"but what if we made the lan online"
III
posted in
LAN Discussion
dashnerIf anyone is curious about how we got to this stage
https://thundergaming.com/news/thunder-gaming-partners-shadow-blade-debut-cloud-computing-esports-test-site/
TLDR there are no PCs because they think cloud PCs in a data center with severe input lag and other severe problems can replace physical PCs on site on lan
Jesus what a great way to kill a esport center for actual tournaments. Competitive FPS? added input lag (however small) will be noticeable and no body will want to use it. Speedrunning? For games that rely on frame perfect glitches/maneuvers it's going to be a nightmare for anyone who didn't practice on a identical setup. Fighting Games? Again for people who practice frame perfect maneuvers they're fucked on this.
Now this would be good for a MMO convention or something though.
Beyond all of that from the pure technical aspect of this, this is mind blowingly retarded.
Now I'm going to use the number posted by Dashner earlier for 85 PCs. Which means a possible 85 users all trying to Cloud Stream games. Since this is a tournament location I would assume all the monitors would be 144Hz+. Most users play at 1920x1080.
In order to get high quality video of 1080p 144fps you'll need @ minimum 30Mbps* per user just to stream the game capture to them. For 85 users all simultaneously using this would require ~2.6Gbps and depending on implementation they might need to do that when just streaming people on the desktop and browsing the web. Note this isn't including any of the traffic created by those 85 users other than them trying to interface with a cloud system.
Now I'm going to assume that the Cloud Server is onsite for minimal input lag, and less network cost to whomever their ISP is since they would need at minimum of 5Gbps for just 85 users (imagine 200 or more rofl). Now beyond the straight up bandwidth of the connection you also have to account for 85 users requiring 17.7Mb every ~7ms the kind of equipment that support the packets per second to handle that kind of traffic are NOT cheap and can easily overwhelm switches that are a lot more affordable but would be "close" to being able to support that. Basically this is bordering on being a shit show if that kind of traffic happens.
*30Mbps is a highly conservative number here, the image quality would be noticeably worse during any kind of action than if it had been rendered on the local machine and overall color quality would be degraded to say the least. For reference single-link DVI which has a max data rate of 3.96Gbps (approx 130x 30Mbps) can't support 1080p 144Hz.
In Summary there will be MASSIVE compromises.
possible compromises
- Resolutions will be much lower than what some people use.
- Color quality will be degraded.
- High motion scenes will be blurry/smeared.
- Locked framerates and or sub 100fps gameplay
- Input lag would be horrible.
- Horrible stutters from network congestion or oversaturation of server hardware.
- most likely most/all of the above
Thunder GamingThunder Gaming is at the forefront of gaming technology and will leverage the performance of Shadow Computing, which is fully compatible with Fiber, DSL, 4G, Ethernet and Wifi, starting from 15 Mbps.
To backup my numbers above where 1080p 144 FPS would require ~30Mbps (not including audio), My initial guess would be 1080p 60fps would be their initial estimate for bandwidth which would require ~12.8Mbps with audio.
oh and AFAIK the amount of lag added by cloud gaming (at absolute minimum) is Frametime + Network Latency so 144 fps and a Cloud server on LAN would be ~7.0-7.5ms of added input lag in the absolute best case scenario.
-edit-
So I found out the kind of hardware Shadow used/uses
2.1GHz Intel Xeon E5-2620 v4 (Broadwell), 12GB of memory, and an Nvidia Quadro P5000https://www.pcworld.com/article/3256318/gaming/hands-on-blades-shadow-cloud-gaming-service.html
even with a dxlevel 81 + fps config, and performance settings in windows + no hats + no explosions I'm pretty sure at 2.1GHz people would be dipping below 144fps in team fights.
[quote=dashner]
If anyone is curious about how we got to this stage
https://thundergaming.com/news/thunder-gaming-partners-shadow-blade-debut-cloud-computing-esports-test-site/
TLDR there are no PCs because they think cloud PCs in a data center with severe input lag and other severe problems can replace physical PCs on site on lan
[/quote]
Jesus what a great way to kill a esport center for actual tournaments. Competitive FPS? added input lag (however small) will be noticeable and no body will want to use it. Speedrunning? For games that rely on frame perfect glitches/maneuvers it's going to be a nightmare for anyone who didn't practice on a identical setup. Fighting Games? Again for people who practice frame perfect maneuvers they're fucked on this.
Now this would be good for a MMO convention or something though.
Beyond all of that from the pure technical aspect of this, this is mind blowingly retarded.
Now I'm going to use the number posted by Dashner earlier for 85 PCs. Which means a possible 85 users all trying to Cloud Stream games. Since this is a tournament location I would assume all the monitors would be 144Hz+. Most users play at 1920x1080.
In order to get high quality video of 1080p 144fps you'll need @ minimum 30Mbps* per user just to stream the game capture to them. For 85 users all simultaneously using this would require ~2.6Gbps and depending on implementation they might need to do that when just streaming people on the desktop and browsing the web. Note this isn't including any of the traffic created by those 85 users other than them trying to interface with a cloud system.
Now I'm going to assume that the Cloud Server is onsite for minimal input lag, and less network cost to whomever their ISP is since they would need at minimum of 5Gbps for just 85 users (imagine 200 or more rofl). Now beyond the straight up bandwidth of the connection you also have to account for 85 users requiring 17.7Mb every ~7ms the kind of equipment that support the packets per second to handle that kind of traffic are NOT cheap and can easily overwhelm switches that are a lot more affordable but would be "close" to being able to support that. Basically this is bordering on being a shit show if that kind of traffic happens.
*30Mbps is a highly conservative number here, the image quality would be noticeably worse during any kind of action than if it had been rendered on the local machine and overall color quality would be degraded to say the least. For reference single-link DVI which has a max data rate of 3.96Gbps (approx 130x 30Mbps) can't support 1080p 144Hz.
In Summary there will be MASSIVE compromises.
possible compromises
[list]
[*] Resolutions will be much lower than what some people use.
[*] Color quality will be degraded.
[*] High motion scenes will be blurry/smeared.
[*] Locked framerates and or sub 100fps gameplay
[*] Input lag would be horrible.
[*] Horrible stutters from network congestion or oversaturation of server hardware.
[*] most likely most/all of the above
[/list]
[quote=Thunder Gaming]Thunder Gaming is at the forefront of gaming technology and will leverage the performance of Shadow Computing, which is fully compatible with Fiber, DSL, 4G, Ethernet and Wifi, [u][b]starting from 15 Mbps[/b][/u].[/quote]
To backup my numbers above where 1080p 144 FPS would require ~30Mbps (not including audio), My initial guess would be 1080p 60fps would be their initial estimate for bandwidth which would require ~12.8Mbps with audio.
oh and AFAIK the amount of lag added by cloud gaming (at absolute minimum) is Frametime + Network Latency so 144 fps and a Cloud server on LAN would be ~7.0-7.5ms of added input lag in the absolute best case scenario.
-edit-
So I found out the kind of hardware Shadow used/uses
[code]2.1GHz Intel Xeon E5-2620 v4 (Broadwell), 12GB of memory, and an Nvidia Quadro P5000[/code]
https://www.pcworld.com/article/3256318/gaming/hands-on-blades-shadow-cloud-gaming-service.html
even with a dxlevel 81 + fps config, and performance settings in windows + no hats + no explosions I'm pretty sure at 2.1GHz people would be dipping below 144fps in team fights.
If anyone is curious about how we got to this stage
https://thundergaming.com/news/thunder-gaming-partners-shadow-blade-debut-cloud-computing-esports-test-site/
TLDR there are no PCs because they think cloud PCs in a data center with severe input lag and other severe problems can replace physical PCs on site on lan
[/quote]
Jesus what a great way to kill a esport center for actual tournaments. Competitive FPS? added input lag (however small) will be noticeable and no body will want to use it. Speedrunning? For games that rely on frame perfect glitches/maneuvers it's going to be a nightmare for anyone who didn't practice on a identical setup. Fighting Games? Again for people who practice frame perfect maneuvers they're fucked on this.
Now this would be good for a MMO convention or something though.
Beyond all of that from the pure technical aspect of this, this is mind blowingly retarded.
Now I'm going to use the number posted by Dashner earlier for 85 PCs. Which means a possible 85 users all trying to Cloud Stream games. Since this is a tournament location I would assume all the monitors would be 144Hz+. Most users play at 1920x1080.
In order to get high quality video of 1080p 144fps you'll need @ minimum 30Mbps* per user just to stream the game capture to them. For 85 users all simultaneously using this would require ~2.6Gbps and depending on implementation they might need to do that when just streaming people on the desktop and browsing the web. Note this isn't including any of the traffic created by those 85 users other than them trying to interface with a cloud system.
Now I'm going to assume that the Cloud Server is onsite for minimal input lag, and less network cost to whomever their ISP is since they would need at minimum of 5Gbps for just 85 users (imagine 200 or more rofl). Now beyond the straight up bandwidth of the connection you also have to account for 85 users requiring 17.7Mb every ~7ms the kind of equipment that support the packets per second to handle that kind of traffic are NOT cheap and can easily overwhelm switches that are a lot more affordable but would be "close" to being able to support that. Basically this is bordering on being a shit show if that kind of traffic happens.
*30Mbps is a highly conservative number here, the image quality would be noticeably worse during any kind of action than if it had been rendered on the local machine and overall color quality would be degraded to say the least. For reference single-link DVI which has a max data rate of 3.96Gbps (approx 130x 30Mbps) can't support 1080p 144Hz.
In Summary there will be MASSIVE compromises.
possible compromises
[list]
[*] Resolutions will be much lower than what some people use.
[*] Color quality will be degraded.
[*] High motion scenes will be blurry/smeared.
[*] Locked framerates and or sub 100fps gameplay
[*] Input lag would be horrible.
[*] Horrible stutters from network congestion or oversaturation of server hardware.
[*] most likely most/all of the above
[/list]
[quote=Thunder Gaming]Thunder Gaming is at the forefront of gaming technology and will leverage the performance of Shadow Computing, which is fully compatible with Fiber, DSL, 4G, Ethernet and Wifi, [u][b]starting from 15 Mbps[/b][/u].[/quote]
To backup my numbers above where 1080p 144 FPS would require ~30Mbps (not including audio), My initial guess would be 1080p 60fps would be their initial estimate for bandwidth which would require ~12.8Mbps with audio.
oh and AFAIK the amount of lag added by cloud gaming (at absolute minimum) is Frametime + Network Latency so 144 fps and a Cloud server on LAN would be ~7.0-7.5ms of added input lag in the absolute best case scenario.
-edit-
So I found out the kind of hardware Shadow used/uses
[code]2.1GHz Intel Xeon E5-2620 v4 (Broadwell), 12GB of memory, and an Nvidia Quadro P5000[/code]
https://www.pcworld.com/article/3256318/gaming/hands-on-blades-shadow-cloud-gaming-service.html
even with a dxlevel 81 + fps config, and performance settings in windows + no hats + no explosions I'm pretty sure at 2.1GHz people would be dipping below 144fps in team fights.
The Xeon E5-2620 v4 turbos to 3.0 GHz, so it's not terrible for TF2.
Edit: they're probably running a bunch of virtual machines on each CPU, so it's probably going to use all the cores and not turbo, so NVM. It's going to be 2.1 GHz.
I'm curious about the GPU. I thought Quadro GPUs weren't very good for gaming, but I forgot if there was a credible reason for it.
The Xeon E5-2620 v4 turbos to 3.0 GHz, so it's not terrible for TF2.
Edit: they're probably running a bunch of virtual machines on each CPU, so it's probably going to use all the cores and not turbo, so NVM. It's going to be 2.1 GHz.
I'm curious about the GPU. I thought Quadro GPUs weren't very good for gaming, but I forgot if there was a credible reason for it.
Edit: they're probably running a bunch of virtual machines on each CPU, so it's probably going to use all the cores and not turbo, so NVM. It's going to be 2.1 GHz.
I'm curious about the GPU. I thought Quadro GPUs weren't very good for gaming, but I forgot if there was a credible reason for it.
first it was playing online servers at lan, now its playing lan itself online....
first it was playing online servers at lan, now its playing lan itself online....
The Shadow servers aren't even in LA. They're in Santa Clara. I would actually get lower ping at my house than at "LAN."
Edit: source: https://status.shadow.tech/
The Shadow servers aren't even in LA. They're in Santa Clara. I would actually get lower ping at my house than at "LAN."
Edit: source: https://status.shadow.tech/
Edit: source: https://status.shadow.tech/
BilbertThe Shadow servers aren't even in LA. They're in Santa Clara. I would actually get lower ping at my house than at "LAN."
I'm close to Santa Clara as well. Lan at my house boys.
[quote=Bilbert]The Shadow servers aren't even in LA. They're in Santa Clara. I would actually get lower ping at my house than at "LAN."[/quote]
I'm close to Santa Clara as well. Lan at my house boys.
I'm close to Santa Clara as well. Lan at my house boys.
BilbertThe Shadow servers aren't even in LA. They're in Santa Clara. I would actually get lower ping at my house than at "LAN."
what the actual fuck...
The network cost alone to support that many users both as an internal network and going out and paying a ISP for something like that would be enormous especially since they would need a committed rate of at least 3Gbps (as in their minimum possible speed would be 3Gbps) to complicate it even more they would need it on a as needed basis as I doubt they have events of that scale every weekend that requires anywhere near that kind of traffic. Long term I'm pretty sure 90PCs with mid-tier hardware or contracting a different company to provide PCs for events would be cheaper.
Now I'm starting to fully understand why dashner would say to never work with Thunder Gaming again. These people have to be cutting corners somewhere and any large PC game LAN at this location would likely be an utter failure or they're hemorrhaging money on insane bandwidth costs to their ISP and to setting up an internal network for this kind of traffic.
[quote=Bilbert]The Shadow servers aren't even in LA. They're in Santa Clara. I would actually get lower ping at my house than at "LAN."[/quote]
what the actual fuck...
The network cost alone to support that many users both as an internal network and going out and paying a ISP for something like that would be enormous especially since they would need a committed rate of at least 3Gbps (as in their minimum possible speed would be 3Gbps) to complicate it even more they would need it on a as needed basis as I doubt they have events of that scale every weekend that requires anywhere near that kind of traffic. Long term I'm pretty sure 90PCs with mid-tier hardware or contracting a different company to provide PCs for events would be cheaper.
Now I'm starting to fully understand why dashner would say to never work with Thunder Gaming again. These people [i]have[/i] to be cutting corners somewhere and any large PC game LAN at this location would likely be an utter failure or they're hemorrhaging money on insane bandwidth costs to their ISP and to setting up an internal network for this kind of traffic.
what the actual fuck...
The network cost alone to support that many users both as an internal network and going out and paying a ISP for something like that would be enormous especially since they would need a committed rate of at least 3Gbps (as in their minimum possible speed would be 3Gbps) to complicate it even more they would need it on a as needed basis as I doubt they have events of that scale every weekend that requires anywhere near that kind of traffic. Long term I'm pretty sure 90PCs with mid-tier hardware or contracting a different company to provide PCs for events would be cheaper.
Now I'm starting to fully understand why dashner would say to never work with Thunder Gaming again. These people [i]have[/i] to be cutting corners somewhere and any large PC game LAN at this location would likely be an utter failure or they're hemorrhaging money on insane bandwidth costs to their ISP and to setting up an internal network for this kind of traffic.
god I'm loving when people reinvent stuff to stay cool and fresh, never works out poorly
god I'm loving when people reinvent stuff to stay cool and fresh, never works out poorly
So it seems like an official LAN event isn't happening based on the most recent update :/
WillscarletSo here is the deal. Ultimate as a venue did not work out as their operating costs were extraordinarily high and would have left nothing for you all at the event itself. We are currently working on an online event and for stuff to do for those of you who already booked travel and are coming out to California. We are still confident that the event will be great and exciting. Thank you to everyone who has been patient with us throughout this whole process.
So it seems like an official LAN event isn't happening based on the most recent update :/
[quote=Willscarlet]So here is the deal. Ultimate as a venue did not work out as their operating costs were extraordinarily high and would have left nothing for you all at the event itself. We are currently working on an online event and for stuff to do for those of you who already booked travel and are coming out to California. We are still confident that the event will be great and exciting. Thank you to everyone who has been patient with us throughout this whole process.[/quote]
[quote=Willscarlet]So here is the deal. Ultimate as a venue did not work out as their operating costs were extraordinarily high and would have left nothing for you all at the event itself. We are currently working on an online event and for stuff to do for those of you who already booked travel and are coming out to California. We are still confident that the event will be great and exciting. Thank you to everyone who has been patient with us throughout this whole process.[/quote]
[img]https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--sCZk0y6e--/c_fill,fl_progressive,g_center,h_900,q_80,w_1600/kvsnbketvafqgoey0ezn.jpg[/img]
Damn... really wanted to see Se7en beat Froyotech on rewind after losing to them in i63
Damn... really wanted to see Se7en beat Froyotech on rewind after losing to them in i63
Who's actually going to go to the event they are hosting? I know a good number of people cancelled their tickets/never got their tickets due to how shaky it was looking. If a good number of people go then I might go to say hi to people.
Who's actually going to go to the event they are hosting? I know a good number of people cancelled their tickets/never got their tickets due to how shaky it was looking. If a good number of people go then I might go to say hi to people.
Please
sign in through STEAM
to post a comment.