| Author |
Topic |
Sir Scorpion
Black Banners |
Posted - 2010.07.04 06:28:00 - [ 1]
TL;DR version: can cloud computing reduce lag?
Onlive is a cloud gamming system AKA micro consol that basically video stream the game to your PC, TV MAC, Iphone Ipad, or anything with a screen and a wifi connection. And ill u send are input commands. All the processing is done via server side, and that’s why you can run something like crysis on an Iphone.
Now what does that have to do with EVE, my question is for the technical guys here, will a system like this used on EVE be able to eliminate lag? My thought of it is this.
With this system you basically send and receive a uniform set of commands, Inputs and stream, this greatly simplifies “my perceived concept” of how eve works which is:
Client >>> server>>>Client>>> server>>>Client
Example: 1. I shoot, it gets routed on sever, 2.he gets hit, 3.its routed on server, 4.I see he lost 10hp.
Now what also is a huge difference is the Quality and stability of the links between the 2 actions AKA player server connection.
My question is:
If all complex interactions are done on a super computer that’s running all the clients with hyper fast links between all interactions. While all incoming and outgoing interactions are uniformed across all players? Off course this is a hypothetical question since I do understand that EVE architecture will need to be changed dramatically for best performance.
Thanks
Sir scorpion
|
dankness420 |
Posted - 2010.07.04 06:32:00 - [ 2]
You know what you typed isn't even cloud computing. Its the basic definition of a thin client... |
Libin Herobi |
Posted - 2010.07.04 06:32:00 - [ 3]
Please go back to doing whatever you did before thinking about this. |
Julius Rigel
Sub-warp Racing Venture |
Posted - 2010.07.04 06:34:00 - [ 4]
No. |
Ascendic
Macabre Votum
Morsus Mihi |
Posted - 2010.07.04 06:39:00 - [ 5]
It could potentially reduce client side lag if your machine specs are not up to snuff. But with cloud computing you need a large amount of bandwidth. It is recommended at least 10-15Mb. Also as games get larger and more information is being sent back and forth the bandwidth will increase as well meaning ISPs will love cloud computing. The only way to avoid this would be if programmers design games to keep more information and calculations on the server or in the cloud client so all it is sending out would be updates to the interface. Just my random uninformed opinion and thoughts  |
Qoi
Exert Force |
Posted - 2010.07.04 06:48:00 - [ 6]
You could run eve on a low end computer and you could skip many security checks as the clients run not on player computers.
This will also increase needed bandwith by several orders of magnitude, many people would not be able to play eve because of their internet connection and/or costs.
And expect the monthly fee to go up to 100 USD/month with this kind of server infrastructure needed :I |
Trader Hansen
Failure Assured
|
Posted - 2010.07.04 06:51:00 - [ 7]
Edited by: Trader Hansen on 04/07/2010 07:09:19 Originally by: dankness420
You know what you typed isn't even cloud computing. Its the basic definition of a thin client...
"Cloud computing" is "thin client", just rebadged and given shinier packaging to sell to the clueless masses. Originally by: Ascendic
Also as games get larger and more information is being sent back and forth the bandwidth will increase as well meaning ISPs will love cloud computing.
This isn't quite correct. Essentially what OnLive is doing is turning your game output into a streamed video that responds to your input. The bandwidth usage will be pegged to the resolution of the video data being sent and how many frames per second you're receiving (with some potential for reduced load if they use an algorithm that only sends pixels that have changed instead of sending an entire frame). So, while games may become more and more complex computationally, the idea behind "cloud computing" is that this computational load is done server-side. The bandwidth usage would only increase if they pumped up the resolution of the output (and resolutions like 1680x1050 or 1920x1080 already require a LOT of bandwidth). Essentially, OnLive is a gimmick that is doomed to failure - you simply can't guarantee latency free, high-bandwidth, non-interrupted flow of information for hours on end, even if they do utilise localised server centres. Streamed video works because you have buffers that help survive short outages and slowdowns, but you can't buffer game output since you don't know what the output will be until user-input has been received. |
Sir Scorpion
Black Banners |
Posted - 2010.07.04 06:58:00 - [ 8]
Well currently what’s needed is a 4mb connection for 720p, and you will get something in the range of 60fps and 1-50ms connection. It is stated that this will have a low impact on your monthly download quota.
Onlive will work if game developers know that piracy will be gone, however their weekpoint is that thy aimed at mainstream single player games, but if they went for online mmorpgs, which tolerate lag much better then they will be able to have a huge successes, almost all game developers are going for some kind of Online DRM. Onlive will offer that.
|
CanI haveyourstuff |
Posted - 2010.07.04 08:20:00 - [ 9]
onlive is only viable gaming platfom for grandparents who like to play like.... chess online?
anything else is a big NO even for casual gamer!
It's already decades old concept... just now and then ocasianally someone comes out with this as "groundbraking new super stuff" and tries to sell it for easy profit.
whole cloud computing and crap is utterly useless stuff but yes you see companies falling for it so much that its unbelivable. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.07.04 08:37:00 - [ 10]
Edited by: Akita T on 04/07/2010 08:41:53 Originally by: Sir Scorpion
“my perceived concept” of how eve works which is:
Client >>> server>>>Client>>> server>>>Client
Example: 1. I shoot, it gets routed on sever, 2.he gets hit, 3.its routed on server, 4.I see he lost 10hp.
That's not how it works. It's Client -> server -> client, and that's it. Example : 1) you shoot, command gets routed to server ; 2) server calculates if he gets hit, and for how much damage ; 3) you both receive notification of damage dealt at (mostly) the same time The client is already a (mostly) "dumb terminal" (edit : or, as somebody above put it, "thin client"), all the simulation is done on the TQ cluster, none on your machine, your machine just renders the graphics of what the server tells it just happened. So your entire thread is kind of pointless because that's how they already do it, and how they did it from the start. |
Batolemaeus
Caldari
Free-Space-Ranger
Morsus Mihi |
Posted - 2010.07.04 08:43:00 - [ 11]
I want a giant cluestick so i can hit people with it when they throw buzzwords like "Cloud Computing" around without even the faintest idea of what it means. |
Dan O'Connor
Cerberus Network
Dignitas. |
Posted - 2010.07.04 09:33:00 - [ 12]
While the idea you proposed is partially already implemented, doing a total Cloud Computing solution is not the right way to go I think - at least not for EVE.
However, I just thought about this: What if, similar to SETI@Home, CCP implements a method that uses some of our computational power, let's just say, 5% extra of your CPU (while the game is running) ? This way, the TQ cluster AND you would calculate stuff and then send it back to the cluster... that might be an idea worth looking into. Now imagine, 50K or so on average online, each of them providing 5% CPU to TQ cluster. This might help in combat lag.
Of course, there would have to be an option in the settings screen whether or not you want to participate with this. |
Lutz Major |
Posted - 2010.07.04 10:42:00 - [ 13]
Quote:
If all complex interactions are done on a super computer that’s running all the clients with hyper fast links between all interactions. While all incoming and outgoing interactions are uniformed across all players? Off course this is a hypothetical question since I do understand that EVE architecture will need to be changed dramatically for best performance.
Simply put: no. What you are after is that client game data is no longer subject to lag. But all calculations are already processed on the EVE cluster and distributed to the clients. This takes a lot of computational power. What Onlive provides is the output rendering of this data, removing the work load from your end device. If you would calculate and render data on Tranquillity the lag to the end user would increase manifold. Also the current communication between the client and the server is really not considerable. Onlive demands on his support page a steady 5Mb connection. |
Furb Killer
Gallente |
Posted - 2010.07.04 10:47:00 - [ 14]
Edited by: Furb Killer on 04/07/2010 10:52:54Right now it needs to send a little bit of info to your client, location of other ships, what they doing, etc. With your idea it would need to render for every single user, it would need a compress the resulting stream, and send this to you. Which will massively increase their bandwidth usage and required computation power. The principle could work for eve, contrary to shooters. But doesnt add much since pretty much any comp can run eve. Quote:
Well currently what’s needed is a 4mb connection for 720p, and you will get something in the range of 60fps and 1-50ms connection. It is stated that this will have a low impact on your monthly download quota.
1. 720p is terrible resolution for games. Really terrible. 2. 1ms connection? Lol. IIRC there official stance was that everything under 100ms is fine for gaming without noticable problems. For a normal shooter 100ms is roughly max latency you want, with their idea you got 100ms mouse lag. Is there anyone who seriously believe you want to play a shooter with 100ms (or 50ms) mouse lag? 3. What they state doesnt matter much. Download limits are for suckers anyway, but those who have them (lol@belgiums) will get quickly over them. You mention a 4mb connection, that is per hour 1.8GB. Lets be nice and say 1.5GB. Looking at the lolbelgiums at belgacom, that would mean in about 30 hours they are through their entire monthly download limit. |
Lutz Major |
Posted - 2010.07.04 12:41:00 - [ 15]
Originally by: Dan O'Connor
However, I just thought about this: What if, similar to SETI@Home, CCP implements a method that uses some of our computational power, let's just say, 5% extra of your CPU (while the game is running) ? This way, the TQ cluster AND you would calculate stuff and then send it back to the cluster... that might be an idea worth looking into. Now imagine, 50K or so on average online, each of them providing 5% CPU to TQ cluster. This might help in combat lag.
No. Where it does not matter, when and if you return your SETI calculations you need a Quality Of Service when calculating real time results. Something you cannot guarante with such a distributed software. Imagine you fire at the enemy and the results whether you alphad him or not gets lost due to a black out in ... Tatchikistan or wherever. |
Dan O'Connor
Cerberus Network
Dignitas. |
Posted - 2010.07.04 12:43:00 - [ 16]
Originally by: Lutz Major
Originally by: Dan O'Connor
However, I just thought about this: What if, similar to SETI@Home, CCP implements a method that uses some of our computational power, let's just say, 5% extra of your CPU (while the game is running) ? This way, the TQ cluster AND you would calculate stuff and then send it back to the cluster... that might be an idea worth looking into. Now imagine, 50K or so on average online, each of them providing 5% CPU to TQ cluster. This might help in combat lag.
No. Where it does not matter, when and if you return your SETI calculations you need a Quality Of Service when calculating real time results. Something you cannot guarante with such a distributed software. Imagine you fire at the enemy and the results whether you alphad him or not gets lost due to a black out in ... Tatchikistan or wherever.
That's a fair point |
Washell Olivaw |
Posted - 2010.07.04 13:27:00 - [ 17]
Originally by: Furb Killer
1. 720p is terrible resolution for games. Really terrible.
You do realize ~140 million 360's, PS3's and Wii's use 480p and 720p? And that Onlive would be perfectly happy with just 10% of that? |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.07.04 13:29:00 - [ 18]
Let's rephrase. 720p would be a terrible resolution limit for EVE.
|
Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.07.04 13:34:00 - [ 19]
Originally by: Washell Olivaw
Originally by: Furb Killer
1. 720p is terrible resolution for games. Really terrible.
You do realize ~140 million 360's, PS3's and Wii's use 480p and 720p? And that Onlive would be perfectly happy with just 10% of that?
…and you do realise that whenever a game gets ported or cross-platform-released onto PC, and still has the UI constraints that come with the resolution you need to work with on those consoles, PC users groan and bang their heads on their keyboards over how poorly that UI is designed? |
Dan O'Connor
Cerberus Network
Dignitas. |
Posted - 2010.07.04 13:36:00 - [ 20]
Originally by: Washell Olivaw
Originally by: Furb Killer
1. 720p is terrible resolution for games. Really terrible.
You do realize ~140 million 360's, PS3's and Wii's use 480p and 720p? And that Onlive would be perfectly happy with just 10% of that?
720p is 1360x720 pixels. PS3 and XBox 360 can do 1080p (1920x1080). |
Washell Olivaw |
Posted - 2010.07.04 13:44:00 - [ 21]
Edited by: Washell Olivaw on 04/07/2010 13:54:50Look at it this way. A friend with a crappy PC, good for no more than internet comes to your house and sees you playing MW2. He likes it but realizes his options are to either spend $500 to $1500 on a new PC, $200 to $300 on a console or to utilize his current PC and broadband connection and get Onlive for $15 a month + the price of the game. 2 years later when you spend another $1000 on your PC to play the newest game, he can just buy it on Onlive while still using the same crappy PC, or seamlessly switch to his HD TV with the Onlive settop box and controller for a couple of bucks. Onlive isn't targeting hardcore gamers used to 1080p on their PC's. They're targeting console gamers and the crowd that feel $200 to $1500 is to steep an entrance fee. Even so, they do plan to offer 1080p when the service is up and running. Think of all the people Nintendo added as consumers in the gaming industry, those are the ones you need to think off when considering the viability of services like Onlive. They've done the Wii, now they're ready for something more mature without breaking the bank. Originally by: Dan O'Connor
720p is 1360x720 pixels. PS3 and XBox 360 can do 1080p (1920x1080).
6 360 titles are native 1080p, 35 titles are upscaled to 1080p, the rest is 720p/1080i. The 360 was not designed with 1080p in mind so to gain the resolution@30fps, something else has to give. 26 PS3 titles are native 1080p, the rest is upscaled or 720p Wii titles are 480p, the Wii makes up for 70 million units out of the 140 ~million. That the consoles are capable of it doesn't mean the games are using it. Developing for 720p is a lot cheaper than doing 1080p. |
James Tritanius |
Posted - 2010.07.04 14:06:00 - [ 22]
Edited by: James Tritanius on 04/07/2010 14:16:04 Originally by: Washell Olivaw
Edited by: Washell Olivaw on 04/07/2010 13:54:50
Look at it this way. A friend with a crappy PC, good for no more than internet comes to your house and sees you playing MW2. He likes it but realizes his options are to either spend $500 to $1500 on a new PC, $200 to $300 on a console or to utilize his current PC and broadband connection and get Onlive for $15 a month + the price of the game. 2 years later when you spend another $1000 on your PC to play the newest game, he can just buy it on Onlive while still using the same crappy PC, or seamlessly switch to his HD TV with the Onlive settop box and controller for a couple of bucks.
Yeah... except if you are more than 1000-miles away from a service centre, you will experience very noticeable input lag (this can never be mitigated, by the way.) This means you can't play multiplayer games with your friends across continents. Additionally, there will always be input lag, anywhere, even when you are playing the single player campaign. 50-100ms input lag will not let you play MW2 comfortably, trust me. |
Washell Olivaw |
Posted - 2010.07.04 14:20:00 - [ 23]
Originally by: James Tritanius
This means you can't play multiplayer games with your friends across continents. Additionally, there will always be input lag, anywhere, even when you are playing the single player campaign. 50-100ms input lag will not let you play MW2 comfortably, trust me.
Yes you can. You connect to your center. He connects to his center. You both connect to a gameserver in the middle. Just because the game itself is running in the datacenter doesn't mean the match has to be hosted there. As for the input lag, we have a similar issue now with mouse/KB on PC vs gamepad on Console and MW2 sold perfectly well by just keeping the 2 groups separated. They could for instance group the Onlive crowd with the console gamers, with the input lag offsetting the inherent speed and precision of mouse and keyboard. Thus creating a level playing field. |
James Tritanius |
Posted - 2010.07.04 14:47:00 - [ 24]
Edited by: James Tritanius on 04/07/2010 14:48:23 Originally by: Washell Olivaw
Originally by: James Tritanius
This means you can't play multiplayer games with your friends across continents. Additionally, there will always be input lag, anywhere, even when you are playing the single player campaign. 50-100ms input lag will not let you play MW2 comfortably, trust me.
Yes you can. You connect to your center. He connects to his center. You both connect to a gameserver in the middle. Just because the game itself is running in the datacenter doesn't mean the match has to be hosted there. As for the input lag, we have a similar issue now with mouse/KB on PC vs gamepad on Console and MW2 sold perfectly well by just keeping the 2 groups separated. They could for instance group the Onlive crowd with the console gamers, with the input lag offsetting the inherent speed and precision of mouse and keyboard. Thus creating a level playing field.
You are right, cross-continental multiplayer games would not be affected with additional lag than what we experience right now. But you are definitely wrong about the input lag. For example, if you have a 100ms lag between you and the server, and assuming processing time is instant, you would need 200ms to actually see the results of your input (e.g. look around in FPS or sending an order in RTS.) That's an eternity in twitch based games like most FPS and games that require 200+ actions per minute to be competitive, like Starcraft/Warcraft 3. No, mouse/keyboard does not offset the problem. It would not be a comfortable gaming experience if all your actions require 200ms to get an on-screen result. |
AterraX
Caldari |
Posted - 2010.07.04 15:06:00 - [ 25]
Originally by: Dan O'Connor
Originally by: Washell Olivaw
Originally by: Furb Killer
1. 720p is terrible resolution for games. Really terrible.
You do realize ~140 million 360's, PS3's and Wii's use 480p and 720p? And that Onlive would be perfectly happy with just 10% of that?
720p is 1360x720 pixels. PS3 and XBox 360 can do 1080p (1920x1080).
Only in PR, 99% of all crapbox game are upscaled. You not one of those tools types that think your crapbox is a supercomputer are you? FFS, the PS3 uses the same GPU as the 7800GTX...it's outdated. |
Washell Olivaw |
Posted - 2010.07.04 15:08:00 - [ 26]
Originally by: James Tritanius
But you are definitely wrong about the input lag.
Not really, just arguing one point at the time. On the datacenter side you can do quite a few things to reduce ping times, especially coupled with the 1000km requirement. Read this. Now realize that Onlive can more or less setup connections with the major providers in that 1000km radius, providing sub 20ms to a majority of potential customers in that range. Plans for Belgium include placing the servers at the ISP, allowing for a sub 10ms time. It isn't going to be perfect for everyone in the first year, or even first 5 years but eventually, a sub 10ms response time in cloud gaming is going to be common as muck. |
CanI haveyourstuff |
Posted - 2010.07.04 18:22:00 - [ 27]
Streaming video and over network inputs are crap!
Plaing with wireless keyboard or mouse gives me headace... I dont want to think about having triple of that delay.
|
Grarr Dexx
Amarr
Kumovi
The G0dfathers |
Posted - 2010.07.04 18:28:00 - [ 28]
|
Viktor Fyretracker
Caldari
Emminent Terraforming
O.G.-Alliance |
Posted - 2010.07.04 18:33:00 - [ 29]
no it wouldnt, and it would reduce the number of people who can play EVE. right now you can in theory play EVE on a Dialup or Cellular connection. not very well but still somewhat playable, Onlive needs a minimum of a Cable Modem or FTTH.
Also the push for the cloud has me worried, what if the internet goes down? i know that games like EVE and WoW cannot be played offline of course but shifting everything to the cloud means that you couldnt even fall back onto a nice disc based game when the interwebs go down.
i am all for advancing tech but all this "Move it to the cloud" crap has me worried, i prefer the option to process most of the data locally. besides without 100mbit FiOS i doubt OnLive could stream something like EVE at 1920x1200 which is what i play at. |
James Tritanius |
Posted - 2010.07.04 22:02:00 - [ 30]
Edited by: James Tritanius on 04/07/2010 22:03:08 Originally by: Washell Olivaw
Originally by: James Tritanius
But you are definitely wrong about the input lag.
Not really, just arguing one point at the time. On the datacenter side you can do quite a few things to reduce ping times, especially coupled with the 1000km requirement. Read this. Now realize that Onlive can more or less setup connections with the major providers in that 1000km radius, providing sub 20ms to a majority of potential customers in that range. Plans for Belgium include placing the servers at the ISP, allowing for a sub 10ms time. It isn't going to be perfect for everyone in the first year, or even first 5 years but eventually, a sub 10ms response time in cloud gaming is going to be common as muck.
Sub 10ms response time is impossible. Additionally, it's a 1000-miles requirement, not 1000km. Speed of light is approximately 300,000,000m/s in a vacuum, and is approximately 64% of that in a cable. If we divide 300,000,000m/s by 1,609,344m (that's 1000-miles,) factor in the 64% constraint, and divide it by one second, and we get approximately 8.38ms. So a round trip would take at least 16.76 milliseconds. That may not seem like much, but if we factor in the number of hardware obstructions the data has to traverse, it would easily balloon past the comfortable threshold. |
All Channels
EVE General Discussion
