Hello Douglas Interesting progress report. Is there any timeline available for if or when others can configure and profile the system? Zadark
On 5 February 2016 at 18:00, Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) < [email protected]> wrote: > Thank you for your feedback, Michael. As you know, the OpenSimulator is a > very complex system. It is very important for us to isolate as many > variables as possible to present a responsible comparison analysis of the > three engines. Sean presented the performance of the engines with the > OpenSim configured as "stock". > > > > You are absolutely correct, using the "UseSeparatePhysicsThread" flag does > improve performance. It is just one of the variables we are examining to > determine the affect of the physics engine on the overall system. Sean was > reporting that there were significant increases in performance during the > baseline testing. By carefully and systematically changing the variables > in the system, we can determine which variables have the most impact > differentiation from the baseline as well as what affect each variable has > on each engine. > > > > I realize this looks like tedious work, and it is. However this approach > allows us to profile and examine the code so that meaningful changes can be > made for the better (not accidentally stumbling upon a combination of > variables). As an Enterprise level user, we need the ability to predict > how the simulator will behave under different loads so we can plan and > provision for different usage scenarios. > > > > In the very near future we will be releasing our distributed PhysX code as > well. This functionality will allow you to dedicate a separate server to > the physics engine and scale it vertically as appropriate. We can discuss > the implications for scaled performance as well as tradeoffs in network > performance at that time. > > > > Lastly, we have specific needs that BulletSim cannot accommodate. The > decision to choose PhysX for integration was done deliberately. If you > would like to join us at the MOSES office hours or contact me directly, we > can discuss in detail. > > > > Have a great weekend. v/r -doug > > > > > > > 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:* Wednesday, February 03, 2016 11:10 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Opensim-dev] PhysX vs. BulletSim vs. ODE > > 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 have had over 100,000 physical spheres in Bulletsim without a crash and > was still able to log in, move around and erase all the objects and have > performance go back to normal, you need to enable running it in its own > Thread, to achieve this level of performance. to enable this feature in the > [BulletSim] section of OpenSim.ini add : > > UseSeparatePhysicsThread = true > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Sean M <[email protected] > < Caution-mailto:[email protected] > > wrote: > >> Greetings, >> >> The MOSES Team has been working on integrating NVIDIA's PhysX physics >> engine into OpenSim. Once complete, this integration will give OpenSim grid >> administrators the option of selecting the new engine for their own worlds. >> >> Prior to releasing the complete integration, the team has begun >> extensively testing and analyzing the engine's performance. We are pleased >> to report that PhysX significantly improves OpenSim's ability to support >> more physical objects than BulletSim and ODE. Our analysis ran under >> controlled and repeated testing (30 independent OpenSim executions per >> engine) that isolated physics engine related variables. Under these >> conditions, PhysX supported 86% more physical objects than BulletSim (the >> OpenSim default physics engine) before the simulation's performance starts >> to noticeable degrade. More specifically, before dropping below 9 >> simulation frames per second (SimFPS), PhysX supported 3,300 physical >> objects (AtvPrm), BulletSim 1,800, and ODE 200. The reported SimFPS did not >> use the correction factor; therefore, the highest frame rate was 11.33 >> frames per second. Attached is a graph of the performance of the three >> physics engines as 5,000 physical objects were generated in the simulation. >> All experiment details will be available in the 2016 proceedings of MODSIM >> World. >> >> Again, we are very pleased with the result and believe everyone will >> benefit from the effort. An announcement will be made in a few days to >> indicate when the final integration code will be available on the MOSES >> public GitHub. >> >> Thank you, >> Sean Mondesire >> MOSES Team >> >> [image: Inline image 1] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Opensim-dev mailing list [email protected] http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
