Drayke Newall

Min requirements for PC's shown on a game/platform/software or whatever have a specific meaning. That it runs to a certain performance. Apparently, according to some in this thread that doesn't apply to SL because 'it's different' so as I said according to them SL's min requirements of a 17 year old computer are perfectly fine to have shown because anyone with that 17 your old PC can rez in a empty sim at 4000m in the air with no one around and 'use' SL. Move however, and lag/crash, that's their fault as despite meeting the min computer requirements, they should have known better in some magical way that their computer isn't powerful enough. There are two ways LL could easily show min specs at 30fps. Use welcome island or a full beli region as the benchmark and state that as the benchmark to reach 30fps on min settings, or, go to the most demanding region of poorly made user content with 70 avies and use that as a benchmark and state as such on the min requirements section. That apparently to some users here isn't possible 'for reasons'. For example: CPU: xyz RAM: xyz Graphics: xyz Above min system requirements based on Linden Made content such as beli or welcome island with min settings and 5 avatars rendered.

Then dont jump up and down when people running 17 year old pc's complain they cant run it now or dont say to people to upgrade their pc's to run it when they meet the min specs.

Oh god, please dont recommend that, otherwise it would be worse. AMD cards are known to be worse than NVidea for Second Life due to how AMD cards handle OpenGL.

No one is comparing Second Life to AAA games. I was simply showing how they (and everyone else) show min/rec requirements listing hardware names and not 'CPU to support SSE2 and 2 cores'. All that has been said (at least in reference to my posts) is that LL needs to rewrite the min requirements on the SL page to something where there is no ambiguity and a reasonable gauge as to what would achieve reasonable (ie 30fps) performance in a say region of 5 people on a well built region (even clause it saying may vary based on quality of user made content and avatar number).

(the former) My issue is that LL have had over a year if not more of working on PBR and have done diddly squat to inform users that they will need to upgrade their comp. LL have consistently refused to not listen to PBR feedback and that it isn't ready in its current form to be used (i.e. it is still alpha/early beta stage). LL released it in November 2023 and it took 7 months of feedback from firestorm and other TPV's to half fix the garbage LL released. The only reason why Firestorm seems to have pushed out their buggy release is due to pressure from LL to have it ready for SLB. I have no issue with Linden Lab upgrading their graphics system as that is a given considering SL has to adapt to times. That said, there is clearly varying issues with overheating comps on even high end systems (not that some believe it) not to mention the complete alienation and ignoring of a quite substantial part of the userbase on low end systems. Should they have updated their pc's? Yes, they should have. That said however, other than regular forumites or blog readers (a tiney subsect of the SL userbase) there was no hint to the majority of users that they would need to update their pc's. The min specs should have been updated at least 10 months ago to ensure that any new person or (if told) existing user is aware of what min requirements there are for the new viewer to be released. People rely on those specifically to gauge what system they need. Just look at the numerous people in the Tech forums asking 'what pc do I need'. Wouldn't it be nice if we had proper system requirements on the SL website where we can say go there and buy recommended. Would it have been hard for LL to send an email stating, "we have updated our min specs for a new graphics system, please ensure that you check you meet the min specs" or had a update link on the login page stating as such? Firestorm is also partly to blame as the largest TPV. They relied on posting on their blog stating that an update to specs would be needed (only about 1 month ago mid you) to the tiny fraction of people that read it. Instead they should have had a big banner like their update banner when a person starts the viewer highlighting the change. To their credit though at least their min specs are reasonable, if a person can find them hidden in their wiki. No one is arguing that, what people are arguing is that PBR was released to early, is still very buggy, is WAY to bright and glowy with existing content and EEP settings, has effected people completely unaware of the need to upgrade until the **** hit the fan and is overheating certain pc's. All of this was preventable and easily handled with a little PR work from LL. Instead nothing of the sort. What were they expecting was going to happen?

Not my fault you took what I said out of context. If you read the sentence after what you quoted you can clearly see I am talking about Low end systems in relation to the min requirements LL have set. That is not what the meaning of minimum requirements mean. With your definition, if a person loads a program or game and it starts (functions) that is fine. Minimum specs (at least now) are the minimum specs needed for the game to run, function and perform to a reasonable standard and yes without performance issues. I am not saying there will be slowdowns, of course there will be. This has been defined now by modern AAA games now including as part of their min specs the 'expected' fps. 99% of said companies all show min specs to be 30fps at low graphics. They are playable but without performance issues (i.e. crashes, overheating, freezing, ridiculously slow fps, etc). That is what I am talking about when I say performance issues. For example, Cyberpunk and Hogwarts legacy all show 30fps on low graphics. Hogwarts Legacy - PC SPECS Cyberpunk 2077 System Requirements SL atm with the min specs they have shown would cause crashes, 2-3 fps and that is even if it actually allows you to move without crashing. It is also laughable that LL still show 480p as min specs. Just embarrassing.

If a company releases system requirements then they need to ensure that a person can play on those system requirements with no to very little performance issues - a guarantee. That IS the sole reason why system requirements/specs are stated for a game. Second Life's min system requirements state that a person using a 17 year old PC CAN run Second Life at a reasonable frame rate on minimum. That is the guarantee Linden Lab have stated by providing such system requirements. Second Life's recommended requirements state that a person using a 9 year old PC can run Second Life. Recommended requirements usually imply high graphics with a resolution rate of 1080p at reasonably stable 60fps. If Linden Lab have stated those to be the recommended requirements that means a person on a i7 5960x with a GTX 1050 should be able to play Second Life with no reasonable disturbance in gameplay fps wise. I would like to see even that recommended requirement PC play the PBR viewer on high and be happy with their fps and system temps.

Linden Lab have a responsibility to ensure that any person joining second life or any existing member using Second Life to ensure that they can, and can continue to run it, without any performance issues relating to low end systems. To do this people rely on what the company making the game/platform state what is the minimum requirements to run said software. Should LL update their game to improve graphics, sure, I have no issue with that. However, should Linden Lab take extreme flak over such a release? Hell yes. Should customers on lower end computers who may not have cash to update their comp be angry? Yes, of course. LL have been on the PBR update process for some time and yet, very little mention of needing a better comp have been stated by LL. There have been no emails sent as warnings, really not many blog posts (if any) either. Hell, the PBR viewer has been the default viewer since what, November/December 2023? Yet, on the very same page with that very same download link we have another link to what can only be classed as the most lazy and ridiculous System Requirements (specs) the gaming world has ever had the pleasure of seeing: The thing is completely ambiguous and is why no game, software or OS ever shows such a system requirements like this and always shows minimum hardware names. Looking at that min requirements page means that a person can run Second Life (with its current PBR release) on a 16/17 year old PC and only needs a Intel Core Duo U2500 1.2 GHz (made in 2006) and a GeForce 8800 GTS that has 512mb of RAM (made in 2006). Not to mention only 4 gigs of RAM (my comp at idle would use more RAM than that). Now you cannot tell me that a computer with that hardware can support this new release even at min. with those specs. So to answer your question, yes, Linden Lab sure as hell needs to explain VRAM to users, as from what I can see they certainly have an entirely different perspective and interpretation as to what computer technology is. In this case it is more that it isn't a matter of Linden Lab needing to explain computer tech to their customers, but more that customers need to explain computer tech to Linden Lab.

Think this sums up mine and others feelings when we get up in the morning and look at this thread.... Moles would look the same just with toothpicks under their eyelids I would guess...

btw would never be able to guess he is 58.

So nothing really changes then. How can a person know whether they need a modesty layer if 'they' think they look 20 and comply and then find themselves AR'ed and banned because they actually needed one because LL thought they looked younger. Is this the reason LL included as part of their new rules regarding modestly layers "Child avatar content creators"? Is their meaning that only creators that make specific bodies for child avatars need to comply? This then would mean that all that child avatars need to do is not use those bodies and use adult bodies and get around it that way. Dont get me wrong, I believe the rules are good, but they cannot exist without clarification of what is (age look), who is (human, furry, anime, etc) and who needs (all bodies or just those specifically made for) to implement such things. You will never be able to stop all. Everyone gets that, but with very clear and easy work arounds you may as well just remove the rule completely.

That's the problem though. It is all open to perception and looks. Just like users will AR or region ban an avatar that looks to them 16 doesn't necessarily mean that LL will not think they actually look 18. This is why baseline definitions need to be provided to ensure that there is at least some form of acceptance of what constitutes a 'child like appearance'. If this doesn't happen then all LL have done is zilch to resolve any future allegations of inappropriateness. Just as before a reporter or user can easily accuse LL of not enforcing rules due to that baseline definition not existing. It is the sole reason why in RL those that 'look' younger are asked for ID for 'adult' things. The ID is the baseline provided by the government. Now I am not saying LL need to issue ID's to users, but they certainly need to state what will constitute in their minds at bare minimum a child looks like. As for furries and anime, I dont think they have the balls to go after 3 communities at once.

Lol I would like to see how LL manages to remove their system body or their new mesh bodies when both those can be made to look child and both dont have a modesty layer.

The problem is that, LL (or whoever wrote these rules) seem to be not aware that child avatars are not just made using specific mesh bodies made for child avatars but also from adult bodies, furry bodies, anime bodies, etc or child specific skins. The rule is clearly a half baked rule to cover themselves with them actually not realising that their proposed rule just doesn't work as intended. The only way their rule will work as it stands is if they 'trust' all users to do the right thing of which will never happen. We are 114 pages in and you are not going to get an answer at all until Monday - if then. Clearly from the FAQ not being updated to answer this question but updated to clarify others, and the multiple tags requesting confirmation shows that LL are in an oh-oh situation and dont themselves know how they are going to fix and enforce it without a big staff meeting to discuss.

Then even under the old rules you would be in violation of LL's Policies. The old Policies stated that a child avatar is not to be any where in proximity of sexualised objects, content, scripts or sex beds. You being 3 houses down would be a cause to AR you or ban you from the region. This is why many adult regions banned child avatars from their land because you being there could get them in trouble due to the 'proximity' rule. Also, you didn't mention this however others were talking about it... these 'family friendly nude beaches' would also be in violation of the old rules. I'm surprised they even existed at all and LL didn't take them down as sexualised objects and scripts would also include genitalia. The old policy included a statement that said that sexualized objects or adult poseballs etc could not be placed nearby places that could be considered 'children spaces'. For example, if an adult region had a playground on their sim, despite the intention of said playground to be used by adult's only, a child visiting such an area and seeing poseballs for adults in proximity could allow them to AR the sim owners to get them in trouble. So to be safe many Adult sims would refuse entry to child avies. Just like the new rules now, the old were just as ambiguous and confusing leaving it open to interpretation. As Zalificent has stated in the past, the rules are written by people (usually lawyers) who have no understanding of how people 'play' and engage with SL which means people play guessing games with the rules. This is also why other platforms go so far as to ensure they release everything (i.e. what something is to look like such as modesty layers) as part of an announcement and not just 'you must wear a modesty layer' and leave it at that for everyone to interpret what LL mean, when LL dont actually mean what everyone else thinks they means. To announce a new major policy change the day before the weekend when they are not in office and wont comment is also so LL. No they were hiding on general, moderate and adult rated regions with public access if the instigating article of all this is to be believed. Where did the announcement say that they found nothing wrong or that the article in question that started this was all complete rubbish? The announcement of these changes said nothing of the sort. It simply said that Linden Lab found no wrong doing of their own employees or contractors. It never said that they found nothing wrong with users, content or regions within second life in relation to their policies that were changed.