4 ms·
Don't need to be so close. AFAIK when Live View was announced, Jose Valim and Chris McCord tested a 60 fps server side rendered animation from across the pond a
by 1_player 5y ago
Don't need to be so close. AFAIK when Live View was announced, Jose Valim and Chris McCord tested a 60 fps server side rendered animation from across the pond and it was perfectly smooth.
Definitely not it's intended use case, but it works perfectly on regular Internet latencies in the 100-300ms ranges.
- sa1 5y agoServer rendered animation sounds less susceptible to latency than interactive elements.
- 1_player 5y agoHow so? 60fps means it requires constant updates every 16.6ms or you'd get a very noticeable frame delay or skip. Again, not really the best use of Live View, because it'd be very hard to guarantee that stability for all users in different Internet conditions. Whereas interactive elements just require an update in 100ms or 200ms after the user pressed a button, which is not that hard to achieve.
- sa1 5y agoWe’re not measuring latency due to processing here. We’re measuring latency due to round trips. For server rendered animations, all the frames might be delayed due to geographical distance, but the time gap between the arrival of individual frames is not affected by geographical distance. The server is not waiting for the client to request the next frame, it’s always pushing. For the user, it’s similar to watching a streaming video after letting it buffer a bit. For interactive elements, every interaction has to go through the round trip. So the gap between interactions is affected by distance. Server rendered games would suffer much more than server rendered animation.