Teqi Falta At Dan Linden's suggestion I loaded the Firestorm BETA version, and those problem cleared up. That doesn't mean the core problem went away, but the BETA version might fix that for you. As my grand dad used to say, "If you cut a board crooked, cut another board crooked to fit it." I think a lot of that is being done with PBR. ;D

Eren Padaryeah thanks, this beta version fixed it for me too. :)

Livio Korobase Sorry taking so long to get back to you. As noted above, Firestorm BETA seems to have fixed the crashing issues... so evidently it was a software problem.

As far as me crashing and you not crashing... there's no denying that 32 gigs on board is DOUBLE my RAM, so if SL had a memory leak it would simply take you longer to crash (if at all). Also, did you attend both huge Fantasy Faire parties or other very large events at FF? That's where the crashing occurred.

Individual experiences vary. There are too many variables to point at one thing and say "I don't crash so why are you?" The reality is that many people were crashing... and that's the bottom line of SL performance. No matter what kind of computers people own, they don't like crashing.

But again, if I was crashing and Firestorm BETA fixed that, it is evident the problem wasn't equipment oriented. I've been having that extensive debate with a very stubborn user below. We can't isolate equipment issues when the equipment worked just fine prior to PBR implementation, and even LL itself admits that implementation was borked. Fortunately Firestorm seems to have updated to an acceptable point, and Dan Linden was aware of that update. Now I'm not crashing.

I am of course thinking of upgrading to 32 gigs... but SL seems to be working under 16 gigs as it had for years prior to PBR. So with FS BETA now in operation, I'm in no real rush to upgrade. Sometimes established hardware ceilings can test software issues.

Eren Padar ok i take note we was talking about a Firestom bug. You tried the LL Viewer also?

FS uses raw data, the SL viewer uses LL pre-processed which reqiures a high broadband, this is wht the GPU gets high load and can burn out low end GPUs over time. Incedently you could use a pre-pbr viewer, FS still has them presicely for low end comps.

Livio Korobase I have tried the LL Viewer but I never liked the UI and lack of features. To be fair to LL, I haven't tried it lately, but I hear enough people complain about it that I've not been tempted to try it again. I don't need to use the FS pre-PBR viewer because my graphics card can handle PBR (at least, now that Firestorm BETA is released). But I am mindful of the people who don't own gamer-level computers, who have used SL for decades... and now cannot due to PBR.

Bless the Firestorm Team for recognizing the issue and retaining the pre-PBR viewer. That team seems to be doing their very best to solve this issue, and have earned my respect time and again for their efforts.

With enough thought and effort on the part of LL, they might eventually pull off PBR. But it's been about a year now since they introduced it, and it's obviously still not got all the kinks ironed out. As has been stated, they really needed to take another couple of years in development before releasing it to an unsuspecting platform. That would have given the Firestorm Team enough time to develop their viewer rather than playing constant catch-up. (I imagine they have been tearing their hair out over this for the last year when they wish they could have been working on fixes and features other than PBR.)

Eren Padar for sure LL don't pull off PBR :) Firestorm is just a derivate of LL Viewer, don't expect that do much different or more "advanced". The base code is same for any viewer.

Livio Korobase Actually Firestorm is considerably more than "just a deviate of LL Viewer". It has a LOT of features the LL Viewer doesn't have and is more versatile. The UI is completely different.

If the LL Viewer was sufficient and popular, Firestorm wouldn't need to exist. It exists for good reason, and is very popular. Which is why LL needs to work very closely with the Firestorm team. A large number of SL users rely on Firestorm for daily operation. I don't know of anyone who used the original SL Viewer who has opted for the "V2" version over Firestorm. Most people hated it when LL switched the the V2 system; the UI was horrendous. Imo Firestorm is simply a far better viewer.

Eren Padar sorry but no. Any third party viewer, Firestorm included, have to follow the policy for viewers, https://secondlife.com/corporate/third-party-viewers.

These viewers are projects that are updated regularly to track new developments in the Linden Lab viewer, and implement a full graphical environment.

About Firestorm, they say: "The Phoenix Firestorm Project, Firestorm is based on the LL V3 LGPL code"

They say eh, not me...

Livio Korobase I understand. All I'm saying is that Firestorm does considerably more than the SL Viewer. The internals are compatible, but it has more options and the UI is completely different. It's why people use Firestorm. : )

Eren Padar ok. but take a look at the Cool VL Viewer. He have double renderer; Extended Environment (ALM + forward modes) and Physically Based Rendering (PBR), with fallback diffuse textures rendering for PBR-only objects/terrains when using the ALM or forward rendering modes. So if you don't want use PBR, switch to ALM, easy...

Livio Korobase Yes, Cool is an alternative. Unfortunately doesn't have some things I want, but I've heard it's a viable alternative. Currently since FS released the BETA I'm no longer having serious PBR issues (no more than the standard standing issues). So apparently it just took the Firestorm Team a lot of time and effort to bring the viewer up to date. Understandable since it took LL the same amount of time.

Microsoft has had a long-standing practice of releasing software before it's ready. They have a long trail of a bad release / fixed release / good release cycle. It's like they put a version of Windows out there and let their users find the bugs. I would personally like LL to not follow that example. ;D

steph Arnott When someone says Win 11 is "barely stable" under 16 gigs of RAM, I have to question why. Because prior to PBR absolutely everything I ran under Windows 11 was just fine. The only software that has ever crashed my current system is Second Life.

So I'd say that Windows 11 is fairly stable with 16 gigs. I've seen no announcement from Microsoft that Win 11 requires 32 gigs.

ZDNET.com states: "The current sweet spot in terms of performance and cost is 8GB of RAM." Another reference says that "Windows 11 will run more smoothly under 16 gigs or 32 gigs"... both of which statements (and other references) indicate that 16 gigs is fine. I can run high-level games under 16 gigs with no problem.

Further statement from ZDNET.com: "Do gaming PCs need 24/32GB of RAM? Mostly, no. I've seen a lot of gaming systems with 24GB or even 32GB of RAM and beyond, and while that's nice because it offers a great deal of overhead, I find that most of the time this RAM is sitting in the PC doing nothing."

So there's the direct statement from a fairly reputable source. As with all things, actual need depends on the user and the applications they have open at the same time. One guy I knew complained his computer was crashing under Win 11 with 16 gigs, but he had 6 major apps open. Like, what did he expect?

All the references I found indicate that Windows 11 requires 4 gigs but will be sluggish, will run decently with 8 gigs, and that 16 or 32 gigs allow it to run "smoothly". If someone experiences problems with 16 gigs, I'd say their software is extremely demanding. Maybe Second Life is one of those Apps, but it wasn't prior to PBR. I hardly ever crashed prior to PBR. Now that I'm using FS BETA I'm no longer crashing.

Again, 32 gigs may be an advantage in some cases. But that's kinda like saying a Porche is better than a Nissan. Depends on who's driving and where and why and how fast. ;D

ZoeyDee Resident I'm sorry, but the statement that low-end laptops come with as much power as my system is simply nonsense. I would have to believe that your idea of computer power and mine differ significantly, but i have over three decades of experience as a computer consultant. Perhaps you have equal or better experience... but that would make me wonder why you would compare a low-end laptop to a high-speed i5 GeForce 3060 12GRAM system. That's ridiculous by all measures.

Your claim that a "high-speed i5 GeForce 3060 12GB RAM system" is a powerhouse is laughable. In 2025, even mid-range laptops are shipping with CPUs that far outperform your outdated i5, and GPUs that leave the 3060 in the dust. Mobile processors like AMD’s Ryzen 9 7940HS or Intel’s i7-13700H deliver significantly higher performance across the board, and even integrated graphics like the AMD Radeon 780M are approaching the performance of your so-called "gaming machine."

A system with an i5 and 3060 might have been impressive in 2020, but by today's standards, it's nothing but entry-level. If you have three decades of experience in computing, you should know better than to call such a setup "high-end." That’s like calling a VHS player cutting-edge because you’ve owned it for a long time.

Stop fooling yourself and anyone else reading your comments. The world has moved on, and it seems your understanding of computing hasn't.

ZoeyDee Resident

You were blunt, egotistic and insulting in your post, so let me be blunt in return: Since Dan recommended using Firestorm BETA and that actually worked, that presents very strong evidence the problem was software-oriented, and not an equipment issue.

I never stated the i5 is a "powerhouse system". You're putting words in my mouth. But your opinion that a 12th-gen i5 and 3060 12gig card is "outdated" is absolute rubbish. My system is about 2 years old and assembled with great care and expertise after consulting with some really top-notch techs. And since I've answered your claims several times in this thread already, you'll understand if I don't repeat all that again. One does not have to own a top-shelf i9 system to use Second Life. Or at least they shouldn't have to. That's part of the issue, isn't it: SL making so many demands it was literally overheating gamer graphics cards.

i9 Evangelists... sooo boring. Techo-snobbery does not equate to end-user reality... nor does it properly present the very real needs of the vast majority of Second Life users.

A Linden once told me my equipment exceeded the specs of 95% of the users of Second Life. So no matter what your personal opinions may be, that's a business reality that LL needs to take into consideration with every decision. It would seem it is you who lacks realistic understanding of the computer field as it relates to Second Life.

Eren Padar Your response is filled with emotion but short on technical facts. Let’s be clear:

1. Intel i5 12th Gen and RTX 3060: These are not “outdated” but are mid-range, not high-end. The RTX 3060 is an entry-level gaming GPU, and the 12th Gen i5 is competent but not top-tier. For demanding, poorly optimized apps like Second Life, even mid-range systems can struggle.

2. “Game-Ready” is Relative: Just because your system can technically run Second Life doesn’t make it a high-performance gaming rig. Performance is defined by smooth gameplay, high frame rates, and stability—not just the ability to launch the software.

3. Second Life Performance: Your switch to Firestorm BETA shows a software optimization issue, but it doesn’t change your hardware’s mid-range status. If this BETA version allows you to handle PBR (Physically Based Rendering), that’s fine, but it doesn’t change the fact that your hardware is barely standard or adequate in the gaming world.

4. “Techno-Snobbery” vs. Technical Reality: Labeling my comments as “snobbery” doesn’t change the performance metrics. Higher-end systems (i7, i9, RTX 3070, 4080) outperform yours—this is objective fact, not opinion.

5. Your System is Fine, but Not High-End: It’s a solid mid-range setup, but it’s not a high-end gaming system. If it works for you, great. But trying to equate it with top-tier performance is simply false.

This is technical analysis, not a personal attack.

ZoeyDee Resident "This is technical analysis, not a personal attack."

Prior post: "Stop fooling yourself and anyone else reading your comments. The world has moved on, and it seems your understanding of computing hasn't."

That Zoey, is a personal attack. And it's a false one. You have given the impression it's my equipment that's the problem, when the real problem is the way PBR was implemented on Second Life-- and the point of the OP.

Philip Linden himself issued a public apology for that error. Linden Lab is very well aware of this situation, as is the Firestorm Team (which is why we have the new Firestorm BETA).

You drew attention away from the OP and the real problem and instead focused on my equipment, when all I ever stated was that I own a gamer-level system. You claimed my i5 is an "entry level" system, which is frankly hogwash. It's a 6/4 core, 16 thread system running at 4.8 ghz and out-performs even some i7 and lower-end i9 systems.

So no, your claims are not "technical analysis"; they are your opinions. You drew attention away from the real issue: the faulty implementation of PBR on SL. If you don't think that's the case, there is a 20 minute pro-analysis of that on YouTube if you care to look it up... in addition to Philip Linden's public apology for rushing PBR to the platform before it was ready.

That's the difference between being techno-focused, and seeing the overall picture. If a fast i5 system can't handle SL... then LL has some real problems brewing. But frankly, I have to wonder why you jumped into this discussion after Dan already solved and closed the issue. I have to question your agenda there, as you certainly aren't helping fix an already-solved problem.

Now professionally: for the record, your knowledge of the 3060 is sorely lacking. You need to do a bit more research. If you'd have said the 1060 was an entry-level gamer card I'd have bought that. The 3060 12 gig is a decently powerful mid-level gamer card that is often recommended by computer techs over the 4060. You can find such reviews on the Net quite easily.

That's not an insult; it's just basic computer equipment reality. That 12 GRAM card which can run the heaviest games on the market, should certainly be more than sufficient for Second Life.

Eren, your response continues to miss the critical point. While you focus on defending your i5 and RTX 3060, you are ignoring the reality that poorly implemented PBR in Second Life is a problem, one that even Philip Linden publicly acknowledged. But here’s the deeper issue: PBR’s flaws exposed the marginal performance headroom of your system, which is already at the edge of viability for modern gaming and graphically demanding environments.

Your 6-core, 16-thread i5 running at 4.8 GHz with an RTX 3060 was a capable setup, but that was four or five years ago. Today, this combination is borderline for graphically intensive applications, especially when those applications introduce resource-hungry features like PBR. Yes, the PBR implementation in Second Life is poorly optimized, but it also highlights that your system is barely meeting performance expectations, making it vulnerable to even moderately demanding updates.

Your claim that this is purely a PBR issue ignores the fact that poorly optimized code is often the stress test that reveals hardware limitations. Your system should be able to handle Second Life, but only just. The fact that PBR crushed your performance is as much a sign of your system’s diminishing gaming capability as it is of bad code.

If you want to argue technical facts, here they are:

PBR in Second Life was poorly implemented. This is confirmed by Philip Linden’s public apology and the Firestorm BETA patch.

Your system is a mid-range setup at best, capable for basic gaming but nearing the end of its viability for graphically intensive environments.

Poorly optimized code is a performance stress test, and your system is showing its age under that pressure.

Blaming the code alone while ignoring your system’s limitations is shortsighted. It’s time to acknowledge that both the software and your hardware are contributing factors here.

The sooner you accept this reality, the sooner you can move past defending a system that is clearly struggling and focus on a real solution, whether that means optimizing your settings or considering a hardware upgrade.

ZoeyDee Resident I was tempted to not even answer your post, but..

Zoey: " While you focus on defending your i5 and RTX 3060, you are ignoring the reality that poorly implemented PBR in Second Life is a problem, one that even Philip Linden publicly acknowledged."

In my message just prior, you can read the following:

Eren: " You have given the impression it's my equipment that's the problem, when the real problem is the way PBR was implemented on Second Life-- and the point of the OP. Philip Linden himself issued a public apology for that error. Linden Lab is very well aware of this situation, as is the Firestorm Team (which is why we have the new Firestorm BETA). "

So at this point I can only assume you are incapable of reading and understanding clearly posted text. In one message you claim my system is "entry level", yet now you claim it's mid-level but on its way out. Frankly your posts are self-contradictory enough to be discarded entirely.

Eren Padar, your response only confirms that you either failed to understand the point or are deliberately misrepresenting it. I never denied that PBR in Second Life was poorly implemented. I acknowledged that from the start. What you continue to ignore is the obvious fact that PBR’s poor implementation exposed the marginal performance headroom of your system—a point you keep dodging.

Your 6-core, 16-thread i5 and RTX 3060 were decent when they launched, but that was four or five years ago. Today, they are mid-range at best, and struggling with poorly optimized graphics is a clear sign of that. Blaming only the code while refusing to acknowledge your hardware’s limitations is willful ignorance.

But it’s clear this conversation is going nowhere. You are more interested in deflecting, misquoting, and taking cheap shots than addressing the actual technical facts. I’m done wasting time trying to explain the obvious.

Good luck with your system.

ZoeyDee Resident "What you continue to ignore is the obvious fact that PBR’s poor implementation exposed the marginal performance headroom of your system—a point you keep dodging."

I'm dodging nothing. You can be assured I'm not ignoring what you're posting. I'm saying you are making an assumption based on zero data. What research / data / statistics do you have that even begin to support your claims?

I was a professional consultant, coder and systems analyst for over three decades. I assure you I'm aware of the current status of computer equipment. So I'll simply say this: you're entitled to your opinion. That doesn't mean your opinions are correct. From the nature of your posts I'm pretty sure you don't know near as much about computer graphics and equipment as you think you do.

Eren, your attempt to dismiss my points as "opinionated imagination" is both ironic and revealing. Let me clarify a few things:

PBR in Second Life was poorly implemented. This is an undisputed fact, confirmed by Philip Linden and the Firestorm Team’s release of a BETA patch to fix the problem.

Your system, a 6-core, 16-thread i5 with an RTX 3060 was a capable setup, but that was four or five years ago. Modern, graphically demanding environments like Second Life’s PBR can easily expose the limitations of aging hardware, even if it was once considered high-end.

Poorly optimized code is often the stress test that reveals system weaknesses. That is a fundamental principle of computing. When poorly optimized code cripples your system, it exposes your system’s limited headroom.

As for your attempt to attack my qualifications, I hold national registration as an engineer with an undergraduate degree in Electrical Engineering and a graduate degree in Networked Systems with an emphasis on distributed control systems. Networking and computers are tools I use in far more advanced applications than gaming, including complex diagnostic and control systems.

I have no interest in debating technical facts with someone who replaces logic with emotion. You are free to ignore reality, but it changes nothing.

Good luck with your system.

Do you feel that repeating yourself and making yet another attack on me validates your claims? It does not.

The only thing I will choose to answer is this statement:

"Poorly optimized code is often the stress test that reveals system weaknesses. That is a fundamental principle of computing. When poorly optimized code cripples your system, it exposes your system’s limited headroom."

Poorly optimized code is simply that: poorly optimized code. If it challenges established equipment that has been proved over years of operation, it is simply BAD CODE.

You are making assumptions which no professional should make. One of the widely-lauded features of the 3060 card is its 12 gigs of GRAM. It certainly has no limit of "headroom" as you continue to claim.

Code that stresses and over-heats validated and time-tested graphics cards is simply rotten code. Code that crashes time-tested graphics cards and even computer systems is very simply BAD CODE.

You have things completely backwards: the code didn't show flaws in the hardware. Just the opposite in this case: time-tested, validated hardware revealed flaws in very-badly-implemented code.

Seriously, this stuff is Computer 101. Your statement above does not exemplify a "fundamental principle of computing". It exposes clueless computer operation. Firestorm BETA works well with the 3060; your hardware claims have already been invalidated.

Now as an alternative, do what I did 2 years ago: go to the Net and do some VALID research on the 3060 (by valid, I mean without opinionated bias, as if your job depended on accurate findings). Look at the 3060 vs 4060 comparison charts and read the surprising recommendations many techs make between the two cards. Check YouTube videos regarding extensive tests done with the 3060 on dozens of top-tier 2024 games.

In short, do the research I've already done rather than repeatedly spouting baseless claims about imaginary obsoletion scenarios-- and making people needlessly worry about their fully-capable computer systems.

robyblacky Resident You failed to mention your PC specs. CPU? GPU? Total RAM? And do you think the majority of SL users own such systems? Let's be realistic.

First, you won't find a site supporting your statement that 16 gigs isn't enough on Windows 11. I have already researched the matter. If you're crashing with Chrome, I'd recommend switching browsers or checking your system for setup issues.

My i5 specs at 4.8ghz, Geforce 3060 with 12gigs GRAM + 16gigs on bus. It should be plenty to run any game on the market. It may not be the most powerful system available, but it is definitely gamer-level. Sure a person can max out their system with a high-level i9 and as much RAM as they wish, but thinking that is the absolute requirement of a "gamer level" system is unrealistic.

Tell an everyday user that their system isn't sufficient to run SL (when everything else runs just fine)... and they very likely will choose not to run SL. If one can't run SL with my system due to extreme lag and crashes, something is wrong with SL (server, viewer, whatever), not the customer's computer system.

I will agree that by today's standards my system is "mid-level", but it is a high-end mid-level that should be sufficient to run anything on the current market. I don't believe you'll find a mainstream game on the market that requires a more powerful computer than mine. My system should certainly be sufficient for Second Life.

Sure a power-packed i9 is going to run faster. But I compared graphics cards before I bought, and site after site that compared the 3060 with 4060 cards stated that for most users the 3060 would be the better choice.

I may not drive a Porche, but my Nissan runs just fine. Gamer-level.