Dahlia, sorry, i missed the ll function. The dilation as Sean defined makes 
sense to me, but i agree, the ll function shoul conform to ll "specs" or 
expectations. An os function would be a better place for the new value.

Sent from my iPad Air 2

> On Apr 18, 2015, at 4:27 PM, Dahlia Trimble <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Frank, sure, but deviations from the SL  behavior can be made in alternate 
> APIs or protocols. Anything with the prefix "LL" or "ll" is meant to conform 
> (as well as practical) to any observed and/or documented behaviors as 
> implemented in SL. Unfortunately, deviation from such behavior is often the 
> root cause of many bug reports and support issues. Users expect conformity in 
> this regard. Given that the vast majority of the code base was donated by 
> people in order to achieve this conformity, their actions should be 
> respected. Indeed, if such conformity did not exist them MOSES would probably 
> not have chosen to OpenSImulator in the first place.
> 
> Personally, I have objects which rely on proper angular velocity and which 
> are coded in accordance with such specs. I'd be somewhat upset if those 
> objects broke due to something breaking conformity to those specs.
> 
> 
>> On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Frank Nichols <[email protected]> 
>> wrote:
>> My feeling is that at this point SL specs should be considered only as  a 
>> last resort, and whenever possible decisions should be made based on 
>> "improving" the design. Heavy consideration should be given when someone 
>> serious is willing do the research and work required to implement the 
>> improvements. 
>> 
>> Thank you Sean.
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad Air 2
>> 
>>> On Apr 18, 2015, at 1:58 PM, Dahlia Trimble <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> According to http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/LlGetRegionTimeDilation 
>>> "Returns a float that is the current time dilation, the value range is 
>>> [0.0, 1.0], 0.0 (full dilation) and 1.0 (no dilation)" showing the value 
>>> returned as ranging trom 0 to 1, It's not clear from this document  if this 
>>> is the same value that is passed to the viewer as a part of many UDP 
>>> packets.
>>> 
>>> I would suggest if you need to change the definition to go beyond this 
>>> range that you report it under a different name as an additional statistic. 
>>> Another way might be to report it as traditionally understood and then add 
>>> the additional factors to the statistics display which can be used to 
>>> derive the value(s) you prefer.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Sean M <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Thanks for the feedback Dahlia, Kevin, and everyone else! I appreciate you 
>>>> taking the time to read our proposed changes and your comments.
>>>> 
>>>> The proposed set of metrics were all modified with the goal of reporting 
>>>> simulator performance at any moment in runtime. We did this by first 
>>>> gaining as much of an understanding of the OpenSim statistics reporting as 
>>>> possible and predicting the impact and overhead these changes would bring 
>>>> to the simulator's performance.
>>>> 
>>>> With that said, Time Dilation is the least documented and used metric by 
>>>> OpenSim in this set of measures. Originally, dilation was intended to 
>>>> measure simulation slow-down used to synchronize physics calculations with 
>>>> the effects observed in the viewer. OpenSim has moved away from this 
>>>> notion a while ago with the integration of BulletSim. Similarly, dilation 
>>>> is not explicitly used by XEngine. It is possible for someone to use the 
>>>> dilation in a script but with the value being a constant, I fail to see 
>>>> the practicality and utility.
>>>> 
>>>> If you monitor dilation in your regions, you will notice that dilation 
>>>> always reports a value of 1, regardless of fluctuations in actual physics 
>>>> frame time, simulator frame time, total frame time, or any of their rates. 
>>>> This constant value means that dilation cannot be used as a measure to 
>>>> gauge performance. 
>>>> 
>>>> Just to clarify, dilation is normally a measure of how long or wide 
>>>> something is. If we say "time dragged on", time dilation is larger than if 
>>>> "time flew by". Therefore, OpenSim's use of the word "dilation" can be a 
>>>> misnomer. Our proposed changes positively unbinds dilation; the new 
>>>> calculation ranges from [0:Infinity). The previously intended range of 
>>>> [0:1] artificially places a limit on how long the simulator has waited for 
>>>> physics; this limit is not accurate because, theoretically, a physics 
>>>> frame can take forever. With the new calculation, we want to measure 
>>>> simulator and physics frame time in respect to the minimum frame time 
>>>> (default is 89ms). Therefore, if dilation is at most 1, the simulator is 
>>>> performing very well. Anything greater than 1 and the simulator is 
>>>> exceeding the minimum frame time because it is struggling to process 
>>>> frames. Unbinding dilation allows one to know how poorly the simulator is 
>>>> performance without restriction.
>>>> 
>>>> In the viewer code, particularly in Phoenix Firestorm Viewer, Time 
>>>> Dilation is used for updating angular velocity calculations for idle 
>>>> objects. Dilation could be a part of the viewer to mitigate dead reckoning 
>>>> and rubber banding although I have not discovered any evidence for this 
>>>> after going through the sources of OpenSim and Firestorm.
>>>> 
>>>> Extensive testing was performed last week with the proposed metrics in 
>>>> place. Time Dilation was given focus because its calculation changes were 
>>>> different than its original intention. In the tests, abnormally high 
>>>> amounts of load (logged in, continuously moving avatars that used 
>>>> Firestorm) were placed on the simulator to determine avatar thresholds 
>>>> before the user experience degraded (rubber-banding, unresponsive viewers, 
>>>> simulation lag, etc). The user experience did not degrade until these 
>>>> abnormally high thresholds were reached. In other words, with the 
>>>> introduction of the new, upper unbounded dilation calculation, zero 
>>>> unusual actions took place from both the viewer and simulator standpoints. 
>>>> On the other hand, the new dilation measure proved to be a more accurate 
>>>> measure of the relationship between simulator performance and increased 
>>>> load than SimFPS.
>>>> 
>>>> If anyone has a deeper understanding of time dilation and its relationship 
>>>> with viewer synching than I, please feel free to point me to specific 
>>>> areas in either code-bases that maybe negatively affected by this new 
>>>> calculation. The last thing that we want to do is introduce bugs into the 
>>>> system. Also, I encourage anyone hosting a region to try the changes we 
>>>> are proposing and report back any findings. All of these metric changes 
>>>> are accessible through the OpenSim command-line "show stats".
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks everyone for your feedback!
>>>> 
>>>> Sean Mondesire, Ph.D.
>>>> MOSES Team
>>>> 
>>>>> On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY ARL (US) 
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> If current management and monitoring systems are relying on bad data, 
>>>>> then it would be prudent to consider updating that software - not 
>>>>> blocking the corrective measures on the server side.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We will complete internal testing by COB Monday and update the gitHub.  
>>>>> You can download our version of OS from there and perform your own tests.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Douglas Maxwell, MSME
>>>>> Science and Technology Manager
>>>>> Virtual World Strategic Applications
>>>>> U.S. Army Research Lab
>>>>> Human Research & Engineering Directorate
>>>>> Simulation & Training Technology Center
>>>>> (c) (407) 242-0209
>>>>> 
>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>> From: [email protected] 
>>>>> [[email protected]] on behalf of Kevin 
>>>>> [[email protected]]
>>>>> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 1:55 PM
>>>>> To: [email protected]
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Open Simulator Metrics Reporting Changes 
>>>>> (Phase 1) (UNCLASSIFIED)
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 2015-04-17 11:28, Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY ARL (US) wrote:
>>>>> > Time Dilation:
>>>>> > Previous:  Originally just returned the PhysicsScene value for
>>>>> > TimeDilation
>>>>> > which is 1.0.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > New:  The time it took for the physics and simulation to run not
>>>>> > including
>>>>> > the sleep time, divided by the minFrameTime passed into the program
>>>>> > from the
>>>>> > OpenSimDefaults.ini file variable MinFrameTime. This would mean that a
>>>>> > value
>>>>> > of 1 is no sleep necessary, less than 1 and the program slept for some
>>>>> > remaining amount of time, and greater than 1 the physics and simulation
>>>>> > took
>>>>> > longer to run than the allotted time.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The proposed changes to the stats seem reasonable to me until I got to
>>>>> Time Dilation. The way I read your proposal might alter the behaviour of
>>>>> some scripts or might affect, or possibly break, some external grid
>>>>> administration systems that use Time Dilation. The way I understand Time
>>>>> Dilation is that it varies from 0 to 1 and a number less than one is
>>>>> usually a sign of lag in the region. Your proposal seems to indicate
>>>>> that values can range from less than one to more than one with less than
>>>>> one being better than if TD is 1.
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers!
>>>>> 
>>>>> Kevin.
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://www.ve3syb.ca/           |"Nerds make the shiny things that
>>>>> distract
>>>>> Owner of Elecraft K2 #2172      | the mouth-breathers, and that's why
>>>>> we're
>>>>>                                  | powerful!"
>>>>> #include <disclaimer/favourite> |             --Chris Hardwick
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Opensim-dev mailing list
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Opensim-dev mailing list
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Opensim-dev mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Opensim-dev mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Opensim-dev mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

Reply via email to