Is satellite ok with secondlife?

[Silent Mistwalker]

1 hour ago, Ultima Cloud said:

Satellite is not recommended according to SL system requirements.

Important Notes

* Second Life is not compatible with dial-up internet, satellite internet, and some wireless internet services.

https://secondlife.com/system-requirements

 

Oh wow! LL finally updated the page after not bothering for over 10 years.

[Nalates Urriah]

On 11/5/2021 at 10:06 AM, Chroma Starlight said:

Even wi-fi tends to be iffy. You're better off networking via Ethernet or similar. 

 

On 11/5/2021 at 10:12 AM, Sam1 Bellisserian said:

In 4 years I've never had an issue with wifi. I am very rarely connected to my ethernet on my laptop.  

There is in-home wi-fi and there is commercial area wi-fi. The commercial wi-fi usually comes off a cell-tower to save on having to wire into the house. Then the in-home router/gateway connecting to the cell-tower provides the in-house connections. So, a two level wireless sort of deal. I haven't worked with any systems using that sort of connection.

My experience with in-home wi-fi is that newer systems are fine. The 5ghz signal is great as long as it is strong. But 5ghz doesn't go through walls that well so signal drops off quickly. But a good 2.4ghz signal is usually fine for SL too.

For the OP... the problem is the home-to-world part of the connection.

[Solar Legion]

On 11/6/2021 at 11:44 AM, Silent Mistwalker said:

 

Oh wow! LL finally updated the page after not bothering for over 10 years.

"Updated" ... Those specs are still woefully out of date.

[Silent Mistwalker]

2 hours ago, Solar Legion said:

"Updated" ... Those specs are still woefully out of date.

Huh. I thought Win11 just hit the shelves and it does state Win 8 or Win10 and nothing before those so someone changed it since Win10 was released. If you mean the graphics, nope. Those are intentionally low for the people who are stuck with potatoes. Until the GPU dies and they can't replace it because they don't make them any more.

[Solar Legion]

1 minute ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

Huh. I thought Win11 just hit the shelves and it does state Win 8 or Win10 and nothing before those so someone changed it since Win10 was released. If you mean the graphics, nope. Those are intentionally low for the people who are stuck with potatoes. Until the GPU dies and they can't replace it because they don't make them any more.

The Hardware requirements are woefully out of date - there is no "explanation" or excuse that makes it ok. What you're calling "potatoes" were such perhaps ten or so years ago, they are not, now.

A machine matching the "recommended" hardware is going to have a rough time, even on the absolute lowest possible settings - no escaping or arguing with that.

Move that entire section into the "minimum" area and they might be telling the truth.

Heck, by the time Windows XP was EOLed that page still had badly out of date specs where hardware was concerned.

Don't have to like it (and I sure as heck didn't then and don't now) but it is what it is.

[Silent Mistwalker]

Whatever you say dude. I'm always wrong and you're always right. Have a nice life.

[Solar Legion]

15 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

Whatever you say dude. I'm always wrong and you're always right. Have a nice life.

Oh for ...Enough with the dramatics already, nothing of the sort was said.

Edited November 9, 2021 by Solar Legion

[Ardy Lay]

Left column is basically "The code will execute on it."  Right column "Might not timeout when somebody plays a gesture."  Hmm, has AMD recycled all of the ATI card names yet?

Edited November 9, 2021 by Ardy Lay

[Lyssa Greymoon]

16 minutes ago, Ardy Lay said:

Left column is basically "The code will execute on it."

Except when it won't. Like on the Radeon 9500. Or when it won't run right, like on the GeForce 6600. I dunno about the Intel GMA950 and I don't wanna find out.

18 minutes ago, Ardy Lay said:

Right column "Might not timeout when somebody plays a gesture."

SL can still run pretty well on the better recommended hardware, with the right settings. Not just jamming everything to low, either. I wouldn't recommend any of it now but it can work okay.

[Ardy Lay]

9 hours ago, Lyssa Greymoon said:

Except when it won't. Like on the Radeon 9500. Or when it won't run right, like on the GeForce 6600. I dunno about the Intel GMA950 and I don't wanna find out.

SL can still run pretty well on the better recommended hardware, with the right settings. Not just jamming everything to low, either. I wouldn't recommend any of it now but it can work okay.

I don't have all that hardware to try it.  I have some more recent members of the same families and nope.  I have actually destroyed much of the "System requirement" list by trying to run Second Life on junk computers people are throwing out.  One nvidia 8800 GT survives, but not because it is worthy.  It survives because the motherboard failed out from under it.  When I put it in another, more recent, computer, I get the "legacy drivers only" warning and an OS shutdown.  Not gonna try to use them for Second Life.  I do still have an Intel GMA 945, the one mentioned in the System Requirements document, not the GMA 950.  I can assure you it will execute the code, but the driver for it it offloads so much of the rendering work to the CPU.  The CPU in that "Centrino" chipset is a Core Duo (not Core 2) that simply flash-heats to thermal limit temperature and folds back to "Am I running this on an ATMEGA328P?" clock speeds to keep from melting the solder holding it to the circuit board.  Not usable, not even when standing on a prim 3,000 meters in the air as naked Ruth.

I think the document should have a third column and maybe a fourth column but then it would require actual effort to maintain.

1. It will execute (Currently called "Minimum Requirements")
2. It will probably not timeout frequently like column one does (Currently called "Recommended")  HAHAHAHA!
3. Most commonly used with good results by Second Life Residents  (Linden Lab does indeed gather the statistics, forget the Steam Survey, that's not for 'us'.)
4. Best we have tested our software on  (in other words, it will execute too but is likely not going to be kept busy by Second Life)

 

[Silent Mistwalker]

LL isn't going to buy one each of every new graphics card that comes out and test them in SL. That is neither realistic nor financially advisable.

[Ardy Lay]

3 hours ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

LL isn't going to buy one each of every new graphics card that comes out and test them in SL. That is neither realistic nor financially advisable.

I would not expect an all-encompassing list as you apparently would expect such a list to be.  I would just expect LL to list what they have tried.  Surely they have tried something that isn't old enough to vote!  Maybe one new product from each of AMD, nVidia and Intel each generation, and not the top of the pecking order either.  Maybe something 1/2 to 2/3 the way down the product stack every year or two?  LL probably already has access to the hardware either on their own property or in the home of an employee that works from home.

I know LL already collects equipment information and some statistics and will know what can run SL from that but I don't think the statistics include much if anything about what is being rendered when the timing data is collected.

Edited November 9, 2021 by Ardy Lay

[Silent Mistwalker]

59 minutes ago, Ardy Lay said:

I would not expect an all-encompassing list as you apparently would expect such a list to be.

Where did I say I expect that? LOL I never said any such thing. Not once have I said anything about MY expectations. Other people are the ones expecting LL to be testing all new cards as they hit the market, not me. I don't expect LL to anything much differently than they have been doing for the past 17 years I've been here. LL is like the Saints were before they won the Super Bowl. Always tanking in the second half.

No, my expectations of LL are quite low compared to other places and things. About the only thing I expect from LL any more is to be able to log in and even that isn't as reliable as it should be. Better than it was a long time ago though.

[Ayeleeon]

On 11/6/2021 at 10:23 AM, Ultima Cloud said:

Satellite is not recommended according to SL system requirements.

Important Notes

* Second Life is not compatible with dial-up internet, satellite internet, and some wireless internet services.

https://secondlife.com/system-requirements

But if that is all you have available you might as well just try it and see.

[friskywhisky]

I've been staying at an extended stay hotel that I'm pretty sure has Starlink, as in I see the box labeled Starlink outside with antennae. Connected via the ethernet port in the wall here to my PC. Seems to be fast most ways I can test it, get like 140 ping with many games but with SL it always says 1000ms ping sim (never like 987, never like 1020, never fluctuates, always EXACTLY 1000??? But no packet loss). So avatars will begin loading but I can't move and I get logged out after about 30 secs to a minute. Have tried SL viewer and Firestorm, multiple different sims. Have called the front desk to have them reset the router, didn't seem to do anything.
I'm wondering if this is because it's satellite, even though it's pretty fast satellite, or if it's because it's overloaded since there's other people on the network being a hotel, or if there's something I can do to make it work, maybe opening some ports or something. My computer considers it a public network and I've kept it designated that way to be safe. 

What's making me scratch my head about this is that you would think, if it's just because of delay from it being satellite or other people being on the network, that I would get different results sometimes, perhaps at different times of day/night, that that ping would fluctuate, that sometimes I might be able to move a little with a delay, or log in for a few minutes rather than 30 seconds, right? Like if it was slow, it would be variable. But no, it's always EXACTLY the same. Always logs me in, starts to load, EXACTLY 1000 ping, and then drops me after the same amount of time. It makes me think that there's some kind of connection being blocked and perhaps something I could do to fix it. 

[bigmoe Whitfield]

55 minutes ago, friskywhisky said:

I've been staying at an extended stay hotel that I'm pretty sure has Starlink, as in I see the box labeled Starlink outside with antennae. Connected via the ethernet port in the wall here to my PC. Seems to be fast most ways I can test it, get like 140 ping with many games but with SL it always says 1000ms ping sim (never like 987, never like 1020, never fluctuates, always EXACTLY 1000??? But no packet loss). So avatars will begin loading but I can't move and I get logged out after about 30 secs to a minute. Have tried SL viewer and Firestorm, multiple different sims. Have called the front desk to have them reset the router, didn't seem to do anything.
I'm wondering if this is because it's satellite, even though it's pretty fast satellite, or if it's because it's overloaded since there's other people on the network being a hotel, or if there's something I can do to make it work, maybe opening some ports or something. My computer considers it a public network and I've kept it designated that way to be safe. 

What's making me scratch my head about this is that you would think, if it's just because of delay from it being satellite or other people being on the network, that I would get different results sometimes, perhaps at different times of day/night, that that ping would fluctuate, that sometimes I might be able to move a little with a delay, or log in for a few minutes rather than 30 seconds, right? Like if it was slow, it would be variable. But no, it's always EXACTLY the same. Always logs me in, starts to load, EXACTLY 1000 ping, and then drops me after the same amount of time. It makes me think that there's some kind of connection being blocked and perhaps something I could do to fix it. 

even with starlink, there is still a ground station involved,  so where ever that ground station is at to you, is the hiccup.

[friskywhisky]

3 minutes ago, bigmoe Whitfield said:

even with starlink, there is still a ground station involved,  so where ever that ground station is at to you, is the hiccup.

Thanks, so does that mean it's the sort of thing where I'd probably have to call someone to physically check up on equipment and stuff? Nothing else I could do to pinpoint it or try to fix it just on my computer by myself? Made exceptions for the viewer in my Windows Defender firewall and that didn't seem to do it either. 

[bigmoe Whitfield]

4 minutes ago, friskywhisky said:

Thanks, so does that mean it's the sort of thing where I'd probably have to call someone to physically check up on equipment and stuff? Nothing else I could do to pinpoint it or try to fix it just on my computer by myself? Made exceptions for the viewer in my Windows Defender firewall and that didn't seem to do it either. 

No this is, how starlink has setup their ground stations,  there's no fix, because of routing and other factors like distance between the beam and you and also throttling at the hotel side of things too, as it's going to be a shared connection with whom ever is staying there,   and reality is, it could be their janky equipment in their own server racks at the hotel,  many factors here,  after being a network engineer for many many years, I wish it was as simple as calling some one to tell them to fix it.

[Rowan Amore]

You could ask Elon on Twitter.

[friskywhisky]

By the way, sorry for bumping this thread after some months with a technical question in General Discussion, but I just had been getting frustrated and saw the topic about satellite here and figured it might be related to my issue. 
However, I've found a fix for anybody else who winds up here. Just turned on a VPN and suddenly everything is working fine, lol. 

28 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

You could ask Elon on Twitter.

JK, called in a favor to my buddy ol' Musky (I have 40 billion dogecoins) 

[Kalegthepsionicist]

1K ping ?

tell you , my opinion  220 to 230 ping is your max limit. to keep enjoying 3D world

 

[Lindal Kidd]

30 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

You could ask Elon on Twitter.

Elon's not happy with Twitter just now. He wants out of the deal 'cause he found out that half of Twitter is bot accounts, and Twitter's board is telling him, "sorry, pal, you should've done your due diligence. That $40 billion check better be in the mail by Friday."

[friskywhisky]

2 minutes ago, Kalegthepsionicist said:

1K ping ?

tell you , my opinion  220 to 230 ping is your max limit. to keep enjoying 3D world

 

Yeah, it was really weird though because I was getting somewhere in the range of 130-150 with online games and with sites used to test ping, and I'm in the US where I know SL servers are, and it stayed at exactly 1000 ping without a ms of fluctuation. Which made me think some kind of connection was being blocked or failing somewhere - Somehow, it was fixed by turning on a VPN. now I'm getting about 130 in SL just like with everything else! 

[Ardy Lay]

1 minute ago, friskywhisky said:

Yeah, it was really weird though because I was getting somewhere in the range of 130-150 with online games and with sites used to test ping, and I'm in the US where I know SL servers are, and it stayed at exactly 1000 ping without a ms of fluctuation. Which made me think some kind of connection was being blocked or failing somewhere - Somehow, it was fixed by turning on a VPN. now I'm getting about 130 in SL just like with everything else! 

Stupid, wild-assed guess here:  Starlink is using the same damned garbage traffic classifier and policer I junked not long ago because it could not be bothered to differentiate between Second Life and BitTorrent.

[Mollymews]

2 minutes ago, Lindal Kidd said:

Elon's not happy with Twitter just now. He wants out of the deal 'cause he found out that half of Twitter is bot accounts, and Twitter's board is telling him, "sorry, pal, you should've done your due diligence. That $40 billion check better be in the mail by Friday."

is not true that he found out that half of Twitter are bots. What he found out is that nobody thinks Twitter is worth $44 a share like he did. The market has told him this. So he is trying to get another deal at a lower price