Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive

These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE

Vertex Shaders and NVidia 6800 card?

Morgaine Dinova
Active Carbon Unit
Join date: 25 Aug 2004
Posts: 968
04-25-2006 12:55
Backward compatibility with very old machines? Jeez no.

LL is trying to do something new here, it's trying to blaze a trail in a very new frontier, and one should expect the company to be trying to make the greatest possible use of modern technology to help it achieve that.

A backward-looking business plan like "Be runnable on obsolete machinery" would be totally out of step with its quite progressive technical goals, and would hold it back.

Furthermore, it makes no sense whatsoever to suggest that old machines should dictate whether hardware shaders are used or not, because hardware shaders are not just the province of AGP and PCIe cards.

Every desktop manufactured in the last 6-10 years possesses at the very least some PCI slots (if not AGP), and nVidia GeForce FX5200 and 6200 cards are available in PCI versions for a mere $40 or so --- I have some myself. And yes, those bottom-end cards have GPUs with hardware vertex and pixel shaders, not blindingly fast ones but they do have them, and games that use those shaders run very nicely on these cards.

So, looking backwards to pre-hardware shader days simply makes no sense at all.
_____________________
-- General Mousebutton API, proposal for interactive gaming
-- Mouselook camera continuity, basic UI camera improvements
Hello Toonie
Registered User
Join date: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 212
04-25-2006 13:14
But back in the real world... supporting non-advanced hardware makes staggering amounts of sense and is a stated goal in the latest Town Hall transcript. The number of game companies with the luxury of totally expecting their users to upgrade hardware to play their hottest releases can likely be counted on one hand (id, Sony, Valve, ..?). Are there shader-supporting graphics cards for $40? Yes. Did more than 25% of SL's users even fork out for a basic account when it cost $10? No. (Would a $40 graphics card do a vaguely adequate job with SL's shaders anyway? Heck no.)
Argent Stonecutter
Emergency Mustelid
Join date: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 20,263
04-25-2006 13:22
From: Morgaine Dinova
Every desktop manufactured in the last 6-10 years possesses at the very least some PCI slots (if not AGP), and nVidia GeForce FX5200 and 6200 cards are available in PCI versions for a mere $40 or so --- I have some myself. And yes, those bottom-end cards have GPUs with hardware vertex and pixel shaders, not blindingly fast ones but they do have them, and games that use those shaders run very nicely on these cards.
Second Life 1.9.1 doesn't.

Really.

Turning off Vertex Shaders increases my performance on a 5600 by a factor of 4.
Shyotl Kuhr
Registered User
Join date: 15 Jun 2005
Posts: 105
04-25-2006 14:03
From: Morgaine Dinova
And yes, those bottom-end cards have GPUs with hardware vertex and pixel shaders, not blindingly fast ones but they do have them, and games that use those shaders run very nicely on these cards.


Run very niceley? Theres a big difference between simply supporting a feature versus actually working well with the feature. A good paradigm would be the the nVidia FX(5xxx) series, with their direct-x 9.0 'compatability'. They worked with it, but they such a crappy job that most games simply restricted em to direct-x 8. It's entirley possible to add new features without leaving older systems behind. Most game engines are scalable to some degree(expecially source ;p), but sl seems to have missed the boat on that issue.. Somethings broken, as there shouldn't be any poorer performance than the main grid, when vertex shaders are off.

All I know is that I want Drop Draw Distance back!

Oh, and Hello, transparent shiny pales in comparison to the new bumpmapped shiny!
Morgaine Dinova
Active Carbon Unit
Join date: 25 Aug 2004
Posts: 968
04-25-2006 14:08
From: Hello Toonie
But back in the real world... supporting non-advanced hardware makes staggering amounts of sense and is a stated goal in the latest Town Hall transcript.
Let me translate that statement for you:

Linden Labs:

"Our stated goal is to support non-advanced hardware."


Actually means:
"We know that our current engine is terribly slow and antiquated but we're not going to fix it because Cory is entirely focussed on his new renderer for our next generation engine, and it would be a waste of time to do remedial development on the old one. So, we'll turn a bug into a feature and say that we're supporting old hardware on principle."


I don't blame them for that business plan --- LL is simply too small to do any differently, and their manpower resources are overstretched as it is. But no, supporting old hardware as an actual company goal would be one of the most pointless and least strategic things they could possibly do.

What they're supposed to be doing right now is rocketting full steam ahead to give themselves an unstoppable lead before competition springs up (and it will) from some megacorp with 1000 times their spending power and leaves them dead in the water. Not holding themselves back by trying to maximize their customer base to include people who want to run on an abacus.

Machines without hardware shaders should simply be ignored, in the same way that machines with integrated graphics chipsets are already almost entirely ignored. To not do so is to enter the race with a ball and chain attached to your foot.
_____________________
-- General Mousebutton API, proposal for interactive gaming
-- Mouselook camera continuity, basic UI camera improvements
Haravikk Mistral
Registered User
Join date: 8 Oct 2005
Posts: 2,482
04-25-2006 14:14
From: Morgaine Dinova
Backward compatibility with very old machines? Jeez no.

The problem with that thinking is that the people with the really high end machines, beefy graphics cards etc expect really big things that SL won't be able to deliver for a very long time anyway. If you compare SL to Half Life 2, or Doom 3 (with the lights on) then there is simply no competition, SL looks comparatively dreadful, and runs significantly slower than a high-end FPS on such machine.
Because SL doesn't have the luxury of pre-rendering everything, it isn't played using local copies of everything, it isn't played with strict limits on players, it isn't played with many limitations at all.

You're talking about pushing a virtual world into high-end gaming, which is completely unfeasible due to the dynamic nature of it!

But the thing that it does have is superb 'game-play', or rather environment for interaction. That's why it works, it's a massively multi-player game, not for the sake of blowing things up, or improving your character or something, but for the PEOPLE. Some use it as a real-life business and all-sorts.

People who want to play a shooter where one character has more ragdoll physics in her chest (I'm thinking Tomb Raider or Duke Nukem NPC's if that ever comes out) than an entire roomful of dying people in UT2k4 will be the ones with the high-end machines, best graphics card, physics cards and whatever.
People who just want to interact with other people aren't going to have machines like that.
In fact, I'd wager a fair number of the people who play (statistically speaking mostly the girls, no offence to anyone) have played things like the Sims and enjoyed those games. It's a similar kinda idea, build a home and for you and your partner/friends/family, but on an even bigger level, because YOU are the one doing these things not some silly little AI that catches fire and talks gibberish.
But eh, yeah, the sims is fairly low requirements, it's a game of gameplay, not graphics. Just like SL is a game for the gameplay, the interaction, the people 'playing' it. The less people who can play the game, the less people there are to meet, to have similar interests with, to become friends with, to play games with etc.

If more games companies would think about what a game is actually supposed to be (fun) opposed to just pretty looking then gaming wouldn't have lost its excitement to me years ago. And I'm 19 btw, not some video gaming veteran :)
Eep Quirk
Absolutely Relative
Join date: 15 Dec 2004
Posts: 1,211
04-25-2006 19:56
From: Morgaine Dinova
GPU hardware vertex and pixel shaders are not required at the present time for a very simple reason: they are almost entirely unused in the SL client anyway. Only the odd candy effect like water rendering employs them.

We've had countless threads on this topic in the past, including official Linden feedback, and nothing has changed since then. Our modern red hot graphics cards might as well be of 2001 vintage as far as SL is concerned.

So, if you find that SL is running slower than ... well, slower than EVERY OTHER 3D CLIENT OUT THERE, you now know who to beat on.

Working on the next major client version (which *will* use GPU hardware properly and will have amazing framerates, we are told) is probably occupying all of Cory's efforts, but leaving the old client almost abandoned in the meantime isn't particularly praiseworthy. We are paying good money after all, and a lagfest while our hardware goes unused for years does seem rather, well ... uncaring.
SL 1.9.1+ uses vertex shaders (dunno about pixel shaders) for more than just water ripples. Simply go into preview and toggle vert shaders on/off to see the difference.
Eep Quirk
Absolutely Relative
Join date: 15 Dec 2004
Posts: 1,211
04-25-2006 19:58
From: Ron Overdrive
Um. wrong. I'm running a GeForceFX 5500 with Vertex Shaders OFF with Sun & Moon only. It runs at HALF the speed of 1.9.0 when I'm lucky. So explain to me how it reduces the minimum spec? Please feel free to enlighten me on how I can go from running 17 - 20 FPS on the main grid to 8 on the preview. Also keep in mind the past few previews were roughly 25% faster then the main grid releases so if history repeats itself my performance will drop to like 4 or 5 fps on average.
Are you sure your SL graphics prefs are the same in both versions? Couldn't tell you why you'd be getting worse framerate in the preview if so, but I'd suggest upgrading or downgrading your vid drivers.
Eep Quirk
Absolutely Relative
Join date: 15 Dec 2004
Posts: 1,211
04-25-2006 20:20
From: Haravikk Mistral
The problem with that thinking is that the people with the really high end machines, beefy graphics cards etc expect really big things that SL won't be able to deliver for a very long time anyway. If you compare SL to Half Life 2, or Doom 3 (with the lights on) then there is simply no competition, SL looks comparatively dreadful, and runs significantly slower than a high-end FPS on such machine.
Because SL doesn't have the luxury of pre-rendering everything, it isn't played using local copies of everything, it isn't played with strict limits on players, it isn't played with many limitations at all.

You're talking about pushing a virtual world into high-end gaming, which is completely unfeasible due to the dynamic nature of it!

But the thing that it does have is superb 'game-play', or rather environment for interaction. That's why it works, it's a massively multi-player game, not for the sake of blowing things up, or improving your character or something, but for the PEOPLE. Some use it as a real-life business and all-sorts.

People who want to play a shooter where one character has more ragdoll physics in her chest (I'm thinking Tomb Raider or Duke Nukem NPC's if that ever comes out) than an entire roomful of dying people in UT2k4 will be the ones with the high-end machines, best graphics card, physics cards and whatever.
People who just want to interact with other people aren't going to have machines like that.
In fact, I'd wager a fair number of the people who play (statistically speaking mostly the girls, no offence to anyone) have played things like the Sims and enjoyed those games. It's a similar kinda idea, build a home and for you and your partner/friends/family, but on an even bigger level, because YOU are the one doing these things not some silly little AI that catches fire and talks gibberish.
But eh, yeah, the sims is fairly low requirements, it's a game of gameplay, not graphics. Just like SL is a game for the gameplay, the interaction, the people 'playing' it. The less people who can play the game, the less people there are to meet, to have similar interests with, to become friends with, to play games with etc.

If more games companies would think about what a game is actually supposed to be (fun) opposed to just pretty looking then gaming wouldn't have lost its excitement to me years ago. And I'm 19 btw, not some video gaming veteran :)
Your ignorance shows. Ever heard of The Sims 2? It's FULL 3D (unlike The Sims which only has 3D characters--software-rendered, no less). Sorry, but games aren't just about gameplay--they never have been. Games have to look good too, and if that means having to upgrade your 3-year old video card, too bad. Computers aren't a cheap hobby so if you want to keep up you'll have to put up or shut up.

SL isn't just a chat room. SL is more like a multi-user environment editor (but Active Worlds is moreso) and, as such, can't look like crap if it hopes to keep up with even 1-/2-year old 3D games. No, SL isn't a game, but it has to be competitive with games if it hopes to survive. Otherwise it'll turn into another floundering Active Worlds with antiquated technology and no direction.

LL better start focusing on where they want to develop SL towards NOW or 3D games with multi-user level editors WILL replace SL. Just think if World of WarCraft had a built-in environment editor that let people save their in-game-modelled objects into their inventories, sell them to other players, create houses, stores etc. It IS going to happen (if not already); it's only a matter of time.

3D modellers (Max, Maya, etc) are moving towards collaboration and it's only a matter of time before multiple modellers can simultaneously work on the same object, scene, etc--just like a movie/stage set.

If LL was smart they'd move SL towards these things NOW, perhaps making deals with game publishers/developers, Autodesk (AutoCAD, 3DS Max, and now Maya), etc to see about using/integrating SL (or its features) into these games/apps and making them all compatible...
Morgaine Dinova
Active Carbon Unit
Join date: 25 Aug 2004
Posts: 968
04-25-2006 21:34
From: Eep Quirk
LL better start focusing on where they want to develop SL towards NOW or 3D games with multi-user level editors WILL replace SL. [cut] ... 3D modellers (Max, Maya, etc) are moving towards collaboration [cut] ... If LL was smart they'd move SL towards these things NOW, perhaps making deals with game publishers/developers [cut] ...to see about using/integrating SL (or its features) into these games/apps and making them all compatible...
Well said. Unfortunately, LL can't do that, because they're caught between a rock and a hard place of their own making.

The problem is simple: they're at full stretch already, and with their extremely limited manpower are taking a over a year to bring out each significant enhancement. At this rate, they're not going to be much further ahead than they are at the moment when the unthinkable happens .... and an IBM or a Google or (ouch) a Microsoft suddenly announces that they're taking $500m out of petty cash and building a metaverse. At that point, Linden Labs is dead.

There are only two ways in which the Lindens can avoid this scenario.

One is to grow themselves exponentially into an unassailable power in this area, but that can't be done from within by a process of recruitment and maturation. They don't have 10 years in which to do it, as potential competitors are already starting to take notice that there is money to be made here. You've all seen the recent BusinessWeek. It would be very odd indeed if one of the megacorps sitting on their cash mountain isn't already thinking about it. There is no sign that Philip wants to travel this road though. I guess he just likes small, friendly companies, which is pretty understandable.

The second way is to harness the enormous power of the open source community, an approach which we've discussed many times and at great length in other threads. If that were done successfully and proactively with LL taking a high profile lead, there is no megacorp on earth that could take the crown away from them. Sadly, while they give FOSS plenty of lip service, there doesn't seem to be any real interest in taking that path. It's easy to see that from the fact that they never even took the initial open sourcing step (creating a FOSS liaison team) that Philip proposed when they got that earlier investment just over a year ago.

So, neither of those avenues is being taken, apparently. Is there any other alternative? If not, then sadly the end is nigh. You can't show the business world a good thing but still keep plodding along at your own snail's pace, and still expect to remain in the lead for long.
_____________________
-- General Mousebutton API, proposal for interactive gaming
-- Mouselook camera continuity, basic UI camera improvements
Haravikk Mistral
Registered User
Join date: 8 Oct 2005
Posts: 2,482
04-26-2006 05:04
Thing is, the mega-corps would have to offer something pretty enticing to get the SL player-base to switch. And I think that that's the main thing, a lot of SL players have less than perfect machines, and more importantly aren't playing for the graphics.
If a new one hits, then people won't make the switch, they'll stay where they are, because that's where their friends are, where their buildings and favourite places are.

So the other one has better graphics? SL has all the stuff that makes it fun, the people, the places, the products, the games and so-on.

The main complaint that SL has isn't that it doesn't look like the latest and greatest first person shooter, but that it runs slow. All they have to do is concentrate on improved speed and people will stay, especially if the big bucks variety has higher requirements. Why play the high-end game that requires you to shell $500+ to upgrade your computer when you can play SL which has a big community behind it? And chances are if any major player stepped in, it'd be based on a subscription fee, want to play? Pay per month. I only pay per month on SL because I want to own land.
Ron Overdrive
Registered User
Join date: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 1,002
04-26-2006 05:06
From: Eep Quirk
Are you sure your SL graphics prefs are the same in both versions? Couldn't tell you why you'd be getting worse framerate in the preview if so, but I'd suggest upgrading or downgrading your vid drivers.


Settings haven't changed and I've tried the driver changes (complete removal of the old drivers using Driver Cleaner Pro each time). Nothing changes, its LL's code.
Morgaine Dinova
Active Carbon Unit
Join date: 25 Aug 2004
Posts: 968
04-26-2006 13:53
From: Haravikk Mistral
So the other one has better graphics? SL has all the stuff that makes it fun, the people, the places, the products, the games and so-on.
You're not thinking big enough.

The SL world as it stands today is but a drop in the ocean compared to what the 3D universe will become, and those places, products and games you mention are but a tiny precursor of what is to come when this really takes off.

We're talking hundreds of billions of dollars and millions of people once the current 2D-focussed Internet "goes 3D", ie. spreads into a mesh of 3D virtual worlds. Not the paltry $100m and 130k people of the current SL. And people like Philip know that this collosal explosion is coming.

It's just a question of when., but it won't be long. BusinessWeek has just made sure of that.
_____________________
-- General Mousebutton API, proposal for interactive gaming
-- Mouselook camera continuity, basic UI camera improvements
1 2