3 ms·

This is all assuming a hard 1ms transmission latency. Usually numbers like that are averaged and this seems like a use-case where 1ms would be an upper bound in

• jacquesm 12y ago
  That's a really good point. The tech I'm referring to is used in high end (military simulation) gear but it is definitely todays technology and from what I can read it is an upper bound, not an average but that could be marketing, I haven't tested this stuff. But I've been following the 'wearable dual display' setup since a friend of mine built one in 1983 or so (using two very small monitors mounted to the side of a helmet and a bunch of mirrors (2 100%, 1 50%) to put the image in front of the eyes and that's the best latency for wireless that I've seen to date. Given that is a small fraction of the framerate and a latency rather than a throughput limit (so a constant offset rather than a limitation on quality) it imposes a small overhead (at 50 fps that's 20 ms/frame so 5% of the total time budget). That seems a good trade-off versus being tethered, you could for instance make up for that by letting the rest of the pipeline generate an image that is slightly worse to achieve the same framerate in an untethered situation. Of course any latency increase will always come at some price the question is whether or not that is an acceptable price for the improvement you get along another dimension all this assuming that's an upper bound. (And maybe there is higher end gear that I'm not aware of)