I would also like to remind everyone that MOSES does not run stock OpenSimulator code, they use the back end Simiangrid and are making decisions about core code based on this, I have done extensive testing and even helped try to make the MOSES grid run better, took part in their FCVW Conference, I and the entire build team experienced issues on this grid that I could not recreate on any other grid. I personally do not want decisions being made that will effect core services by a team of developers who are not even using these services but what do I know according to doug I of all people should not be part of this conversation anymore. This is the last thing I have to say about this, I am done talking about MOSES and their needs.
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Michael Emory Cerquoni < [email protected]> wrote: > Doug seriously, if you think I do not understand that you are crazy, the > fact that you could not explain that before now means you should not be > involved in this conversation either, but don't worry I am done discussing > anything with the MOSES team, as far as I am concerned I am not very > interested and would prefer that MOSES work on their own fork for their own > needs. I still have not seen any kind of improvements on the MOSES grid, > good luck with that. > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > (US) <[email protected]> wrote: > >> We looked into modifying the client about a year ago as part of our >> initial design reviews. The licensing issues surrounding the client were >> so complex, we simply abandoned the effort. This is why we are working on >> the HTML5/WebGL JavaScript version, to eliminate the client problem >> altogether. >> >> >> >> Michael, the fact that you don't understand how proper simulator >> statistics reporting would benefit those who are trying to improve >> simulator performance means you should probably not be involved in the >> discussion. >> >> >> Douglas Maxwell, Ph.D. >> Science and Technology Manager >> Virtual World Strategic Applications >> U.S. Army Research Lab >> Human Research & Engineering Directorate >> (c) (407) 242-0209 <%28407%29%20242-0209> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* [email protected] [ >> [email protected]] on behalf of Michael Emory >> Cerquoni [[email protected]] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 10, 2015 12:06 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Opensim-dev] Still on Sim and Phys >> Frames per Second (FPS) >> >> All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the >> identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links contained >> within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web >> browser. >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> I think the big problem is the viewer teams are slow to pickup these >> changes and fixes, most of the viewer projects seem quite dead to me at the >> moment, there have been major fixes we have all been waiting quite a very >> long time for Singularity to do, I cant speak with certainty but this >> project seems at best to be on pause. Replex is no longer being updated, >> Kokua is no longer being updated, I can not say what is really happening >> with Firestorm as their involvement has always been through what seems to >> be a high power telescope from very far away. Most of the other viewers >> all seem to serve a niche purpose. We have OnLook viewer now which is >> designed with the intention of serving only the needs of OpenSimulator and >> not Second Life, but quite literally no one has volunteered to be >> involved. What bothers me about saying get the viewer teams to fix it >> there is only one response, what viewer teams? Also if that was the >> intended goal why was this not coordinated prior to the break, to just go >> ahead break something and then call it progress while leaving stuff broken >> and then say oh someone else should fix that is quite unprofessional in any >> setting. We need to resolve this problem of viewer development or quite >> honestly this whole thing is dead in its tracks, without a constantly >> improving viewer OpenSim is looking more and more like a dead end. That >> said its never to late to revive things and start wallking the path to >> improvement, but as a group we need to stop focusing on the wrong things. >> What i see is people chasing ghosts of problems that are not the real core >> problems of what this project has and needs, with little to zero >> improvements as a result. Can anyone name a single improvement that has >> come from changing the stats? Where are the patches, where are the >> scientific write ups showing that this was a success, so far to me this >> whole thing with stats seems like a big distraction that is not only not >> beneficial so far, its causing strife between the developers. Personally I >> don't have the solutions, my time is very limited anymore and I cant spend >> the time I have in the past testing things and coordinating people like I >> have, we need more people to step up and do the right thing without making >> people feel like its being shoved down their throats. >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:48 AM, GarminKawaguichi < >> [email protected] < Caution-mailto: >> [email protected] > > wrote: >> >>> I quite agree with what Seth wrote. >>> >>> GCI >>> >>> Le 09/11/2015 16:05, Seth Nygard a écrit : >>> >>> Let the FPS wars begin so there can be confusion everywhere... >>> Now those that want to can set a ridiculous fudge factor and show >>> 11000000FPS - WOW, look, waaaaaaay faster than "that other grid"! >>> >>> I firmly disagree in adding anything that allows artificially inflated >>> metrics for any value. At this stage the configurable fudge factor is an >>> even worse "fix" IMHO. >>> >>> The correct fix is really to communicate the correct value(s) and put >>> pressure on the viewer developers to fix their lag calculation(s). People >>> can be expected to update their viewer(s) which is not an unrealistic >>> expectation. People running old and/or unsupported viewers already have a >>> plethora of issues they need to be aware of and things that don't work >>> right, so why is the lag indicator any different? >>> >>> If we must have this user configurable then, instead of a fudge factor >>> value it should be a simple boolean setting such as; >>> ShowArtificiallyInflatedAndIncorrectFPS = false; >>> ShowArtificiallyInflatedAndIncorrectFPS = true; >>> >>> On my grid I have made it a point to inform everyone that the calculated >>> lag indicator is broken and the 11FPS is in the correct and normal value. >>> I also point out that what used to be shown was in fact a falsified and >>> artificially inflated value to make things look like "that other grid". >>> Most people simple say "Oh yeah, I never paid attention to that anyhow. It >>> doesn't work right any of the time anyhow". Many then say they looked at >>> the wiki but couldn't find any information on what to expect. >>> >>> If whenever people ask for documentation the standard reply from the dev >>> community is "read the code" then why is it so hard to ask for, and expect >>> the viewers to be fixed and updated? >>> >>> -Seth >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Opensim-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] < Caution-mailto: >>> [email protected] > >>> Caution-http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev >>> < Caution-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 >> >> > > > -- > Michael Emory Cerquoni > -- Michael Emory Cerquoni
_______________________________________________ Opensim-dev mailing list [email protected] http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
