Well, it appears again that the discussion boils down to should a change be made to alpha code that will fix a problem which has already cost people real tome and money, vs not fixing it because some people may have to adjust scripts to accommodate getting real/accurate data.
Seriously? Sent from my iPad Air 2 > On Apr 25, 2015, at 4:28 PM, Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY ARL (US) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I have heard this point brought up a few times and we concur. As it turns > out, the statistics we collected during the joint ARL/Intel DSG events (all 6 > of them) are now in question. We published results from those events in > multiple conferences. Further, I am devoting a significant amount of > engineering labor hours to a team that currently includes 6 computer > scientists, two of which have PhD's. The realization that we had been > testing and sampling the open simulator for physics and scalability on bogus > simulator data was shocking. > > Folks, you may not realize this but knowingly propagating the erroneous code > is intellectually dishonest and has already wasted precious research funding. > That we are even debating whether or not to fix the simulator reporting > mechanisms is disturbing. > > What we should be debating is "how". The MOSES project has provided a > solution that works for us and we need your knowledgeable feedback as core > code experts to know if our solution is feasible for the community. > > 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 Diva Canto > [[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2015 2:05 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] MOSES patch submitted (UNCLASSIFIED) > > I would like to hear from people who have either monitoring tools or bots > that rely on the incorrect physics FPS. If these people exist, let's hear > what pain it would cause them to correct the number. Otherwise, I don't see > any reason to continue to report an incorrect number, and I see many reasons > for fixing it: several PhD students have now either wasted a lot of their > time or even made wrong data analysis because of this. > > >> On 4/24/2015 9:08 PM, Michael Emory Cerquoni wrote: >> It is more than just bots that worry me, many people have written custom >> monitoring tools to monitor region performance to automatically restart >> regions, not to mention script that could potentially rely on >> osGetRegionStats > http://opensimulator.org/wiki/OsGetRegionStats we could >> be potentially breaking all of this content if we are talking about long >> term leaving the statistics at these lower numbers, if we are talking about >> eventually having them resume to the normal levels etc.. that is something >> else, and if that is the case I would suggest we start a new branch for that >> work that would eventually merge into master once the work was complete. >> Like i said I am not against doing this work, but not at the expense of >> causing mass chaos amongst important users and testers of this software, how >> can we say we are improving the software if we are rushing into breaking >> stuff people may be very reliant on. >> >>> On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 12:01 AM, Diva Canto <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I'm +1 on the changes. I find it very unsettling to be shown a physics fps >>> that is incorrect, and some of my students have been very confused about it >>> in the past. I don't think the changes will affect bots in any significant >>> way, but if someone can point me to a bot that will be affected, I would >>> like to know. >>> >>> >>>> On 4/24/2015 6:23 PM, Dahlia Trimble wrote: >>>> I like the idea of a multiplier for physics fps, however I see no need for >>>> altering the value. If a reported number is linearly scaled, then any >>>> change in that number is also scaled proportionally. For example, if I >>>> have 55 fps reported for a real fps of 11 due to a scale factor of 5, all >>>> I need to do is divide by 5 to get the 11 back. If the 55 decreases by >>>> 10%, the 11 will also decrease by 10%. It really shouldn't matter as >>>> either value will provide the same indication of change in performance. >>>> >>>> As far as SL compatibility goes, I usually see a physics fps of 45 for a >>>> well running region in SL, not 55. In that case if such compatibility was >>>> desired, the factor would be 45/11 or approximately 4.1 rather than 5. >>>> >>>>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Michael Emory Cerquoni >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Also sounds like a reasonable solution as well, If the goal is to improve >>>>> performance in general I am not sure it matters what is actually reported >>>>> to the viewer , since i would assume any kind of real analysis would be >>>>> done on the back end and not via the viewer #'s >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Mike Chase >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> Why not just introduce a new counter and function to fetch the value. >>>>>> The current one can always return the SL adjusted value. >>>>>> >>>>>> Mike >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 04/24/2015 08:59 PM, Michael Emory Cerquoni wrote: >>>>>>> What do you think about making the multiplier a modifiable variable in >>>>>>> OpenSim.ini? This will allow anyone who wants to improve performance >>>>>>> and use the stock #'s and in the meantime people can continue to use >>>>>>> the code in a meaningful way without having to rewrite scripts and >>>>>>> monitoring tools to continue testing other code that may be pushed into >>>>>>> core, especially if the end goal is to get statistics to report back at >>>>>>> the original numbers? I am mostly just trying to understand the end >>>>>>> goal myself. If that is not possible I would suggest this work be >>>>>>> moved into a development branch until we can get statistics back to the >>>>>>> normal numbers again? Otherwise we are talking about locking the code >>>>>>> down to all other development until this process is complete, and no >>>>>>> one has discussed any kind of time frame for this level of changes to >>>>>>> complete, I would hate to put a complete halt to development in order >>>>>>> for this to happen. I am not against doing what you suggest, I just >>>>>>> want to make sure we do it in the most efficient way possible. Would >>>>>>> be good to hear what others in the core development have to say, >>>>>>> hopefully Justin and Diva and Melanie, Misterblue, BlueWall, you guys >>>>>>> can chime in here as well, as I am only one person here and for the >>>>>>> record just voicing my own concerns, I am far from the final say on any >>>>>>> of this stuff. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 8:33 PM, Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY ARL (US) >>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> Folks, before we can make any meaningful progress in performance >>>>>>>> enhancements to the open simulator we have to be able to rely on the >>>>>>>> simulator statistics. Currently they are (purposefully) misreported >>>>>>>> to make the simulator look like it is performing better than it really >>>>>>>> is. This is not acceptable if we are to dig in and begin to assist. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 Melanie >>>>>>>> [[email protected]] >>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 5:56 PM >>>>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] MOSES patch submitted (UNCLASSIFIED) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is also my opinion that this change isn't fit for core. If and >>>>>>>> when additional stats, like "real fps" and "physics engine fps" can >>>>>>>> be shown in the viewer, then that would be good but the viewer stats >>>>>>>> window should continue to show the fudged figures indefinitely. This >>>>>>>> is because people don't only use scripts but also bots to do >>>>>>>> monitoring and bots receive the same data the viewer receives. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Melanie >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 24/04/2015 23:42, Michael Emory Cerquoni wrote: >>>>>>>> > ok so just so I understand we should now see this actually just >>>>>>>> > display >>>>>>>> > 11fps? Personally I think this is a bad idea, alot of people may be >>>>>>>> > using >>>>>>>> > monitoring apps and scripts that look for low fps and restart the >>>>>>>> > region, >>>>>>>> > we would basically be forcing everyone to rewrite a lot of code to >>>>>>>> > accommodate a singular purpose? Not quite sure how this improves the >>>>>>>> > project as a whole. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Michael Emory Cerquoni < >>>>>>>> > [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >> ok I will continue testing this for now, we should try to resolve >>>>>>>> >> the >>>>>>>> >> white space issues before it hits core, we can worry about that >>>>>>>> >> later >>>>>>>> >> though. I hope others can start testing this patch as well we need >>>>>>>> >> to >>>>>>>> >> really make sure this does not break any scripts or monitoring apps >>>>>>>> >> before >>>>>>>> >> this changes the core code, so anyone who has the time please do >>>>>>>> >> test this >>>>>>>> >> and let us know if you notice anything change or break, thanks! >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY ARL >>>>>>>> >> (US) < >>>>>>>> >> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >>> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED >>>>>>>> >>> Caveats: NONE >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> What you saw were just warnings about white spaces. The patch >>>>>>>> >>> should >>>>>>>> >>> still >>>>>>>> >>> apply and work. We follows the open simulator patch creation >>>>>>>> >>> guidance >>>>>>>> >>> explicitly, if you guys have updated instructions for how you want >>>>>>>> >>> this >>>>>>>> >>> done - >>>>>>>> >>> let us know. Otherwise, you can ignore the warnings. >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> v/r -douglas >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> Douglas Maxwell, MSME >>>>>>>> >>> Science and Technology Manager >>>>>>>> >>> Virtual World Strategic Applications >>>>>>>> >>> U.S. Army Research Lab >>>>>>>> >>> Simulation & Training Technology Center (STTC) >>>>>>>> >>> (c) (407) 242-0209 >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> >>> From: [email protected] >>>>>>>> >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >>>>>>>> >>> Michael Emory >>>>>>>> >>> Cerquoni >>>>>>>> >>> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 2:38 PM >>>>>>>> >>> To: [email protected] >>>>>>>> >>> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] MOSES patch submitted >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> please check the mantis, i had some trouble applying patch for >>>>>>>> >>> testing, >>>>>>>> >>> thanks >>>>>>>> >>> guys! >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Michael Heilmann >>>>>>>> >>> <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> >>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> Opensim Devs >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> Just an FYI, mantis bug #7540 is the first code submission >>>>>>>> >>> from >>>>>>>> >>> project >>>>>>>> >>> MOSES. Thanks. >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> -- >>>>>>>> >>> Michael Heilmann >>>>>>>> >>> Research Associate >>>>>>>> >>> Institute for Simulation and Training >>>>>>>> >>> University of Central Florida >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> >>> Opensim-dev mailing list >>>>>>>> >>> [email protected] >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev >>>>>>>> >>> <blockedhttp://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> -- >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> Michael Emory Cerquoni >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED >>>>>>>> >>> Caveats: NONE >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> >>> Opensim-dev mailing list >>>>>>>> >>> [email protected] >>>>>>>> >>> http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> -- >>>>>>>> >> Michael Emory Cerquoni >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> > 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Michael Emory Cerquoni >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Michael Emory Cerquoni >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >> >> >> >> -- >> Michael Emory Cerquoni >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
