• Aurix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Fighting games with Wi-Fi instead of Ethernet? Sounds more like a dream. This genre is particularly demanding on stable low latency connections and current technology absolutely doesn’t offer it. Spreading across frequencies sounds like a latency vs reliability trade-off.

    • MeaanBeaan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I feel like this is really dependent upon the game. Guilty Gear Strive for instance uses roll back net code and my personal experience playing it online over wifi is that it feels practically identical to playing locally. Here and there I might have minor issues if the person I’m playing against has horrible Ping but for the most part wifi is flawless.

      • Aurix@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        That game does have pretty good netcode, but it cannot do everything. If the Wi-Fi connection drops packets there are bound to be problems even with low ping. Not every Wi-Fi setup is the same and it also depends on your surroundings like the physical distance between devices and how much interference.

        Sometimes the issue is only visible for one player. If you can, absolutely do use a wired connection. It will undoubtedly be better even with a good Wi-Fi setup.

    • highenergyphysics@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Back when 5G cellular was first rolling out, a professor brought in a Qualcomm senior level manager and the topic was how 6G was being developed for long distance low latency capabilities.

      How much of that was industry bullshit, no idea but it sounds like they had a pulse on the tech now that we hear about it years later.

      • samsepi0l@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        And 5G is mostly ass anyway. I feel like LTE is faster and EASILY more reliable everywhere I am. If I lose power at my house, I can barely send text only messages in any app.

        • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          What phone are you using? My first 5G phone didn’t support midband 5G, and yeah, my experience was similar. Lowband 5G was maybe slightly faster than LTE, but wasn’t worth the lower battery life, higher heat, and spottier performance that was associated with early 5G radios.

          Now I’ve got a phone with midband 5G support and midband 5G kicks the shit out of LTE.

        • PalmTreeIsBestTree@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I am still using LTE because it always works and is plenty fast for what I need to do on a mobile device. 5G also uses more battery too.

              • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                It should be fairly intuitive. Sending electromagnetic radiation through copper or fiber will add physical distance versus a direct line of sight link. And the refractive index of light in the atmosphere is significantly lower, so the radiation actually propagates faster. Over long distances, those microseconds will add up.

                The best example of this is the stock exchange in Chicago (and elsewhere) uses a low latency microwave link to save several milliseconds over the fiber links.