1 minute ago, rjfry said:

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. 

He's talking about his base connection speed direct from the ISP.

Wifi isn't going to make a 7mbps connection any faster than 7mbps.

WIFI is slower than direct cable that my PC is on the last ORBX download was 15mbps and that hasn't got the bandwidth that Microsoft has, cloud runs on large server farms like a grid as traffic increases more come on line you connect through an IP later someone else may connect through a different IP.   

In the U.S. the term is "up to"... they don't promise a minimum speed... they just claim you can get "up to" a potential speed.

4 minutes ago, WarpD said:

In the U.S. the term is "up to"... they don't promise a minimum speed... they just claim you can get "up to" a potential speed.

That’s exactly how my AT&T is. I’m paying for “up to” 20mbps I think, but usually it’s more like 15. Sometimes it jumps around from 3 to 12mbps that it makes it difficult to watch tv when it starts pausing due to a slow down.

5 minutes ago, WarpD said:

In the U.S. the term is "up to"... they don't promise a minimum speed... they just claim you can get "up to" a potential speed.

I've had really good luck with my new satellite company.  Occasionally they will average well above the "up to" download speed, and typically the upload speed is 1.5 times their advertised one.  It is only short periods during peak usage times that I don't get my "up to" speeds.

The original satellite company, which was acquired by the new one... wasn't as good.  Add to that a 1300 ms ping speed due to some additional protocol they were using (typically 650 ms for the new company, normal for satellite) and some bugs in their bandwidth usage reporting that had phantom usage spikes that didn't go away, forcing a lot of people over their bandwidth limit for a month at a time.

Not that ANY of this matters.  Wait and see what we'll be getting.  No sense forecasting Gloom and Doom "just because."

Hook

9 hours ago, LHookins said:

typically 650 ms for the new company

I would think that latency like that would make cloud gaming a very frustrating experience at best and almost unusable at times at worst.

You already use Cloud but probably don't realise it Google search Google chrome Netflix Bing search and more.     

6 hours ago, vortex681 said:

I would think that latency like that would make cloud gaming a very frustrating experience at best and almost unusable at times at worst.

Depending on how they implement it, a 650 ms ping time may be a factor or may not.  If the visuals are generated on a server and delivered as a movie, then the lag will be there.  This will have the greatest effect on TrackIR and may be problematic for fine control of an airplane.  If only the terrain data is downloaded and the sim runs on your computer, it shouldn't be a problem except for the bandwidth used.

Oddly enough, I played a multiplayer Napoleonic battlefield simulator (HistWar: Les Grognards) with the 1300 ms pings without any problems.

Hook

8 hours ago, rjfry said:

You already use Cloud but probably don't realise it Google search Google chrome Netflix Bing search and more.     

There's a huge difference between accessing cloud-based services and gaming (with something like a flight sim or a first-person-shooter) from the cloud. The data rates required are massively different.

4 hours ago, LHookins said:

Oddly enough, I played a multiplayer Napoleonic battlefield simulator (HistWar: Les Grognards) with the 1300 ms pings without any problems.

But did that rely on fast responses to inputs the way something like landing in turbulence would? Over a second lag at a critical time would be a disaster in a flight sim.

Edited June 17, 20196 yr by vortex681

5 minutes ago, vortex681 said:

But did that rely on fast responses to inputs the way something like landing in turbulence would? Over a second lag at a critical time would be a disaster in a flight sim.

The point was, ANY game running in continuous time running on 1300 ms lag was pretty amazing.  And I didn't even notice.

It would be hard landing a helicopter with 650 ms response to the controls.  It's hard enough just with low frame rates.

Hook

NOW TV sky without a dish HD films live football F1 and sport through a wifi router no buffering no motion blur. 

31 minutes ago, rjfry said:

NOW TV sky without a dish HD films live football F1 and sport through a wifi router no buffering no motion blur. 

Your wifi should easily be fast enough to stream HD video/TV - that's what's happening inside your house downstream of your router. It's what's getting to your router from your ISP that's the important part. If your ISP is giving you less than 20Mbps, then that's the absolute maximum you'll ever have to play with even if your own internal newtwork is running from a gigabit router. Amazon Prime claims it only needs about a 3.5Mbps connection to the Internet to stream video in HD but Google is saying that you need a MINIMUM of 20Mbps to play games in HD (or 35Mbps to play at 4k).

@vortex681 the point you seem to be missing, is that Google Stadia is streaming the whole game, as opposed to people speculating that the new sim will stream the terrain data during loading (so it can buffer for a minute or two to get a head start). Comparing streaming the whole game, from inputs to the server and then completely computed video data for output, to streaming scenery data from the cloud, buffering it locally in RAM, and then using the local machine to compute the actual pixels, is massively different. Then it is indeed more like streaming Google Earth than streaming the game.

Well we will have to see but I get idea some think Microsoft haven't got a clue what they are doing and will not work.

LOL, you are saying that a company valued at over $1 trillion has no clue of what they are doing?

And they are taking advise of a couple of thousand gamers?