I can't see how Gaikai streaming would be possible via a server in a remote location, but using even a single stream WiFi connection to send input and receive video would be too much. I mean, don't expect to be playing at tournament level fighting or FPS via remote play, but for your average game, it should do just fine.
I can't see how Gaikai streaming would be possible via a server in a remote location, but using even a single stream WiFi connection to send input and receive video would be too much. I mean, don't expect to be playing at tournament level fighting or FPS via remote play, but for your average game, it should do just fine.
I'm disagreeing with this, as someone who has a home network that provides streaming from a dedicated server to 3 simultaneous devices over Wireless N the Vita should be able to get much MUCH more than 1-3mb. Even my g device can stream a 720p movie encoded in 264 without any kind of issue.
Even when you take into account the PS4 streaming over Wifi to the Vita a standard 150 still has about 25mb connection (up/down) between both devices. (100/2/2 = 25) That would change drastically if the PS4 was hardwired to the router as it would give about a 3x increase in speed! The idea that the WiiU needed 2 separate radios should not be compared to Sony and Vita. It would seem the limitations of the WiiU was less to do with Wifi itself and more to do with providing this function for people without a wifi infrastructure in their home. If someone didn't have wifi in their home the WiiU just wouldn't work without that extra radio! If someone was still using Wireless G the chances of the WiiU functioning properly would have been weak at best.
My point is trying to compare what the WiiU has for wireless capabilities to the Vita and Remote play are completely separate things. A standard wireless N home network should have no problems providing enough bandwidth for remote play even without providing access to the 5ghz channel or functioning in mimo.
If I'm wrong I apologize
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
It averages at 3mbit/s but it peaks up to 20mbit/s, IIRC.
I mistyped. What I meant to say is if Gaikai streaming over the Internet is possible, I don't see how streaming locally over WiFi would be a hassle. However, don't expect to win any fighting or FPS games that are at the highest levels of play (any latency = death).
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
As a devoted Vita owner this is very cool news. I really hope that developers do make an effort to implement decent Vita controls - you know the Sony first party studios will and the thought of being able to play Infamous on my Vita is just... EPIC!
What I'm really hoping for though is that the PlayStation 4 itself can be used for Netflix, Blu-ray platform or other entertainment through the TV while running and streaming a game to the Vita, because that would be AWESOME!
What I'm really hoping for though is that the PlayStation 4 itself can be used for Netflix, Blu-ray platform or other entertainment through the TV while running and streaming a game to the Vita, because that would be AWESOME!
yeah, I think someone mention it before, too long ago that I forgot which dev. Media engine 2 which is what vita use to decode all videos now is capable of handling up to 1080p mp4 videos, so I think a qHD video feed should be cake in terms of decoding. I tried Guagamelee cross controller, it was lag free because its actually syncing the vita game instead of streaming video over like video. Even that there was some weird connection issue where the character only stuck moving in one direction; but I think it got something to do with bluetooth interference.
While I agree; it is for a different reason, just from a numbers standpoint the added latency introduced by wifi would peak around 8ms That is the amount of time it would take the Vita to communicate to the PS4 through the router. Now compare this with the latency a typical home user receives to a gaming server (around 80-100ms) and the extra 8ms isn't going to be that big of a deal
Yet, the latency I fear would not come from Wifi itself but rather the PS4 performing additional work to broadcast it over wifi. The PS4 would not simply be outputting the stream to a TV and receiver, it would need to compress it first, then send it to the Vita. The Vita would then need to decompress it and output to the screen and speakers. When that is added to the maximum 8ms of Wifi this could lead to some noticeable latency.
What Sony should have done is included Wireless HDMI, that is basically what the WiiU is doing but this could have been used for both outputting to the TV and to the Vita if needed. When your Controllers are wireless and your internet is wireless it seems the only thing remaining is your cable connecting it to your TV. This would have been a nice feature to have and offered the user more freedom when placing and using their console. And as we have learned Sony likes to use it's products to push a standard, they could have used the PS4 to push their "Bravia Wireless Link" and finally converged wireless HDMI technology into a single standard so all devices would be compatible.
How long do you think this will take?
The output to a compressed stream is hardware supported and should not create much additional lag (nor use additional memory from the main system, the compression chip having its own 8MB buffer is probably sufficient). At least, that's what I understood, but we'll see soon.
At most, 4 frames of latency. Encoding and decoding are realtime in custom hardware. So one frame to encode the image, send it, one frame to decode, and then display it. If you can transmit while encoding you can get that down, but h.264 doesn't support that AFAIK. PS4 might support some fancy encoder that allows progressive encoding so the frame is sent as it's encoded, and then once buffered, decoded, saving a frame of latency.
Wii U's sending a compressed signal. Uncompressed, Vita would need 960 x 544 x 24 bits x 30 frames = 376 megabits per second. So all over-the-air video is compressed when sent and decompressed when received. Whether Apple AirPlay or Samsung AllCast or Wii U's video or PS3/4 remote play, you have the same minimum latency enforce by compressing and decompressing the video stream. The only improvements that can be made are progressive encodes that encode and steam simultaneously. Or is that what you're talking about? Wireless HDMI doesn't exist so I'm not sure about the reference!
Wireless HDMI exists, but latency isn't an issue. It usually operates in extremely high 60 or 190Ghz spectrums in order to have enough bandwidth to push a 1080p over a short range losslessly.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_HDMI
But no, compressed H.264 is likely what's being used.
Didnt Gaikai entereted into cooperation with Nvidia and used their "Grid" GPU servers for compression? I remember reading article about that. In related news, Nvidia will release this "ShadowPlay" functionality to 6xx and 7xx card users in the summer. It will feature automatic background recording of video AND compressing to H264 without any FPS drop during gaming.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonev...fortless-gameplay-recording-to-the-pc-masses/
Ediot - Recording is not without preformance drop after all. And they forgot to mention that they forced FRAPS to recored in 30fps, efectivley forcing GPU to drop to 30fps also.
Oh teh marketing....http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/23/4358300/nvidia-shadowplay-and-geforce-gtx-780
Last edited by a moderator:
Gradthrawn
Veteran
We don't have to wonder what's being used with the Wii, we already know. It's not wireless HDMI, it's an h.264 (baseline profile) hardware encoded stream on the console, sent via 802.11n, and hardware decoded on the tablet. It transfers an average 3 Mbps with spikes of 24 - 40 Mbps. Current speculation is that the spikes are simply I frames.
"There is no official wireless standard that includes the name HDMI". So proprietary wireless uncompressed video on unlicensed channels. I can see why Sony didn't adopt as much for Vita/PS4.
When I compared the Wii U output to my TV, the Wii U version looked horrible. I really hope it's just the terribleness of the screen, not the output quality from the encoder.
rockaman
Regular
I'm sure Digital Foundry has a review of the WiiU which goes over that kind of stuff.
I think the PS4 to Vita will have pretty high quality streaming. Streaming SOTC from the PS3 to Vita was really good. It's pretty amazing to see an anti-aliased and essentially supersampled image on the Vita screen
I think the PS4 to Vita will have pretty high quality streaming. Streaming SOTC from the PS3 to Vita was really good. It's pretty amazing to see an anti-aliased and essentially supersampled image on the Vita screen
