4 ms·

I agree! I don't understand these two separate arms of Google VR. Couldn't they do the processing power on the server side if you have a fiber connection?

• elaus 10y ago
  VR needs 90fps with only a few milliseconds of latency between moving your head and seeing the movement in your headset. Both can't be achieved by streaming from a remote server…
  • shostack 10y ago
    Yet... And once you can leverage the power of the cloud for rendering that makes VR a much more portable proposition.
    • daeken 10y ago
      This isn't really a "yet" case -- it's just physics. Even if you assume that this is all light speed and that congestion, routing latency, etc aren't a factor -- it's still impossible. You need to send your input (sensory and otherwise) to a server, then get a response, 90 times a second. That's 11ms round trip for the entire transaction. Light can only travel 2050mi in that time, meaning a maximum distance of 1025mi each way. And that's the easy part of this -- not to speak of the massive latency that video compression would add (at least 50ms), the transfer time of the data (if you go with a conservative 12Mbps bitrate and a perfect 50Mbit connection, that's another ~3ms there), etc. This would be possible if everyone had a VR render cluster nearby (<100mi) and no network congestion ever happened. Otherwise, not a chance.
      • dahauns 10y ago
        Video compression shouldn't introduce that kind of latency (I get <10ms with Steam in-home streaming), but other than that you're correct, of course.
    • chronial 10y ago
      90fps gives you 11ms per frame. I have a 20 ms ping to the closest internet servers to me.