Attachments and tri's

[Marcthur Goosson]

I made a model with 7680 tri's in high lod and size of 0.069x0.069x0.240.

I made the lower lod's too, 1920, 208, 8 tri's

Model is 2 PE.

I copied it 255 times and linked it. PE is 129 prims.

So I have a linked set now with 1.966.080 tri's.

Can be attached without problem.

Would it be wise to attach such high poly models? I fear SL will freeze.

We all know the laggie jewelry stuff, but this is even worse compared to sculpties (approx 512.000 tri's).

 

[Constance Flux]

Proper use of mesh can produce models such as jewellery, clothes, hair, shoes attachments of all kinds that have far less tri polygons than any sculpty on this planet.

Sculpty jewellery, shoes and so on are causing the deep lag that happens when several decked out AVs congregate together.

Sculpties are causing lag. Economical, optimized mesh modeling can be 10 times more efficient than the equivelant sculpties.

Sculpties almost always have tons of tri polys that are not being used efficiently. Death to the lag monster sculpties.

It's only the current bizarre and inflated mesh PEs that are giving the impression that mesh is inefficient.

If prims and sculpties were better every 3D games company on the planet would be using them.

Death to the sculpty:matte-motes-evil:

[Vivienne Schell]

As long as Linden Lab does not clearly define what is "proper" and what is "not proper" by rigid restrictions on mesh imports there will be no "proper" use of mesh. Examples like the one given by Marcthur will become the rule, not the exception if LL does not take care of the problem efficiently.

[leliel Mirihi]

LL has already defined what is proper. 38 attachments of 255 objects each with 64k vertices which comes out to 635M vertices per avatar or 25B vertices per sim with 40 avatars. Good luck trying to render that.

[DanielRavenNest Noe]

No, it is not wise to attach such high poly models, and it is totally unnecessary.  The smallest thing you can see on your monitor is 1 pixel.  If you are zoomed into an avatar so you only see half their body, and you have a large monitor, they might take up 500x1000 pixels on the screen, and the full body would then be 1 million pixels.  If you have two million triangles, that means each triangle is smaller than one pixel, which is too small to render.

Past experience with another virtual world that uses mesh for everything shows I can make very nice clothing items for under 5000 triangles per piece.  For small jewelry that will only take up 50 or 100 pixels *at most* on the screen, you can get by with far less.  Anything more is vanity or for taking marketplace photos.

Here is a pair of jeweled stilettos I made for under 5000 triangles, and even at higher magnification than most players will see it, you can't see any defects from triangulation:

Jewel Strap Stiletto

 

@Leliel - Anyone wearing over 10 million triangles would (a) grind their own graphics card to a halt, (b) have to pay an arm and a leg for upload costs, © be abuse reported like any other method of bringing a region to a standstill.  So while 600M triangles is theoretically possible, it is unlikely to happen.  On my land I would eject anyone wearing over a million triangles for the same reason I would eject them for carrying 500 scripts: excessive lag.

Oh, when making your absurd worst case scenario, all 40 avatars would have to be in a group hug, so they are all at the max LOD, otherwise the triangle count goes down, and in that case occlusion cuts down what has to be rendered, so it can never happen.

[Gaia Clary]

---

Constance Flux wrote:

Sculpties are causing lag. Economical, optimized mesh modeling can be 10 times more efficient than the equivelant sculpties.

Sculpties almost always have tons of tri polys that are not being used efficiently. Death to the lag monster sculpties.

It's only the current bizarre and inflated mesh PEs that are giving the impression that mesh is inefficient.

If prims and sculpties were better every 3D games company on the planet would be using them.

Death to the sculpty:matte-motes-evil:

---

• Have you taken into account , that the smallest supported sculpty only has 16 faces ?
• Have you taken into account that collapsed vertices are removed from the triangle set before the sculpty is actually rendered so collapsed triangles effectively count nothing ? (almost...)
• Have you taken into account that a whole lot of information used by sculpties actually never needs to be passed around, because it is generic ?

Before you conclude now, that i must be a sculpty fanatic, i'd like  to tell that i am realy doing my best to show how to get over the artificially introduced barriers set up by LL. It would be sad to see mesh failing, just because most people "think" its too expensive (due to heavy PE and minimum upload fees of 150 L$), where there are certainly tons of reasonable cases where mesh can be the better option (also in terms of primcost), and not only with avatar attachments...

But always remind that  "The condemned live longer ..." :matte-motes-evil-invert:

 

[Marielle Caerndow]

In the past the number of prims were often stated - even for attachments where prim-count never really mattered (in sense of beeing limiteted) .

For mesh attachments the ARC can be a handy reference value, especially since it (should) reflect how render-heavy an item is.

[arton Rotaru]

Isn't there the 128MB limit per region for mesh? So if that limit is reached, those meshes on AVs won't be rendered at all, when they enter the region?

[guY Ralior]

Wow that is a lot of geometry for something sooo small My whole avatar mesh is 2,654 quads or 5,236 tirs at high LOD.

Here is a pic of base mesh,  with AO, and with a normal map wish we could have those normal maps I think it still looks ok, I will admit if I go up to about 7,000 quads it looks a lot better but I am first working on the lowest possible then I will see how going with more geometry works in comparison with lag and such.

[Marcthur Goosson]

No way ever that I will make such an absurd high poly attachment.

And I am sure none of you overhere would do it either.

It is useless.

But who else knows that since there is no limit defined.

After all we have 200 prim shoes, necklaces, hair etc etc in world now, simply because it is possible.

[Chodai Yoshikawa]

Hi all,

Step1 :  Lindens re-evaluate ARC cost taking into account Mesh costs, and true viewer load costs of sculpts and prims acurately.

Step2: Lindens place a HARD limit on ARC ==> This promotes well crafted mesh as attachments with lower loads than current sculpt and prim use, which is inflationary and damaging viewer performance.

Problem solved.

Cho

[Marielle Caerndow]

To Step 2: Would be nice in a way to have a hard limit , a guidance. It would save me hours of thinking about "how many tris are 'too' low, how many are sane and how many are to much" :smileyindifferent: But I doubt a hard limit will happen, first and foremost because it would probably break existing content...some items might become un-rezzable at all :matte-motes-big-grin-wink: 

To Step 1: The ARC for rendering is a good guidance for creators and users. However, afaik it's pure render-weight. So I'd vote for a second metrics: "ALF" = Avatar Lag Factor.

It could include the ARC for rendering the avatar plus: 

• the ARC (triangle count, textures etc.)
• number of prims/scripts/... of all attachments (reflecting network stress due to downloading) 
• used memory of attached scripts
• a factor for script events caused by attached scripts

So, something like the world-formula of SL :smileytongue: