Kwakkelde Kwak

leliel Mirihi wrote: The 'source' is the current hardware market. Class 5 sims were introduced at the end of 2006 with 2 dual core CPUs and 4GB of ram and ran 4 regions. Now 6 years later you can buy servers with 64 cores and upto 512GB of ram, it would be a waste of money for LL to run 4 regions on such a machine. You're right that it doesn't matter in the end tho. As end users all we should care about is the level of performance LL can deliver. Harping about X number of regions on a machine is missing the forest for the trees. (I read orca's post as sims per core, instead of sims per server, in that case I'm sure it's true, but I don't see anything wrong with it, since it's the number of cores that are more important than the number of servers) What I do see in your post is more cores per server. Assuming one core is only as powerful as one core in 2006 was (something that probably isn't true in the first place) and assuming one core of those 64 core servers still holds one full region or four homesteads, I see how people got the idea that more regions are running on one core. (This is what I read every now and then) More sims per server doesn't mean more sims per core though. I tend to believe the entire issue can be classified as urban legend, at least until someone can show me some reliable figures that prove me wrong.

I've never done a full sim mesh build, but I did upload quite a bunch of buildings. Getting the LI down with less geometry than normal prims shouldn't be too much of an issue, besides (like others mentioned already) keeping an eye on the LI as you go. My experience is a LI of 5-10 times lower than prims is nothing to be surprised about. What I am wondering about is the network load and viewers capabilities. A prim and even a sculpt is nowhere near as big as a mesh file I think. Mesh files have to cover all individual vertices, faces, normals, UV data etc and that for every LoD. Only one way to find out how a full mesh sim performs, good luck and please keep us informed...

If you only reduce geometry you do not have to reweight, you can project the old weights onto the new shape. At least in 3ds max you can, I bet Blender has some equivalent function. I didn't look recently, but I'm sure the MakeHuman av has a subdivision, so it should be relatively easy to reduce the weight. As I recall it's about 20k tris without the teeth and eyes. That's not a bad start. The question is what the OP means by "easy". If easy means downloading a model somewhere and uploading it to SL, expecting it to be a finished item, the answer is simple: impossible. It doesn't take a pro to adjust a reaonable avatar (like the MH one) though.

It looks like you are working on a rotated skeleton in Blender. Can't help you with any Blender specifics though I'm afraid.

Look up MakeHuman instead, that will get rid of the license issues. Even though it's not quite as polygon heavy as the poser models, you'll still need to reduce the geometry to make it fit for SL.

Orca Flotta wrote: They put now up to 16 full sims on 1 server and dunnohowmanymore homesteads. It's simply breathtaking how grossly underpowered SL is Every now and then I read this. Never have I seen any source though. (I'm not saying it isn't true, so if you do have a reliable source, please post) I don't care if LL puts 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64 etc sims on one core, all I really care about is the performance and from personal experience all I can say is my homesteadsim is performing much much better than it did a couple of years ago. The sim contents have barely changed.

Orca Flotta wrote: - open the machine and vacuum it out every 3 months Although I'm guilty of doing this myself (so far without any issues), it's highly recommended NOT to. Vacuum cleaners can create static charges, potentially ruining your computer. Most of the time I use a toothbrush, if you have it at your disposal, use compressed air.

Just something that crossed my mind.... Does the location of the vertices in any way affect the "average width" of the triangles? If SL doesn't calculate by object axis but by vertex number/order somehow...couldn't that result in these odd figures?

Did you check how many fps the card generates? In some sims my 670 likes to draw 200 fps, then it gets pretty warm, slightly over 70 C. That's not a real issue, but especially in summertime I don't need a furnace next to me. I capped the fps at 60 and that seems to do the trick, it's in the NVidia settings. You can see your fps with ctrl-shift-1. If it's over 60, I'd cap it. 60 is most likely the best your monitor can do. If fps are normal, you could try and check the thermal paste, airflow, look for dust etc...

I get lower figures than you do, but you are certainly on to something. (16 sided, .5x.5x.5m) 0 degrees: 3.2 22.5 degrees counterclockwise: 1.3 45: 6.6 67.5: 7.2 90: 19.2 112.5: 6.2 135: 13.7 157.5: 6.1 180: 3.7 202.5: 13.4 225: 12.5 247.5: 1.3 270: 20.8 292.5: 7.9 315: 3.1 337.5: 3.8 Vertex order in 3ds max is bottom row first, top row last, counting counterclockwise with vertex 1 on the highest x value of the cylinder. I didn't check the dae file, so that order might be different.

Jean Horten wrote: You'll get a lot of trouble with dysfunctional drivers for the money you save on AMD/ATI graphics cards. J. If you use it mainly for SL yes, if you don't no. I thought I made that pretty clear.

You're welcome, happens to the best of us...*cough*

JayR Cela wrote: Do yourself a favor and do not purchase an ATI~AMD Video card !!! They don't work with Second Life They do, but only sometimes it seems. Any update to either video card drivers or SL viewer will result in a "crossed fingers moment". If SL is the main reason for buying a specific video card, I'd go for NVidia. If you play games 95% of the time and occasionally open SL, AMD might be the best choice, simply because they are usually cheaper.

I don't think RLV use will result in any breaking of a shared experience. It of course depends what exactly is considered a shared experience. If you ask me, daylight settings can result in a non shared experience. I'm glad LL doesn't put a ban on that:) What without a doubt resulted in a non shared experience were the breast (and bum?) wobble in the old Emerald viewer. They would make an avatar appear differently to different people. This is not what RLV does, anyone using a non-RLV viewer can still use the RLV scripted items on another avatar. Hence a shared experience. There's a big gray area in between though, I'm curious where LL draws the line.

I have a clue, it's something really stupid. I dare calling it stupid only because it also happened to me and I was stumped myself. My best bet is you did check the skin weights in the preview, but forgot to include them in the actual upload. It's in the third tab I think.

Drongle McMahon wrote: Can it really be a coincidence that, out of the myriad possible arrangements of the data, the Autodesk software just happens to produce the optimum one? Or could it be that the weight calculator accidentally makes implicit assumptions, which don't appear in the wiki, because it was developed with the outputs of that software? The fact that Autodesk has a good implementation of the collada scheme is no surprise, since they were involved from the beginning in developing it. What does surprise me, is SL making distinctions between different collada files which contain the same geometry. Like you say, one would think since SL uses its own format, the weights would be the same. Maybe it's easier for the server to calculate collisions when the triangles are adjacent. No idea, but if that's the case, the wiki sure isn't complete. I think all of this can only be answered by someone who knows how the internal format is written and/or someone who knows how the physics engine works exactly. On the upside, you now know how to reduce the weight, so the people who made the dae exporter for Blender can rewrite it. This means the issue doesn't neccecarily needs to be fixed by LL. btw I now finally understand your "obsession" with the hulls, a feature I have never really used myself. I always thought the triangle based shapes were much more convenient. No wonder you didn't, with a physics weight 10 times bigger. Good luck with furter testing, the Blender community will be greatful and maybe you can call yourself "Mr. Physics" pretty soon. If I can find some time, I might have a look if the vertex order in 3ds max is the same order in the exported dae equivalent. Afterall, it might just be a bad choice by the Blender devs (drawing the defaul cylinder top first bottom second) rather than a bugged exporter.

Hmmm, although I use editable poly in general, there are some features in editable mesh I still prefer. Maybe because I am a legacy max user

Drongle McMahon wrote: And there was me thinking it must be the SL developers! :matte-motes-smile: You're quite unfair to the Blender guys for speed of response though. I just said Autodesk wants to own everything, where's your conspiracy mind? 47.8% of LL employees are paid by Autodesk to screw up Blender. I'm unfair? I'm sticking my neck out by telling you this, since 56.2% of my paycheck comes from Autodesk. Shhh! @Morgaine, I posted my stats in an earlier post (for the upload I used the latest viewer)

Drongle McMahon wrote: Your picture with the hull physics shape display when it should be triangles, and behaves as triangle, is exactly what I see with the Maya-originated cylinder. I guess thast means Maya and 3D are doing the same thing, which is not surprising. That's what I figured. Maya and 3ds doing the same is not all that obvious to me though. Although they are owned by the same company, they were and still are developed seperately so not even the exporter will be exactly the same. I'm sure since Autodesk decided to own everything there's a reasonable amount of exchange between the two, but I don't expect the two to blend into one program, at least not any time soon. Either way, my 3ds figures were different from Chosen's Maya figures. Is there finally a justification for people who can afford these? Is it an anti-Blender conspiracy? :smileysurprised: There always was and you just found one of the main reasons.... Maya and 3ds will always be a step ahead and with issues like these there's no need for forums like these to find them and fix them. (And then having to wait 3 updates to have it fixed properly). And ofcourse it's a conspiracy. 69.4% the devs on Blender are employed by Autodesk to screw things up, didn't you know that?

Drongle McMahon wrote: My understanding, which may be entirely wrong, is that the engine always uses triangles for un-dcomposed shapes. Since I triangulated before upload, the weight calculation would have had to recognise that the quads were flat before treating them as such. Sounds hard, but right now nothing would surprise me. But Chosen didn't look at the triangle based physics shape. So I think what I said in my earlier post is true for hulls then. The uploader looks at the vertices and will recognise the flat quads when constructing the hull.

To add my two cents, size 4x4x2 (size 1x1x1), physics type prim, no analyze ___________________________ Second Life 3.4.2 (267137) Nov 19 2012 12:24:52 (Second Life Release) You are at 206,309.0, 179,935.0, 22.9 in Mesh Sandbox 6 located at sim7027.aditi.lindenlab.com (216.82.40.144:12035) Second Life Server 12.11.09.266804 Made with 3ds Max 2013 Design, PU 6.0, Autodesk FBX 2013.2 (Collada 1.4.1) ___________________________ Top cylinder: 0.9 (2.7) Middle cylinder: 1.0 (3.3) Bottom cylinder: 0.9 (3.0) As you can see in the picure, the top two are shown as hulls, very strange. They do not act like hulls though, I can't stand on them. Maybe this is an unrelated bug?

I haven't done any testing (yet), but the lower cylinder having twice the physics weight makes sense to me. The other two cylinders have 32 planes, made out of 64 triangles, but still 32 flat planes. The lower one has twice as many. How do the physics weights of single planes made out of various amounts of triangles compare to eachother? Worth some testing...

Just turn them all off, I have a completely empty screen when I'm not chatting or building.

Peggy Paperdoll wrote: As soon as you click on the window to make it active then that is the window that you are making measurements on....that window you just left is now inactive and there is nothing being measured on that window any longer. If I have two windows side by side, both SL viewers and have the statistcics open on both (Ctrl Alt 1) I see my "normal" fps on the active window and 15 or so fps on the inactive window. I can also really see the fps going down, with my eyes I mean. It's not a lack of resources, plenty of those available for a third and when I open that third, fps on the active windows stays the same and I get the 15 fps on both inactive viewers. I think what was ment by running 4 viewers at 40-60 fps is any active window has those fps. I have a very hard time believing even a 680 is capable of running four viewers all at that fps simultaniously. That would have to be one empty sim. I'm running windows btw, 7 pro SP1

Chibbchichi wrote: By the time of posting it's well over 2 Gig for 3 viewers. I'm quite surprised it's "only" 2 Gig as 1 viewer normally draws 1.2 Gig. But that's probably a 32 bit limitation of the Firestorm viewer. My LL viewer doesn't use more than 700 something MB per viewer. I guess that's the 512 plus the things youmentioned. I have never seen it at 1.2G or even close. Also don't forget all inactive viewers get their fps cut to 15 or so. No idea how this affects memory usage, but I suspect it does have AN affect. The 2GB is a 32bit limitation for your RAM usage, is that really also the case for the video card? I can't check since all other memory intensive programs I run are 64 bit.