Jump to content

Recommended Posts

New computer arrived after being "stalled" for a few days. For those of you that don't have the newest  Win10 (definitely not like the older ones -- either pro or home -- that have been updated for four years -- YET anyway) it is pretty depressing. We definitely ARE the product with very few choices and "mandatory service".  I turn off all the invasive stuff I could but there were many places where resistance was futile.  So be prepared for the future when it gets to you. 

 

NEXT MORNING EDIT: Keep reading the thread as shadows were off :D.  Sorry about that.  Things really DO LOAD FAST though LOL.  

 

But beyond that  I know that a ton of folks have been waiting for a 3070 card and perhaps wondering how they would work in SL.  I had HEARD that SL didn't use a lot of the 3070s features and that may be very true.  BUT ----

 

Here is my report after only one brief outing.  My fps have been over 400 on the ground of my sim (typically maybe 60fps with my four year old card and were almost 300 over at Vision where an Easter Egg hunt is going on.  This on mid ultra with shadows  -- my regular settings. 

 

The look is different. Sharper I guess with more color depth. It will take me awhile to get used to that but so far all is well.   

Edited by Chic Aeon
adding info
  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

New computer arrived after being "stalled" for a few days. For those of you that don't have the newest  Win10 (definitely not like the older ones -- either pro or home -- that have been updated for fo

I didn't change any settings at all. I used RESTORE on Firestorm.  I can only say that it does look quite different to me. That is subjective so it might not look different to some folks.  OK. BI

Still got 2 GB free for the system...

Posted Images

3 hours ago, Chic Aeon said:

The look is different. Sharper I guess with more color depth. It will take me awhile to get used to that but so far all is well.   

In theory, the colors should be the same unless you changed something in your GPU driver settings / changed viewer / changed monitor. YMMV though.

Color depth would only change if you have a 10-bit monitor, *and* a viewer which supports the 10-bit pipeline, *and* have that enabled (not entirely sure if any viewer supports Nvidia's 10-bit, but haven't got any Nvidia HW to test), and even then it would only be a change in materials rendering.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to know how many pixels you're pushing, Chic, and where, in the sweet love of anything you can get 400fps. I've got a 10700 i7 and 3070 with the latest drivers in my recent PC, and can hope for maybe 70-75 fps max in low lag/uncrowded spots, and down into the low 20s in place like Foxxies. I hit the teens when Fogbound Blues is crowded.

Granted, I am pushing Ultra 4K (at 3840x2160 pixels) at a 60Hz refresh (so am not going to actually see/render anything above 60fps anyway), and have my graphics set to one notch below Ultra and a 256m draw distance. Latest Firestorm build. But how are you hitting 400? That sounds crazy to me.

Please IM me in game and TP me to this 400 fps land of yours so I can test as well.

Edited by Katherine Heartsong
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Jenna Huntsman said:

In theory, the colors should be the same unless you changed something in your GPU driver settings / changed viewer / changed monitor. YMMV though.

I didn't change any settings at all. I used RESTORE on Firestorm.  I can only say that it does look quite different to me. That is subjective so it might not look different to some folks. 

OK. BIG EDIT HERE as I just noticed that I had shadows off. So the "restore" function on FS doesn't seem to be working as well since Win10 went to the "new" big update (a week or so ago for me and this new computer is OH so different Win10 wise than my old updated Win10.  Some things seem to be blocked (for me anyway) as restore wouldn't keep my logins and that was also the case on the new machine.  So THAT is part of the difference in look.   

 

Sorry about that.   175 fps WITH shadows on. '

Leaving the rest of the post as it was -- 

 

Here is what I see. No high res shot just a "snip" screenshot.  I take a lot of those for the Furnishings thread so you can compare with ones from the other computer.  Anything there with a signature on the photo was high res and prost processed. Others would be like I just took this.  Current fps at this shot was 337 fps.

image.thumb.png.33399c3759700c2a32dce191eb2e94fe.png

 

1 hour ago, Katherine Heartsong said:

I want to know how many pixels you're pushing, Chic, and where, in the sweet love of anything you can get 400fps. I've got a 10700 i7 and 3070 with the latest drivers in my recent PC, and can hope for maybe 70-75 fps max in low lag/uncrowded spots, and down into the low 20s in place like Foxxies. I hit the teens when Fogbound Blues is crowded.

Granted, I am pushing Ultra 4K (at 3840x2160 pixels) at a 60Hz refresh (so am not going to actually see/render anything above 60fps anyway), and have my graphics set to one notch below Ultra and a 256m draw distance. Latest Firestorm build. But how are you hitting 400? That sounds crazy to me.

Please IM me in game and TP me to this 400 fps land of yours so I can test as well.

I have a  2560 monitor. Too many programs that I wouldn't be able to read the interface on a 4K :D.   Not a secret place, my  sim Moon Beach down on the ground.   I haven't been up to the store area yet.  Thee isn't much on the ground (what you see in the photo mostly) but I haven't EVER seen more than 200 fps at any time in my SL virtual life before -- so yes I was shocked. 

 

I WILL say though that I just went over to Neo Japan and had the viewer set so it saw ALL the people. FPS were down in the 20s although the venue loaded very quickly so that was nice.   The "show friends only" button is indeed your friend.  

 

Here are the graphic settings for that screenshot above.

image.thumb.png.a799152fdfa40c29d554dfa7e6b4815e.png

Oh I see I have ambient occlusion turned off somehow. That wasn't a plan and will do another quick test at my "house" and report.

165fps over here at Gooseberry Estates (lots of flora as you see). This is a low res saved jpg as I am out of pixels for this post :D.  WITH ambient occlusion on it is 155fps. 

gooseberry.thumb.jpg.9917b115b74f253c91a369cf6afb9271.jpg

That's all I can report on now.  

I am NOT using an EEP viewer.  Here are my stats.

Firestorm 6.3.9 (58205) May 27 2020 01:20:51 (64bit) (Firestorm-Releasex64) with Havok support
Release Notes

You are at 30.8, 213.8, 25.0 in Gooseberry Willows located at ec2-52-34-96-2.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com (52.34.96.2:13004)
SLURL: http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Gooseberry Willows/31/214/25
(global coordinates 136,479.0, 295,126.0, 25.0)
Second Life Server 2021-03-11.556847
Release Notes

CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 5800 8-Core Processor               (3393.63 MHz)
Memory: 16310 MB
OS Version: Microsoft Windows 10 64-bit (Build 19042.867)
Graphics Card Vendor: NVIDIA Corporation
Graphics Card: GeForce RTX 3070/PCIe/SSE2

Windows Graphics Driver Version: 27.21.14.5751
OpenGL Version: 4.6.0 NVIDIA 457.51

Edited by Chic Aeon
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I went to Gooseberry Willows at lunch. Stood right on the road next to the little docks with the fire pit and chairs, looking out over that and the canal.

Same settings as you, same Windows build, 32GB RAM, except for my higher screen resolution and using the EEP version of FS. Mid-day setting. Frame rate was a mere 25.Turned up to 256m draw distance and frame rate 17.

I am doing something terribly wrong, apparently.

I have never seen decent frame rates, except in the most isolated and empty flat sims and in the middle of Blake looking out over water.

ps. I also have a 1000 Mb/sec pipe and download stuff so fast it's frightening.

Edited by Katherine Heartsong
Link to post
Share on other sites

Try to compare it with avatar rendering turned off, maybe you are your own source of lag. I'm getting about 60 fps in the same place with similar settings on a 1080 gfx card (and avatar rendering disabled).

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I also just am on the Moon Beach sim, standing right where Chic was (she's beside me, in fact, with a new bob haircut that looks fab) with about the same view.

35 frames per sec.

I honestly don't know whether to cry or scream.

(Will try Candide's suggestion ... turned off avatars, no change to fps ... TY Candide for your help!)

Edited by Katherine Heartsong
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's about what I have, plus 1Gb/sec Internet in both directions. Running Linux, though.

With everything turned on, I get about 30 FPS in my home sim.

Hint: with a graphics card like that, go to the Hardware Settings menu in Firestorm and set the texture memory slider all the way up to 4096. That's still only half of what the card has. That can double the frame rate in texture-heavy areas.renderingspeed.thumb.png.53883b732b99797a071f47b3defec6f6.png

With all the rendering info. This is the employee break area out back of my workshop.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I noticed with late updates of Firestorm since May, a general fall of the high FPS on default/low graphics compared to before, but a stable good FPS when graphics in Ultra with all the whistles and bangs on in even busy complex regions/clubs. And this is good.

Others who noticed the same?

Further, high complex mesh avatars with lot of high resolution textures always had and will have major impact on performance, but I observed a decrease in viewer performance if 25+ avatars in a region, where this impact was less before. Lowering numbers of non-impostors does help, but not much.

And even with Viewer Texture Memeory Buffer cranked up to 4.096 MB ( system reports 3.2 GB of 6 GB VRAM used), everything loaded and moving the cam around with mouse in a busy club, some avatars textures turn grey and reloads like it was texture trashing, but this looks like to me some changes made on how updates are handled by the viewer, when the cam is moved around around.

 

Edited by Rachel1206
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Rachel1206 said:

... everything loaded and moving the cam around with mouse in a busy club, some avatars textures turn grey and reloads like it was texture trashing, but this looks like to me some changes made on how updates are handled by the viewer, when the cam is moved around around.

 

I've noticed this happening recently too, in the past month, I'd say. Usually at places like Foxxies or Franks as I pan around looking around the dance floor at people.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rachel1206 said:

but this looks like to me some changes made on how updates are handled by the viewer,

Yes, there HAVE been updates to the camera/texture-rendering code.  As I understand things the viewer no longer loads textures of items/avatars no longer in view.  They then have to be downloaded when they move into vision.  It gather that this eases the general render-load on the viewer, though it looks odd to us at first glance. The Dynamic texture memory settings available in FS now should significantly increase performance on systems that have GPUs with more than 4GB of VRAM.  The slider is user set and can be used to optimize viewer performance.

The former change is, I believe, thanks to the Linden developers, the latter one is a Firestorm -specific addition.

There are those that know far more about these changes than I but that is how I understand things.

Edited by Aishagain
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Aishagain said:

Yes, there HAVE been updates to the camera/texture-rendering code.  As I understand things the viewer no longer loads textures of items/avatars no longer in view.  They then have to be downloaded when they move into vision.  It gather that this eases the general render-load on the viewer, though it looks odd to us at first glance.

This is true, but it's not a new change. That's how the LL/FS viewer has worked for many many years, longer than I can remember.

I think it's called the "interest list," but I might be confusing that with something else.

Edited by Wulfie Reanimator
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ansariel Hiller said:

Totally what you should NOT do - I suggest reading the tooltip...

Still got 2 GB free for the system...

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

This is true, but it's not a new change. That's how the LL/FS viewer has worked for many many years, longer than I can remember.

No Wulfie this is something in addition to the "Interest List" changes.  It is a different selection of in view textures...now the viewer does not load anything not in the immediate view.  Previously all textures in the view "sphere" of the viewer were loaded and cached.  I don't know the fine detail but I do know these changes were made (I believe) when the "Love Me Render" code was introduced quite recently, first to the LL viewer and then to the TPVs. So far as I can recall, Interest List operation involved the rendering or "potential rendering" of both objects and textures not simply the textures, and from what I recall it never "quite" worked as intended.

Edited by Aishagain
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Katherine Heartsong said:

I went to Gooseberry Willows at lunch. Stood right on the road next to the little docks with the fire pit and chairs, looking out over that and the canal.

Same settings as you, same Windows build, 32GB RAM, except for my higher screen resolution and using the EEP version of FS. Mid-day setting. Frame rate was a mere 25.Turned up to 256m draw distance and frame rate 17.

I am doing something terribly wrong, apparently.

I have never seen decent frame rates, except in the most isolated and empty flat sims and in the middle of Blake looking out over water.

ps. I also have a 1000 Mb/sec pipe and download stuff so fast it's frightening.

1 only have 16 GB RAM and a not terribly fast (you CAN get faster where I live) connection.

image.png.49b41402da8e1b126472d7865915fb57.png

 

I see a WHOLE lot of comments on this thread while I have been busy getting everything ship shape, installed, spiffied et al.  Should be an interesting read.  The EEP version of FS is said to be very nasty on FPS (not FS fault of course) so that is undoubtably part of it as well as the big monitor. I honestly didn't realize how different FPS were without shadows on.  

ODDLY I turned on shadows and took photos and never turned them off and logged out and when I logged in again they were off. NO CLUE what is going on there. 

 

GLAD THE ANSWER WAS FOUND.  WHY would you want to limit your fps?????  A puzzle that is even in there but likely a reason. Maybe machinima as there was a limit option built into FRAPS (when we could use FRAPS :D)

 

 

Edited by Chic Aeon
adding info
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

I've yet to hear of a monitor that runs higher than 240fps. Most still run at 60Hz.

What's the value of rendering faster than the monitor can display?

In Second Life?  Nothing.  In first-person shooter games?  You get to see slightly more up-to-date positions of objects and players.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Ardy Lay said:

In Second Life?  Nothing.  In first-person shooter games?  You get to see slightly more up-to-date positions of objects and players.  

This confuses me. Object position must be known before the frame is drawn. The object positions of frames that won't be displayed are of no importance. Figure out what the monitor frame rate is and render frames using the most up-to-date position. If your monitor displays a frame every 16.7ms (60Hz) and the viewer can render a frame in 2.5ms, more than five of every six frames drawn will never make it to the display. Why not use that compute time for something else (or turn it off to reduce power consumption) and start rendering just in time to make the next monitor frame? The bits going to the display will be exactly the same and you'll save a tremendous amount of compute power.

I suppose it's possible the video game hasn't the foggiest idea how long it will take to render the next frame, and so if it just renders as fast as it can and uses the last frame to make the monitor's frame deadline, you'll usually get close to the lowest latency, but the efficiency of doing that is terrible.

Edited by Madelaine McMasters
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

This confuses me. Object position must be known before the frame is drawn. The object positions of frames that won't be displayed are of no importance. Figure out what the monitor frame rate is and render frames using the most up-to-date position. If your monitor displays a frame every 16.7ms (60Hz) and the viewer can render a frame in 2.5ms, more than five of every six frames drawn will never make it to the display. Why not use that compute time for something else (or turn it off to reduce power consumption) and start rendering just in time to make the next monitor frame? The bits going to the display will be exactly the same and you'll save a tremendous amount of compute power.

I suppose it's possible the video game hasn't the foggiest idea how long it will take to render the next frame, and so if it just renders as fast as it can and uses the last frame to make the monitor's frame deadline, you'll usually get close to the lowest latency, but the efficiency of doing that is terrible.

Yeah, wasted watt-hours, I suppose, but, the location seen by the eye is enough fresher to make a difference between winning and losing a competitive e-sports match and winning money to buy a 240Hz display to win the next one with!  I'm not making this up.  Lack of understanding does not alter facts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rachel1206 said:

Still got 2 GB free for the system...

So explain and teach me, why it is bad to set the Viewer Texture Memory Buffer to 4 GB, when I got a GPU with dedicated 6 GB VRAM. Normal the dedicated VRAM usage (system + viewer) for me at home etc. is like 1.8 GB, high trafic clubs places like 3.2 GB.

In Firestorm the popup help tells: "The minimum amount of memory to allocate for textures. This will make sure the specified amount will always be used for textures. even if it exceed the amount of avaible video memory.... "

How does usage of a 4 GB texture memory buffer exceed my GPU VRAM?

 

Edited by Rachel1206
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

I've yet to hear of a monitor that runs higher than 240fps. Most still run at 60Hz.

What's the value of rendering faster than the monitor can display?

It's very hard to explain with words, but you can definitely feel the difference (in mouse movement) between a game that runs at 60 FPS vs 240 FPS, even if your monitor isn't displaying more than 60 FPS. You can also feel it when the game's framerate isn't consistent, even if it never drops below whatever your monitor can display. (That is one good reason to limit your FPS -- to keep it consistent.)

I think you and @Ardy Lay are speaking past each other, though. If the game is running at 240 but your monitor at 60, you're not going to see things faster. But if you actually had a 240Hz monitor, then it would be true.

Edited by Wulfie Reanimator
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

×
×
  • Create New...