|
|
|
|
|
by cmrdporcupine
2147 days ago
|
|
Well, yes, I suspected it was something like this. I'm well aware of this kind of bloating (guess I should have said something in my comment to avoid the downvotes...) but it still doesn't support the OP's comment. Network latency is not only high, but there's literally nothing that can be done of it -- because of the speed of light! (I am somewhat lucky to work on something where we can optimize away much of the crap you're talking about here, as we own the whole package.) |
|
More context: typical network latency is good enough that video games rendered on a remote server are becoming practical, or at least salable. "Network latency is high" is a vague enough statement that it could mean anything, but if being able to render video games remotely and stream the output to the client doesn't make you reconsider, I question what you would ever consider network latency that's not too high.
The kicker with these games, that perhaps speaks to the original, crazy post by horsawlarway, is that it's normal for a TV set and set of controls to introduce a lot more latency than the network connection itself: the network is not the bottleneck. There's a good excuse for the latency in involved in networking, rooted in physics, but this is not true for the hardware and the software stack.