4 ms·
It looks very cool, but I must say I'm skeptical about their claims about the latency. Judging by the video, it's at least 200ms, perhaps as much as 500ms. Cont
by jd 14y ago
It looks very cool, but I must say I'm skeptical about their claims about the latency. Judging by the video, it's at least 200ms, perhaps as much as 500ms. Contrast this with John Carmack, who has recently talked about the importance of low latency for an immersive experience. And Carmack talks about the impact of just 1 or 2 frames of lag, which is the equivalent of 3 miliseconds!
- exDM69 14y ago> And he's talking about the impact of just 1 or 2 frames of lag, which is just ~3 miliseconds! That is 16-32 milliseconds. In fast paced action gaming.
- jd 14y agoYou're right about the latency. I think latency matters a great deal for any game that aims for immersion. And here we're dealing with a clearly visible delay between the large and small screen.
- unsigner 14y agoCarmack is talking about VR. Most high-profile console games run with latencies in the three digits. (E.g. lookup Eurogamer's Digital Foundry articles on latency.) Of course, adding another 200 ms in the middle won't exactly help...
- jd 14y agoCarmack talked about VR too, but I'm referring to the comments he made about framerate and latency in the context of Rage. See http://www.computerandvideogames.com/videos/e3-2011-john-carmack-interview-a88AYiT81MIgd http://www.computerandvideogames.com/videos/e3-2011-john-car... - around 16 minutes in he mentions how a few frames latency makes a big difference. A lot of console games indeed have pretty awful latency, and don't get a smooth 60fps either. And TVs can add latency on top of that with the postprocessing they do.