Let me clarify: We have a certain amount of latency when streaming games from both local and internet servers. In either case, how do we improve that latency and what limits will we run in to as the technology progresses?

  • squirrel@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I played on Google Stadia from day 1 until it got shut down. I mainly played racing games like F1 and GRID, with the occasional session in RDR2 or The Division 2. Latency was never a problem for me.

    The main problem that occured over and over in the community was people’s slow or broken internet connection at home or their WiFi setup.

    I would say the technology for cloud gaming is here today, but the home internet connections of a lot of people aren’t ready yet.

      • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        WiFi is, and probably always will be, a fraction of the performance of an ethernet connection

        In terms of bandwidth, sure, but not in terms of latency, in fact, theoretically, WiFi could be faster than Ethernet. WiFi uses radio waves, which travel faster in air than electrons do in copper and photons do in glass.

        The limitation for WiFi is really at the physical layer - i.e. encoding/decoding. With that said, we do already have WiFi with transcoding fast enough to give sufficient performance for fast-paced gaming. While you’re totally correct that, at the moment, Ethernet is more capable in terms of bandwidth and latency, that’s not necessarily going to be true forever, and WiFi is good enough for any purpose at home use. The biggest issues are interference and attenuation - e.g. thick walls, sources of electromagnetic interference

        • Sure, good points. Even with in-home fiber (very unusual), latency of the medium is so equivalent as to be practically unmeasureable. I think, however, that the bigger factor is that it’s cheaper and easier to get a fast ethernet switch than a fast WiFi router; most WiFi routers don’t have particularly fast CPUs, or high-performance buses.

          Honestly, though, I’m just guessing; I doubt any of this has as much of a latency impact as WAN factors. Bandwidth is where you’ll notice WiFi affects, and this can present as latency issues as systems struggle to get updates over a (relatively) narrow pipe.

          • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Thanks for the response, it’s nice to chat with you :)

            latency of the medium is so equivalent as to be practically unmeasureable

            More or less, yup. There are some cool uses of RF to achieve very high bandwidth, low latency connections (5G as a common example, but Wi-Fi 7 has a theoretical maximum speed of 46Gbps - while this is still far behind the maximum speed of Ethernet (We have 400Gbps Ethernet in use, with 800Gbps in development), it’s catching up very fast - and since most households and businesses with copper cabling will be using mostly CAT5e or 6a Ethernet (1Gbps/100m and 10Gbps/100m respectively), Wi-Fi will soon likely be faster than most copper Ethernet networks. It’s also very likely that 5G internet will all but supplant ADSL and VDSL connections in the coming years. I think twisted-pair copper cabling is following in the footsteps of coax :)

            Even with in-home fiber

            The minimum latency of a connection through fiber is about the same (actually, slightly less, but not enough to matter) than the same connection made through copper. Signal propagation speed is not a benefit of fiber over copper - the benefits of fiber are that you can have many, many more connections in the same diameter of cable than with copper, it’s immune to electromagnetic interference, and it can run much further distances without needing signal boosting.

            most WiFi routers don’t have particularly fast CPUs, or high-performance buses.

            That’s one of the main issues, yeah - consumer grade electronics are usually total junk, especially the free routers provided by ISPs, but I’m also thinking of those absolutely horrible “gaming” Wi-Fi routers provided by the likes of ASUS - they have decent specs, but they’re just absolutely overloaded with features that gobble RAM and CPU. Dear consumer electronics manufacturers, please just let the router be a router, and let the Wi-Fi APs be Wi-Fi APs. Combine the router and the Wi-Fi AP if you must, but absolutely please stop suggesting that people can run a hundred services from routers. You should totally upsell that feature in a separate node appliance or something! Sorry, I got distracted.

            it’s cheaper and easier to get a fast ethernet switch than a fast WiFi router

            I agree, but I also don’t - most consumers don’t really know what a switch is or why they might need one. Most switches found in houses are either integrated with a router, power line adapter, or Wi-Fi access point. While a good switch is absolutely going to be much cheaper than a good Wi-Fi AP, most people wouldn’t really look to buy one. They might search for “Ethernet hub” on Amazon and luck into buying a decent switch, but I think most people think in terms of Wi-Fi these days, so it’s probably easier to get a Wi-Fi AP than a switch.

            Also, just a minor nitpick: “fast Ethernet” is a little confusing, as terminology, because that’s the marketing name used to refer to 100mbps Ethernet connections (often indicated on network devices as FE) - so named because it was the successor to 10mbps (regular) Ethernet. (damn you, marketing people! I blame y’all for what you did to USB) When we discuss this kind of thing, it’s clearer to refer to ‘high speed Ethernet’ or refer specifically to line speed (e.g. 10GbE) - unless we’re talking about 100mbps Ethernet! Although, even then, it’s probably a bit confusing these days - I’d call it 10/100 Ethernet usually, rather than fast Ethernet, unless I was being really lazy (“yeah just stick it in the f/e port”)

            I doubt any of this has as much of a latency impact as WAN factors

            It definitely can do, but in a properly functioning network, I’d agree. If you have a faulty connection or significant source of interference or impedance, then that would be much more of an issue than anything else - otherwise, yeah, it’s going to be the Internet where most of the latency comes in to play. I would estimate that probably 75% of people could get big improvements to their online experience by making changes to their home network, but at a certain point, yes, contention becomes the bottleneck, which is not so easily solved :)

        • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Interference is a big issue for Wi-Fi as well.

          You may be able to get the latency and the throughput, but if you’re dropping packets because of some noise in the air, that’s not good for gaming.

          I also used stadia and have a different setup now… neither one worked very well over WiFi despite some pretty high end networking. I’d still get the occasional blip where everything would get super blurry because … 🤷‍♂️

          Part of that I think is the Wi-Fi chipset in my computer misbehaving, but I could never reproduce that in testing, just in practice I’d run into an issue for a few seconds everytime … which doesn’t seem like much until you lose a game or you’re about to beat some important challenge and then mAlFunCTion.

          • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yep, I mean, the comment you’re replying to literally contains the phrase, “the biggest issues are interference…” haha

            Likewise, it’s something that’s likely to improve as we tend to move away from the 2.4GHz band.

            Dropping packets is definitely more of a problem for streaming in particular, rather than anything else, because like you said, if you drop packets you’re going to get degraded quality video. If you were gaming locally, it wouldn’t really affect you as much. Online games have extremely good, well designed methods of compensating for dropped packets in a way that streaming will never be able to match.

            • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yep, I mean, the comment you’re replying to literally contains the phrase, “the biggest issues are interference…” haha

              Oops, yup, read that one wrong.

              Likewise, it’s something that’s likely to improve as we tend to move away from the 2.4GHz band.

              I’m not so sure. We’ve been on 5GHz for a while … even on there or as recently as WiFi 6 (which I forgot the exact band), there are still lots of problems.

              Dropping packets is definitely more of a problem for streaming in particular, rather than anything else, because like you said, if you drop packets you’re going to get degraded quality video. If you were gaming locally, it wouldn’t really affect you as much. Online games have extremely good, well designed methods of compensating for dropped packets in a way that streaming will never be able to match.

              Yes and no; dropping packets can still really badly impact competitive games. Casual games that use client authoritatively movement there for sure aren’t issues with though.

    • NotAnArdvark@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I would say the technology for cloud gaming is here today, but the home internet connections of a lot of people aren’t ready yet.

      You witness this a lot with video conferencing. People tell one person their audio/video is shitty, and that person just shrugs and says “yeah, I have bad internet.” In my head I’m screaming “Well, what have you tried?!” or “I see you sitting beside the refrigerator there!”

      • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah… or microphones… I really wish they’d start putting the noise cancelling as an option on the receiving end… lots of people don’t care to set up their audio right and then you get god awful static, crunching, or breathing in your ears.

        It’s especially prevalent in gaming where headset mics dominate. 🙃

    • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Those games are quite well matched with cloud streaming. An example of a game which isn’t suitable for cloud gaming would be competitive FPS games such as rainbow 6 siege, where the additional delay imposed by connection between the player and the game can be quite a significant disadvantage. The only way that this would be low enough to become acceptable would be if you live close enough to the host device that the latency is very low, or or the host device is very close to the game server itself.

      • kambusha@feddit.ch
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I had Stadia too and played a lot of Destiny 2. I must say that I was highly impressed by the low latency. I literally couldn’t notice that I wasn’t playing locally, unless my internet went down.

        Only when I took Stadia with me to a random airbnb did I start noticing any type of latency, and then we just played Mortal Kombat or other fighting games where you can just mash the buttons.