Better viewer for Second Life? ((To get MORE Fps))

[Paul Hexem]

I enjoy commenting in threads where people brag about their toasters.

[Rob Huntsman]

57 minutes ago, Candice LittleBoots said:

I'm not taking sides but I was curious so, as requested, I went to this place and took the same (similar) pic with the same (rather unusual) set of settings in the off-chance it may help someone.

This was on a ASUS ROG gaming laptop with 1920x1080

CPU : INTEL CORE I7-8750H
RAM : 16GB DDR4
HDD : 1 TB 5400 RPM + 256 GB SSD M.2 PCI-E
DISPLAY : 17.3" FHD AG
VGA : GEFORCE GTX 1060 6GB GDDR5
OS : WINDOWS 10

did your graphics go up or down when you tested?

Like I'm still baffled how this didnt work for my friend with their 1050 geforce Graphics card. >.>

[Fionalein]

1 hour ago, Candice LittleBoots said:

I'm not taking sides but I was curious so, as requested, I went to this place and took the same (similar) pic with the same (rather unusual) set of settings in the off-chance it may help someone.

This was on a ASUS ROG gaming laptop with 1920x1080

CPU : INTEL CORE I7-8750H
RAM : 16GB DDR4
HDD : 1 TB 5400 RPM + 256 GB SSD M.2 PCI-E
DISPLAY : 17.3" FHD AG
VGA : GEFORCE GTX 1060 6GB GDDR5
OS : WINDOWS 10

Not comparable, you did not spam your HUD with textures like OP did 

Edited June 19, 2018 by Fionalein

[Lillith Hapmouche]

6 hours ago, Haselden said:

Like I'm still baffled how this didnt work for my friend with their 1050 geforce Graphics card. >.>

Most likely because the plain 1050 also sucks big time as a gaming choice and it is another horrible match for an i7.

Both of you could easily get a good GTX 1060 6 GB or a RX 580 8 GB and you'd have fine gaming rigs. Heck, even a modern day most basic entry level card like a GT 1030 would wipe the floor with your GPU. And polish it as well.

But perhaps you'd rather like to cripple yourself even more... get rid of your GT 600-ancient-power eating hog and purely run on your CPU's integrated graphics.
Actually, that one might be faster.

[Qie Niangao]

16 hours ago, Lillith Hapmouche said:

Most likely because the plain 1050 also sucks big time as a gaming choice and it is another horrible match for an i7.

In the first post we were talking about 960s, and then a 1080 TI for a post, then a 1050 -- I don't know what that's all about, but as you say, even a 1030 is many times faster than a 625 at 3D rendering.

Yeah, yeah, there are some drastically primitive settings necessary to get that 625 to light up a window (and the jury isn't in yet about what those settings do with cards less crippled)... and we all know that the staggeringly deep draw setting makes no sense... but nobody has such a decrepit card to test with themselves.

Nonetheless, I just hopped over and rezzed-in that scene with my standard settings and got about 40 FPS -- this on a GTX 660 and a decrepit i5, running full shadows, reflections, and pretty much "Ultra" across the board. So the mystery remains: WTF are these friends with the less antiquated graphics cards doing wrong to get such crappy frame rates, when nobody else has the same trouble?

[Rob Huntsman]

5 hours ago, Qie Niangao said:

In the first post we were talking about 960s, and then a 1080 TI for a post, then a 1050 -- I don't know what that's all about, but as you say, even a 1030 is many times faster than a 625 at 3D rendering.

Yeah, yeah, there are some drastically primitive settings necessary to get that 625 to light up a window (and the jury isn't in yet about what those settings do with cards less crippled)... and we all know that the staggeringly deep draw setting makes no sense... but nobody has such a decrepit card to test with themselves.

Nonetheless, I just hopped over and rezzed-in that scene with my standard settings and got about 40 FPS -- this on a GTX 660 and a decrepit i5, running full shadows, reflections, and pretty much "Ultra" across the board. So the mystery remains: WTF are these friends with the less antiquated graphics cards doing wrong to get such crappy frame rates, when nobody else has the same trouble?

Oh, for combat settings its why the draw distance is so high. These aren't even my settings either, a friend of mine gave it to me because you get really low FPS with all them avatars around. However, since these settings worked for me I figured it would work for better graphic cards yeah? Or people with 6 FPS issues.

Well wrong, I'm still baffled how the SL settings work in the terms of graphics. OR heard a few things though it could be the viewer. For example, people say Alchemy your FPS can go up not sure what are the Cons to alchemy is though.

Edited June 20, 2018 by Haselden

[LittleMe Jewell]

Did you confirm that your Network Bandwidth setting and Texture Cache size were the same?

[Lillith Hapmouche]

19 minutes ago, Haselden said:

... since these settings worked for me I figured it would work for better graphic cards yeah? Or people with 6 FPS issues.

Chances are that those very specifically "optimized" (that's said with at least three tongues in cheek) settings probably put very little stress on the GPU, but instead, the already stressed CPU has even more load to handle.

[Pandora Barzane]

still suprised the dx9 outdated graphics of SL still giving problems to any toaster

 

 

 

 

[Parhelion Palou]

7 hours ago, Pandora Barzane said:

still suprised the dx9 outdated graphics of SL still giving problems to any toaster

 

SL is OpenGL, not DirectX