VRprofessor

I complain often enough about LL and SL problems, but here's the thing, if I actually knew how to fix them, I would be off starting a new company and doing just that. The free market dictates that if it can actually be done better, someone will, and they will make a handsome profit doing so. (Yes, yes, regulation breaks the free market in oh so many ways, but SL is small and niche enough that a viable competing platform could emerge if in fact someone genuinely figures out how to do it better at comparable cost.) If you are convinced it can be done better, do it. Make yourself a small fortune. GIve me a viable alternative to SL and I will migrate.

I updated as soon as notified. The updater crashed leaving me with an indictor telling me that the GPU in my lap top was on whenever power was on, but none of my software could find or use the GPU. Sigh, think I'll give it another week or so before I try again. GT 550M

I have no idea why, but sometimes when I am working I like to have an SL session open. It is silly if not outright stupid but since I am working and really can not do anything in SL I will park my avi in a camping chair while I work.

Every once-in-a-while I go exploring by opening the world map and looking for lots of green dots. Once you find the places people congregate during times that work for you, you'll have a better chance of connecting with those who share interests with you.

A bit further down is a thread where I whine about my upgrade from a gtx 550 to a gtx 660. I whined because the 660 didn't show any improvement one busy sims relative to the 550 at the same settings. However, with the 660 I was was able to upgrade the quality of my graphics with only small losses in frame rates. For my use the gtx 550 was a fine card, the additional quality I get from the gtx 660 is, for the time being, largely wasted on me. (Don't tell my wife, because I am keeping the 660). But it really does depend on what you want to do. If you want to run SL on mid-level setting something like the GTX 550 is a fine GPU and not terribly expensive. If you have other applications that need more gpu power, or you want to run SL on ultra settings, you'll want to purchase a better card.

If I read the specs correctly you have a laptop computer which means you are not going to be able to upgrade the graphics processor. On the other hand, while not having particularly good graphics, you should have enough to run SL at low settings comfortably. I have done it, not quite comfortably, with worse. Recently I checked video drivers on two different computers using the Windows control panel device manager check driver feature. In both cases I was told that my drivers were current. When I did manual checks at manufactures webites I found that both needed updates.

Sithiaven wrote: Now my questions is, do others tip much, what kind of tip do you give? I don't think 50L is not that much. When I give tips a am thanked for my generosity for the "huge" tip in the chat window, but I never see others being thanked. I'm sure there are several reasons. As others have said it may be great just to get a tip these days. There is also a bit of psychology, first, helping you as the tipper feel good about your tip. $L50 is a trivial amount of RL money for most folks, but if the DJ/Host gives you a big virtual hug and makes you feel a little special it helps encourage continued tipping in the future. Second, I don't know how much you gave but if you are thanked for a "huge" tip I am encouraged to look at the larger suggested tip amounts when I tip. So a cheapskate like myself may tip more than they would otherwise. Also it makes sure everyone else in the club know that tipping is going on. I sure had no clue when I went the first few times. I was kind of embarrased that I hadn't tipped my first two/three times just 'cause I didn't know I should.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: When I took statistical analysis in grad school, the professor truly impressed me with his introductory lecture. He passionately argued that we are so thoroughly wired to find patterns that we see them where none exist and attribute causation where there is scarcely correlation. This was human nature and his job was to help us corral that nature so we could look at a thing and "In our hearts, know that it is right." He was not so much concerned that we master the mathematics of statistics (though we'd not pass if we didn't), but to make us ever aware of how easily we fool ourselves, and to recognize the situations in which we are particularly vulnerable. We've evolved a natural bias that we can escape only by education. Absent the intellectual endeavors of countless "doubters" before us, we'd be unable to see that the "magic" of the world around is is not magic at all, but the even more wondrous result of complex processes governed by laws we're still trying to understand. The truth may be out there for us to grasp, but we've not yet reached it. Vast numbers of humans claim to have looked at the evidence, without dogma, without bias and without coercion, and from that have come to wildly different and often conflicting beliefs. My heart tells me they can't all be right. Good prof. That is the very message I try to teach my students. For anyone who cares to read a few hundred very readable pages on the flaws inherant in human reasoning I can recommend Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow which pretty neatly summarize approximately 40 years of reasearch into the study of human decision making. Adding just a bit: Science concerns itself with the natural world. God exists in the supernatural world. Any one who claims a "scientific analysis" of the evidence for/against God is speaking nonsense. In the usual and scientific sense there can be no "evidence" of/against God. There can be only what you feel and believe. Those who confuse religion and science diminish both.

One of my local gamer geeks suggested a benchmark suite that might identify any issues on my end. I won't get to play with it for a few days, but it gives me something to look forward to. My new disappointment is that the 550 I replaced card cannot be installed in my work computer because a) the existing power supply is underpowered and b) the connections are not standard so I cannot replace the power supply.

I'll take that as good news, so the next thing to look at is my memory. Currently using 8GB of DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800). It appears that my Motherboard will take DDR3 2133, although I am guessing this will require some overclocking or some such. I had orignially hoped to upgrade motherboard and cpu this fall, but now it looks like I will be waiting until at least spring. But memory is cheap enough and I'll get some higher speed memory if it is likely to help. Otherwise I'll wait a few more months and upgrade the entire system (except for the GPU).

Speed fan looks to be working. With two clients running it shows my GPU running @ 45c. That dropped quickly to 40crunning only one client. Now I need to review earlier discussion to find out if those are good numbers or bad.

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: From Coventina I heard you're using an asus card, so I suspect your settings can be chaged exactly like mine on the 670. EVGA GPU, if that makes a difference. Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: To cap the fps to your monitors refresh rate (in my case 60hZ or 60 fps) you can use the NVIdia control panel. Go to "Manage 3D Settings" and select the viewer you're using, you might have to browse for the executable and add it. On the bottom set Vertical sync to "Adaptive" and Triple buffering to "On". That was easy!

The good information continues to poor in. I know that my motherboard will handle faster memory so I'll look into that this afternoon. Today's goal is to identify local/system bottlenecks that are degrading performance. I probably don't need all the power offered by the 660, but my gamer-geek students looked like I was planning to dismember a puppy in front of them when I mentioned that I was considering sending it back. But before I worry about that Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: @VRProfessor I went to Kuula and noticed only a 50% or so load on my GPU with fps comparible, although slightly higher than yours. (that can have various reasons, most importantly the number of avatars around I guess). My GTX670 (not 660 like Coventina said) wasn't getting any warmer than 41 C. On a sim not as crowded and loaded, the card works a lot harder and I had to cap the fps at 60 to prevent it getting 70 C (A number NVidia or Asus seem to like, since the fan will keep it there) Overheating was something I had not considered until now. I don't overclock so I didn't think I needed to worry about it. But I have noticed that on a basically empty sim I can see fps rates at 100 - 150 fps with spikes at 185fps. I do not need frame rates that high and I certainly do not want an overheated GPU. How hard is it to cap fps to help avoid overheating? Can I adjust the fan to keep the card cooler? Thanks again to all who have been offering help and/or sympathy.

Alicia Sautereau wrote: If your running 2 clients alot, i`d suggest running each monitor on it`s own gpu specially if you have it at high settings If it`s on a very rare occasion and you play other games, just sli them, but 2 clients could be quite laggy at high settings as only 1 gpu is rendering Thank you for jogging my memory. One of the goals with a more capable GPU was running two clients simultaneously while still using a single card. I wouldn't say I run two clients a lot, but whenever I am on my home desktop I tend to fire up two clients. Right now I am using the 660 GPU and running two clients using default "high" settings. As long as only one avi is in a heavily populated area there is little loss of fps relative to a single client running. I have managed to run two clients using default "Ultra" settings and that still worked pretty well, but there was enough glitching in the heavy traffic area I probably don't want to do that normally. (Although I may need to try it again...the region crashed a few seconds after I experience the glitching so maybe the glitch was server side.*) I am starting to feel better now. From an electrical power consumption point of view I think I am better off with the 660 card rather than two 550s. I don't expect meaningfully different performance between the two options when running two clients. So I thnk I am talking myself into keeping the 660. As for other games, only casual games. My one and only reason for owning a GPU is SL. Nothing else I do requires anything beyond basic graphics. *Went back to Kuula with default ultra settings in both clients--fps were 18-22. turned down draw distance and minimized water reflection in both clients. Kuula client started running @ 28-30fps without noticable glitching. I am definitely feeling much better.

why are there not 20 replies already?? I have been using and i5 CPU with an nvidia GTX 550 ti GPU and I've been pretty happy. I recently purchased a GTX 660 ti and it appears that most of the additional punch of the 660 card is going into better quality graphics rather than frame rates. (the thread "GPU disappointment" is where I whine about this.) At High settings I did not personally experience any changes in FPS going from the 550 to the 660. I was, however, able to go to Ultra settings with a fairly modest loss in frame rates and the rez in time for textures seems to have improved a bit. You'll want to consider your usage (and budget) in choosing a GPU. Whatever you decide be aware that off-the-shelf computers often lack a large enough power supply to support a mid-to-high end GPU, you may need to upgrade. I also have a GT 520 card at work and while it is better than nothing (older computer with a modest CPU) I am planning to move a 550 card into that machine (replacement power supply has arrived). My recommendation is something comparable to the 550 card as a minimum. The i5 is likely overkill for SL and it is certainly more than is needed for typical office applications. But I like having the CPU power around just in case.

Alicia Sautereau wrote: You don`t need to run 2 gpu`s 1 for each monitor, it`s pretty much a waste of power unless you do 2 things that require rendering on both monitors Got 3 in sli with 2 monitors plugged into the primary card, no issues Makes sense. Would running two avi's count as rendering on both monitors? That would be the one and only time that it could plausibly make any difference to me.

Do not close your account to avoid professor's email. My students forget/do not understand that they need to leave the class group and/or get me off their friends list. I only "email" students through the class group in SL. A few from last year will start getting messages next week. (Students are allowed to continue in the group after leaving my class as long as they play well with following classes. But I expect most thought they were done.) Remove yourself from any class related group and take the prof off of your friends list. If you continue to get email, s/he has you on a regular mailing list and you'll need to email them and point out that you have dropped the course and should be removed from future mailings.

Jenni Darkwatch wrote: I do like this page here for relatively useful comparisons between GPUs: http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php Edit: With your card I'd think you should easily be able to run lighting&shadows. I've got a weaker card and can run it at (for me) acceptable frame rates. With my GT440 at work I get a minimum of 17FPS with light&shadows on in that Kuula place. Yes, I think what I have purchased is primarily the ability to run the high end lighting and shadows with pretty good frame rates. I turned off some (all?) of the lighting and shadowing effects as well as setting water reflectivity to minimal, but was found by friends and dragged off before I could properly test the changes. (A good problem to have :matte-motes-smile:) However, improper testing suggests that frame rates have improved, but I'll have to wait to find out for sure until later. Tomorrow I run at different settings and find out how I feel about lighting and shadowing effects versus taking my wife out to dinner. (And possibly upgrading my son's graphics.)

Nyll Bergbahn wrote: Recommend you don't go the dual card route with two 550s unless it's for other games. There are a number of threads about SL barely making use of the second card in SLI so a waste of money too if it's just SL you want them for. No plans to SLI cards. I have a dual monitor system so I would try running one card for each monitor. If that didn't work my son will get a video card upgrade for xmas.

Echo Hermit wrote: I have a grumpy face on your behalf, VRprofessor. Thank you. Echo Hermit wrote: Some of my SL friends make such amazing photographs, using shadows, shading, windlight settings, and no photoshop post-production, and I can only gaze in awe. I think if I were doing photos I might be a lot happier. I am pretty sure that the quality of the image has improved. But I am only marginally concerned about that. Echo Hermit wrote: Do you think you will ask for a refund on your new card? Your other one could have worn out at any moment, so you would have needed a new one at some point. I will be checking into newegg's return/refund policy to see if it makes sense. For the same amount of money I can buy two GTX 550 cards, take my wife out to dinner (twice at her favorite cafe, which has modest prices), and still have enough money for a nice cup of coffee. That seems like a better use of the money. If I can get a full refund I am pretty sure the card is going back. If a refund is not an option, I will keep telling myself I really like the better texturing and lighting until I believe it.

Luc Starsider wrote: The Sim fps and physics fps is server side and shouldn't affect the viewer fps. There are *some* explanation of this - http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Viewerhelp:Statistics - but not much. I think low sim fps would more rubber banding and snapping back to a different position type of lag, although I'm not sure of it. - Luc - TY. Only a quick peek so far, but it appears that there is a lot of stuff that will help me understand a bit better what is going on...and more importantly, what is going on with the card versus what is going on every where else.

Echo Hermit wrote: Take heart, VRprofessor, I never get higher than 7FPS at Kuula (nvidia 9500, Virgin connection, in the UK). Running on High, but not Ultra. It doesn't sound so bad for you after all. No, I don't have it so bad. I really have no complaints about the performance I was getting from my 550 card--I just wanted the amazing graphics I kept hearing about from folks recommending higher end cards. I saw a nice jump in quality and fps when I went from onboard graphics (intel 3000) to the gtx550 (which has modest benchmarks @ nvidia's site). I thought going from a modest benchmark card to a card with ~3x better benchmarks I would see the same sort of jump in quality/fps. The more I learn the more unrealistic my expectations appear to have been. Both here and in my physical office I am getting more information. Some that may improve performance, some that may explain why performance is stuck where it is.

Alicia Sautereau wrote: Don`t forget that leaps are made in directx performance so any game you will see fps and quality improvement SL uses opengl... So the benchmarking improvements could be tied primarily to directx and not opengl. That makes sense. It makes me sad, but it makes sense.

Aveline Stein wrote: Even then, it is possible you won't see a huge increase if you aren't running lighting and shadows. My card (580) is pretty much twiddling it's thumbs with the standard SL renderer and using only about 40% of it's power because the CPU is slowing it down. The only way to max out the card is to turn on lighting and shadows which utlizes the graphics card much more than the old renderer does. I will look into that and see what I am doing, exaclty. Perhaps I had things arranged so I wasn't using much of the GPU capacity in the first place. That would explain a lot.

Aveline Stein wrote: 550 to 660 is just 1 jump in relative power and 1 generation newer. Typically, unless there is some major technological revolution happening it is not going to give a big noticable jump in performance. Most likely you would have to look into the higher end cards, ie 580, 680 but they are also a different price class. According to nvidia's performance chart performance of the 660 should be on par with the 580. That is why I am so disappointed. Moving from a 550 to a 560 I would have expected about what I got...but moving to something comparable to the 580 I was expecting a much more noticable jump in performance. On a slightly happier note I have switched from "high" settings to default "Ultra" settings and dropped fps rates at Kuula from ~33fps to ~26fps which I think is better than would have been the case with the 550. At my skybox fps rates have jumped from low 80s to low 100s, so the card is doing something...just not what I was hoping for. In watching the fps meter I have also noticed something called "Sim fps" assuming that is what it sounds like, @ kuula it is running in the low 40fps range so my mid-30fps rendering may be as good as it gets under those circumstances and I'll need to think about whether running on Ultra is worth the extra $$ to me or whether there are other benefits.