this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2024
400 points (91.0% liked)

Games

32175 readers
1353 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 150 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Obviously the flight simulator runs in the cloud.

[–] sailingbythelee@lemmy.world 31 points 1 day ago (3 children)

People downvoting you didn't get the joke.

[–] Hackerman_uwu@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

Oh they got it.

[–] bitwaba@lemmy.world 3 points 21 hours ago

Their head is up their ass, instead of in the clouds.

[–] leds@feddit.dk 22 points 1 day ago

Nah planes go wooosh over their heads

[–] caboose2006@lemmy.ca 46 points 1 day ago (2 children)
[–] ChuckEffingNorris@lemmy.ml 7 points 15 hours ago

I watched a couple Of live streams showing a graph for bandwidth as they flew. It tended to spike to around 180 MB a second when whole new areas were loading but during flight it was much much lower at around 10 to 15 MB per second.

[–] SirQuackTheDuck@lemmy.world 11 points 21 hours ago

It is. If it's 140 mbit/s (or 15 MB/s), Flight Simulator only uses 54 GB per hour. OP is confusing bits and bytes.

It's still a shit load of data.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 70 points 1 day ago (11 children)

At this point you might as well stream the game video, it would be less bandwidth.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 28 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

This guy just invented Google Stadia (and GeForce Now I think)

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Nobody remembers OnLive...

[–] DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Steve Perlman sure does

[–] DJDarren@thelemmy.club 5 points 1 day ago

I remember OnLive. I was waiting for it to become usable, then...nothing.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Nexy@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What!? Why the games don't just run locally

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 50 points 1 day ago (1 children)

they're streaming world data. I shudder to think about the size of the entire dataset.

[–] orangeboats@lemmy.world 6 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Are the streamed data stored in a local cache? Surely the bandwidth costs are going up to the sky with the server sending data to every single player.

[–] cimmerian@lemmy.world 3 points 16 hours ago

From what I've heard, yes. They're storing data in cache for frequently charted areas

[–] LeroyJenkins@lemmy.world 36 points 1 day ago (1 children)

3d terrain tile streaming takes a crazy amount of data. it essentially downloads hundreds of png files at a time and overlays them over 3d terrain data. Everytime you move an inch or pan the camera, it pulls down new data.

[–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 day ago (3 children)

That seems like a wildly inefficient way to render things

[–] AlotOfReading@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago

MSFS implements optimizations on top of that (progressive detail, compression, etc), but that's how almost all map systems work under the hood. It's actually an efficient way to represent real environments where you don't have the luxury of procedural generation.

[–] Decq@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's literally how every 3d game works (barring a few procedural games maybe). Now they just stream those texture and meshes as needed and presumably cache them.

Don't get distracted by this terrible piece of an article. It never states how long this peak was. It could have been just 100ms. So interpolating this to 81gb/h make no sense at all. It's just pure click bait.

In the end only the total volume downloaded matters (which the article of course doesn't mention). Why wouldn't you want to receive that as fast as possible?

[–] LeroyJenkins@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (7 children)

it's not the same. 3d games use polygons and shaders and whatnot. you can optimize things much easier in that space since it's a lot more computational. 3d tiling is literally a bunch of png files being streamed down.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 232 points 2 days ago (60 children)

Okay so after reading the article, that 150MB/s statement is doing a LOT of heavy lifting.

So first off, that was the fastest they recorded. So they just took that times an hour and said "Whoa if it stayed that sustained for the whole hour it'd be 81GB!!". Bam, clickbait title achieved. Ad revenue pleeeease

Now, for actual data, it looks like in rural areas it's about 10mbps and in cities about 100. I'll just throw it out there, why wpukdnt you want it to stream back as fast as possible?

This is like the same stupid RAM argument. I WANT you to use as much as you can! What is the point of paying for the pipe if you don't use everything you can?! There is no reason they shouldn't push it through faster. It's not more data, it's not a constant stream of 150MB/s like the garbage title claims, it peaks at 150MB/s. So good. I'm paying for gigabit, use the full pipe. When I'm playing a game that is my number one priority, give it to me as fast as you can.

load more comments (60 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›