Jump to content

M0rdresh

Resident
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About M0rdresh

  • Rank
    Member
  1. Of course it's my opinion, did I say it was anyone elses? So you basically don't want to bother countering my previous arguments and reasoning on the Oculus Rift, but nonetheless you throw in the notion I'm wrong, that I don't get it and even if I did I would not accept it? That's rather cheap I'd say, either you commit by your previous post that this conversation was over and look away or you react and share your rebuttel with counterarguments. I do accept your opinion on the Rift, but more in a 'agree to disagree' fashion, I was not the one that brought the feasibility of the Rift to this thread, that was you. About the 3D engine and this is mainly directed to others: I admit I come across very direct and straight-forwardness and honesty can easily come across as arrogant, mea culpa (*), but at all times I believe I have backed up with given reasoning and arguments, although in a more aggresive manner then called for I admit. I do not want to claim I know it all, eventhough I understand I came across this way because I sticked to my belief in this thread that my desire for better optimization and criticism due to lack of it is not ungrounded. I still stand by that belief, I more regret my approach starting with how I composed my original post even. (*) reading back some of my earlier replies here, especially to Theresa Tennyson, I can only admit and offer my apology as granted I came across way to direct and some wordings could have been done far better and less jumpy. Sorry. I guess I really wanted to let SL work for my intended use and expected some obvious fix I missed somewhere to let it use my hardware and was kind of appalled it seemed the community found this a very normal acceptable thing and it's all ignorant me expecting fantasy.
  2. In this whole thread I called SL 'a game' once, in my opening sentence no less where I said 'I installed this game'. I choose that wording out of lack of a better term at that very moment in a split second writing my toughts down. So what? Yes, I did not choose 'I installed this online virtual world' or 'this software'. So here I am, the one who had it all wrong calling SL a game with the crazy proposterous expectation of a 3D engine decently using the potential of his computer, even if it were atleast some degree instead of a very small fraction. This thread can be split up by some people clearly being stepped on their toes and responding in condescending fashion letting that SL noob know he has no idea about SL and has a wrong expectation on the 3D engine. Luckily the majority were friendly and even acknowledged the poor optimization and gave tips. So yes I do understand the nature of the 3D engine and the complexity of it compared to a confined appliance found in different 3D worlds. I only replied, in adjacent undertone of what I received, to those people that implied my understanding of the game is somehow the problem over the matter of an unoptimized 3D engine, for whatever reason that may be, I never denied nor criticised those very reasons. And talking about attitude, your first and only reply to my original call for help was " its a game! " Never read beyond my fourth word 'game' did you and even now four thread pages later my usage of 'game' is again your focal point; my in your eyes 'freshmen error' runs deep with you it seems.
  3. For your information the part you quoted was a spin off discussion about the Oculus Rift feasibility and future and not about the 3D engine performance. Futhermore I think it's only fair and respectful that I respond to people's input, and yes sometimes that goes hand in hand with repeating statements. I don't force anyone to read this thread, I do sense that some people seem to take my critiism on the 3D engine quite personal and appear to be responding very defensivly.
  4. Indeed, I don't know what you think, do or what your experience is, I can only react on what you write and that was, sorry for being direct, flawed. That is my option and yes indeed, end of that conversation.
  5. It's quite arrogant to state that, I have respect for those that are in any business for that long and I think twice before lecturing them on very basic elements such as rendering frames. I don’t go by the notion you can properly asses my knowledge so no offense taken, I enjoy this debate and written words sound harsh and often lack the appropriate connotation.
  6. What you fail to see is that business decision like Virtual Reality support are not done on today's projections but those of tomorrow. You seem to think that product roadmaps in development are entirely based on today's facts. You're reasoning 'It's not on the market, therefore developers don’t need to put time into it' couldn’t be more flawed. That's a consumers perspective projected on how software development operates. As part of development process a product management team does a market assess and drives the product roadmap, many analysts and investors highlight virtual reality as a big upcoming thing. Have you checked the level of investment multiple companies are doing on Virtual Reality ? Do you really think that any worthy software company is going to wait on that for the Oculus Rift (or alike) goes to market and only then start doing a development sprint throwing overboard the entire roadmap because hey tit has now launched? It's like reading those many comments on gaming consoles were people seem to think game development on those only start as the product is shipped or very recently before that. It does not work this way. Finally, I do not think SL is not fit for Oculus Rift, on the contrary it's one of best possible appliances to the technology and thankfully they got that and were very early into working out its support and have done a good job so far, they tend to agree on its importance. Also its marketing department, looking that Oculus rift imagery takes up 33% of the main SL website. But I don't regard that as anything meaningful, just throwing it in here.
  7. I'm not going to spoil anymore words on the notion whether the 3D engine of Second Life is optimized for today's (and even yesterdays) hardware or not, that seems clearly not the case to me and many others having read up on several forums. Furthermore I think my 21 years of professional experience in IT and development is sufficient to judge that, without some lesson on how a frame is rendered but thanks anyway.
  8. Thanks SaraCarena, that's something interesting to look at and check how their engine is performing.
  9. That's just how biased people think ? I cannot start to think how or why anyone would every defend using 12% of today's graphical cards or 20% of today's CPU's. And given your clear undertone in your post, I sense a mild offended mindset. Do you own an Oculus Rift ? No? Then don't assume. Do you have the experience with it to back your statement as to how much work they have done to support it? Well I have and I can tell you a lot of effort did go into that, given the result I see. Did I ever say it's their biggest or even big priority ? Nope, again this thread is about relative performance versus hardware and I have not read any tangible reason why it cannot be, why it should not be, on par.
  10. My post is not about Rift bugs, going by my experience with a lot existing games that are adapting this technology they have done a very good job at GUI remoddeling (best I've seen) and whatnot, credit where credit is due for sure. My post is about severe under par performance compared to the hardware capability, in short the 3D engine limits a Ferrari to maximum speed of 40km/uur while it capable of 100x that. That is what my thead is about, nothing to do with Rift bugs. But very good to know they seem to be working on resource usage, thanks for that info. I'll give it a shot and email them with my story, maybe they can help me and I can help them with a little feedback.
  11. Not sure if you guys are familiar with the Oculus Rift VR, but it requires a solid 75fps. Anything less result in severe stutter which results in motion sickness. That's just how it works. I find it very strange they go through such lenghts to offer Oculus Rift support but their game is hardly using hardware. Especially such decent support, because they did some very nice work on the VR interface ans such.
  12. Thanks for the responses, appreciated. I'm not to focused on FPS, I play via an Oculus Rift and a smooth and locked 75fps is very desirable, of not mandatory due to 75hz and latency with headtracking. Now even without the Rift or using the regular viewer version, it is really bad if it only uses like 12% of my graphics card capabilities and 20% cpu capability, there's just no excuse for that. Having all that graphical and computing power, it feels really cheap for the viewer to only use a small portion of it and giving me 34 to 40 fps in some busy scenes. I was hoping I messed some genious ini tweaking or whatever for the game to actually use hardware properly.
  13. Just installed this game today and could'nt believe my eyes on the level of performance my system gets. I have a i7-4470k@4,8Ghz, 16GB Ram and a Geforce GTX Titan and Samsung 840 Pro SSD. This rig runs about any game I can find it's sleep. However in second life I get between 40fps and 80fps, depending what I'm looking at, etc. Doesnt matter all that much if set it on mid or ultra. Now that is very concerning on that level of hardware, plus when in full game looking around and walking my Nvidia GPU has a usage of 12% and my CPU usage goes between 12% and 20%. Clearly this game is not using my hardware. Either I'm missing some game tweaking or this game has just about the worst optimised 3D engine I encountered in ahwile. What am I missing ? (I dont want to be arrogant, but Im 21 years active as an IT engineer and system builder, don't bother with the usual 'drivers', etc issue, I go that covered)
×
×
  • Create New...