Jump to content

Server Bake Code


Patrick032986
 Share

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3227 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

I personally would like peoples opinion on the server bake code I would love to hear people's feedback on this my opionion on this matter would be stupid on LL's part cause there is a lot people out there that are forced to use the older viewers cause their computers can't handle it and they are gonna lose users cause of this. So I would love to hear what you would think about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm wondering why people aren't able to use recent viewers. I have a rather low-powered laptop, only a couple of gig of RAM, that runs current viewers fine. Set the graphics low-quality, and screen space can be tight, but things will run.

What sort of systems are they that don't work. I hear the claim, but I don't see specifics anywhere. And is it really a lot of people? Is there a problem, or is it just a rumour with long legs?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your computer is so old that you're forced to run older viewers, it's time to update.

 

You can't expect progression and evolution to stop for you, this is the same thing. Times change, technlogy updates. If you can't keep up, you might want to consider a hobby that doesn't evolve.

 

Like... Stamp collecting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd llike to know how people are using older viewers now? I really think that Mesh forced people to update already. server side baking isn't going to do any more than Mesh did.

But then again, I didn't expect the difference in resource use between mesh-enabled viewers and non-mesh-enabled. that was a big disappointment to me.

Theoretically, serverside baking should actually reduce the strain that the newer viewers put on older computers. We'll just have to wait and see if that's how it actually works though. I was expecting sl to speed up after Mesh, and instead it slowed down.

And cam someone PLEASE tell me why every single time one of these threads pops up, someone feels the need to get all tech-snobby and act like there's something wrong with people who run older computers? Can someone possibly reconcile that "I'm better than you because my pc is newer" attitude with the current market trends of smaller, lighter machines? I mean seriously, with the shift to lightweight "apps" making major OS developers and chip manufacturers change their focus from power to efficiency, what is the point of posting all this "you need to upgrade" idiocy. Yeah, technology changes. We get it. We all know that. you want to copy and paste some facts about gravity because you think it makes you just as smart as Sir Isaac Newton too? Take a good look at the technological landscape in recent years and the near future, and you'll clearly see that the shift is toward smaller, more mobile computers with chips that consume less energy, and programming that consumes less resources. Maybe it's the companies that are still making their software more bloated that need to get on board. Maybe, posting that everyone who has an issue with the fact that sl is becoming more of a resource hog just makes you sound like a pompous azz.

That is, of course, unless you plan to fix the problem by purchasing new equipment for everyone who doesn't like the amount of system resources eaten up by SL. Then you won't be a pompous azz. You'll be an altruist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just becuase the facebook generation is moving over to more mobile devices, that doesn't make it the end all, be all platform to develop on.

 

SL is not a resource hog, compared to many games and graphics software.

 

And speaking of...

 

Ask gamers, graphic artists, architects, and other similar computer users, and they'll tell you that small and portable is retarded. No mobile technology that we have today or in development will ever beat a mouse, keyboard, and multiple large monitors for gaming or productivity. Unfortunately, SL falls into both of those categories, as far as technology is concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to blame PC manufacturers for the current situation. They kept rolling out 400 dollar laptops which were so technologically stunted as to not be good enough for anything more than word processing. And of course people who couldn't afford to pay 1000 for a 'real' laptop bought them. Now they are trying to run applications like SL as if it was a real computer.

Of course the best part is, now PC manufacturers have created an expectation that laptops should always be 400 dollars, and cratered their own market and sales.  C'est la vie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh Cincia

Server-side baking is a "done deal"?  It is nowhere near that yet, though as you rightly say, it WILL happen, someday, no matter what SL residents might say.

The code changes both in Viewer and Server are by no means all cut and dried, and given the recent inability of the programmers to even get basic server functions to work as expected, I am not holding my breath.

 

As regards new viewers and "older" PCs there are almost as many variations on the basic PC theme as there are instruments out there.

A PC is a consumable and it will not remain useable for ever.  One of the major stumbling blocks in SL is the simple fact that a great many of the Residents of SL are not what was perceived as the type of person that would ever use SL, they are non-techy people who simply cannot or will not spend the money necessary to keep up with technical developments.

It is a fundamental mismatch between the makers of SL and a great many of its most loyal and regular users.  The makers cannot make a good SL that will run satisfactorily on "older" hardware and the folk that run, code and maintain SL simply do not comprehend those users' needs and a good many of them do not see why they should have to either.

I am not sure that that issue is resolvable, it is one of the fundamental conundrums  in SL.

And please do not tell me that "SL looked perfectly good five years ago".  It didn't.  I know, and so do folk like Cincia, who have been around even longer than I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Ayesha Askham wrote:

Oh Cincia

Server-side baking is a "done deal"?  It is nowhere near that yet, though as you rightly say, it WILL happen, someday, no matter what SL residents might say.

The code changes both in Viewer and Server are by no means all cut and dried, and given the recent inability of the programmers to even get basic server functions to work as expected, I am not holding my breath.

 

As regards new viewers and "older" PCs there are almost as many variations on the basic PC theme as there are instruments out there.

A PC is a consumable and it will not remain useable for ever.  One of the major stumbling blocks in SL is the simple fact that a great many of the Residents of SL are not what was perceived as the type of person that would ever use SL, they are non-techy people who simply cannot or will not spend the money necessary to keep up with technical developments.

It is a fundamental mismatch between the makers of SL and a great many of its most loyal and regular users.  The makers cannot make a good SL that will run satisfactorily on "older" hardware and the folk that run, code and maintain SL simply do not comprehend those users' needs and a good many of them do not see why they should have to either.

I am not sure that that issue is resolvable, it is one of the fundamental conundrums  in SL.

And please do not tell me that "SL looked perfectly good five years ago".  It didn't.  I know, and so do folk like Cincia, who have been around even longer than I.

I completely agree with you their when I first started out with SL years ago I had a crappy PC that not stand up to the SL Viewer at all so I cancelled my account and never used it again then when I got a new PC I went back to it again but ... now since I have rl going and I met someone from SL and moved in with her I decided to back off on SL she is on it more then I am but anyways that's beside the point but yes I agree with you their Ayesha Askham

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Gadget Portal wrote:

Just becuase the facebook generation is moving over to more mobile devices, that doesn't make it the end all, be all platform to develop on.

 

SL is not a resource hog, compared to many games and graphics software.

 

And speaking of...

 

Ask gamers, graphic artists, architects, and other similar computer users, and they'll tell you that small and portable is retarded. No mobile technology that we have today or in development will ever beat a mouse, keyboard, and multiple large monitors for gaming or productivity. Unfortunately, SL falls into both of those categories, as far as technology is concerned.

Riiight. So the cheap laptops that have far eclipsed the sales of those high powered professional rigs aren't what sl should be developing for. The most common machines out there are the ones that Second Life, of all things should be completelly ignoring.

It would be much better if everybody just used professional level computers with graphics cards that cost as much as most full computers sold. That would be great. It really would. Except that development should be for the platforms that are out there. Oh, and everyone NEEDS multiple monitors for SECOND LIFE too!

Reality is that for most of us, second life is, well, SECOND.

And as for sl not being a resource hog, Adobe Creative Suite CS runs better on my machine. SL runs slower since the introduction of Mesh on my computer. But my phone, which "ignores" mesh in Lumiya, and has less than half the processor allows me to walk around much easier.

Furthermore, had my comment about mobile devices been taken in context, OS developers are bringing mobile features to the desktop environment. Ubuntu is adding ARM support. Windows 8 has a mobile style ui, replaces "widgets" with mobile style apps, and is designed to "park" processes not in use so they dont use resources. Intel is focusing on processors that use less electricity (yes, even in desktops) to make use of the same clock speed. Not more, the same. This is all in preparation of ARM's quick development, quick increases in clock speed, and the fact that most ARM devices are subsidized, making thier bi-annual replacement more of a reality to the consumer. So as "retarded" as you think it is, it is set to have a massive effect on computing for the masses.

Look, if you're doing professional work, then yeah. Get a professional computer. If you're a hardcore gamer, odds are you're playing a hardcore game, not second life. If you're asking "why does sl suck on my computer," then you're not looking for an answer like, "Upgrade the machine that does every single other thing you use it for well." You're looking for a way to bring the performance of sl to the level of other things you are doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


solstyse wrote:

Riiight. So the cheap laptops that have far eclipsed the sales of those high powered professional rigs aren't what sl should be developing for. The most common machines out there are the ones that Second Life, of all things should be completelly ignoring.

It would be much better if everybody just used professional level computers with graphics cards that cost as much as most full computers sold. That would be great. It really would. Except that development should be for the platforms that are out there. Oh, and everyone NEEDS multiple monitors for SECOND LIFE too!

Reality is that for most of us, second life is, well, SECOND.

Making SL available to "the masses"? I wonder how you picture this.

First of all, a pentium 4 with a high end GPU from the pentium 4 days (6800 Ultra or something) will run SL just fine. Same for a 5 year old medium range GPU (a 8600 GT or something). The 8600GT is about as "powerful" as the current Intel CPU graphics thing, the HD4000 ( a bit difficult to compare, but as far as I can see they are very similair). Of course you can't max out the display settings and you can forget about shadows and other fancy stuff completely. Anyway, you really do not need a high end computer to run SL, try running a modern game or fancy 3D software on those older machines.

In order to make SL run on machines with not even the oomph of a 5-10 year old machine, just to make sure the lowest end laptops on sale can handle SL, LL would have to seriously lower the possibilities we have now.

If your computer can't handle SL as it is now, either do some serious computer maintainance or (yes I'm going to say it) get some better hardware. Better hardware could be as little as some extra RAM.

 


And as for sl not being a resource hog, Adobe Creative Suite CS runs better on my machine. SL runs slower since the introduction of Mesh on my computer. But my phone, which "ignores" mesh in Lumiya, and has less than half the processor allows me to walk around much easier.

Of course SL is a resource hog, that's the very nature of how it's set up. Eliminate everything that makes SL a resource hog and you'll have textures no bigger than 256x256, a draw distance of 32 meters, no tori, spheres, cylinders, sculpties, mesh, but only boxes, maybe even no way of creating things at all, since it's not the objects, but the way builders use them that make SL laggy.

Btw, mesh never slowed my SL down, not as far as I could ever tell. SL was laggy before, SL will stay laggy in the future. At least it's ten times better than a couple of years ago. As far as I can think, mesh is only more demanding on your connection than other objects, on your graphics card it is a whole lot friendlier. For example, an SL box has 108 faces to render on its highest LoD, where a mesh box only uses 12.

Lumya ignores a whole lot more than just mesh. It's nice for what it is, but you can't seriousy compare it with a full viewer.


Furthermore, had my comment about mobile devices been taken in context, OS developers are bringing mobile features to the desktop environment. Ubuntu is adding ARM support. Windows 8 has a mobile style ui, replaces "widgets" with mobile style apps, and is designed to "park" processes not in use so they dont use resources. Intel is focusing on processors that use less electricity (yes, even in desktops) to make use of the same clock speed. Not more, the same. This is all in preparation of ARM's quick development, quick increases in clock speed, and the fact that most ARM devices are subsidized, making thier bi-annual replacement more of a reality to the consumer. So as "retarded" as you think it is, it is set to have a massive effect on computing for the masses.

If this is the case, I'd rather wait for the ARM processors to catch up with desktop CPUs and GPUs than seeing LL lowering their requirements AND SL's possibilities. That will take a good couple of years if not decades though. I've said it before in another thread, I think it would be good for SL if LL can make a viewer that will run on mobile devices just as well as it does on desktops, but the two are so far apart, it is not really an option right now.


Look, if you're doing professional work, then yeah. Get a professional computer. If you're a hardcore gamer, odds are you're playing a hardcore game, not second life. If you're asking "why does sl suck on my computer," then you're not looking for an answer like, "Upgrade the machine that does every single other thing you use it for well." You're looking for a way to bring the performance of sl to the level of other things you are doing.

I think that last statement goes both ways. People who use their computer and therefor SL as a social thing, rather than a graphical one, should accept the fact SL doesn't run at computer game framerates and doesn't have computer game appearance. If you turn down the settings, a lot of cheap laptops will run SL just fine. On the other end people with high end computers should be able to get the most out of SL as possible, with long draw distances, lots of detail and high framerates.

If LL limits the creative possibilities in SL, it won't be SL anymore. over the years we have seen "competition" rise and fall. The market may not be that big, but in that market SL is standing out. I'd also like to add I think it's pretty amazing what LL does. My midrange 5 year old computer can run SL fine, my half year old high end computer can be pushed pretty hard by SL, with the resulting graphical enhancements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am liking everyones feedback really I do. Keep them coming please I am also a computer technician I have been for 10 years I am not a certified one but ... but I can tell you though that I got most of my knowledge from google. So yeah I really do love your guys feedback on this it's great to have people share their creativity and ideas :).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I quoted the person who I was responding to in that post. If my viewpoint seemed extreme in any way, it was to make a counterpoint. Maybe I missed the mark?

What I was trying to say is that ignoring marketing trends, and the actions of the people who make the platform that sl runs on is a mistake. Some of the computers on sale now acrually have lower clock speeds than the ones they had years ago. Why? because the manufacturers of those machines are emphasizing portability. I'm not saying it's a good trend. But it's there.

What I truly believe should happen, and what the rl computer market is doing are complete opposites. It would make more sense to me if while phones and laptops get closer in specs (which they are) that would lead to more desktop sales. My logic is that between phones getting smarter, and the existence of better "cloud" connectivity a person's main PC could in fact be LESS portable. The existence of tablets is particularly confusing. Same chipset as a phone, but it can't make calls or fit in your pocket. But, I admit, my logic is flawed. On a purely logical level, I can fully agree that a desktop is the way to go. But reality contradicts logic. Microsoft for some odd reason thinks that their "single user experience" should extend to desktops, including the touch screen ui, tablets are outselling everything, and the desktop is no longer considered the average household computer.  For LL to make the chicken little's stop crying that the sky is falling, and to increase their revenues, the average computer needs to be capable of providing it's user iwth a pleasant sl experience. Like it or not, the trend is for machines that are built to pull from the cloud, from servers. Not machines that we're accustomed to that run programs locally. The mroe sl does serverside, and the less it does on people's local machines, the better it will be from both a marketing and a performance standpoint.

As for mesh slowing down sl, I think that might be just for the Phoenix-Firestorm users. Firestorm is much more resource hungry than phoenix was, and the introduction of mesh marks the time when many, many people switched over. It took longer for the Phoenix viewer to adapt thatn the Firestorm viewer, led to rumors that Phoenix was going to die, the developers made the flexible gui in firestorm so it would look more the same, but it always was a "heavier" viewer. My experience in sl actually depends very much on what viewer I use, and how much "ground texture" there is. My computer hates fog and plants.. But generaly speaking, the lighter viewers took longer to adapt to mesh, and look way outdated now. And in my case, the connection isn't taxed any more than it was before. I actually did have to upgrade my ram, and now my stupid apu is the bottleneck. I probably should have been clear that it's the mesh enabled viewers that I blame. not mesh itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with your suggestion, as was just pointed out, is that making SL for mobile machines would be dumbing it down. I want upgrades to the platform to actually upgrade, not remove functionality because people don't want to accept that SL is comparable to 3D PC gaming technology.

 

Get a gaming rig, or get a new hobby that doesn't require high end hardware.

 

Imagine if you went to the Battlefield 3 forums, or the forums of any online game, and said "my computer isn't good enough, it can't run the game, please take features and graphics away from everyone else until I can run it on my toaster".

 

This is the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One can't deny the portable market is growing fast compared to the desktop market. What I ment to say was the difference between the two is so big, it's impossible to make a cross platform viewer that offers everything we have right now without changing the entire architecture of the system.

To illustrate the difference I looked up some numbers in the cross platform CPU benchmark "Geekbench". The A5X in the iPad 3 scores 770, where my pretty high end i7-3770K scores 14000. A 2002 high end Pentium 4 even scores higher than the iPad, with 1150. The difference in graphics processing isn't even taken into account in this benchmark. They're a bit difficult to compare, since the architecture of the GPU's is not the same for a tablet and PC, but looking at the numbers, the difference is staggering. The SGX543 in the iPad3 can process 35 Mtriangles/s, where my (again high end) GTX670 can process 3660. (the 35 is measured @200MHz, while the iPad runs @250MHz and I don't know if the 35 is per core or not, also I don't know if the overdrawing of pixels makes any difference, maybe someone with more technical knowledge can shed some light on this) The iPad will draw 1000 MPixels/s, the GTX670 will draw 30 000. (I'm pretty sure the overdrawing of pixels makes a difference here, so the difference might be 3 times less, but still). The iPad will do 4x6.4=25.6 GFlops, where the GTX670 does about 2500 GFlops. Bus width 64 vs 256 bit.

These figures seem to confirm what I suspect. A tablet will do a good job drawing a nice picture on screen, but it is pretty much incapable of doing any serious processing of textured 3D space.

Btw, the benchmarks also show the much faster improvements on tablets over PCs. The iPad (jan 2010) scored 470, iPad 2 and 3 (march 2011, march 2012) scored 770, the iPad 4 (oct 2012) scored 1780. It's hard to say how long this will continue. The tablets already draw HD pictures, sharper than I can see on tv from my couch. It all depends on what the manufacturers and market want more out of them.

Moving processes from your local machine to the LL servers might be a first step to lower the strain and make it possible to run SL on tablets a bit sooner. But moving all processes except drawing the picture on screen to the servers means LL has to setup the hardware to replace the power of 60 000 users, it will have to completely rewrite server and viewer code and we'd all need a pretty fast internet connection to stream our personal server produced HD movies.

In the end I don't care how the picure ends up on my screen, as long as it ends up there smoothly. If that means streaming instead of processing raw data, all I'd need to upgrade is my internet connection, which will be quite a bit faster in a couple of years. I just don't see it happen anytime soon.

As for mesh being harder on the network, this is just my own thoughtprocess. I can think of ways to "package" the shape of an SL box or a sculpt that take only a couple of kB, where the information for every single vertex, UV point, vertex skin weight, face, normal etc that define a mesh shape is a whole lot bigger. I don't know the compression rate in SL or its internal format, but a set of dae files(with pretty much only relevant information) for a single shape can be several MB's large. One might notice it on a full mesh sim, I don't know.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Gadget Portal wrote:

The problem with your suggestion, as was just pointed out, is that making SL for mobile machines would be dumbing it down. I want upgrades to the platform to actually upgrade, not remove functionality because people don't want to accept that SL is comparable to 3D PC gaming technology.

 

Get a gaming rig, or get a new hobby that doesn't require high end hardware.

 

Imagine if you went to the Battlefield 3 forums, or the forums of any online game, and said "my computer isn't good enough, it can't run the game, please take features and graphics away from everyone else until I can run it on my toaster".

 

This is the same thing.

Context, yet again.

Windows DESKTOPS are moving to a mobile STYLE ui. DESKTOP computing is more reliant on the cloud, due to the INFLUENCE of tablets. FEWER DESKTOP APPLICATIONS RESIDE ON THE LOCAL MACHINE.

Want to play a Direct X game in Linux? Connect to a REMOTE SERVER. They exist. Want to play an XBOX game on an ARM DEVICE? Connect to a REMOTE SERVER. It works. It's being done. Microsoft office 2013 will be available not only as a local application, but also as a SUBSCRIBTION SERVICE in which A SINGLE PURCHASE will licence MULTIPLE PRODUCTS on MULTIPLE ARCHETECTURES. Are you calling the largest software developers in the world wrong?

Gamers have moved to platforms. Hmmm wonder why. Maybe because to them, buying high end video cards every single year is just a little too... ninety's.

OPERATING SYSTEMS as well as OTHER SOFTWARE is TRENDING TOWARD EFFICIENCY. as is the latest X86 HARDWARE.

The EXODUS OF HARDCORE GAMERS TO PLATFORMS SUCH AS XBOX AND PS3, combined with the INFLUENCE THAT MOBILE PROGRAMMING is having on DESKTOPS will cause the trend of LOWER HARDWARE REQUIREMENTS FOR MANY OF THE SAME FUNCTIONALLITY., EVEN IN DESKTOPS. Which will in turn cause FURTHER DEMAND FOR LOWER COST MACHINES.

Now, does all the capitalizatioin make it clear that mobile platforms have a serious economic and technological impact on every computer, including desktops? Can you finally understand that is what I'm trying to say? They are no longer seperate, and the future will be that mobile and desktop computing will only grow closer?

Now, it's perfectly okay for you to keep living a decade ago instead of looking at current and future trends. It won't hurt you. But LL is a corporation, so they don't have that luxury.

FACT: Desktops are now the smallest and fastest shrinking segment of computing. Low end laptops are the largest and fastest growing. This leads to a stagnation in what technology is considered mosst common.

FACT: Non-local software, which BEGAN with smartphones and tablets, has migrated to the desktop environment.

FACT: The shrinking divide between ARM and x86 archetecture is driving the sales of low to midrange x86 machines, while the migration of gamers to machines that are less volatile is harming the sale of high end machines.

Now, if I was to go to your Battlefield 3 forum asking, "How do I optimize my existing hardware so that I can keep playing." I'd probably get something better for an answer than getting the bashing that seems to invariably come with that question here. My point is, and always has been, that NOBODY NEEDS A LECTURE ABOUT UPGRADING THEIR MACHINE. It's as if deciding that when SL is the ONLY thing it can't do, it is most economically viable to wait until there is at least one other thing that they wish it would do better is somehow being called the less responsible decisiion. That's like saying up is down and left is right. And as time goes on, and people use low draw apps on.... you guessed it, THEIR DESKTOPS it will become more and mroe common for SL to be the ONLY thing that makes them unhappy. And most people will sooner just replace a program than a whole computer. BERATING THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE OTHERWISE SATISFIED WITH THERI COMPUTER, EVEN THE OTHER 3D GAMES THEY PLAY, WITH THE SOLE EXCEPTION OF SL WILL ONLY MAKE THEM MORE UNHAPPY WITH SL. It's a simple concept. It really is.

Furthermore, the only way that sl will be even remotely close to 3d gaming technology is if, just as developers of 3d gaming technology have done, they optimize their software. If it makes it to that level, then the only way to stay there is to do as they do, and look to the future, not the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


solstyse wrote:

Windows DESKTOPS are moving to a mobile STYLE ui. DESKTOP computing is more reliant on the cloud, due to the INFLUENCE of tablets. FEWER DESKTOP APPLICATIONS RESIDE ON THE LOCAL MACHINE.

Style and actual use aren't the same. I can honestly say all of my programs are run locally. I could render my 3D images in the cloud, but that's it.

 


Microsoft office 2013 will be available not only as a local application, but also as a SUBSCRIBTION SERVICE in which A SINGLE PURCHASE will licence MULTIPLE PRODUCTS on MULTIPLE ARCHETECTURES. Are you calling the largest software developers in the world wrong?

Licensing and actual use aren't the same. I have bought several licenses. This allows me to legally install the licensed software for a certain period, on my local machine. Office 2013 will have some Cloud services, but it will still be on a local machine.

 

 


Gamers have moved to platforms. Hmmm wonder why. Maybe because to them, buying high end video cards every single year is just a little too... ninety's.

If buying gaming PC's is too 90's, I guess history, as usual, is repeating itself. PC gaming dying is as much of a myth as SL dying, we've heard it for years and it's just not the case. Some figures from NVidia (Yes NVidia, so take the figures with a grain of salt as stated in the article)

Tom's Hardware Article

Plenty of other articles on the subject, just google around a bit.


OPERATING SYSTEMS as well as OTHER SOFTWARE is TRENDING TOWARD EFFICIENCY. as is the latest X86 HARDWARE.

The very latest Intel and NVidia changes can't be called a trend  I think. It could be the start of one though. Still performance went up with these changes, not down.


The EXODUS OF HARDCORE GAMERS TO PLATFORMS SUCH AS XBOX AND PS3, combined with the INFLUENCE THAT MOBILE PROGRAMMING is having on DESKTOPS will cause the trend of LOWER HARDWARE REQUIREMENTS FOR MANY OF THE SAME FUNCTIONALLITY., EVEN IN DESKTOPS. Which will in turn cause FURTHER DEMAND FOR LOWER COST MACHINES.

What exodus and what lower requirements for the same functionality? Even the requirements for Win 8 are virtually the same as those for Win 7.


Now, does all the capitalizatioin make it clear that mobile platforms have a serious economic and technological impact on every computer, including desktops? Can you finally understand that is what I'm trying to say? They are no longer seperate, and the future will be that mobile and desktop computing will only grow closer?

Now, it's perfectly okay for you to keep living a decade ago instead of looking at current and future trends. It won't hurt you. But LL is a corporation, so they don't have that luxury.

Growing closer? Yes. Are they close to each other? Not by a mile. This means it's impossible to make a viewer that does everything the current viewer does for a tablet. Should LL put a lot of efford into making their viewer available to the tablet market? I think so, but with their current open source model, they already kind of do that. TPV's can run on tablets, but those viewers are lacking a lot of functionality. Should LL keep their eye on the mobile market? I think so, but who says they aren't? We can't look into their kitchen.


FACT: Desktops are now the smallest and fastest shrinking segment of computing. Low end laptops are the largest and fastest growing. This leads to a stagnation in what technology is considered mosst common.

FACT: Non-local software, which BEGAN with smartphones and tablets, has migrated to the desktop environment.

FACT: The shrinking divide between ARM and x86 archetecture is driving the sales of low to midrange x86 machines, while the migration of gamers to machines that are less volatile is harming the sale of high end machines.

Fact 1. A low-mid end laptop should run the current viewer just fine. I think LL does a pretty good job making the viewer available and functional for the entire spectrum, from low to high end. For systems that perform even lower than low, including tablets, there are TPV's because LL made their code available.

Fact 2. I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this.

Fact 3. Again, shrinking? Yes. But ARM technology is at a 2003 PC level, that's a full decade ago. True gamers didn't and don't migrate to ARM devices yet, for the simple reason those things don't run demanding 3D games, at all.


Now, if I was to go to your Battlefield 3 forum asking, "How do I optimize my existing hardware so that I can keep playing." I'd probably get something better for an answer than getting the bashing that seems to invariably come with that question here. My point is, and always has been, that NOBODY NEEDS A LECTURE ABOUT UPGRADING THEIR MACHINE. It's as if deciding that when SL is the ONLY thing it can't do, it is most economically viable to wait until there is at least one other thing that they wish it would do better is somehow being called the less responsible decisiion. That's like saying up is down and left is right. And as time goes on, and people use low draw apps on.... you guessed it, THEIR DESKTOPS it will become more and mroe common for SL to be the ONLY thing that makes them unhappy. And most people will sooner just replace a program than a whole computer. BERATING THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE OTHERWISE SATISFIED WITH THERI COMPUTER, EVEN THE OTHER 3D GAMES THEY PLAY, WITH THE SOLE EXCEPTION OF SL WILL ONLY MAKE THEM
MORE
UNHAPPY WITH SL. It's a simple concept. It really is.

Furthermore, the only way that sl will be even remotely close to 3d gaming technology is if, just as developers of 3d gaming technology have done, they optimize their software. If it makes it to that level, then the only way to stay there is to do as they do, and look to the future, not the past.

People don't have to upgrade their machine to run SL. A Pentium 4 with decent GPU will run it.

Demanding a lower resource hungry SL is asking for a change of SL completely. It's not the engine, it's not the servers, it's not the architecture or anything LL offers that makes SL what it is. It's user created content. That content makes SL SL, both in uniqueness and resource use. The only way to make this available to tablets is (currently) what Lumiya does. Ripping out functionality, lowering visual quality (which isn't top notch to begin with) and accepting very low framerates. I don't think that will do SL any good.

At the current pace I figure tablets and low end laptops will be able to run the current viewer in a year or two. So it might be a good idea if LL kept their requirements the same for that period. Something they pretty much did for the past 5 years. Why would they invest everything they have in lowering the load on a system if the market, as you say yourself, will catch up, in less time than it would take to rewrite SL?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


solstyse wrote:


Gadget Portal wrote:

The problem with your suggestion, as was just pointed out, is that making SL for mobile machines would be dumbing it down. I want upgrades to the platform to actually upgrade, not remove functionality because people don't want to accept that SL is comparable to 3D PC gaming technology.

 

Get a gaming rig, or get a new hobby that doesn't require high end hardware.

 

Imagine if you went to the Battlefield 3 forums, or the forums of any online game, and said "my computer isn't good enough, it can't run the game, please take features and graphics away from everyone else until I can run it on my toaster".

 

This is the same thing.

Context, yet again.

Windows DESKTOPS are moving to a mobile STYLE ui. DESKTOP computing is more reliant on the cloud, due to the INFLUENCE of tablets. FEWER DESKTOP APPLICATIONS RESIDE ON THE LOCAL MACHINE.

Want to play a Direct X game in Linux? Connect to a REMOTE SERVER. They exist. Want to play an XBOX game on an ARM DEVICE? Connect to a REMOTE SERVER. It works. It's being done. Microsoft office 2013 will be available not only as a local application, but also as a SUBSCRIBTION SERVICE in which A SINGLE PURCHASE will licence MULTIPLE PRODUCTS on MULTIPLE ARCHETECTURES. Are you calling the largest software developers in the world wrong?

Gamers have moved to platforms. Hmmm wonder why. Maybe because to them, buying high end video cards every single year is just a little too... ninety's.

OPERATING SYSTEMS as well as OTHER SOFTWARE is TRENDING TOWARD EFFICIENCY. as is the latest X86 HARDWARE.

The EXODUS OF HARDCORE GAMERS TO PLATFORMS SUCH AS XBOX AND PS3, combined with the INFLUENCE THAT MOBILE PROGRAMMING is having on DESKTOPS will cause the trend of LOWER HARDWARE REQUIREMENTS FOR MANY OF THE SAME FUNCTIONALLITY., EVEN IN DESKTOPS. Which will in turn cause FURTHER DEMAND FOR LOWER COST MACHINES.

Now, does all the capitalizatioin make it clear that mobile platforms have a serious economic and technological impact on every computer, including desktops? Can you finally understand that is what I'm trying to say? They are no longer seperate, and the future will be that mobile and desktop computing will only grow closer?

Now, it's perfectly okay for you to keep living a decade ago instead of looking at current and future trends. It won't hurt you. But LL is a corporation, so they don't have that luxury.

FACT: Desktops are now the smallest and fastest shrinking segment of computing. Low end laptops are the largest and fastest growing. This leads to a stagnation in what technology is considered mosst common.

FACT: Non-local software, which BEGAN with smartphones and tablets, has migrated to the desktop environment.

FACT: The shrinking divide between ARM and x86 archetecture is driving the sales of low to midrange x86 machines, while the migration of gamers to machines that are less volatile is harming the sale of high end machines.

Now, if I was to go to your Battlefield 3 forum asking, "How do I optimize my existing hardware so that I can keep playing." I'd probably get something better for an answer than getting the bashing that seems to invariably come with that question here. My point is, and always has been, that NOBODY NEEDS A LECTURE ABOUT UPGRADING THEIR MACHINE. It's as if deciding that when SL is the ONLY thing it can't do, it is most economically viable to wait until there is at least one other thing that they wish it would do better is somehow being called the less responsible decisiion. That's like saying up is down and left is right. And as time goes on, and people use low draw apps on.... you guessed it, THEIR DESKTOPS it will become more and mroe common for SL to be the ONLY thing that makes them unhappy. And most people will sooner just replace a program than a whole computer. BERATING THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE OTHERWISE SATISFIED WITH THERI COMPUTER, EVEN THE OTHER 3D GAMES THEY PLAY, WITH THE SOLE EXCEPTION OF SL WILL ONLY MAKE THEM
MORE
UNHAPPY WITH SL. It's a simple concept. It really is.

Furthermore, the only way that sl will be even remotely close to 3d gaming technology is if, just as developers of 3d gaming technology have done, they optimize their software. If it makes it to that level, then the only way to stay there is to do as they do, and look to the future, not the past.

Problem is, most everything you state here isn't true.

  • Gamers aren't flocking to streamed game services. Most such services are on the brink of failure due to low adoption rates.
  • Gamers are leaving consoles by the droves, due not only to the artifically inflated prices of games, but due to draconian DRM policies and now resale prevention.
  • Low grade laptops are popular because of economic factors, not because people want lower end machines. As reported in many trade publications, PC manufacturers are now feeling the bite of having made such low cost machines available. You are right that people now expect the price, But they still expect the high performance.
  • Nobody wants Windows RT, which is why Microsoft is dropping their Surface RT offering. That flies in the face of your idea that everyone wants lower cost machines that are less powerful.

 

But most importantly:

  SAYING SOMETHING IN ALL CAPS DOESN"T MAKE IT MORE RIGHT. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Darien Caldwell wrote:

But most importantly:

  SAYING SOMETHING IN ALL CAPS DOESN"T MAKE IT MORE RIGHT.
:)

Very true.

I once read a book where the author used CAPS, italicsunderlining, bolding and all possible combinations of those frequently.

If this wasn't enough the author even used variable sized fonts in the middle of a sentence to stress what he felt needed some more attention.  It was strange experience to read that book.  :smileysurprised:

 

PS.

Some years later I found out that most of what the author had stressed was not true at all.  :smileymad: :smileytongue:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently, saying things in all caps doesn't make them more obvious either, since there are still people after I posted numerous times, the latest in caps that what I'm suggeswting is not that LL should make SL for tablets, but that tablet programming is having an effect on how desktop woftware is written. That wasn't supposed to make me more right. It was supposed to make me stop getting misquoted. And it failed.

Now, the reason why Win8 uses the same resources as Win7 is because of this influence. Yes, it is a desktop environment. It is also available on tablets, but to try yet again to minimise self inflicted confusion, tablets are not what I'm talking about. Get it? Not. As in negative. As in opposite of is/are.

The thing that makes Win8's requirements on par with Win7 is actually the tablet-style functionallity. See, I put -style. Meaning "not, but similar to." It is changes to the task manager that make it behave more like what we've seen from tablets than the win7 and previous desktop environments which keep it's requirements low. See? Again, I said "behave like." Not "is one."  In fact, when multitasking, Win8 is actually easier on Win7 resource wise. It is true that the minimum system requirements lissted for both operating systems are the same. But the way that Win8 handles background processes and multiple processes is more efficient than Win7. In other words, each application or instance of it that is open in Win8 actually uses less of your computer's ability than an application with the same exact functionallity as Win7.

Licencing and use may not be the same, but they are inseperable. There is always a licence to agree to as a prerequisite to use. Now, whether or not you stick to the terms of the licence is on you. Now, all of your software can be run locally, if all you use is desktops or laptops. You have a choice that tablet users don't. But the point is that you do have an option. Your software doesn't have to be all local, if you don't want it to. Why do you think a microsoft account, which is all but required for win8 comes with 7gb of free cloud storage? Now, to prevent another misquote, I must again clarify. I said, "all but required." which is the same as saying, "almost, but not quite." Windows 8 will work without it, but there are certain features which require it.

Office 2013 will be available as a local application. That's true. But there is a full cloud based option. Look up Microsoft office 365. Here's a link. http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/office365/faqs.aspx I especially call your attention to the answer to the FAQ "What do I need to install. According to Microsoft, the answer is nothing. Read it for yourself on the official page.

And what exactly did that Tom's hardware article say? Was it: Console software revenue is flat, floating between roughly $21 and $24 billion, yearly, while revenue generated by the PC gaming market balloons from $13 billion in 2008 to a projected $23-ish billion in 2015. Nvidia breaks it down even further, showing that the bulk of PC games revenue is coming from digital downloads... ? Yes... Yes, I think it had to be because I used copy/paste on the italicized bit. I'm a huge fan of the graph that shows that current platform sales are still higher than pc sales. This is despite the clear disadvantage that consoles have, with the PS3 being released in 2006, and xbox 360 in 2005. Just what turn do you think that chart is going to follow when the next generation of consoles comes out?  The chart also visually represents the exodus to consoles that you're asking about. It's there. For years people have been buying more console games than pc games. The author talks aobut PC games being reduced to a single wire rack.

Then there's this quote: Nvidia doesn't break down its data according to genre or service, but much of this newly-discovered cash is coming from the social gaming crowd, as well as from new business models. There's no denying that Facebook games like The Sims Social and micro-transactions in more "hardcore" titles like World of Tanks and League of Legends are pushing revenue streams and profit margins up for many developers and publishers... I wonder what this could mean. Maybe, that the games that are popular for PC's aren't really all that demanding. Facebook games. Hmmm. I wonder how demanding apps that don't even require a PC are.

Now, a new low end laptop will run SL. But, referring to my original response, and the whole reason I got involved in this, a 4 year old laptop could end up struggling. It is owners of those machines that frequently catch the "Upgrade your machine or get out" flame. I really feel that someone needs to stick up for them. It's tiresome. Kwakkelde, you and I seem to disagree with just about everything the other has said on this thread, but I know you're right about people not needing to buy a new computer just for sl. That's why I'm so disgusted with reading it.

I'm not only arguing here on the threads. I'm also experimenting with viewers, so that I can start a posst with serious advice for those who have slower machines. I will make upgrading a part of it, but I spent quite a bit of this week comparing viewers, turning features on and off, etc. But the laptop I'm doing the tests on is a midrange that's only 3 years old, so I don't know if my tests will go far enough.

Now, a less resource hungry sl is slightly within the user's power. But improvement on LL's part wouldn't require an entire rewrite of the code, either. There are simple things they can do. they can turn off hte ability to upload things that are not maximized, such as textures that are a higher resolution than sl can display. They can impose a limit on the size of scripts. As time goes on, the newer, more efficient content will become more common than the old. It's not groundbreaking, but it'll be helpful. For those who's machines REALLY struggle, maybe allow as options some of the limitatiions that Lumiya has.

While you can blame the computer manufacturers for all the cheap, handicapped computers out there, and even say that they now see the error of their ways, the fact remains that those machines are out there. And they're something that all software companies are going to have to deal with if they want to sell their product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


solstyse wrote:

Now, a less resource hungry sl is slightly within the user's power. But improvement on LL's part wouldn't require an entire rewrite of the code, either. There are simple things they can do. they can turn off hte ability to upload things that are not maximized, such as textures that are a higher resolution than sl can display. They can impose a limit on the size of scripts.

There are already limits:

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Limits

Textures

Maximum texture size - 1024×1024 pixels [it was earlier 2048×2048]

(for avatar textures the maximum size is 512×512 pixels, for avatar eyes it is 128×128)

Scripting

Maximum script source code size - 65536 single byte characters.

For specific scripting limits, lookup calls in the LSL Portal.

So, we cannot, for example upload textures what are "bigger than what SL can display" (whatever you mean by that -  I think there is no specified limit what SL could display).

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Coby Foden wrote:


solstyse wrote:

Now, a less resource hungry sl is slightly within the user's power. But improvement on LL's part wouldn't require an entire rewrite of the code, either. There are simple things they can do. they can turn off hte ability to upload things that are not maximized, such as textures that are a higher resolution than sl can display. They can impose a limit on the size of scripts.

There are already limits:

Textures

Maximum texture size - 1024×1024 pixels
[it was earlier 2048×2048]

(for avatar textures the maximum size is 512×512 pixels, for avatar eyes it is 128×128)

Scripting

Maximum script source code size - 65536 single byte characters.

For specific scripting limits, lookup calls in the LSL Portal.

So, we cannot, for example upload textures what are "bigger than what SL can display" (whatever you mean by that -  I think there is no specified limit what SL could display).

what I mean by bigger than sl can display is exactly what you linked to. If the maximum for clothing is 512, then anything bigger is, well, bigger. And what is a maximum, if not a specified limit?

Now, I have uploaded 1024 textures for clothing, when the max is 512. I just forgot to shrink the template before saving the .png. but here's where it gets interesting. A full viewer, such as Firestorm or the official viewer, just displays the item as if I hadn't made that mistake. but a cut down viewer, like Lumiya, doesn't scale the texture down. It just refuses to show the item. That tells me that the texture is still saved as 1024, and is scaled back by rendering. Now, I could be wrong. but if I'm right, then a simple fix for LL would be to run a program to look at items by type (clothing, eyes, object, etc.) scale down the texture within the asset server, and re-save the file. In the meantime, adjust the viewer to prevent people from making the same mistake I did. make it impossible to upload a texture, or apply it, if it's too large for the item it is applied to.

For scripters, there are programs out there that analyze code, and clean it up. they're frequently used on websites, but I'm sure an adaptation could be made to fit SL's needs. It would result in smaller, cleaner code.

These are things that can be done, can be automated, and would be relatively invisible to the average sl resident. It's not really groundbreaking. It's no more innovative than making the grid itself was.

the greatest thing about SL is that it's user created. And it should stay that way. But it's a decade old, and some of that old stuff is still laying around. I don't think my idea would work for everything, but it would work for a lot. And while the difference may not be huge, it'll still be there, and it'll still be noticable. there's a lot of internal "decluttering" that LL can do, if they're willing to do it in small pieces, and we're patient enough to wait for the invisible changes to prove themselves useful.

Maybe LL is already thinking that. Maybe that's why they decided to do the server side baking. Who knows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


solstyse wrote:

 

The thing that makes Win8's requirements on par with Win7 is actually the tablet-style functionallity. See, I put -style. Meaning "not, but similar to." It is changes to the task manager that make it behave more like what we've seen from tablets than the win7 and previous desktop environments which keep it's requirements low. See? Again, I said "behave like." Not "is one."  In fact, when multitasking, Win8 is actually easier on Win7 resource wise. It is true that the minimum system requirements lissted for both operating systems are the same. But the way that Win8 handles background processes and multiple processes is more efficient than Win7. In other words, each application or instance of it that is open in Win8 actually uses less of your computer's ability than an application with the same exact functionallity as Win7.

Whether Win8 is as heavy on a computer or slightly less doesn't make a difference I think. The question is "why?". I can think of another very good reason besides the tablet compatibility. There just isn't that much to improve graphics wise. Look at the steps from DOS to Windows, from Windows 3 to Windows 95, from 95 to XP, from XP to Vista. Those were leaps turning into little steps. So to me it only makes sense Microsoft focuses on other aspects, such as user friendliness or resource demand, especially after the Win Vista debacle. I do agree this means computer power doesn't have to improve as much as it did in the past. And this results in a lot of people buying lower end hardware since, like you say, it will run pretty much anything they want to run. I really didn't miss the point you were making with that.


Licencing and use may not be the same, but they are inseperable. There is always a licence to agree to as a prerequisite to use. Now, whether or not you stick to the terms of the licence is on you. Now, all of your software can be run locally, if all you use is desktops or laptops. You have a choice that tablet users don't. But the point is that you do have an option. Your software doesn't have to be all local, if you don't want it to. Why do you think a microsoft account, which is all but required for win8 comes with 7gb of free cloud storage? Now, to prevent another misquote, I must again clarify. I said, "all but required." which is the same as saying, "almost, but not quite." Windows 8 will work without it, but there are certain features which require it.

Most if not all software I use I can only run locally. Some small features can use "the Cloud", but by no means everything. Cloud storage isn't the same as Cloud use. Replacement for hard drive space and having your files available at any time and place is not the same as running your actual program from a distance.


Office 2013 will be available as a local application. That's true. But there is a full cloud based option. Look up Microsoft office 365. Here's a link.
I especially call your attention to the answer to the FAQ "What do I need to install. According to Microsoft, the answer is nothing. Read it for yourself on the official page

Ok, that was not what you posted earlier, but there is a Cloud driven Office then. Didn't I say earlier that offering a remote SL could be an option to lower local requirements? It would mean higher internet traffic and it would mean a complete rewrite of both server and viewer code. It would also mean a huge expansion of the LL server grid, possibly as much as more than double of what they have now. I don't think that's going to happen, nor do I think this is the time for LL to invest all their resources.


And what exactly did that Tom's hardware article say? Was it:
Console software revenue is flat, floating between roughly $21 and $24 billion, yearly, while revenue generated by the PC gaming market balloons from $13 billion in 2008 to a projected $23-ish billion in 2015. Nvidia breaks it down even further, showing that the bulk of PC games revenue is coming from digital downloads...
? Yes... Yes, I think it had to be because I used copy/paste on the italicized bit. I'm a huge fan of the graph that shows that current platform sales are still higher than pc sales. This is despite the clear disadvantage that consoles have, with the PS3 being released in 2006, and xbox 360 in 2005. Just what turn do you think that chart is going to follow when the next generation of consoles comes out?  The chart also visually represents the exodus to consoles that you're asking about. It's there. For years people have been buying more console games than pc games. The author talks aobut PC games being reduced to a single wire rack.

Then there's this quote:
Nvidia doesn't break down its data according to genre or service, but much of this newly-discovered cash is coming from the social gaming crowd, as well as from new business models. There's no denying that Facebook games like
Social and micro-transactions in more "hardcore" titles like World of Tanks and League of Legends are pushing revenue streams and profit margins up for many developers and publishers...
I wonder what this could mean. Maybe, that the games that are popular for PC's aren't really all that demanding. Facebook games. Hmmm. I wonder how demanding apps that don't even require a PC are.

We might have different views on what "exodus" means. English isn't my first language, but I'm pretty sure "exodus" means the same in English as it does in any other language. It means people are migrating by the bulk until there's nobody left. How can you conclude that after reading the article and seeing the graphs since it shows the exact opposite? Just the fact NVidia and AMD are still making big improvements on the gaming market tells me the high end PC game market is far from dead. The next gen consoles will bend the curve no doubt, but that doesn't mean theres an exodus of any kind.

 

 


Now, a new low end laptop will run SL. But, referring to my original response, and the whole reason I got involved in this, a 4 year old laptop could end up struggling. It is owners of those machines that frequently catch the "Upgrade your machine or get out" flame. I really feel that someone needs to stick up for them. It's tiresome. Kwakkelde, you and I seem to disagree with just about everything the other has said on this thread, but I know you're right about people not needing to buy a new computer just for sl. That's why I'm so disgusted with reading it.

I'm sorry to say we even disagree there then, although not completely. a four year old low end laptop without any dedicated GPU will probably more than struggle with SL. But those things are worth maybe 100 bucks and can be replaced with something very affordable (< $500) that will run SL. If the computer really won't run SL, I'd say replace the hardware. A cooling pad, computer maintainance, making sure not to much is running in the background, running with a proper connection (wired?), keeping the power plugged in and lowering your SL graphics will probably go a long way though. Plenty of people know this and happily offer help on these forums. The "new hardware option"  should be a last resort, yet still "a" resort.


I'm not only arguing here on the threads. I'm also experimenting with viewers, so that I can start a posst with serious advice for those who have slower machines. I will make upgrading a part of it, but I spent quite a bit of this week comparing viewers, turning features on and off, etc. But the laptop I'm doing the tests on is a midrange that's only 3 years old, so I don't know if my tests will go far enough.

I hope they will, plenty of people have old computers that will run SL as long as they're set up the right way. Good luck.

 

 


Now, a less resource hungry sl is slightly within the user's power. But improvement on LL's part wouldn't require an entire rewrite of the code, either. There are simple things they can do. they can turn off hte ability to upload things that are not maximized, such as textures that are a higher resolution than sl can display. They can impose a limit on the size of scripts. As time goes on, the newer, more efficient content will become more common than the old. It's not groundbreaking, but it'll be helpful. For those who's machines REALLY struggle, maybe allow as options some of the limitatiions that Lumiya has.

Like I said earlier, SL is SL because of how it is set up. It has always been a struggle for LL between performance and user creativity, both of which make the user experience. It's not as easy as it sounds to impose limits without restraining content creators. One can use a single 4096x4096 texture in a more efficient way someone else uses a bunch of 512x512 textures. One can write a single script that creates more lag than 200 other scripts. Memory use is also hard to measure, the same goes for script time. Imagine the servers would have to monitor everything for everyone, in every script at any time. We wouldn't be able to walk. LL has tried limiting script use a coupe of years ago and the moaning and whining and complaining still echoes in my head. We also can't rely on the creators, since most of them think it's better to use a 1024x1024 texture on a hairpin and preferrably a baked one so the next hairpin needs another 1024x1024 texture etc. The system does what it can to reduce the load of these textures by mipmapping. It's just how SL works. Users make the world, users make the lag.

 

 

A lot of limitations the Lumiya viewer has can be used in a normal viewer. Simply dial down your draw distance and detail. Lower the maximum of avatars to be fully rendered. Don't run SL at HD resolution. Of course this results in quality loss much more visible on a 15" laptop screen than on a 4-5" smartphone screen.


While you can blame the computer manufacturers for all the cheap, handicapped computers out there, and even say that they now see the error of their ways, the fact remains that those machines are out there. And they're something that all software companies are going to have to deal with if they want to sell their product.

Let's agree on that then, as long as it doesn't affect people with a more powerful computer in a negative way.

 

 

The 512 limit on avatar skin/clothing is something that can be done because everyone uses the avatar model. It's the only object that's shared between all users. Uploading a 1024 isn't that big of a deal though, since it will never end up on anyones screen. The skin, underwear, tatoos, makeup etc are downloaded from the server to your local machine and will be cached. Your viewer will then bake a single 512x512 texture from those files. That file is sent back to the server which in turn sends it to all other viewers. I'm not saying everyone should use 1024's, since it will take longer to upload and longer to download to your viewer and longer to bake into the smaller combined texture without any quality gain, but it won't lag any people in a graphical way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3227 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...