5 ms·

Why do you need such low latency for live streaming? For the majority of cases 10s latency does not really matter.

by rapsey 6y ago

morsch 6y ago
We were playing the Jackbox series of games together, the other folks were participating in the game with their phones. There are various minigames with 5-50 second timers, so 10s latency is a lot. Some of the games have a special streaming mode which extends the timers, but not all of them and it's best played with regular timers anyway. Obviously for true action games, you absolutely need sub-second latency, preferably <100ms.
- rapsey 6y ago
  Then you require a video conference solution not a live streaming one. Similar but not the same. edit: Why am I down voted? A live stream is a broadcast, a conference is an interaction.
  - ahofmann 6y ago
    Because they said that they tried it and it hasn't worked well.
    - hnlmorg 6y ago
      Except for Jackbox Party games it's by far the best fit. It's even the recommended way to play online by Jackbox themselves and I've hosted Jackbox via both Zoom and MS Teams and it worked perfectly fine that way. Other online games wouldn't fair so well but the dropped frame rate in Jackbox Party games does not hamper the playability of their games at all.
      - morsch 6y ago
        They recommend doing it that way, because what else are they going to do, post a tutorial on how to do it via OBS? I don't think so. Maybe Zoom and MS Teams offer(ed) a better fidelity. For one thing, Zoom lets you share desktop audio along with the screen. In fact, apparently these days, Jitsi can do that too, that definitely wasn't possible when I tried it early last year. At that time, at least, the experience OBS -> Jitsi was definitely much better than just Jitsi. (And note that all of this was in Linux.)
        hnlmorg 6y ago
        > They recommend doing it that way, because what else are they going to do, post a tutorial on how to do it via OBS? I don't think so. I think you're being rather unfavourable there. The Jackbox developers have been pretty responsive listening to user feedback in the past. For example Linux support was added after several requests on Steam forums. They've also added other features like subtitles specifically for streaming via video conferencing solutions. So if Zoom / Teams / etc didn't work well then you can bet they'd have posted another workaround and/or a game patch since the alternative is they'd lose a lot of potential business in 2020. As I'd said, I'd used it fine over both Zoom and Teams (multiple times on both in fact) and the only reason I even bought Jackbox Party games was because several different work colleagues (I think it might have been 3 different people) recommended it to me after they had played their own games (individually) over Zoom and other conferencing solutions. I don't have any experience with Jitsi so maybe the issues you were having were Jitsi specific? Maybe, being a techie, Jitsi was already "good enough" but you thought you could improve upon it a little and ended up over-engineering a solution? (we've all fallen into that trap -- when you spend your entire life building enterprise solutions it's sometimes hard to take a step back. Particularly when it's something as fun as OBS). Or maybe there was some issue with Linux? All I know is that myself and everyone I know has had zero issues hosting using Jackbox's recommended approach.
        morsch 6y ago
        Like I said, neither Jitsi nor Google Meet had working audio and both were at like 5 fps.
        laumars 6y ago
        You scoff but they did link to a tutorial on how to do it via OBS in their guide[1]. They just made video conferencing the first suggestion. Also in that guide was Discord and Steam Remote Play. It's a surprisingly technical guide (but in a good way) considering the average audience that might read it. It feels to me that some genuine thought did go into that document. > Maybe Zoom and MS Teams offer(ed) a better fidelity. Maybe. Anecdotally I've not had any issues with Zoom whereas Google Meets often feels like it's both heavier on the CPU and feeds seem worse. However that's running Meets on Firefox (Linux), it might perform better in Chrome. [1] https://www.jackboxgames.com/how-to-play-jackbox-games-with-friends-and-family-remotely/ https://www.jackboxgames.com/how-to-play-jackbox-games-with-...
    - rapsey 6y ago
      In the end they used a conference app, just one that seems to have better quality.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- TameAntelope 6y ago
  Discord mostly works for my friend group to play Jackbox games, though sometimes it's still noticeably slow, so OP's project is definitely an improvement.
- dwild 6y ago
  We use Discord with my friends for Jackbox, it works amazingly well, even with 10 persons together.
krageon 6y ago
When you are in voice with (some of) your viewers having a 10s delay is shit for everyone. A lower delay is just a better experience, for any kind of viewer input. That aside, it's easily possible so this whole "why do you want this, you don't need this" smacks of apple tech support - it's nice that you don't need it, but evidently you are not the only use-case on earth.
- rapsey 6y ago
  I never said he does not need it and you are projecting some tone on my question that is only in your head.
  - krageon 6y ago
    This is patently gaslighting. It is on me to try to read you in a positive light and it is on you to write language that supports what you are thinking.
saurik 6y ago
I hardly ever see use cases for live streaming where's latency doesn't matter... the only one that comes to mind is non-interactive television? But this is the Internet and people usually want live responses and chat with the audience... the difference between even two seconds of latency and subsecond latency for this fundamentally changes how the audience interacts with you.
naikrovek 6y ago
Interactivity with viewers. The best streaming experience for both streamer and viewers is when they can interact, and any latency over 500ms or so makes that a true challenge if you're trying to have a conversation where context is important. Being an introvert that doesn't like it when people pay attention to them at all for any reason, I haven't really experienced this, but that's what everyone says.
- slightwinder 6y ago
  There is no realtime interaction on stream anyway if you have more than a handful active chatter. And lag is high by default if the streamer is doing more than just chatting, like playing a game, building some stoff or reacting to a video. So which experince are you talking about?
  - naikrovek 6y ago
    I don't think you know just how low latency WebRTC is. CPU usage on the streaming PC does not increase latency unless the PC is severely under spec. CPU usage increases CPU usage. That's it. Encoding usually happens on a GPU, and scene composition happens on the CPU, which is either a zero-copy routine or a very fast memcpy. My point is that from what you're saying, it seems clear to me that you are not aware of just how good WebRTC is at this kind of thing.
pault 6y ago
I'll bite. I play D&D remotely with my friends. I need to be able to have low latency voice and video communication, but I also need control over the audio codec and bit rate. Zoom and other video conferencing solutions use codecs optimized for voice, which makes music and sound effects sound like a Himalayan AM radio broadcast. Twitch and Youtube give me control over the video and audio quality, but the latency is 5+ seconds even on low latency mode. I tried running voice over zoom and video and music over youtube, but then drawing on the map is 5+ seconds out of sync with me saying "look here".

Why do you need such low latency for live streaming? For the majority of cases 10s latency does not really matter.

by rapsey 6y ago

Why do you need such low latency for live streaming? For the majority of cases 10s latency does not really matter.

We were playing the Jackbox series of games together, the other folks were participating in the game with their phones. There are various minigames with 5-50 second timers, so 10s latency is a lot. Some of the games have a special streaming mode which extends the timers, but not all of them and it's best played with regular timers anyway. Obviously for true action games, you absolutely need sub-second latency, preferably <100ms.

rapsey 6y ago
Then you require a video conference solution not a live streaming one. Similar but not the same. edit: Why am I down voted? A live stream is a broadcast, a conference is an interaction.
- ahofmann 6y ago
  Because they said that they tried it and it hasn't worked well.
  - hnlmorg 6y ago
    Except for Jackbox Party games it's by far the best fit. It's even the recommended way to play online by Jackbox themselves and I've hosted Jackbox via both Zoom and MS Teams and it worked perfectly fine that way. Other online games wouldn't fair so well but the dropped frame rate in Jackbox Party games does not hamper the playability of their games at all.
    - morsch 6y ago
      They recommend doing it that way, because what else are they going to do, post a tutorial on how to do it via OBS? I don't think so. Maybe Zoom and MS Teams offer(ed) a better fidelity. For one thing, Zoom lets you share desktop audio along with the screen. In fact, apparently these days, Jitsi can do that too, that definitely wasn't possible when I tried it early last year. At that time, at least, the experience OBS -> Jitsi was definitely much better than just Jitsi. (And note that all of this was in Linux.)
      - hnlmorg 6y ago
        > They recommend doing it that way, because what else are they going to do, post a tutorial on how to do it via OBS? I don't think so. I think you're being rather unfavourable there. The Jackbox developers have been pretty responsive listening to user feedback in the past. For example Linux support was added after several requests on Steam forums. They've also added other features like subtitles specifically for streaming via video conferencing solutions. So if Zoom / Teams / etc didn't work well then you can bet they'd have posted another workaround and/or a game patch since the alternative is they'd lose a lot of potential business in 2020. As I'd said, I'd used it fine over both Zoom and Teams (multiple times on both in fact) and the only reason I even bought Jackbox Party games was because several different work colleagues (I think it might have been 3 different people) recommended it to me after they had played their own games (individually) over Zoom and other conferencing solutions. I don't have any experience with Jitsi so maybe the issues you were having were Jitsi specific? Maybe, being a techie, Jitsi was already "good enough" but you thought you could improve upon it a little and ended up over-engineering a solution? (we've all fallen into that trap -- when you spend your entire life building enterprise solutions it's sometimes hard to take a step back. Particularly when it's something as fun as OBS). Or maybe there was some issue with Linux? All I know is that myself and everyone I know has had zero issues hosting using Jackbox's recommended approach.
        morsch 6y ago
        Like I said, neither Jitsi nor Google Meet had working audio and both were at like 5 fps.
      - laumars 6y ago
        You scoff but they did link to a tutorial on how to do it via OBS in their guide[1]. They just made video conferencing the first suggestion. Also in that guide was Discord and Steam Remote Play. It's a surprisingly technical guide (but in a good way) considering the average audience that might read it. It feels to me that some genuine thought did go into that document. > Maybe Zoom and MS Teams offer(ed) a better fidelity. Maybe. Anecdotally I've not had any issues with Zoom whereas Google Meets often feels like it's both heavier on the CPU and feeds seem worse. However that's running Meets on Firefox (Linux), it might perform better in Chrome. [1] https://www.jackboxgames.com/how-to-play-jackbox-games-with-friends-and-family-remotely/ https://www.jackboxgames.com/how-to-play-jackbox-games-with-...
  - rapsey 6y ago
    In the end they used a conference app, just one that seems to have better quality.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
TameAntelope 6y ago
Discord mostly works for my friend group to play Jackbox games, though sometimes it's still noticeably slow, so OP's project is definitely an improvement.
dwild 6y ago
We use Discord with my friends for Jackbox, it works amazingly well, even with 10 persons together.

krageon 6y ago

When you are in voice with (some of) your viewers having a 10s delay is shit for everyone. A lower delay is just a better experience, for any kind of viewer input. That aside, it's easily possible so this whole "why do you want this, you don't need this" smacks of apple tech support - it's nice that you don't need it, but evidently you are not the only use-case on earth.

rapsey 6y ago
I never said he does not need it and you are projecting some tone on my question that is only in your head.
- krageon 6y ago
  This is patently gaslighting. It is on me to try to read you in a positive light and it is on you to write language that supports what you are thinking.

saurik 6y ago

I hardly ever see use cases for live streaming where's latency doesn't matter... the only one that comes to mind is non-interactive television? But this is the Internet and people usually want live responses and chat with the audience... the difference between even two seconds of latency and subsecond latency for this fundamentally changes how the audience interacts with you.

naikrovek 6y ago

Interactivity with viewers. The best streaming experience for both streamer and viewers is when they can interact, and any latency over 500ms or so makes that a true challenge if you're trying to have a conversation where context is important. Being an introvert that doesn't like it when people pay attention to them at all for any reason, I haven't really experienced this, but that's what everyone says.

slightwinder 6y ago
There is no realtime interaction on stream anyway if you have more than a handful active chatter. And lag is high by default if the streamer is doing more than just chatting, like playing a game, building some stoff or reacting to a video. So which experince are you talking about?
- naikrovek 6y ago
  I don't think you know just how low latency WebRTC is. CPU usage on the streaming PC does not increase latency unless the PC is severely under spec. CPU usage increases CPU usage. That's it. Encoding usually happens on a GPU, and scene composition happens on the CPU, which is either a zero-copy routine or a very fast memcpy. My point is that from what you're saying, it seems clear to me that you are not aware of just how good WebRTC is at this kind of thing.

pault 6y ago

I'll bite. I play D&D remotely with my friends. I need to be able to have low latency voice and video communication, but I also need control over the audio codec and bit rate. Zoom and other video conferencing solutions use codecs optimized for voice, which makes music and sound effects sound like a Himalayan AM radio broadcast. Twitch and Youtube give me control over the video and audio quality, but the latency is 5+ seconds even on low latency mode. I tried running voice over zoom and video and music over youtube, but then drawing on the map is 5+ seconds out of sync with me saying "look here".