Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Sassy Romano

Rendering complexity feature

Recommended Posts

https://community.secondlife.com/t5/Featured-News/Second-Life-Improvements-What-s-New-amp-What-s-Coming-Soon/ba-p/2973598

This will be interesting.

Too many shoppers are aiding the perpetual cycle of seeing "high polygon" clothing as "detailed" and thus good, further encouraging creators to make inappropriately dense items.

Looking at one main creator... Stop modeling every hole in full mesh buttons, button stitching, modeling holes in leather belts. What are you thinking?

No wonder that when rezzed, the item was 148 LI and a display weight of over 67,000. Try a normal map instead. A comment from someone in groups chat yesterday when being gently challenged about the detail of their item was "normal maps are for rich people with expensive graphics cards" so instead she made boots totaling 40k+ vertices.

Maybe when people discover that their coveted stupid detail items that they paid for aren't being rendered, it might cause a change in behaviour?

We've had the ARC drama and the script drama, next up... Derender drama!

Can't wait, it'll be fun :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Sassy Romano wrote:

"normal maps are for rich people with expensive graphics cards" so instead she made boots totaling 40k+ vertices.


So ... her solution is to create items that will lag or even crash older cards?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooh that's easy!

 

Make a HUD driven game, sort of like Bloodlines where players go around "killing" unsuspecting victims with high poly. We will also need LSL API to set the render profile in the viewer and to derender victims that we kill.

 

The game will also need a web system that looks the render weights and each player in the relevant clan will have a target of render weight that they need to collect from victims.

 

On this site it will also show who took whose render weight from them (and thus derendered them).

 

A derendered victim can buy back their render soul and once again be visible.

 

In fact if we had an LSL interface to derender people, that could be turned into a grid wide collaborative pre emptive derender system along the lines of Redzone.

 

The more i think on the possibilities, the more that it becomes clear that LL have gone about this in the most boring way, devoid of the potential dramatainment that could have been provided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about also introducing a feature where landowners could limit avatar draw weight (complexity), so that people turning up at, say, a cool mimimal house music club dressed in the typical baggy grey clothes with X million polygons, get a pop-up saying 'Your avatar complexity exceeds the limit set for this parcel' instead of TP-ing there?.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Rhonda Huntress wrote:


Sassy Romano wrote:

"normal maps are for rich people with expensive graphics cards" so instead she made boots totaling 40k+ vertices.


So ... her solution is to create items that will lag or even crash older cards?

Looks more like her solution is to lag and crash cards of "rich" as well. :matte-motes-silly:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That could cause the same degree of drama as daring to suggest script limits on a parcel. Those who don't care about polygon count simply don't care about polygon count. Nor do they probably care about how they appear to others, as long as they look fabulous on their own screens and in their own photos on Flickr. We have seen in the past what happens when there is an attempt to educate  those who use a lot of resources in SL: there will be blaming of everything from others' graphics cards to their 'nanny-state attitude' to their sad old computers to their imperfect methods of measuring.  I don't think the attempts to change attitudes should stop though.

I look forward to seeing a few jelly babies when I go out and about, as it will make getting around in crowds easier. Perhaps the ability to customise the skins for unrendered avatars could be a fun bonus feature. We could turn them into ghosts or zombies, so that when exploring dark themed sims the bright jelly baby look doesn't blow the ambience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say bring it on!

Let the Jelly Belly Wars begin!

This is all in line with the Tau of Shared Experiences.

When all any of us can see is Jelly Bellies then we will have reached Shared Experience Nirvana.

Rather than see what can be done to enhance the SL experience let's see what we can do to push it's technical complexity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as a once famous fashionista once said famously: bc I can darling!

in answer to the question: why ever would you wear 140 prim eyelashes

+

is nothing new this. just bc mesh. olden days bling jewellery for instance

and am not sure that it matters at all that much

jelly babies is quite a good approach I think for the widest number of people, in terms of vid cards timing out and the viewer shutting down

you are sooo derendered !! tho gets a slightly bored meh ! whatevs. pretty much every time

+

can remember some fashion events where they tried enforcing caps and booted people who exceed them. Nobody went bc fashion event + fashionistas != low rez. And others who might of went never bothered bc they heard thru the fashion groups about the caps

the shop keepers spit the dummy about that. No shoppers at a fashion event is not what they paid the event fees for

fashionista would rather get lagged to death than go low rez

when cant move at a event bc lag then fashionista cam shops

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Sassy Romano wrote:

Ooh that's easy!

 

Make a ... game

jejejeje (:

+

gamer: u r soooo derendered. i am the winner !!!

fashionista: who said that ?

gamer: i did !!

fashionista: like I said. who ???

(:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many people don't care about such things.

If they get a notice how many other avtars can't see them - THAT will make them think about such things.

The creators have to follow their customers demands or vanish.

All in all the jelly babes sounds like a plan that could work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Nova Convair wrote:

Many people don't care about such things.

If they get a notice how many other avtars can't see them - THAT will make them think about such things.

The creators have to follow their customers demands or vanish.

All in all the jelly babes sounds like a plan that could work.

If more people understood that they were their own walking lag bombs then they'd demand that the creators do a better job of optimizing content.

My opinion is the average resident is oblivious to their own impact.

This is one reason that I maintain that it should be mandatory that the render weights for all wearables be listed in the Marketplace.

In SL the idea that more is better is generally counter productive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really not sure this is going to work the way a lot of people expect.   I'm not particuarly worried about how people I don't know see my avatar, and since it's now not going to lag out people's viewers (because they won't be trying to render me) there's not so much reason to feel bad on their behalf.

It remains to be seen what people with less powerful GPUs will make of the fact that in every club they visit half the people appear to be to be jellybabies of various colours.   Hardly very immersive, after all.

MInd you, people do pay good money to look like that in real life, so who knows?

 



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perrie Juran wrote:

it should be mandatory that the render weights for all wearables be listed in the Marketplace.

 

agree

 

and there should be a way for us to know this from a inworld vendor as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I don't know Innula. While many may not care what they look like, many of the interactions in SL are social and humans base a lot on appearance.

 

Take an example of an SL couple going to ac dance. She dresses up in her best, recently purchased high poly dress and extra detail jewellery, seeking to impress her partner. First thing he says is "nice jellybean outfit!"

 

Next example, a singleton goes to a club/dance venue wearing their best high detail outfit in the hope of looking attractive and to meet someone. To everyone else, she's a jellybean and nobody says a squeak to her.

 

Next example, go to a role play sim and nobody speaks to her because they're rather engage with someone who looks appealing instead of a jellybean.

 

I'm curious how this will be as an experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the theory, certainly, Sassy.    How it works in practice remains to be seen.  

Certainly in the very few interactions at which I've been present so far (as a spectator, not as a participant) where someone's been using the RC viewer and seen someone as a jellybean, people have been cursing the viewer and asking for help adjusting their graphics settings so they can see people properly.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well crap.

OBJECT_RENDER_WEIGHT doesn't work for objects, only for avatars. And OBJECT_STREAMING_COST is a pretty lame substitute, going up and down with an object's (probable) contribution to avatar render weight, but on a much smaller scale.

For that matter, as I reported in these forums earlier, the avatar render weight reported by the viewer is tremendously unstable, sometimes increasing when attachments are removed (thus posing quite a challenge to a merchant hoping to report their product's render weight).

Hence, while there's no question that some attachments are way, way harder to render than others, nobody can reliably and objectively determine which attachments are pushing even their own avatar past the jelly-baby threshold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


irihapeti wrote:


Perrie Juran wrote:

it should be mandatory that the render weights for all wearables be listed in the Marketplace.

 

agree

 

and there should be a way for us to know this from a inworld vendor as well

Remember the mesh mantra.  "No Demo; No Sell"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over all I don't think it is as dire as some people make it.  How many people have the maximum number of avatars to reneder turned down already?  While I think being told how many people have you jellied is pure drama bait, the ability to adjust your own threashhold is another tool just like paper dolls and max avatars but this way you can block specific high resource avatars instead of everyone past a few meters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Rhonda Huntress wrote:


irihapeti wrote:


Perrie Juran wrote:

it should be mandatory that the render weights for all wearables be listed in the Marketplace.

 

agree

 

and there should be a way for us to know this from a inworld vendor as well

Remember the mesh mantra.  "No Demo; No Sell"

true. I forgot about that

and yes. i am live by that mantra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Qie Niangao wrote:

 

For that matter, as I reported in these forums earlier, the avatar render weight reported by the viewer is tremendously unstable, sometimes
increasing
when attachments are
removed
(thus posing quite a challenge to a merchant hoping to report their product's render weight).

Hence, while there's no question that some attachments are way, way harder to render than others, nobody can reliably and objectively determine which attachments are pushing even their own avatar past the jelly-baby threshold.

Rez or wear (doesn't matter which) the attachment and edit it -> More info -> Weights of selected -> Display.

The Display weight is that attachments render weight & should be exactly how much that attachment adds to the overall complexity reading I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Whirly, that's certainly closer than anything else I've tried, although sometimes the Display weight seems to be substantially less than the attachment's addition to avatar rendering complexity; I'm not sure if this is a ceiling effect, or a product of mixed mesh+sculpt+prim hybrid objects, or something altogether unrelated. But yeah, it's precisely correct a lot of the time, enough so it would be useful if only it were exposed to scripts.

It's kind of a conspicuous omission, too. We get OBJECT_SERVER_COST, and _STREAMING_ , and _PHYSICS_ but not _DISPLAY_ weight, except for the _RENDER_WEIGHT which explicitly works only for avatars. 

So I made a jira. Maybe somebody will shed more light on whatever magic is behind this mechanism.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whirly Fizzle wrote
The Display weight is that attachments render weight & should be exactly how much that attachment adds to the overall complexity reading I think.


I never tried the jellybean beta viewer - been to busy to play with betas recently - so I don't knwo exactly how this works.

But they aren't basing the feature on the old display weight calculation, are they? That's not going to do any good.

Put on a fitted mesh body, fitted mesh hands and fet and head and fitted mesh hair. Cover it all with fitted mesh clothing and cover each and every surface down to the holes for the shoelaces with custom normal and specular maps and you can still show up as a yummy low lag avi according to the display weight.

Now, replace with good ol' system clothing, place a flexihair on top and, bang! you're far into the red zone.

Which of these two avatars is the one that is going to actually cause lag issues?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


ChinRey wrote:

 

But they aren't basing the feature on the old display weight calculation, are they? That's not going to do any good.


As far as I'm aware, yes they are. They just renamed it Avatar Complexity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Whirly Fizzle wrote:

As far as I'm aware, yes they are. They just renamed it Avatar Complexity.


 

That's a serious flaw, enough to make this new feature completely and utterly useless.

The old render weight formula does not take into account recently introduced features and does not seem to be representative of the actual render cost for many modern avatars. So it looks as if the new jellybean function will turn perfectly good, low lag avatars into monochrome blotches whilst still trying to render the real high lag avatars in full.

All hope is not lost though. I said the old calculation. Maybe they'll upgrade the formula. They haven't done it yet though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...