Page 3 of 3
Re: OnLive
Posted: 23 Nov 2010, 13:51
by Johannes
Your average LCD monitor already has 10s of milliseconds of lag. A few more shouldn't be noticeable really. IF you really could get it down to some milliseconds, which doesn't seem too plausible for now.
Re: OnLive
Posted: 23 Nov 2010, 14:50
by SinbadEV
Teutooni wrote:not with this set of physical laws.
and when we get quantum computing the whole point will be moot anyways
Re: OnLive
Posted: 23 Nov 2010, 16:50
by Pxtl
Teutooni wrote:Licho wrote:What a BS .. it can't work even from quality perspective..
Atm I play games at 1920x1200 with 60fps easilly.
To achieve that without loss of quality, you need to transfer up to
1920x1200x4x60 bytes each second. In other words you need:
4216 MBit connection - thats well above total connectivity of many countries.
+1
The whole concept is sketchy. At the speed of light, the signal can travel 300km in a millisecond, and that's a direct beam of light. There will be a lot more lag due to compression, routing, packet filtering, packets getting lost, etc. Even a few milliseconds is noticeable in input lag. I just don't see this ever working, not with this set of physical laws.
Depends on the gametype. FPS games are simply not going to happen. Strategy/RTS are doable, as are Diablo and other roguelikes.
Remember they can do the mouse-pointer client-side.
Re: OnLive
Posted: 23 Nov 2010, 17:35
by Teutooni
Ok, so if you can tolerate either tiny resolutions or a lot of artifacts and variable input lag based on network traffic/time of day, OnLive will be awesome! ~~
Seriously, what's the point of having awesome graphic processors on a server somewhere if the graphics they produce is compressed in a lossy format and the result is ugly tiny resolution and/or visible compression artefacts? Modern smartphones are already capable of ogl rendering on their own... which is a moot point because wifi will have utter garbage response times anyway...