1 hour ago, bonchie said:

We don't know if that's a fair comparison or not.

Go download Earth View and fly around. See how much usage it takes over the course of ten minutes and extrapolate. I suspect it's not going to come out to 6GB of data usage.

 

Wait... you don't think 24fps at 4K resolution is a fair comparison?  Based on what??  Moving 4K of data per frame is going to blow through bandwidth... that's why streaming games (where the game runs on a server like Google's Stra-whatever) won't last.

SATA III transfer rates are 6 Gb/s... my ISP is running at 200 Mb/s which is 0.2 Gb/s... how is bringing data from the internet going to be faster than my own hardware?  If it's not raw data, then it has to be an image at which point comparing the data levels for a 4K film are most definitely worthy of comparison.

3 hours ago, WarpD said:

Wait... you don't think 24fps at 4K resolution is a fair comparison?  Based on what??  Moving 4K of data per frame is going to blow through bandwidth... that's why streaming games (where the game runs on a server like Google's Stra-whatever) won't last.

The reasoning why it's not a fair comparison is because you are taking a film, where the entire picture on the screen is pulling data from the internet, and saying it's like-for-like with a flight game, except in that scenario no more than half of the screen needs streamed data (though we're guessing at photo scenery being streamed).

No-one is going to fly with a top-down view, with the entire screen filled with photo scenery for any length of time. So the data requirement won't be as high as a film.

The bigger point is US ISPs and their arbitrary usage caps. Significant pressure on the ISPs is going to come from two of the world's largest tech companies on one side and consumers fed-up at reaching their monthly limits at the other.

Data limits have all but disappeared here in the UK as traffic management policies replaced them. The big ISPs are now in a fight over who can provide faster speeds and no throttling during peak times by continually investing in infrastructure (especially as their hardware costs have rapidly dropped). It took a while, but the consumer is in a much better place.

I see the same occurring in the US as Google and Microsoft pressure ISPs to make their muti-billion dollar investment gambles on streaming games come good.

The ISPs even admit data limits are unnecessary http://amp.timeinc.net/time/money/4360431/internet-data-caps-bogus-ploys. Just a shame that the FCC haven't taken them to task yet.

 

So Amazon Apple Google Sony Microsoft streaming platforms will fail due to the ISP`s, Sony are teaming up with Microsoft to put theirs on Cloud it has the most cloud servers around the world your not pulling data from Seattle.  

13 hours ago, Paraffin said:

And then, the server builds you a custom version of the scenery on the fly for streaming. Instead of serving the full maxed-out 4K version, you get some lesser version with lower texture res, less autogen, and so on. Someone with a fast connection gets a fancier scenery build, up to the full 4k version.

But then people with a slow Internet connection could end up with something that's not much better than what's currently available. If you strip away the amazing scenery, there's probably not too much that the current crop of flight sims can't do with appropriate add-ons. - and at zero cost if you already have the add-ons.  People won't buy it just because it's new, they'll buy it because it's better. I can't maintain over 35 Mbps (and it's unlikely that this will change for the next year or two) and like many others, I suspect, I certainly wouldn't buy the new sim if I was restricted to running it at 1080p.

46 minutes ago, rjfry said:

So Amazon Apple Google Sony Microsoft streaming platforms will fail due to the ISP`s, Sony are teaming up with Microsoft to put theirs on Cloud it has the most cloud servers around the world your not pulling data from Seattle.  

The number and location of the servers will only affect the latency. The major problem for most people will still be the bandwidth required for a fully cloud-based game (which won't be affected by server numbers).

Edited June 16, 20196 yr by vortex681

9 hours ago, WarpD said:

Wait... you don't think 24fps at 4K resolution is a fair comparison?  Based on what??  Moving 4K of data per frame is going to blow through bandwidth... that's why streaming games (where the game runs on a server like Google's Stra-whatever) won't last.

SATA III transfer rates are 6 Gb/s... my ISP is running at 200 Mb/s which is 0.2 Gb/s... how is bringing data from the internet going to be faster than my own hardware?  If it's not raw data, then it has to be an image at which point comparing the data levels for a 4K film are most definitely worthy of comparison.

No, I don't think it's a fair comparison because I don't know if some orthos being streamed at whatever resolution they are is the same as streaming a movie at 4K. I have never speculated that the entire game or scenery would be streamed, just that there's some kind of streaming solution for the amount of orthos we saw saw in the trailer. As I said, go use Earth View in Windows 10, where you can fly really low with the orthos at very high resolutions being streamed in and see kind of usage you get. That would be a fairer comparison.

And you didn't address anything in my other post. The size of the HD in an Xbox is only 1TB. If this is coming to Xbox, how are they going to do all the different ortho areas we saw in the trailer at that level of resolution on a local hard drive? (not 4K, I mean the actual satellite imagery resolution we saw below 1000 feet that looked at least Z18)

I HOPE you guys are right and you can just DL terabytes of data for this stuff in localized form only where you want to fly. That'd be a good solution for those without consistent connections and data caps. I'm just struggling to see how they are going to do this without some next generation solution of delivering the orthos.

I have only half a U.S. state covered in Z17 orthos in XP and it's over 500GB.

 

 

Edited June 16, 20196 yr by bonchie

1 hour ago, vortex681 said:

The number and location of the servers will only affect the latency. The major problem for most people will still be the bandwidth required for a fully cloud-based game (which won't be affected by server numbers).

Severs are a bandwidth problem that's  why even Avsim have to take the server off line to upgrade and company's with there own servers have to do the same, upgrading your server to incress bandwidth cost`s that's why they are moving to cloud, Microsoft are adding 9 more to cloud at the moment taking it to over 50 world wide, try downloading ORBX at peak time when a product is released there sever struggles to cope.   

5 hours ago, vortex681 said:

But then people with a slow Internet connection could end up with something that's not much better than what's currently available. If you strip away the amazing scenery, there's probably not too much that the current crop of flight sims can't do with appropriate add-ons. - and at zero cost if you already have the add-ons.  People won't buy it just because it's new, they'll buy it because it's better. I can't maintain over 35 Mbps (and it's unlikely that this will change for the next year or two) and like many others, I suspect, I certainly wouldn't buy the new sim if I was restricted to running it at 1080p.

True, but we're living in a world where developed countries will be constantly upgrading the quality and speed of Internet connections for the foreseeable future. Look at the push towards 5G, for example. Every sector of business and society is hungry for bandwidth these days.

If this actually is a sim heavily dependent on streaming, then Microsoft is assuming that if you can't get good performance now, you will be getting it before long when you update your connection. It's the same bet many other developers and platforms are making with streamed games. 

1 hour ago, Paraffin said:

where developed countries will be constantly upgrading the quality and speed of Internet connections

Not happening in the U.S.  Infrastructure is not being supported at all in the U.S. so no, not all developed countries.  Or maybe the U.S. is no longer a developed country? LOL

6 minutes ago, WarpD said:

Or maybe the U.S. is no longer a developed country? LOL

It’s a “devolving” country to some extent honestly. 

I'm one of the people who will be affected due to Internet limitations.  I'm not complaining, I'm taking a wait and see attitude.  If I can't use the new flight sim, I have a strong fall-back position:  I'll use P3Dv4, which has the advantage of being able to use all my legacy content.

Those of us affected already know.  We don't need it thrown in our faces over and over.  Especially by someone who won't have the problem.

Hook

8 hours ago, rjfry said:

Severs are a bandwidth problem that's  why even Avsim have to take the server off line to upgrade and company's with there own servers have to do the same, upgrading your server to incress bandwidth cost`s that's why they are moving to cloud, Microsoft are adding 9 more to cloud at the moment taking it to over 50 world wide, try downloading ORBX at peak time when a product is released there sever struggles to cope.   

The fact remains though, that no matter how many cloud servers you have or what speed they're capable of running at, if your home internet connection is 7Mbps (still not that uncommon in the UK), that's the maximum data rate you can ever possibly get from them. According to Google's Stadia requirements, 7Mbps (minimum sustained) isn't enough to game at 720p, 60fps. Even if you have a higher speed connection it's not as straightforward as it seems: https://www.cnet.com/news/google-stadia-streaming-requirements-lack-some-key-internet-connection-details/. I think there'll be a lot of disappointed customers if most of us can't get what's being shown in the taster video.

Edited June 16, 20196 yr by vortex681

Not a problem for me in the uk now an ISP must tell you what speed your connection is capable of, this is to stop ISP`s overcharging for speeds that are not available on your connection, I am on cable, if they charge you for a speed that's you cannot achieve you can cancel a contract without penalty, this all comes under OFCOM.

My PC is cable connected to the router but I have a test app on my iPhone for wifi nPerf and will run all test including streaming at 240p 320p and 720p all pass 0 buffering 

Edited June 16, 20196 yr by rjfry

15 minutes ago, rjfry said:

Not a problem for me in the uk now an ISP must tell you what speed your connection is capable of, this is to stop ISP`s overcharging for speeds that are not available on your connection, I am on cable, if they charge you for a speed that's you cannot achieve you can cancel a contract without penalty, this all comes under OFCOM.

Getting what your ISP promises you doesn't help much with gaming if the speed's not that fast due to your location, distance from the exchange and availability of fibre or cable in your area.

I Have a 40inch TV in my Kitchen at the back of the house and I can steam films through my wifi no problem through three walls no buffering.