|
History
| Log In
|
|
|
|
|
|
[
Permlink
| « Hide
]
Aimee Congrejo - 31/May/07 11:44 AM
I agree! XD Even my Mac Pro 8-core 3 GHz with Radeon X1900 grinds down to 5 FPS with the new Firstlook Windlight client! *cry* I linked in some other FPS complaints too!
I totally agree with this statement. I have been trying the firstlook viewer and Windlight also. On the blog they state it will have no further performance reduction. After testing it, I know better now. It *does* slow down everything. No doubt about that.
Reading about all the bugs already found and sometimes dreadfull colors it produces on objects and avatars (I sure don´t like it when my blonde hair turns completely(!) orange in a sunset, not to mention terrible skin colors I have seen already. That will be next hot topic on SL then.....), I would focus on performance first instead of adding more new features. Most users just have an avarage computer and are not willing to invest into expensive gaming computers with the top range graphics cards. I rather choose for performance then pretty clouds in the sky. This also because SL already eats 100% CPU while not even moving in a deserted sim (Compaq 2Ghz P4, 2GB RAM, ASUS FX5700/512). It makes you wonder about the engine.... You will probably find a nice performance leap when 1.17 is out with @Lisa: You will find that *all* 3D games are using 100% CPU, if they get more CPU the will just produce more FPS, that's how it works. However, there's a command line parameter to let the program leave come processor cycles to other apps, i.e. add -cooperative [ms] to the command line of the shortcut (and replace a value from 1 .... 999 for [ms]). The memory leaks did improve performance drain over time, but we still have a lot of performance left to gain, promising though =)
Im on an alt ( i dont think JIRA likes my main) any ways i been playing SL for about two years now and i have not once seen an upgread that inproves preformance all LL dose is push way to hard on adding new features i would love for just once to see SL come out with a update with nothing but a whole bunch of bug fixes and improved preformance
** once more**
I do belive if Linden Labs contenues the way its going with shoving features at us to attract new customers that things will come so bad that SL will die and every one will remeber SL as being the worlds most messed up opportunity **had to cencor my self* I have an Intel D920 and a GeFroce 8800 GTX XXX, and it is really slow sometimes.
With the latest patch, the client even stands completely, when loading textures or something... for 3-8 seconds nothing moves, the client appears to be frozen, the memory leak does it work, too. I've seen it eating up memory quite fast in the task list... it went up some megabytes a second, and when it reached 990MB, it dropped down to 150MB and then started increasing again, same rate. How exactly can this bug ever be closed? How much performance is enough? This is all kinda silly.
Nothing silly about it.
I have been playing various PC games for many many years now. ( tries to avoid using the word decades :P ) The performance of SL has never been even close to "adequate" or "acceptable" Unlike most other games...upgrading to the latest most powerful computer and video card often results in very little improvement to overall performance with the SL viewer. I agree with most that LL should focus its efforts on improving the performance and stability of the client. I would love to see updates that only contained fixes and performance and stability improvements. I personally could care less if wind light and or voice never made into the client. I dream of the day that the performance of the client actually scaled with the speed of the computer and video card. The first Firstlook with rendering pipeline improvements was a baby step in the right direction, but development focused on rendering improvements seems to have ceased since that FirstLook eventually became the release viewer. I'm sure there are countless more improvements that could be made to the rendering pipeline to exponentially improve its performance. Shame that it doesn't seem to be a priority. I don't think this is a proper use of the bug tracker.
However, Gigs Taggart question didn't receive answer. So, again: how exactly can this bug ever be closed? How much performance is enough? Also, comparing Second Life to PC games doesn't make sense since they work in a different way Example: Textures download is a main cause of bad performances in SL, but you don't download textures in PC games, they are usually provided on discs. I'm not at all a technical person and know little or next to nothing about what is "underneath". I do know however that I think this constant updating at brakeneck speed seems to be ignoring a lot of what makes SL great. I for one don't want voice, don't want better looking clouds or whatever. I want better performance and stability and want Lindens to start acknowledging the fact that these issues are at the very core or heart of SL. Before showing us new features that only makes everyday life in SL harder and less stable we want stability!!! I mean, four different viewers in one week, come on! Concentrate on the really important issues instead and understand what SL is all about. The creators have lost sight of this it seems...
Torley, the SL viewer is a CPU hog, and a lag monster.
It sucks most if not all the computers resources. The lock ups occur because there is more data coming in then the computer can handle. when the processors are over whelmed with incoming data, which is often the case on the mac viewers, the software and sometimes the computer freezes. There has GOT to be a way for you guys to make the viewers take up less processing resources and less memory. The Mac viewer soft ware takes up twice as much hard drive space then the Windows viewer. I agree with the commentors here that in this fashion, LL is digging it's own grave.....
First things First! No new features that take upen even more scarce resources, first fix the basic user-experience, which is in the first place reducing lagg and server crash issues and viewer stalls and crash issues. If that things get tackled first and the server configuration is stable and performing well, we can begin to think of adding new features, under the condition they will not re-invoke performance issues or cause crashes. "I don't think this is a proper use of the bug tracker."
@Opensource Obscure: A lot of meta-issues probably will never be closed, they're intended to group together things that don't really have a category, and for which it is debatable if there should be an individual category just for them. However, more importantly the meta-issue is intended as an issue that people can vote for to register interest in something, even if there is no one solution that they like. So people can say "I want better performance too" without having to pick a specific issue related to it, maybe they don't understand one solution, or they don't agree with another, but if they still want performance then they can vote for this so that it gets more attention to the issue rather than specifically any one solution. Perhaps in future this will accumulate so many votes it's always on-top, if that's the case then it can be easily cloned and have the original closed. This would be ideal if significant improvements are made in performance, as people may then wish LL to focus on something else. The "How much performance is enough?" question should have a human-related answer, I think.
I try to help with my point of view: 1) SL isn't a "game", in the classic way we mean it, so the typical game's logic can't be applied (AKA "fastest as possible" -> 60 FPS or more "or I'll be killed by those owfull monsters" ;-))) 2) if the client performs "poorly", most of the new, beautifull, improvements will be lost... so: what means "poorly"? In short terms (to make a bugtraker perform better also ;-)) 1) having set the looking depth to 128 meters (isn't it the default?) 2) having set all the graphic parameters to comply with each own graphic card/cpu (AKA most of the calcs to the graphic card, not to che main cpu(s)) 3) having a "minimum RAM amount" of 1GB 4) having a reasonable (up to 1GB) amount of free HD space to locally swap some graphic objects (cache) 4.a) having the HD's space unfragmented, for the OSes which don't do it themselves (Win...) 5) having each one ISP which performs normally (AKA don't introduce lag, 200 ms of RTD/ping)... ...the reasonable FPS we would achieve is from 20 to 30 in all conditions, even heavy ones. This may imply a better (and faster) memory handling: I usually start with 720MB of free RAM, with no other task running on my MacBook (just running the system monitor and another little hadrware/software monitor: all two sums in 2-3% of CPU's use and OS+monitor(s) uses 280MB RAM). Only logging (without doing anything) decreases the free RAM to 300MB or less (caching, rendering and so on) but the worst thing is that, after a sustained client use, free memory drops below 8-10MB... so the OS begins swapping... and all the wonderfull SL experience behave painfull. :-( Logging out and restart the client only may or may not help 'cause OS tends to mantain the current memory asset (with many OS's parts swapped out). Reboot all the machine sure helps... for a few time. I think improving LOD performances may help also because there is a great amount of "unusefull" details which tends to stuck the client while rendering. As noted in VWR-1119; one of the main issues I'm noticing is that SL uses up VRAM VERY quickly because it likes to throw whole textures into it even if you can only make out half of the detail due to distance/size, this means that even with 4gb of RAM as I now have, the problem isn't hard-drive swapping but RAM swapping as every rendering pass requires textures to be swapped out of my graphics card and then back in again.
As far as measuring performance, 20fps is nice and smooth, if the game could stay above that on typical machines at all times then it would be great. LOD etc should aim for that as well, as below 20-25fps things start to get jittery. Problem is I've been playing SL and you can get 'smooth' 20fps and 'jittery' 20fps, where even though it's the same frame-rate it performs a lot worse than it says, or even the opposite, where it performs better than the FPS would suggest. But yeah, an aim of 20-25 ACTUAL frames-per-second would be nice. Ok, here's my own comments. Before anything else, system specs.
Windows XP Pentium D 3.0 gHz 2GB memory Radeon x1900XTX Internet connection is not an issue. High bandwidth fiber optic. Before the voice viewer, there were areas that I was getting an average of 40-50 fps no problem in. No overclocking on any hardware. Immediately following the voice viewer coming around, my FPS dropped down to 10-15 in these areas. 3-5 if there were a lot of people. Through massive overclocking and risk of damaging my hardware I've gotten it up to 15-20 again. That's half the frames per second with my hardware now overclocked as high as it will go compared to without overclocking before the voice viewer. This is absolutely rediculous. It's something that needs to be seriously looked into. The lag I have post-voice simply did not happen EVER on Second Life. Removed:
Well seeing as this started in May, and it is now September.
With a 3Ghz dual core; 2Gb ram; Windows XP pro; ATIXT1550/256 graphics (which I know isn't the best, but way exceeds the SL min spec). I used to get with luck 15-25FPS. the last 6 weeks I have been lucky to get double figure FPS except for early morning SL time, when with luck it may reach 15FPS. that's generally with 250-300ms ping times (Difficult to get under 200 from here in the UK as that jump is inherent at the NY and SF internet nodes). I suppose the packet losses which at one point at the beginning of the month were hitting close to 50% didn't help (that is using the release candidate, where the figure has been corrected), but there again it generally runs 5-10% during peak times. [And no it is not my connection, that has been tested to other east and west coast USA servers, with 0-1% packet loss at the worse times, normally 0-0.2%]. Latterly the performance even on class 5 sims with few main and child agents, has been exceptionally poor, (with object rezzing very unpredictable without constant relogs, and when local parcel teleports can't function without timing out), to such an extent that I have found other games/worlds to play in. If and when LL can get reasonable get speed back into SL so that I am not juddering around all the time but getting smooth movement I will be back, (I used to have no problem with a 2600 Athlon XP machine which now can't even run the game any longer), but until then I will just game the traffic figures overnight until it is sorted. Removed:
Added: VWR-2435 = has the potential to significantly reduce the amount of processing required for a simulator in regards to physics.
AMD Geode NX 1750
GeForce 7 - NX7600GS -256MB 1 gig ram I upgraded as a last attemp to make SL workable again. with the last pré-voice version 1.18.0.6 my old hardware ram smooth enough. AMD Geode NX 1750 Geforce 4 - MX440 - 64MB 512 MB ram Unbelievable to see that even when setting options exactly like I had with my old hardware or even below, it is impossible to walk. fly or turn around without very irritating hiccups. (framerates drops to very low) The viewers just take to much processor power. Why on earth there had to be such an enormous difference in processor power taking, since we had to leave 1.18.0.6 ?????? By the way: I have voice switched off in my viewer and completely in my sim. This is really no fun anymore. :( Agreed ... I stopped participating in sl over one year ago because lag and low fps ruined the experience.
That said....the worse it gets, the more LL will be compelled to address the issue. Prediction: before the year 2010, sl will out-perform strictly localized hardware based games. i have a athlon x2 6000+ and a radeon x800GTO and after playing another game such as hl2 or any other 3d game. for a while, when i start sl everything is jittery and if im in the air my framerate will report as over 120 the only way i can solve this is to restart my comptuer.
Hardware Overview:
Mac OS X 10.4.10 Machine Name: iMac Machine Model: PowerMac6,1 CPU Type: PowerPC G4 (3.3) Number Of CPUs: 1 CPU Speed: 1.25 GHz L2 Cache (per CPU): 256 KB Memory: 768 MB Bus Speed: 167 MHz Boot ROM Version: 4.6.8f4 Serial Number: W833584RPJH GeForce FX 5200: Chipset Model: GeForce FX 5200 Type: Display Bus: AGP VRAM (Total): 64 MB Vendor: nVIDIA (0x10de) Device ID: 0x0329 Revision ID: 0x00a2 ROM Revision: 2068 Added a little meta-issue note, as some people are not voting on this issue, even if they vote for linked issues. Also to clarify that this is a general issue, and as such can be voted for even if you don't like any of the attached solutions.
There are still very serious memory leak issues with all Second Life clients. For me, a user with 1 Gig of memory, having Mozilla open with many tabs (multiple web sessions inside a single window), and/or being on Second Life in a sim with a certain number of people nearby, and high of objects and attachments present, will cause SL to crash for me... either the client screen simple disappears and I get the crash-report sending request dialog, or the SL client window goes *completely white*, and I have to kill the second life client process and start it over again. PLEASE SEE VWR-2997
Added: VWR-3234 = An open-source project I'm hoping to embark on soon which will seek to improve performance and future development work.
Restored this issue to "Critical" priority; Showstopper is f | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meta Issue
Open
Critical
Meta-issue: Improve Performance!
