim 
> Framework  has  NOTHING to to with the issue.  In case you are 
> wondering...  the  DIVA distribution  relies  on a completely reworked 
> initialization system ...  The Avination merge that is going on now  
> reflects  almost 3 YEARS of  modifications/deviations  from OpenSim 
> core, and SimianGrid  is the result of  YEARS of performance testing 
> and modification of the group from Intel ( some of  who are now  members
of core).
> 
> E. The improvements that have resulted from the continuing efforts of 
> the MOSES  team  have  been  practical, and the comments that assert
otherwise
>  are  extremely misleading   While they may not be reflected in  commits
>  attributable to any of the MOSES developers..  they have included  
> getting the core team to  upgrade the  documentation related  to the  
> proper  procedures  to submit patches, ( including a blog post by diva 
> ) and a  COMPLETE re-design of the internal physics engine  interface
supporting
>  future efforts at performance  enhancements.   Shame on YOU neb   for
> insinuating  NOTHING has come from it.
> 
> F. The  continued success of  OpenSim  depends on people who are  
> willing and able to help being  given  assistance and  guidance  from 
> the existing  community.  The mandate for this project is to provide a 
> working framework so everyone  can do what they  want/need.  The 
> licenses were selected to insure that is true..  The  community forums
and open meetings  are
> designed to insure that continues.    Purporting to support those ideas,
> and then publicly denigrating  community members  who speak up to 
> protect other members of the community is THE MOST COUNTERPRODUCTIVE 
> behavior  and really  shouldn't be tolerated from anyone  whose 
> mandate is to move the project  forward.  I will publicly admit my 
> respect for the efforts of ALL members of the core team. That  does  
> NOT excuse  the behavior they have exhibited in the past week.
> 
> G. I don't expect to "get my way" by  whining at the  developers.    Over
> the years  I have put my money AND my time  into making  OpenSim work.
> Maybe  Melanie  doesn't remember the  regions on the old IBM grid  
> that Fashion Research Institute hosted on her servers.  Maybe  she  just
forgot
>  the follow up  consulting gig   to connect our servers  to Science Sim
> when the IBM grid  died.    I know  I spent a considerable portion of 2
> years of our budget supporting  Justins'  efforts  to start a business.
I
> also devoted  considerable time and effort as a member of the  Intel 
> Science Sim senate to design, build.  and  organize some of the 
> earliest  public  conferences.  Back in those days  Nebadon  was 
> perfectly happy  to be included in a grid that used a  SimianGrid  
> front end... Please  don't insult me  by acting  like  I am  just 
> another  ignorant  user  who just wants to complain..
> 
> 
> There is  a LOT of hard work remaining  to make OpenSim a success...  
> WE NEED everyone  included.  We need a core team  that can step up and 
> identify the most important technical tasks to be addressed.  We need 
> them to respect the efforts of the minor contributors and  stop making  
> arbitrary decisions  on when the community voices  can be  ignored.  We
>  need  more volunteers to do technical and non-technical  work.   It is
> extremely discouraging to see 2 significant members of that core team  
> arm waving,  spreading misleading information,  and ignoring a vocal 
> part of the community because our goals are not the same as theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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