Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

326 Excellent


About cykarushb

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,047 profile views
  1. Also consider that ray tracing in general is extremely hardware intensive and even games like minecraft with ray tracing require very, very high end computers to even get playable framerates. >> https://youtu.be/5jD0mELZPD8?t=62 Thats an RTX 2080ti with an i7 7900X getting 60fps in 1080p with that graphical mod. And a Ryzen 1700x and GTX 1070 (still a very high end system) in 720p to get 30fps. Even titles designed for ray tracing end up with 1080p/720p sub 30fps performance if you want it to actually look good. Battlefield V is a good example where a 1070 and HEDT type of i7 or Ryzen 7 is going to give you 1080p medium 30fps with ray tracing enabled. A game like SL where you have a lot of detailed objects and shadows being drawn to begin with, lots of light, lots of non static or interactive physics objects is a game where ray tracing is going to decimate the performance. And really most of this games users just dont have the hardware to make it even close to playable. SL can already look pretty impressive, but work needs to be put into the optimization of rendering in the game. Because of many other times where this has been discussed, theres no real reason for SL to perform as badly as it does. But thats another topic. Ray tracing just isnt going to happen for SL unless theres a pretty big jump in graphical hardware performance at a more economical price, and currently the turing cards are the first generation of cards with these dedicated RT cores, as times goes on if the technology sticks at all, im sure there will be more powerful ray tracing capable cards at a price the masses can buy. As of right now most users are running laptops and integrated graphics, and even for dedicated graphics most people use something like a GTX 1060, 1050 or performance equivalent, or even lower end. I use Steams hardware survey for these kinda stats. There are a similar portion of users on steam who use a GT 730 as compared to people who use an RX 580... Theyre usually a pretty good representation of the PC gaming sphere. SL's userbase is probably a little bit different but overall likely follows the same trends. So that brings it back to my original statement which is that theres just not enough people who would ever use ray tracing for it be a good idea to add it to the game. And if it was, almost nobody who could run it would actually get performance that wasnt completely unbearable.
  2. Very few people are running RTX cards, and ray tracing will definitely not be playing well with the way most of SL is laid out. The whole "unoptimized user content" ordeal would only give you worse performance when you include ray traced lighting into the mix. When this game runs decently on high end hardware at all, and when the technology is common in all consumer graphics cards, thats when it might be viable to add the functionality to SL. But when you consider the very small amount of people who use RTX cards or even have GPUs capable of non slideshow ray tracing otherwise (780ti/r9 290x or higher really), with the majority of the users being on more average hardware, theres just no point. "hey, LL here, have this feature that maybe 1% of you can actually use, and for most of that 1% its going to be a sub 20fps nightmare"
  3. Theres no reason to not have it as optional. Many other games and sites online have optional 2fa. Its a very successful way to keep peoples accounts secure from the most common of attacks. People logging in from anything other than where you normally log in. Even if you fall for a keylogger style attack on your own PC and they get your password, they cant login from where they are without also having access to your phone. I dont really know how many people are actually trying to steal SL accounts anyway, but again, no reason to not have it as optional.
  4. Got any better detailed specs? Ram speed, specific PSU and case model? Corsair has some super nice power supplies and some extremely low end power supplies. And Ryzen benefits from faster memory, if you can get 3000 or 3200mhz DDR4, go for that over 2133, 2400 or 2666mhz. Depending on the motherboard chipset overclocking may be out the window. A320 cannot overclock, among other issues. If theres an option for B350/450 go for that instead. The cost should be less than 10$ more than the cheapest of A320 boards. 3.4ghz implies Ryzen 3 1200. Dont bother with the 1200, the 2nd gen Ryzen 3 2200G performs better for the exact same cost. Its an APU and while you wont need the integrated graphics, theres no reason to not get the 2200 when its the same price as the 1200. I would also potentially just hold back on any ryzen based system at all right now since the 3rd generation of ryzen processors is going to be released in the next few months.
  5. There really isn't any hardware that you can buy that gives smooth performance everywhere in SL. This game is an unoptimized mess built on a near ancient engine that's really bad at using the hardware you have. The two biggest factors are single threaded CPU performance and the speed of the drive the games cache is on. I run SL on a lot of different hardware, and those are the only two things that really impact performance dramatically. Obviously a better gpu can help, but only slightly compared to how some gpu upgrades would affect other games.
  6. Its not too much of a concern, modern memory controllers dont have an issue with it anymore like the ones for pre DDR did. Everything there is the same speed and thats good enough, timings will balance out to whatever all sticks can handle. Mixing speeds would just result in the lowest speed stick being the speed of all memory.
  7. Your hardware from 2011 just really isnt up to the task of running SL in 2019, itll run the game obviously but running it smoothly is out of the question. You cant really upgrade it besides adding more ram or swapping to a different drive. So if you want better performance youre going to need a new machine to play on. My Latitude E6410 with a first gen i5 and the first generation of intel HD graphics can handle SL fine and dandy, for things like just standing around a social island and chatting. But thats at near minimum settings and im not doing much more than using the chatbox anyway. If thats all youre going to do then thats adequate hardware for it. But if you want to do more you need better performance and that only really comes with better hardware. No amount of driver updates, special configurations or tweaks will make my laptop or your laptop play SL any better than the hardware is capable of.
  8. The slightly more on depth explanation of this is that some lighting settings offload from the CPU to the gpu. Basic shaders are a gpu bound task and without that enabled, the CPU takes over most surface lighting rendering.
  9. I had a big thing to write out about this and settled it down to this: 1) Yes, that generation of AMD APUs is getting pretty old and the integrated graphics arent that impressive. 2) Ideally, just get a whole new PC on a current generation of hardware, because you cant upgrade that system too far before you run into the land of diminishing returns. 3) If youre on a tight budget as many are, get a GTX 750ti. Theyre under 60$ on ebay and dont require anything special.
  10. It'll play SL fine, Don't expect anything too phoenominal in 1080p at higher settings with lots of people but the majority of the game will run decently on that kind of hardware.
  11. Just ran it on my aspire with an i5 7200u and HD 620, runs fine. It may be an issue more with specific driver versions for it though. edit: and before someone throws a fit, yes I tested it in the criteria of the jira mentioned, on a 64 bit viewer, with a system avatar and others loaded The i7 would definitely outperform your current haswell i5 by a pretty significant margin, but the 850m outclasses Intel HD 620 entirely. Since the 4200H is soldered your only real upgrades for that laptop would be an SSD if you don't have one and more ram if you ever max your 8gb. Look into something with a modern dedicated graphics option, something with a current mobile i5 and even a GTX 1050 mobile gpu would be pretty capable and not too expensive. HD 620 will play SL at decent frame rates, just don't expect it to perform well in crowded places. I used the above mentioned Acer Aspire as my main SL machine for a while and even that 7th gen i5 with HD 620 was playing SL in 1080p on general medium settings and getting smooth frame rates in less crowded spaces. But your current laptop would outperform that i7 option, so unless you want something potentially lighter or with other features that it has and your current one doesn't, with the sacrifice of performance in SL, don't bother.
  12. Unoptimized content mixed with an engine that isn't good at utilizing hardware. But rebuilding the game engine would probably break a lot of things and limiting the complexity and detail of creations in game would restrict the whole "create anything" and freedom SL has. There are chair models in this game I've seen with a higher triangle count than the entirety of some of the skyscrapers in GTA V as a comparison. Loading that one chair isn't an issue but when there's like two dozen of them and more equally detailed objects in one area it's extremely hard on the PC.
  13. Oh and just before i forget, this whole "show up in forums and post your opinions before useful information" thing is more of an issue in questions or help sections rather than discussions. In a thread like this, who really cares. Your wrong and i pointed out why but its not a big deal. But in the chromebook thread i mentioned, where a user asked for help and wanted information, and you instead gave them a personal opinion and insulted their hardware instead. Heres how a help and support style forum works 1) user posts topic asking for help 2) other users who have useful information or potentially even a complete answer, answer the question 3) op says thanks Heres exactly what you do not do: 1) insult OP 2) post personal opinions and thoughts on the topic 3) post in a topic at all if you do not know anything about what you are talking about Thats a toxic and unhelpful way to deal with a person asking for help. Even in this post, when i stated: It will play secondlife with firestorm. Its just going to perform awfully because youre working through a VM layer on a machine thats best suited for older games and mainly for its original purpose, web browsing at best. If you made an ubuntu chroot and installed firestorm on it, and it didnt run, its probably just not going to. I said it was possible, but not that it would work well at all. Its plain and simple not up to the task. Yet for some reason we have you with this You make a habit of pretending "loads the program" means "useful" or "works" - loading and actually being properly usable are not the same thing - at all. Even though that is the exact thing i didnt do, and clearly explained that it would run but not perform well. Please grow up and try to act like a remotely respectable person when you involve yourself in discussions on forums. Give actual information or valuable and relevant input instead of dropping in with a personal opinion and then dismissing everyone elses.
  14. I have fully explained this once before, i believe over the discussion of a chromebook and you injecting a personal opinion on how they are not laptops. Hey look at this, i can make words bold too, like some kinda simplified wikihow article on a topic such as dog jousting or model boat hobbyist hunting for dummies. The point that i made there was that im not looking at the requirements for "technically it runs", and i even stated there that i have run "technically it runs" and brought up a post i made a long while back where i ran below spec and where i ran the system requirements and said that while it will "technically run" it is not enjoyable or comfortably playable. Even going to the extent to explain that the system requirements page is entirely out of date and what is on paper considered technically playable should not be, because such an experience is not playable in the slightest. (namely, a 6600GT and 1gb of ram with a dual core from 2008 struggling to get over 1 frame per second as the "minimum"). Technically it runs, but that should not be considered any kind of minimum. Never have i looked at someones ages old A4 APU or a Core2duo laptop and gone "it will play" and leave it at that, i always make sure to mention that while the game will start, it will not be enjoyable. In the same sense that when that person started talking about their chromebook and how to run SL on it, instead of immediately replying with something like "a chromebook is not a laptop" and not giving them any information on anything they actually wanted to know about, i told them a way to do it and warned them that it would be a very unpleasant experience depending on what hardware was in their chromebook, and potentially not possible if they didnt have an x86 based chromebook like an ARM model. But they later posted their machines specs and it would be capable of SL, likely low settings, but far from unplayable, and far from the above shown PC below minimum spec with its whopping 5fps. A fairly modern mobile ulv quadcore and 2 or 4gb of ram would totally be able to play secondlife and have it be more than a low FPS nightmare at minimum settings. My Athlon 5350 APU is outclassed by the current generation of mobile celerons and the IGP is as well, and that 5350 was doing me just fine for a while in 1080p on its own. And if you had any idea what you were talking about and werent just replying to forum posts for the sake of argument and talking about your personal opinions rather than providing useful and relevant information, you would have known this as well and been able to recognize the general capabilities of a modern chromebook and share information gathered on the topic. Been responding to me pretty much every time we're in the same thread and reacting to many of my posts with that little "haha" face. I normally respond to you when i see you type out something the equivalent of middle school book report in a discussion entirely unrelated to such conversation. Such as this thread which is a great example, where in a discussion on 4k resolution and if SL would ever be really playable at 4k, you came in here and started going off about a personal opinion on what you thought of 4k resolution and technologies related to it. Instead of any relevant discussion, you went straight for personal opinion. You would be a great clickbait news article writer. So lets go over this sentence by sentence from your original footstep into this topic: I doubt in 2003 there was talk about running SL in resolutions higher than what was around at the time for even the super high end enthusiast. There were 1920x1080 workstation monitors, mainly SGI stuff, that were incredibly expensive and most hardware wouldnt be able to display anything at that resolution, let alone actually game at such resolution. The highest end GPU of 2003, the FX 5950 Ultra, topped out at QXGA spec, 2048x1536 resolution. And that was just "it will run the display", it could not game at that resolution at all. That card was best in 1280x1024 which was the common resolution of the era. 1600x1200 being i guess the ages old equivalent of 1440p the way we see it today. But it wouldnt matter because its not an issue from the very start. Dynamic resolution scaling and adjustment has been a thing for a very long time and was a thing when SL was new. When you resize the window of this game, the game adjusts. It does not crash, it does not freeze, the window is not locked to a specific size you have to adjust ingame, it supports any resolution you can make the window. And its not like 4k has some special requirement, just like switching any resolution, the higher the resolution is, the more demanding it is on the system. They would not need to plan for SL to run at 4k because SL will really run at any resolution you want. 8k, 16k? itll do it. Im sure at some point you will start to see FOV issues more than anything rather than issues with the game not running at higher resolution. If someone wants higher resolution, they should have higher resolution. Thats the reason. Its a want, not a need. You can look at a 640x480 screen and go "wow, i really need a higher resolution to do what im doing". You do not NEED a higher resolution than 720p for 99% of things these days. Games will look ok, web pages will show ok, youtube videos will look ok. But 1080p is nicer. 1440p is a bit excessive but still looks nicer. 4k is definitely beyond overkill and some people likely wont even notice it, but why not have it? Theres no reason not to if you can afford it and your system can display things at such a resolution. Just to drop in as well, thats a personal opinion again. Thats your roommates words, not the general synopsis of the PC gaming community or even anything close. Who cares if its frivolous, im currently posting this from a PC with a GTX 970 in it, even though my monitor is 1680x1050 at 60hz, and nothing i could ever do on this PC would ever dip below 100fps at this resolution. But its a quiet card. Frivolous, its a want, not a need. So its reasonable if its a big display and not a computer monitor? I can understand where you're coming from, that at distance you would want a higher resolution rather than up close. But wouldnt that also be a matter of if youre far away, will you even notice the difference between a 55" 1080p display, and a 55" 4k display? 3D modelling also is one of the places where 4k is extremely beneficial, more crap on your screen without your UI getting all scrunched up and low res. If you have 4+ different applications open on one monitor, having a higher resolution on that smaller display will give those applications much needed clarity and make them usable at those low window sizes on an average computer monitor. Even if its just one application, especially 3D modelling, where you will have multiple viewports open at once, and your actual workspace being fairly small, it would be very helpful for the high resolution of the monitor to make it easier to see. "Youre not going to use something that big for that, you're just not." Reading this im realizing there are two ways this whole phrase can be taken, so im going to cover both. Using a 55" 4k display as a monitor? A lot of people use large tv's as computer monitors, usually just because they sit farther away or their PC is a multipurpose device. My parents regularly use the 65" 4k TV in their bedroom as both a comcast/amazon streaming device, youtube streaming device, and have a PC plugged into it to web browse and do old people stuff from the couch. Using 4k on a small screen is covered above. Also, personal opinions once again. Have you seen a 4k display? Have you gamed on 4k? There is a noticeable difference between each resolution jump. Theres a reason its a popular topic and people want to game at 4k resolution, why there are consoles now that are promising 4k resolution, why TV's are marketed as "4k UHD" these days and why there are movies and streaming services that offer 4k options. People notice the change in visuals. "dont even attempt to argue" try me 4k is a thing because people like the increase in visual clarity and visible detail. It is noticeable, if you cant notice it, either something is wrong with your eyes or you just havent been paying attention. It irritates you that technology is advancing? Dont get me wrong, i'd love if we aesthetically peaked with our PC's in 2002. Lots of UV plastic and aluminum, looked really nice. But technology always moves forward and always gets better. We've gone from 1080p being the norm to 1440p and 4k becoming realistic resolutions that many people can game at now. There will always be improvement, there will always be something better, everything has gotten better in the world of technology. Todays integrated graphics on 15w mobile processors are more powerful than the flagship gpus of 2006-2008. The lowest end desktop processor you can buy new today, the Athlon 200GE, destroys the best possible processor of 2008, the QX 9775. Your power supply is drastically more power efficient, your motherboard has double the estimated lifespan, you went from 2gb of ram being the average to 16gb, storage went from 250gb being a lot to 1tb being the norm, storage speeds and technologies of course also changing with SSD's, even in a short time span, going from SATA to m.2 and NVME. Like, damn. Just another thing on storage, right now a 250gb Samsung 970 EVO NVME ssd is around 100$. But for 100$ you can get a 4tb WD Blue 7200rpm HDD. Thats 8x the capacity for the same price. But why would you ever buy a 970 evo then? Surely theres gotta some reason right? Yeah its faster, but most users wont notice too drastic of a difference between an NVME ssd and a hard drive. A lot of stuff would load much faster but how often are you really waiting on things to load? Maybe its a want and not a need? Maybe its a want for people who want those small increases. That 3 second power button to desktop boot time. In the same sense that people who want things like 4k will be the market for 4k and will be the driving force behind the development of 4k and 4k capable hardware and other technologies.
  • Create New...