Nvidia Now review from engadget

[z31drifter]

I wonder if more people will be using services like this in the near future. 

 

https://www.engadget.com/2018/01/31/nvidia-geforce-now-pc/

[NoRomanBatmansAllowed]

Probably not the near future, with the current internet speeds. 

 

10, 20 years maybe seems more realistic.

[Guest]

INB4 Guideline police

[The Pizza Thief]

9 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

INB4 Guideline police

You meant to say:

 

 

Yeah I agree with Bob, internet speeds are still a step away from letting us dive deeper into our digital life. I have an internet speed of 20mbps on optic fiber in my apartment, it still can only do 1 thing at a time, either netflix and cellphone wifi or PC gaming and surfing. God forbid I'm dowloading something because anything else won't work. In my parents house we have 300mbps and it relieves some of the traffic but it's not the end of the line yet. 

[Sakkura]

When VR gaming becomes common, cloud gaming will die. Too much latency.

[NoRomanBatmansAllowed]

37 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Too much latency.

With the current technology.

[Sakkura]

8 hours ago, bob51zhang said:

With the current technology.

With any technology. Light speed is a fundamental physical limit.

[Shiftstealth]

9 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

With any technology. Light speed is a fundamental physical limit.

You should be aware that most of the latency across the internet isn't because of "light speed". It is because of the time it takes for the router, switch, or firewall to process the packet, and decide where to send it. 

 

Look at it t his way. Light travels at 299,792,458 m/s while the diameter of Earth is only 12,742,000 meters. It would take a packet 40ms to travel the entire Earth, however you see latency from the US to the Philippines at like 250ms. Why? Because the firewall policies take time to process. Honestly, if you are gaming in New York, and accessing a server in Chicago to game on the Light latency would be like 7ms.

 

(Keep in mind that at 60 FPS that's a frame every 16.67ms. So really you aren't even losing a frame in latency from New York to Chicago.)

 

 

Take it from a network engineer.

[Sakkura]

2 minutes ago, Shiftstealth said:

You should be aware that most of the latency across the internet isn't because of "light speed". It is because of the time it takes for the router, switch, or firewall to process the packet, and decide where to send it. 

 

Look at it t his way. Light travels at 299,792,458 m/s while the diameter of Earth is only 12,742,000 meters. It would take a packet 40ms to travel the entire Earth, however you see latency from the US to the Philippines at like 250ms. Why? Because the firewall policies take time to process. Honestly, if you are gaming in New York, and accessing a server in Chicago to game on the Light latency would be like 7ms.

 

(Keep in mind that at 60 FPS that's a frame every 16.67ms. So really you aren't even losing a frame in latency from New York to Chicago.)

 

 

Take it from a network engineer.

Doesn't matter. Adding 40ms to a regular gaming session is acceptable, and if you're couch gaming you probably wouldn't even notice it.

 

Adding 40ms to a VR gaming session would make it unplayable.

 

The total latency needs to be under 20ms, and that makes even lightspeed latencies like 7ms unacceptable.

[Shiftstealth]

3 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Doesn't matter. Adding 40ms to a regular gaming session is acceptable, and if you're couch gaming you probably wouldn't even notice it.

 

Adding 40ms to a VR gaming session would make it unplayable.

 

The total latency needs to be under 20ms, and that makes even lightspeed latencies like 7ms unacceptable.

You are throwing out arbitrary numbers, and hoping they stick to the wall. 

 

I'm with you that VR gaming would not be acceptable at that latency, but this should be viewed as a competitor to console gaming. It will probably cost as much as Xbox Live, and provide roughly the same, or a slightly better gaming experience. Most Xbox games are at 30 FPS, or 33.33ms per frame. Even at 23ms per frame for this service puts it as a better option than Xbox gaming. You would also likely receive better graphical fidelity. This service certainly isn't for me as someone with a GTX 1080, but for some people this would be a hit.

 

Even at 23ms that is still like 45-48 FPS which is still fantastic for a service such as this. 

 

All in all i think we are in agreement where this service would be useful. I was merely trying to point out the tech behind it.

[asus killer]

where was he playing? whats the servers locations? are they on the same ISP? did he tested things like ping from and to the server? it makes it look like all you need is contracted  internet speed!!!  seems more like paid advertising

 

 

[Sakkura]

10 minutes ago, Shiftstealth said:

You are throwing out arbitrary numbers, and hoping they stick to the wall. 

 

I'm with you that VR gaming would not be acceptable at that latency, but this should be viewed as a competitor to console gaming. It will probably cost as much as Xbox Live, and provide roughly the same, or a slightly better gaming experience. Most Xbox games are at 30 FPS, or 33.33ms per frame. Even at 23ms per frame for this service puts it as a better option than Xbox gaming. You would also likely receive better graphical fidelity. This service certainly isn't for me as someone with a GTX 1080, but for some people this would be a hit.

 

Even at 23ms that is still like 45-48 FPS which is still fantastic for a service such as this. 

 

All in all i think we are in agreement where this service would be useful. I was merely trying to point out the tech behind it.

My "arbitrary" number of 20ms is the commonly accepted limit for an acceptable experience. I did NOT come up with this arbitrarily, nor did the sources of it - Valve, Oculus etc. - they tested it and found sub-20ms was where you needed to be for VR to work. Here is a fairly early article about it:

 

https://www.pcgamesn.com/virtual-reality-john-carmacks-battle-20-millisecond-latency

 

Neither 30 FPS nor 45-48 FPS are fantastic for VR. I was only talking about VR - for flat gaming, latency tolerance is much higher than it is for VR.

 

In fact, in the same 2012 keynote speech where John Carmack was first talking about this new VR wave, he also talked about cloud gaming as a "technical inevitability" - for flat gaming, naturally.

[Shiftstealth]

1 minute ago, Sakkura said:

My "arbitrary" number of 20ms is the commonly accepted limit for an acceptable experience. I did NOT come up with this arbitrarily, nor did the sources of it - Valve, Oculus etc. - they tested it and found sub-20ms was where you needed to be for VR to work. Here is a fairly early article about it:

 

https://www.pcgamesn.com/virtual-reality-john-carmacks-battle-20-millisecond-latency

 

Neither 30 FPS nor 45-48 FPS are fantastic for VR. I was only talking about VR - for flat gaming, latency tolerance is much higher than it is for VR.

 

In fact, in the same 2012 keynote speech where John Carmack was first talking about this new VR wave, he also talked about cloud gaming as a "technical inevitability" - for flat gaming, naturally.

 

 

As previously stated, i think we are in agreement where this would, and would not  be useful. VR it would not be useful.