Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

John Carmack: Latency Mitigation Strategies

altdevblogaday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–106 of 106 posts

Re: John Carmack: Latency Mitigation Strategies

#101

Post by fla »

newman314 wrote: post #81
bbatchelder wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may already know this, but the "Game Mode" on modern TVs is just turning off the 120Hz/240Hz interpolation that is done to "improve" the picture (or is required for certain 3D systems to work). The interpolation introduces significant latency that its obvious (and frustrating) during gaming. I actually run my TV in game mode by default, because the interpolation done in 120/240Hz mode makes everything look like i…

This. Some people aren't able to tell this apparently but it absolutely bothers the heck out of me. Probably the reason why I'm not a fan of 48fps either. I still think it would be useful to have a variable rate player. 24fps for normal scenes and 48fps for action.

Very glad I'm not the only one to notice it.

Re: John Carmack: Latency Mitigation Strategies

#102

Post by kabdib »

coldtea wrote: post #93
binarycrusader wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3D graphics drivers used to have more debug options and visualization capabilities. However, unscrupulous individuals took advantage of these to cheat in video games so many vendors just ripped them out. That's why Carmack is able to get modified versions of these drivers directly, but you and I are not. I don't agree with that approach at all, but it's part of the reality.

> 3D graphics drivers used to have more debug options and visualization capabilities. However, unscrupulous individuals took advantage of these to cheat in video games so many vendors just ripped them out. Why the duck would video card manufactures care if people cheat in video games? Heck, why would even GAME manufactures care if people cheat in video games? Can somebody clear up if that is the real reason those deb…

Game makers care because if the game experience suffers because of cheaters, griefers and so forth, the customers won't come back. If you want to sell things to players in the game, the players have to want to play.

Anti-cheat is a big deal.

So I would say that undetectable debug features, ones that can be turned on without indicating this to the title (or cheat detection code on the platform) are bad for game economies.

Since card makers want to sell graphics cards, they have the same goal as the title developers. Not surprising they'd turn these off (or at least make them very visible).

Re: John Carmack: Latency Mitigation Strategies

#103

Post by rmc »

derefr wrote: post #77
bradleyjg wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's say a hardware manufacturer writes a firmware that exposes calls that can degrade or destroy the device if misused, and the OS driver in turn exposes those calls to third party programs. If a program wreaks the device, who is the end user going to blame -- the program, the driver, the manufacturer, or all three?

Maybe the hardware manufacturer can certify and sign game binaries as being allowed to use the direct GPU API.

That sounds like a very impractical proposal.

Apple attempt to do this sort of "approval" the with apps on the app store and there have been lots of examples of apps which break the rules getting approved (and then being pulled when they got popular). What makes you think graphics card manufacturers would be able to do that with games?

Re: John Carmack: Latency Mitigation Strategies

#104

Post by rmc »

MichaelGG wrote: post #82
breckinloggins wrote: post #31

It sounds like we would benefit from GPU and display manufacturers providing a set of standard low-level control primitives so that people like Carmack who know what they are doing can really play around with the entire pipeline without having to worry about all the things the cards and the displays are doing behind their backs. For example, a GPU could have a set of standard settings with full buffering and all the…

Yea that works, until someone realises they can boost performance by changing the semantics of the "I know what I'm doing" call. Then you'll need yet another "no really I know what I'm doing" flag and on and on, or app black/whitelisting and so on.

Just add an "expert mode" that does nothing. Placebo, it works.

Re: John Carmack: Latency Mitigation Strategies

#105

Post by swah »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #69
dman wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you be willing to pay a recurring fee for using an editor? I have toyed with writing an editor at multiple points but have backed away because I think in the grand scheme of things its a one time sale to a pretty small market (The number of people who care enough about text editing that they would pay for a good editor when they see one)

Doesn't seem to be too small a market for sublime or textmate. What I would pay for would be an editor in the style of ST2 but with a few IDE features like being able to jump to method definitions by shift clicking etc. Basically a very lightweight IDE with good text editing features (like VIM style keyboard shortcuts). Integrate a terminal into it, but do it in a very slick way with the ability to run "recipe" type…

I totally agree about the Lightweight IDE thing. IMO Sublime is close to being great, but some missing features must be preventing people from writing great plugins like those in Emacs world.

Re: John Carmack: Latency Mitigation Strategies

#106

Post by Randomoneh »

modeless wrote: post #56
neverm0re wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I fail to see how "using your head as a dumb camera joystick" is a problem; that's the whole point of VR. Perhaps you should try playing some VR games for a while. I clocked quite a few hours playing the old Virtuality SU2000 games like Dactyl Nightmare and I've idly kept up with HMDs. The chief problem is that without eye tracking, it's incredibly UNFUN to use your head for movements that your eyes could otherwise…

it's incredibly UNFUN to use your head for movements that your eyes could otherwise have done for you. That's only a problem if your FOV is too small. With a large enough FOV and a light display there's no reason why eye and head movements shouldn't work exactly as they do in real life. The Oculus Rift has twice the angular field of view of the SU2000 in both dimensions, for 4x the subtended angular area. Edit: Oh I…

Modeless, can you please answer this "trick" question? If a flat piece of cardboard that is 10 inches wide occupies 10 degrees of my horizontal FOV, how many degrees of my horizontal FOV will 20 inches wide flat piece of cardboard occupy? Both cardboards are positioned at the same distance from my eyes, of course.

Thanks.

Post reply on HN