I like the idea, and I'm not an IT expert, but the lag seems to be the killer for me. I like the idea of playing PS1 games remotely on my PSP through my PS3. However, the first game I pulled out was a baseball game, and the lag made batting, even in a home-run derby with all fastballs, a real trial. I just have trouble believing that the lag won't kill the types of graphic-intensive games that seem to make the idea interesting to someone that doesn't want to spend a month's pay on a video card.
Just for clarity: I'm not making a statement about OnLive's viability itself; rather just about making assumptions about its viability based upon something that works very differently but shares a word in its description.
You'll be eating your words b4 2010. Honestly if you actually knew the subject matter you were talking about you'd be sad it hasn't been commercialized into a service until now.
Streaming video in hd takes 4-5 Mbs connection. From the time of the input of the user to the service computing and getting you the next set of frames is less than 80ms guaranteed. If you can't understand how that fact makes remote gaming possible years ago then I feel sad for you....talk about stupid.
Well, no need to get all snippy about it.
Honestly, if you really think 80ms input lag is acceptable for a majority of genres (keeping in mind that this number is probably an absolute best case scenario), then I have to wonder how you even play video games at all.
We watch movies/tv streamed to us from netflix or hulu. The gaming industry is just a little behind.
This statement is as stupid now as it was when it was OnLive was demo'd. A movie is a one-way stream; a game is a two-way stream with user experience dependant upon quick stream feedback.
People need to stop trying to compare one to the other for any sort of point regarding viability.
To be fair, there was a time not too long ago when people were all like "streaming movies over the internet? get real, that shit is impossible"
Fuck, in the late 90's the fastest internet was still America Online dialup and people still went to video stores, and now look where we are
I'm not entirely convinced of their shit either, but I'm vaguely optimistic
Purely nitpicking I know, buit had gotten Roadrunner up and going in 96, and we were fairly late in getting it at that point. By the late 90s AOL wasn't even remotely the fastest internet out there. We were getting pretty heavily into streaming radio by that point, and even a bit of streaming video here and there.
I like how everyone is talking about lag, and how it makes a game "impossible to play".
Ive had friends in Armadeaddon... who play Left 4 Dead 2... with 300 ping. And still manage to be just as good as everyone else.
What kind of lag are we all talking about? Cause ive played video games with some fuck awful lag before. And guess what. It wasnt that bad.
That said... im more concerned with network 'hiccups' rather than lag.
A delay is one thing. How will they manage to create a stable enough network on the scale they are talking about without noticible drops in bandwidth alltogether.
Thats my main concern. A little delay might be annoying. A flat out pause would be infuriating.
I like how everyone is talking about lag, and how it makes a game "impossible to play".
Ive had friends in Armadeaddon... who play Left 4 Dead 2... with 300 ping. And still manage to be just as good as everyone else.
*groan*
Input lag is when you input a command (move a cursor, press a button), and it takes extra time for the game to even recognize that command. Think: having to jump over a koopa shell in Mario or dodging some bullets in a shmup but having a delay on all of your actions instead of it happening instantaneously. Once you get beyond a negligible number of milliseconds it can be absolutely infuriating. I bought a capture card for my PC some time ago so that I could hook up some consoles for direct video recording, but there's about a 100ms delay on it that renders it useless for that.
This is completely different from the lag involved in networked multiplayer, which can be compensated for with certain coding techniques.
EDIT: If you want a good example of what I'm talking about, try out the online multi on some of Backbone's shitty emulation jobs on XBLA. Streets of Rage 2 has input lag for player 2 in online co-op, so it's more or less unplayable if your ping with the host isn't very low.
I like how everyone is talking about lag, and how it makes a game "impossible to play".
Ive had friends in Armadeaddon... who play Left 4 Dead 2... with 300 ping. And still manage to be just as good as everyone else.
*groan*
Input lag is when you input a command (move a cursor, press a button), and it takes extra time for the game to even recognize that command. Think: having to jump over a koopa shell in Mario or dodging some bullets in a shmup but having a delay on all of your actions instead of it happening instantaneously. Once you get beyond a negligible number of milliseconds it can be absolutely infuriating. I bought a capture card for my PC some time ago so that I could hook up some consoles for direct video recording, but there's about a 100ms delay on it that renders it useless for that.
This is completely different from the lag involved in networked multiplayer, which can be compensated for with certain coding techniques.
but people can only see 24fps anyways, so any lag less than 42ms is instantaneous
derp
PeregrineFalcon on
Looking for a DX:HR OnLive code for my kid brother.
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
You'll be eating your words b4 2010. [...] talk about stupid.
Sorry, what?
The main thing aligning itself against the good working of onLive is the inability to interpolate. All multiplayer games at the moment have frame interpolation to make sure that your PC is predicting where - for example - enemies will end up before the next server update comes in. But when you're streaming a video feed to the user rather than game data, you cannot provide this interpolation. This, in my opinion, is far more of an issue than any input lag. It means that when you're playing a single player shooter, you'll be playing it as though it were on a multiplayer server, without interp; not something I'd personally enjoy.
You'll be eating your words b4 2010. [...] talk about stupid.
Sorry, what?
The main thing aligning itself against the good working of onLive is the inability to interpolate. All multiplayer games at the moment have frame interpolation to make sure that your PC is predicting where - for example - enemies will end up before the next server update comes in. But when you're streaming a video feed to the user rather than game data, you cannot provide this interpolation. This, in my opinion, is far more of an issue than any input lag. It means that when you're playing a single player shooter, you'll be playing it as though it were on a multiplayer server, without interp; not something I'd personally enjoy.
The thing that will make or break it is the OnLive network. They can have servers very close to you on optimized connections to all but eliminate the connectivity issues. Problem is that doing this for anything resembling a mainstream audience in the US is a massive infrastructure undertaking. The success of the system banks completely on whether or not they can pull it off. It certainly isn't possible with your basic web servers.
Zek on
0
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
I'm pretty certain he was joking, because that's an argument that keeps coming up.
Hence the giant DERP at the end.
Yeah, I got that a little late. Although my response holds true in general; attempts to pin down the 'max fps' for the eye are generally very unsound and there's no good numerical value to be had.
Oh hey, looks like I get to post this shit again http://megaswf.com/view/2987e613f52b76ca2c387de5f7c45b24.html
Input lag simulator, specifically for the mouse.
Slide that fucker all the way to the right for 80ms of lag and have fun trying to play anything twitchy.
Yeah, that's pretty much what games that don't have hardware accelerated mouse cursors feel like. Crap.
Oh hey, looks like I get to post this shit again http://megaswf.com/view/2987e613f52b76ca2c387de5f7c45b24.html
Input lag simulator, specifically for the mouse.
Slide that fucker all the way to the right for 80ms of lag and have fun trying to play anything twitchy.
Yeah, that's pretty much what games that don't have hardware accelerated mouse cursors feel like. Crap.
Oh hey, looks like I get to post this shit again http://megaswf.com/view/2987e613f52b76ca2c387de5f7c45b24.html
Input lag simulator, specifically for the mouse.
Slide that fucker all the way to the right for 80ms of lag and have fun trying to play anything twitchy.
Yeah, that's pretty much what games that don't have hardware accelerated mouse cursors feel like. Crap.
Oh god it feels like a Telltale engine game.
Now imagine all of your games feeling like this.
I'm trying to program an AutoHotKey script for it, but you guys with G15s can apparently experience this pain in stunning clarity via this lovely little script lifted from [H] that cripples your WASD keys:
function OnEvent(event, arg)
OutputLogMessage("event = %s, arg = %s\n", event, arg)
if (event == "G_PRESSED") then
Sleep(80)
if( arg == 1 ) then -- G1 key
PressKey("w")
end
if( arg == 2 ) then -- G2 key
PressKey("a")
end
if( arg == 3 ) then -- G3 key
PressKey("d")
end
if( arg == 4 ) then -- G4 key
PressKey("s")
end
end
if (event == "G_RELEASED") then
Sleep(80)
if( arg == 1 ) then -- G1 key
ReleaseKey("w")
end
if( arg == 2 ) then -- G2 key
ReleaseKey("a")
end
if( arg == 3 ) then -- G3 key
ReleaseKey("d")
end
if( arg == 4 ) then -- G4 key
ReleaseKey("s")
end
end
end
PeregrineFalcon on
Looking for a DX:HR OnLive code for my kid brother.
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
If we could only see 24fps, then it would be impossible for us to differentiate between 30fps and 60fps.
I mean, I've read before that we need at least around 24 fps to get the ilusion of real movement, but we can certainly "see" all kinds of FPS. WTF.
Actually I think the absolute minimum is 15 fps, but I could be wrong.
It depends on how complex the image is, as well as personal perception. Cartoons and other things that clearly are Not Real (Simpsons) can get away with less than the 24fps film spec. On the top end, 72fps is where things start to blur for most people. You can recognize and spot things in an image flashed for less than that, but in terms of smoothness it's a wash for most folks.
Computer gamers are just conditioned to that magic 60fps due to it being the default Hz rate.
Except I guess in 50Hz land, where you guys are a little slow, eh?
PeregrineFalcon on
Looking for a DX:HR OnLive code for my kid brother.
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
If we could only see 24fps, then it would be impossible for us to differentiate between 30fps and 60fps.
I mean, I've read before that we need at least around 24 fps to get the ilusion of real movement, but we can certainly "see" all kinds of FPS. WTF.
Actually I think the absolute minimum is 15 fps, but I could be wrong.
It depends on how complex the image is, as well as personal perception. Cartoons and other things that clearly are Not Real (Simpsons) can get away with less than the 24fps film spec. On the top end, 72fps is where things start to blur for most people. You can recognize and spot things in an image flashed for less than that, but in terms of smoothness it's a wash for most folks.
Computer gamers are just conditioned to that magic 60fps due to it being the default Hz rate.
Except I guess in 50Hz land, where you guys are a little slow, eh?
I call pretty much anything ~15FPS to 60FPS, the rest just looks about the same. THough, really, 30FPS is the smooth standard to me, due to gaming with shitty rigs for ever
Now with post-processing effects being popular it's not as much of an issue but for me the reason 24fps is fine for film and 60 makes a difference for computer graphics is the motion blur filling in the gaps.
Now with post-processing effects being popular it's not as much of an issue but for me the reason 24fps is fine for film and 60 makes a difference for computer graphics is the motion blur filling in the gaps.
As explained in the video I linked that no one can be arsed to download it seems. :P
PeregrineFalcon on
Looking for a DX:HR OnLive code for my kid brother.
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
I like how everyone is talking about lag, and how it makes a game "impossible to play".
Ive had friends in Armadeaddon... who play Left 4 Dead 2... with 300 ping. And still manage to be just as good as everyone else.
*groan*
Input lag is when you input a command (move a cursor, press a button), and it takes extra time for the game to even recognize that command. Think: having to jump over a koopa shell in Mario or dodging some bullets in a shmup but having a delay on all of your actions instead of it happening instantaneously. Once you get beyond a negligible number of milliseconds it can be absolutely infuriating. I bought a capture card for my PC some time ago so that I could hook up some consoles for direct video recording, but there's about a 100ms delay on it that renders it useless for that.
This is completely different from the lag involved in networked multiplayer, which can be compensated for with certain coding techniques.
EDIT: If you want a good example of what I'm talking about, try out the online multi on some of Backbone's shitty emulation jobs on XBLA. Streets of Rage 2 has input lag for player 2 in online co-op, so it's more or less unplayable if your ping with the host isn't very low.
Oh shit. Yea... thinking about that... thats pretty god damn awful. I remember there being input lag on TMNT and Contra for XBLA. That was god damn horrible.
Still, i mean if you have a 12mb down and 2.5 up connection, shouldnt it be enough to compensate for that lag? Or is it just no matter the bandwidth, information cant be processed that fast while being sent back and forth?
Still, i mean if you have a 12mb down and 2.5 up connection, shouldnt it be enough to compensate for that lag? Or is it just no matter the bandwidth, information cant be processed that fast while being sent back and forth?
Different issues. Bandwidth (amount of data that can be transferred per unit time) would determine picture quality. Latency (amount of time taken between origin and destination) would determine lag. The latter is not only subject to infrastructure restraints, but simple laws of physics as well. John Carmack once remarked on netcode development that "The speed of light sucks."
Try running a traceroute to various websites via your command prompt to see how long it takes for you to connect to each site and the delay involved in each jump.
C:\Documents and Settings\xxxxxxxx>tracert google.com
Tracing route to google.com [74.125.65.99]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms 1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 17 ms 8 ms 7 ms c-xx-xx-xx-x.hsd1.wv.comcast.net
3 7 ms 11 ms 6 ms ge-3-1-ur01.huntington.wv.hntngton.comcast.net
4 5 ms 9 ms 6 ms te-3-3-ar01.huntington.wv.hntngton.comcast.net
5 23 ms 29 ms 22 ms pos-9-0-0-ur01.pittsburgh.pa.pitt.comcast.net
6 24 ms 23 ms 24 ms te-2-3-ar01.pittsburgh.pa.pitt.comcast.net
7 37 ms 36 ms 44 ms te-2-0-0-5-cr01.chicago.il.ibone.comcast.net
8 37 ms 40 ms 37 ms pos-0-3-0-0-pe01.350ecermak.il.ibone.comcast.net
9 49 ms 50 ms 50 ms as15169-1.350ecermak.il.ibone.comcast.net
10 50 ms 50 ms 49 ms 216.239.48.154
11 63 ms 55 ms 58 ms 72.14.239.90
12 57 ms 58 ms 61 ms 209.85.254.247
13 56 ms 69 ms 71 ms 209.85.253.214
14 67 ms 59 ms 60 ms gx-in-f99.1e100.net [74.125.65.99]
I have 20+ ms of lag by the time I even get out of my podunk city and into the next major router on the path. Now, no matter how good OnLive's encoding process is, and no matter how much power and bandwidth their server farms can put out, I'd wager that you'd still have to be physically located pretty close to one to get any kind of performance out of the service that people are hoping for.
I thought the reason 24fps was okay for film but 60fps was best for games is because you're expecting feedback from your actions in games and lower than 60fps produces a lag or choppy effect because of this expectation. One that you don't get if your just watching something passively.
LittleBoots on
Tofu wrote: Here be Littleboots, destroyer of threads and master of drunkposting.
Still, i mean if you have a 12mb down and 2.5 up connection, shouldnt it be enough to compensate for that lag? Or is it just no matter the bandwidth, information cant be processed that fast while being sent back and forth?
This. Unless you moved to live right next to your provider's node.
[edit] 24/25FPS is just where you stop (obviously) differentiating between "individual images" and "video". You can still plainly see it's not as smooth as reality, however.
Still, i mean if you have a 12mb down and 2.5 up connection, shouldnt it be enough to compensate for that lag? Or is it just no matter the bandwidth, information cant be processed that fast while being sent back and forth?
Different issues. Bandwidth (amount of data that can be transferred per unit time) would determine picture quality. Latency (amount of time taken between origin and destination) would determine lag. The latter is not only subject to infrastructure restraints, but simple laws of physics as well. John Carmack once remarked on netcode development that "The speed of light sucks."
Try running a traceroute to various websites via your command prompt to see how long it takes for you to connect to each site and the delay involved in each jump.
C:\Documents and Settings\xxxxxxxx>tracert google.com
Tracing route to google.com [74.125.65.99]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms 1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 17 ms 8 ms 7 ms c-xx-xx-xx-x.hsd1.wv.comcast.net
3 7 ms 11 ms 6 ms ge-3-1-ur01.huntington.wv.hntngton.comcast.net
4 5 ms 9 ms 6 ms te-3-3-ar01.huntington.wv.hntngton.comcast.net
5 23 ms 29 ms 22 ms pos-9-0-0-ur01.pittsburgh.pa.pitt.comcast.net
6 24 ms 23 ms 24 ms te-2-3-ar01.pittsburgh.pa.pitt.comcast.net
7 37 ms 36 ms 44 ms te-2-0-0-5-cr01.chicago.il.ibone.comcast.net
8 37 ms 40 ms 37 ms pos-0-3-0-0-pe01.350ecermak.il.ibone.comcast.net
9 49 ms 50 ms 50 ms as15169-1.350ecermak.il.ibone.comcast.net
10 50 ms 50 ms 49 ms 216.239.48.154
11 63 ms 55 ms 58 ms 72.14.239.90
12 57 ms 58 ms 61 ms 209.85.254.247
13 56 ms 69 ms 71 ms 209.85.253.214
14 67 ms 59 ms 60 ms gx-in-f99.1e100.net [74.125.65.99]
I have 20+ ms of lag by the time I even get out of my podunk city and into the next major router on the path. Now, no matter how good OnLive's encoding process is, and no matter how much power and bandwidth their server farms can put out, I'd wager that you'd still have to be physically located pretty close to one to get any kind of performance out of the service that people are hoping for.
I've been trying to hammer that point to no avail, I hope people will get it now.
Still, i mean if you have a 12mb down and 2.5 up connection, shouldnt it be enough to compensate for that lag? Or is it just no matter the bandwidth, information cant be processed that fast while being sent back and forth?
Different issues. Bandwidth (amount of data that can be transferred per unit time) would determine picture quality. Latency (amount of time taken between origin and destination) would determine lag. The latter is not only subject to infrastructure restraints, but simple laws of physics as well. John Carmack once remarked on netcode development that "The speed of light sucks."
Try running a traceroute to various websites via your command prompt to see how long it takes for you to connect to each site and the delay involved in each jump.
C:\Documents and Settings\xxxxxxxx>tracert google.com
Tracing route to google.com [74.125.65.99]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms 1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 17 ms 8 ms 7 ms c-xx-xx-xx-x.hsd1.wv.comcast.net
3 7 ms 11 ms 6 ms ge-3-1-ur01.huntington.wv.hntngton.comcast.net
4 5 ms 9 ms 6 ms te-3-3-ar01.huntington.wv.hntngton.comcast.net
5 23 ms 29 ms 22 ms pos-9-0-0-ur01.pittsburgh.pa.pitt.comcast.net
6 24 ms 23 ms 24 ms te-2-3-ar01.pittsburgh.pa.pitt.comcast.net
7 37 ms 36 ms 44 ms te-2-0-0-5-cr01.chicago.il.ibone.comcast.net
8 37 ms 40 ms 37 ms pos-0-3-0-0-pe01.350ecermak.il.ibone.comcast.net
9 49 ms 50 ms 50 ms as15169-1.350ecermak.il.ibone.comcast.net
10 50 ms 50 ms 49 ms 216.239.48.154
11 63 ms 55 ms 58 ms 72.14.239.90
12 57 ms 58 ms 61 ms 209.85.254.247
13 56 ms 69 ms 71 ms 209.85.253.214
14 67 ms 59 ms 60 ms gx-in-f99.1e100.net [74.125.65.99]
I have 20+ ms of lag by the time I even get out of my podunk city and into the next major router on the path. Now, no matter how good OnLive's encoding process is, and no matter how much power and bandwidth their server farms can put out, I'd wager that you'd still have to be physically located pretty close to one to get any kind of performance out of the service that people are hoping for.
I've been trying to hammer that point to no avail, I hope people will get it now.
It has NOTHING to do with bandwidth.
I never disagreed with the 80ms input lag. I bet sometimes it would be higher.
Doesn't really bother me is what I'm trying to say. I've played games over remote desktop, and that is much worse, I assure you =P
As someone who has tried and failed to play Bionic Commando Rearmed through PS3-PSP remote play, it won't work too well. I've done this in the same room as the PS3, through a direct remote connection and it was still pretty bad, unplayable with the lag.
A lot of people really wouldn't notice an 80ms input lag in the slightest. And that is possible in reality even though it may or may not be reliable. The question is if they can keep it below that consistently and for an audience outside a small distance from their servers.
It's not a matter of bothering, it's a matter of being unplayable.
This is the point of contention here. I think 80ms input lag, while not optimal, is perfectly playable. They say that multiplayer will be supported as well, and I don't know about that.. I certainly won't play UT or anything against people that are playing on their own computers, but I would play, for instance, fear 2 single player with an 80ms input lag. Hell I don't think I'd even notice it on a game like DoW2.
You may feel differently, and that is okay. But don't tell me that it is absolutely unplayable across the board for every game for every person. This is a rediculous statement.
The dude did address the latency issues in that one presentation saying they had some kind of thing going with service providers that helps them select the shortest path between their users and their servers.
I have 20+ ms of lag by the time I even get out of my podunk city and into the next major router on the path. Now, no matter how good OnLive's encoding process is, and no matter how much power and bandwidth their server farms can put out, I'd wager that you'd still have to be physically located pretty close to one to get any kind of performance out of the service that people are hoping for.
Isn't that the plan though? To have server clusters all over the place, so you'll always have a "local" OnLive cluster to connect to? MMOs have been doing things that way for years, its just a question of how much all the gear necessary to make that a reality is going to cost them.
I know that I personally can get a ping of ~50ms to just about anywhere in Australia (From Melbourne) when playing Left4Dead, so even if there's only 5 or 6 clusters in the entire US (which seems unlikely) with a fast connection you should be fine surely? Maybe. Bleh. Speculation is fun and all but that's really all we can do at this point. Speculate.
Isn't that the plan though? To have server clusters all over the place, so you'll always have a "local" OnLive cluster to connect to? MMOs have been doing things that way for years, its just a question of how much all the gear necessary to make that a reality is going to cost them.
Yeah, that's how it would probably go down if they're really serious about it.
I have 20+ ms of lag by the time I even get out of my podunk city and into the next major router on the path. Now, no matter how good OnLive's encoding process is, and no matter how much power and bandwidth their server farms can put out, I'd wager that you'd still have to be physically located pretty close to one to get any kind of performance out of the service that people are hoping for.
Isn't that the plan though? To have server clusters all over the place, so you'll always have a "local" OnLive cluster to connect to? MMOs have been doing things that way for years, its just a question of how much all the gear necessary to make that a reality is going to cost them.
I know that I personally can get a ping of ~50ms to just about anywhere in Australia (From Melbourne) when playing Left4Dead, so even if there's only 5 or 6 clusters in the entire US (which seems unlikely) with a fast connection you should be fine surely? Maybe. Bleh. Speculation is fun and all but that's really all we can do at this point. Speculate.
I don't know, maybe my connection just sucks, but I don't even get a ping of 50 to an LA server from san diego. Heck, when I set up a listen server to fool around with some friends in TF2, I was getting pings in the teens on the same network
Posts
It's an .SWF, should be loading on the right side. Click in there to generate the boxes, the left one is "local" and the right side is "with lag"
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
I probably would because that doesn't seem like a huge deal to me
But maybe I'm weird
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
This also does not seem that bad for me. And with some sort of joystick or dpad input I think it would bother me even less. Just sayin'.
Especially if it lets me play games that I want to play without regularly spending hundreds of dollars upgrading my computer.
It's actually a worst case scenario. If you really need to see it to believe it here: http://tv.seas.columbia.edu/videos/545/60/79
Purely nitpicking I know, buit had gotten Roadrunner up and going in 96, and we were fairly late in getting it at that point. By the late 90s AOL wasn't even remotely the fastest internet out there. We were getting pretty heavily into streaming radio by that point, and even a bit of streaming video here and there.
Ive had friends in Armadeaddon... who play Left 4 Dead 2... with 300 ping. And still manage to be just as good as everyone else.
What kind of lag are we all talking about? Cause ive played video games with some fuck awful lag before. And guess what. It wasnt that bad.
That said... im more concerned with network 'hiccups' rather than lag.
A delay is one thing. How will they manage to create a stable enough network on the scale they are talking about without noticible drops in bandwidth alltogether.
Thats my main concern. A little delay might be annoying. A flat out pause would be infuriating.
Input lag is when you input a command (move a cursor, press a button), and it takes extra time for the game to even recognize that command. Think: having to jump over a koopa shell in Mario or dodging some bullets in a shmup but having a delay on all of your actions instead of it happening instantaneously. Once you get beyond a negligible number of milliseconds it can be absolutely infuriating. I bought a capture card for my PC some time ago so that I could hook up some consoles for direct video recording, but there's about a 100ms delay on it that renders it useless for that.
This is completely different from the lag involved in networked multiplayer, which can be compensated for with certain coding techniques.
EDIT: If you want a good example of what I'm talking about, try out the online multi on some of Backbone's shitty emulation jobs on XBLA. Streets of Rage 2 has input lag for player 2 in online co-op, so it's more or less unplayable if your ping with the host isn't very low.
but people can only see 24fps anyways, so any lag less than 42ms is instantaneous
derp
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
fixed
I'm sure they can cater to the wide audience of Snood, Bejeweled, and Peggle players.
[tiny]yes i am perfectly aware that undermines the whole point of offloading intensive games, i'm being facetious[/tiny]
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
The main thing aligning itself against the good working of onLive is the inability to interpolate. All multiplayer games at the moment have frame interpolation to make sure that your PC is predicting where - for example - enemies will end up before the next server update comes in. But when you're streaming a video feed to the user rather than game data, you cannot provide this interpolation. This, in my opinion, is far more of an issue than any input lag. It means that when you're playing a single player shooter, you'll be playing it as though it were on a multiplayer server, without interp; not something I'd personally enjoy.
'fraid to say, this is a myth. There's no sound numerical value for what our eyes can and cannot detect.
I'm pretty certain he was joking, because that's an argument that keeps coming up.
Hence the giant DERP at the end.
The thing that will make or break it is the OnLive network. They can have servers very close to you on optimized connections to all but eliminate the connectivity issues. Problem is that doing this for anything resembling a mainstream audience in the US is a massive infrastructure undertaking. The success of the system banks completely on whether or not they can pull it off. It certainly isn't possible with your basic web servers.
I mean, I've read before that we need at least around 24 fps to get the ilusion of real movement, but we can certainly "see" all kinds of FPS. WTF.
60fps vs 24fps video
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
Oh god it feels like a Telltale engine game.
Now imagine all of your games feeling like this.
I'm trying to program an AutoHotKey script for it, but you guys with G15s can apparently experience this pain in stunning clarity via this lovely little script lifted from [H] that cripples your WASD keys:
function OnEvent(event, arg) OutputLogMessage("event = %s, arg = %s\n", event, arg) if (event == "G_PRESSED") then Sleep(80) if( arg == 1 ) then -- G1 key PressKey("w") end if( arg == 2 ) then -- G2 key PressKey("a") end if( arg == 3 ) then -- G3 key PressKey("d") end if( arg == 4 ) then -- G4 key PressKey("s") end end if (event == "G_RELEASED") then Sleep(80) if( arg == 1 ) then -- G1 key ReleaseKey("w") end if( arg == 2 ) then -- G2 key ReleaseKey("a") end if( arg == 3 ) then -- G3 key ReleaseKey("d") end if( arg == 4 ) then -- G4 key ReleaseKey("s") end end endCan trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
Actually I think the absolute minimum is 15 fps, but I could be wrong.
It depends on how complex the image is, as well as personal perception. Cartoons and other things that clearly are Not Real (Simpsons) can get away with less than the 24fps film spec. On the top end, 72fps is where things start to blur for most people. You can recognize and spot things in an image flashed for less than that, but in terms of smoothness it's a wash for most folks.
Computer gamers are just conditioned to that magic 60fps due to it being the default Hz rate.
Except I guess in 50Hz land, where you guys are a little slow, eh?
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
I call pretty much anything ~15FPS to 60FPS, the rest just looks about the same. THough, really, 30FPS is the smooth standard to me, due to gaming with shitty rigs for ever
As explained in the video I linked that no one can be arsed to download it seems. :P
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
Oh shit. Yea... thinking about that... thats pretty god damn awful. I remember there being input lag on TMNT and Contra for XBLA. That was god damn horrible.
Still, i mean if you have a 12mb down and 2.5 up connection, shouldnt it be enough to compensate for that lag? Or is it just no matter the bandwidth, information cant be processed that fast while being sent back and forth?
Try running a traceroute to various websites via your command prompt to see how long it takes for you to connect to each site and the delay involved in each jump.
I have 20+ ms of lag by the time I even get out of my podunk city and into the next major router on the path. Now, no matter how good OnLive's encoding process is, and no matter how much power and bandwidth their server farms can put out, I'd wager that you'd still have to be physically located pretty close to one to get any kind of performance out of the service that people are hoping for.
Tofu wrote: Here be Littleboots, destroyer of threads and master of drunkposting.
[edit] 24/25FPS is just where you stop (obviously) differentiating between "individual images" and "video". You can still plainly see it's not as smooth as reality, however.
I've been trying to hammer that point to no avail, I hope people will get it now.
It has NOTHING to do with bandwidth.
I never disagreed with the 80ms input lag. I bet sometimes it would be higher.
Doesn't really bother me is what I'm trying to say. I've played games over remote desktop, and that is much worse, I assure you =P
This is the point of contention here. I think 80ms input lag, while not optimal, is perfectly playable. They say that multiplayer will be supported as well, and I don't know about that.. I certainly won't play UT or anything against people that are playing on their own computers, but I would play, for instance, fear 2 single player with an 80ms input lag. Hell I don't think I'd even notice it on a game like DoW2.
You may feel differently, and that is okay. But don't tell me that it is absolutely unplayable across the board for every game for every person. This is a rediculous statement.