Baking Shadows vs SL defaults?

[Syle Devin]

So does anyone know if SL defaults to having shadows turned on? I'm trying to figure out if it is worth baking shadows or not anymore. It's been a while since I've seen a discussion about it and even the old discussions had people saying it wasn't worth it. Still I have seen a mixture of mesh creations, original ones too, with baked shadows. What's your oppinion?

 

And no, there isn't really the option for both or I would go that route. The current creation I am wondering about is a standalone mesh setup in a sim, not something that will have mutliple versions rezzed.

[Rolig Loon]

Shadows are on by default if you have your graphics quality slider set to Ultra.  There are plenty of people who either don't have a computer that can handle Ultra or who (like me) usually choose a lower setting to boost their FPS.  I have no idea how many people fall into the no-shadow group, but my guess is that it's still substantial. 

So, should you bake shadows or not?  That's totally up to you, but I'd opt for not baking.  Baked shadows will look confusing to people who have "real" shadows in world, and many people who don't usually see shadows probably wouldn't miss baked shadows either.  In a year or two, when most people are using faster computers, it will be a non-question.

[Sassy Romano]

... In a year or two Rolig?

 

I want to hug and squeeze your optimism!

 

In a recent meeting, Oz started that about 20% of people had advanced lighting enabled, in other words, 4 out of 5 won't yet benefit from"materials" (and in this case shadows)

 

Somewhat frustrating.

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Sassy Romano wrote:

 

 

In a recent meeting, Oz started that about 20% of people had advanced lighting enabled, in other words, 4 out of 5 won't yet benefit from"materials"

---

That statement doesn't give a reason. To my best knowledge Firestorm doesn't show the advanced lighting yet (except for the beta version). It's very possible the number will skyrocket when Firestorm catches up. On the other hand, for my old computer (which, while old, is probably about average for SL users.), performance drops significantly when I switch from mid graphics to mid-high graphics, this is where the advanced lighting is switched.

Anyway, I wouldn't use (too many) baked in shadows. Baked shadows usually do not tile very well, resulting in high resolution images, taking up valuable resources at both LL's and the user's end. Users that can't see dynamic shadows, have relative low end computers. Because of that, I'd say it's especially important for them to keep the load low. On top of that, even without shadows enabled, baked in shadows can look really odd in a dynamic environment.

[Sassy Romano]

Firestorm supports advanced lighting. It's the current beta that supports materials as well.

 

Most people that I have asked don't enable ALM and shadows because of hardware constraints.

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Sassy Romano wrote:

Firestorm supports advanced lighting. It's the current beta that supports materials as well.

 

Most people that I have asked don't enable ALM and shadows because of hardware constraints.

---

My mistake, I thought they were one and the same. If people knew how to build, most people would be able to turn it on I bet. Of course that's not the case.

I still think it's a bad idea to cover everything in textures with baked shadows for the reasons I mentioned.

[Coby Foden]

---

Sassy Romano wrote:

 

Most people that I have asked don't enable ALM and shadows because of hardware constraints.

---

I have noticed in my computer that turning on ALM but no shadows has very negligible effect on fps. It's the shadows thing which really slows down fps noticeably.

On very slow computers even turning just ALM on and no shadows may drop fps considerably.

 

PS.

People should stop buying 500 USD laptops in hopes of using them to run SL viewers.

They just don't have the power for enjoyable lag free graphics experience in SL.

[Charlotte Bartlett]

I would skip. I would however bake gentle soft shadows just to give some depth / lightness from windows etc.

[arton Rotaru]

---

Sassy

Romano

wrote

:

...

In

a

year

or

two

Rolig

?

 

I

want

to

hug

and

squeeze

your

optimism

!

 

In

a

recent

meeting

,

Oz

started

that

about

20

%

of

people

had

advanced

lighting

enabled

,

in

other

words

,

4

out

of

5

won't

yet

benefit

from

"

materials

" (

and

in

this

case

shadows

)

 

Somewhat

frustrating

.

---

Yeah right. That 20 % number is from a time when there wasn't even a firestorm beta viewer with materials support.

Also that 20 % number is from viewers which report that statistics at all. Which I think is a rather new ability.

Further, they only counted hardware, which the lab thinks is able to run ALM on. Class 1 machines (maybe class 2/3 as well, idk) aren't in this measurement altogether.

Also, as far as I know, Firestorm defaults to ALM off, even for hardware where the LL viewer defaults to ALM on.

I would assume also, with the materials enabled firestorm beta viewer, the ALM enabled viewers percentage will have increased quite a bit.

Having said all that, I think it's still hard to predict how many people run shadows 24/7. Sticking to that 20 %, I would guess it's about 5 % who may run shadows all the time. 

I usually don't have shadows enabled, because they are kind of fuzzy, they vanish rather quickly when zooming out, they require SSAO enabled, to look good, which hits performance another time.

However, I don't like baked shadows much, too.

When I'm in the mood for shadows, I turn them on in the viewer. Most of the time I'm fine without shadows though. Be it baked, or realtime shadows.

[Sassy Romano]

---

arton Rotaru wrote:

Further

,

they

only

counted

hardware

,

which

the

lab

thinks

is

able

to

run

ALM

on

.

Class

1

machines

(

maybe

class

2/3

as

well

,

idk

)

aren't

in

this

measurement

altogether

.

---

Hi Arton, I know we've discussed this in inworld groups.

I'd still like to know what these "classes" of machines are that LL have made up.

Anyway, we'll see in time, i'd be more than happy for materials to be in general use but as Coby said, people will continue buying cheap laptops.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Sassy Romano wrote:

... In a year or two Rolig?

 

I want to hug and squeeze your optimism!

 

In a recent meeting, Oz started that about 20% of people had advanced lighting enabled, in other words, 4 out of 5 won't yet benefit from"materials" (and in this case shadows)

 

Somewhat frustrating.

---

I wonder how much that will really change, even after Firestorm comes out of Beta.

The bigger and possibly less flexible variable will still be the ratio of people who have computers that are capable of running AL. 

For me right now unless I ran into an absolute steal of a deal I have no plans to upgrade. 

[Chic Aeon]

It is a little difficult to tell if you are talking about CAST shadows or AMBIENT shadows -- both very different.

 

I am a BIG believer in ambient maps with texture overlays as they give so much depth to an object -- this would be for ambient shadows ON and object.

I also am a hater of built-in CAST shadows which come with furniture. I typically (thankfully) can move them into the floor or wall and get rid of them. Sometimes you can detach. I do like "cast shadows" behind photos however -- so who knows.

I use Firestorm but not the latest beta. When I install a new version I have to turn on shadows purposefully. I like shadows and use them most of the time unless it is laggy. Shadows really slow down your computer so not many folks can use them and even those that can often don't "all" the time.

I added materials to my last builds (pre TOS changes) using the LL viewer. I made both versions for resale.

Personally I would use ambient shadow map overlays in areas where it will make a difference. If it is a solid outside wall the chances of much going on in your ambient map is low. So places where a natural form shadow would be can have ambient maps and large walls (especially outside) could leave them off and you can tile successfully. I have done this mixed method on new builds on other platforms lately and it has worked very well.

Unless you really love materials I would leave those out. They just make the item take longer to rez. Sometimes they are great but not that many people at this time will see them.

 

That's my input

[Rolig Loon]

---

Sassy Romano wrote:

... In a year or two Rolig?

 

I want to hug and squeeze your optimism!

 

In a recent meeting, Oz started that about 20% of people had advanced lighting enabled, in other words, 4 out of 5 won't yet benefit from"materials" (and in this case shadows)

 

Somewhat frustrating.

---

Well, OK, not regular years.  What's the reverse of dog years? .....  Tortoise years, maybe?  One or two tortoise years. 

Anyway, sooner or later most people will upgrade because the newer viewers will demand higher performance.  At that point, shadows will be the ho-hum standard and we'll be complaining that most people still can't see true holographic 3D, or whatever the technology of the hour is.  For right now, many people can't see shadows or choose not to see them, but that shouldn't affect the OP's decision about whether to bake or not.  Aim for the higher standard, partly because people who are already using shadows expect you to, but mostly because it's the inevitable future. 

[arton Rotaru]

---

Sassy Romano wrote

---

Hi Arton, I know we've discussed this in inworld groups.

I'd still like to know what these "classes" of machines are that LL have made up.

Anyway, we'll see in time, i'd be more than happy for materials to be in general use but as Coby said, people will continue buying cheap laptops.

---

Hi Sassy, I think it's just refering to the classes defined in the gpu_table.txt file.

I guess a lot of people still aren't aware that they can run ALM on without a big performance hit, even with 500 USD Laptops, with shadows set to None, and Water Reflections set to Minimal. But hey, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. :matte-motes-big-grin:

[Syle Devin]

Hmm, I wasn't so clear I guess. Most of the replies seem to have been about ambient occlusion which I've never considered to be the same as shadows. I always bake in ambience if I don't bake in shadows. I was thinking of sun shadows in SL vs baking shadows using sun lights in.

[Coby Foden]

I prefer dynamic sun cast shadows (i.e to be very clear: the shadows which are cast by the sun, moon and local lights when shadows are enabled in the viewer).

Baked shadows are a nuisance when one has shadows enabled in the viewer. Then one sees two sets of shadows fiting - the static baked and the dynamic sun cast ones. As the baked shadows are static, they almost always are in the wrong direction in relation to the sun. Therefore my wish and hope is that designers do not  use baked shadows on things what they create.

 

[Rolig Loon]

I think Chic was the only one who mentioned ambient occlusion "shadows".  All the rest of the posts are referring to regular old shadows.  :smileywink:

[Chic Aeon]

Former art teacher. Gave classes in the differences .

If it is cast shadows, I vote NO - LOL. But honestly if you lovem, them keep them. Be aware though that if people use viewer shadows they conflict mightily. I can think of two house I have with them. Have to match your Windlight to the shadows when taking photos. Not my favorite activity.

And there were a couple of other comments that sounded like answers on ambient shadows. One stating they prevented tiling (true) and another but don't remember the details now.

It is quitting time for me. Much accomplished. Always good.