1.12.1.6-9 LOD *again* ...

Since it looks like this isn't going to be answered:

/139/8e/137394/1.html

Specifically - look at curved surfaces of course... I dont know why LL keeps reducing the level of detail when the slider is at the maximum.

Last time (it was worse last time) it took an act of Congress to get the thing reversed...

It seems now there are fewer gradient levels, and when zooming out it "pops" to pretty low detail pretty easily. It's much more ready to tesselate than it was in 1.12.0. I'm presuming this is tied into the new feature of the sliders instantly reacting when they're moved... (LOD updates in realtime it seems.)

Note this is mostly visible on systems using FSAA. With FSAA off I dont really see the difference; but i'm wondering if maybe the adustments were made on a machine without FSAA or a not very high resolution monitor.

I just want to ask LL: if we're getting *lower* detail limits, can we at least also have higher maximums, that we could use during build time, and for those of us who would be OK with going with quality in lieu of some speed?

From what I can tell, LOD -stops- being increased after the object detail slider gets one notch past the center position. (out of 17?) After that, detail seems to just -change-, not increase or decrease? (Maybe it's falloff? Certain round objects in the far, far distance react, but certain closer objects still stay relatively low detail...)

Just wondering if we can get a Linden to explain any changes that happened in the last release, or how this works? I'm assuming these levels are 0-16, is it possible to get maybe a 17 or 18 out of it?

Flexible Mesh Detail and Avatar Mesh Detail don't seem to do anything at any distance or setting. I'm seeing mesh changes for Object Mesh Detail and Tree Mesh Detail through out ever Level on the Slider postion.

Right now the LOD Detail goes from 0-2 at 0.125 increments. I set that max level at 4 just to see what happens and what do you know!? It can go higher. Even a small cylinder far away has more detail now.

Now is this their way of increasing the Frame Rate by lowering the LOD max Level? So right now the default code only allows to see so much even though it could go higher.

I'm giving Gearsawe's suggestion a try here: (If you don't mind me quoting you, Gearsawe -- )



I'm gonna give this a shot, but it'd be cool if someone from LL could verify this?

Hot DAMN this works!

There's a way to verify. The old 'maximum' was 2. If you set the MINIMUM to 2, and the MAXIMUM to 4, with an increment of 0.250, you can see the difference!

All I can say is PLEASE, PLEASE LL don't take out this capability to let us "roll our own LOD!"


On the other hand I'm kind of alarmed that LL would make such a change: "Reduced maximum detail level", essentially, undocumented.

Really, really, we need to know these things. This really affects how we build and design.

This is unbelievable, SL looks like it used to...

Anyhow, I bring proof:

Sorry for asking the obvious (and not trying it myself), but have you tried a value higher than four?

I completely agree Michi, this kind of "hidden" functionality is ludicrous. It goes back to your earlier posts I saw, creating an artificial limit based on the "masses" who think they can run 3D software with MX graphics cards (how many years has it been since that line was even an option from nVidia?). If this is all ultimately client side, why not roll that number up to 20?

What are the limits of the rendering engine, not the limits of our current hardware?

Clubside - I haven't ... and I definitely want to thank Gearsawe for having the ingenuity to root this out -- really made my week, but...

I will say this: I'm looking at maybe a difference of 11.6 FPS from 12.0 FPS in a fully populated scene with this 'pumped up maximum' ... Not really a big deal as far as the perf hit goes IMO... so I don't see why we shouldn't have the option.

I can only imagine that this was done to mitigate the universal cries of "lag" -- something that isn't monolithic and something that most folks don't really understand.

Should people be able to go down to 0? Sure... But a hard limit of 2 when the system is capable of doing 4? I don't see the sense in that at all... Is it a matter of gradients? If so I'm sure that could be solved with a little UI change.

We should have access to this maximum level of detail.

Looks like Kelly says this was a bug... That's a relief... Not that bugs are good, but rather it be a bug than a feature.

Didn't know that this was the first time this section was XML'ed... will be reporting it.

Well, it's a little more complex than a lack of high detail. I was staring at a cylinder end-on yesterday, and until I got really close to it, it had 15 vertices in the cross-section (this also happened last time). 15 is a really useless number to work with.

Milo Linden noticed this and he and Runitai Linden are taking a look at what's going on here.