Just for reference, I get about 45-50 ping playing Marvel Rivals on Starlink.
Comment on SpaceX says states should dump fiber plans, give all grant money to Starlink
pennomi@lemmy.world 3 weeks agoStarlink has much better latency than most satellites, but still 10 to 50 times as much as fiber.
FauxLiving@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
ubergeek@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
On fiber, while I don’t play that game, I’ve never seen a ping longer than 10-13msecs.
FauxLiving@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
The point is, unless you’re playing some hyper competitive game where a 30ms difference in reaction time is noticeable (this is less than 1 frame in a fighting game, for example) Starlink works perfectly well. Lower numbers are better, but for games you only need to compare that number to human reaction times (150-200ms) to see that both are small values less than the reaction time of any person.
Previous satellite Internet using satellites in geosynchronous orbit had 1500ms latency, for comparison.
Anivia@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
where a 30ms difference in reaction time is noticeable (this is less than 1 frame in a fighting game, for example)
You have some pretty bad understanding of how netcode works if you think a 30ms ping in an online multi-player game means your game or input is delayed by 30ms. It’s a lot more complicated than that, and especially in games with bad netcode you will absolutely notice a difference between 10ms or 30ms ping
ubergeek@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
Previous satellite Internet using satellites in geosynchronous orbit had 1500ms latency, for comparison.
Yes, and are far more stable, not hyped, and are already at pretty much peak congestion. Starlink will get progressively worse, the more people use it. Right now, it’s over provisioned.
paraphrand@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
That’s basically perfect, with regards to online gaming.
errer@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I got better ping playing Quake multiplayer in 1996
bassomitron@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Online and not LAN? I have doubts.
paraphrand@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
That used dedicated servers, right?
paraphrand@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
So if my ping is currently 90ms, it’ll become 900ms - 4.5s?
pennomi@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Probably no. Your ping is abnormally high for fiber, I’d expect a sub 10ms ping for you.
paraphrand@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
That makes a lot of assumptions about what I am pinging, and the networking context.
In my case I was quoting my average ping in VRChat.
Anivia@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
Is it because latency does not scale in that way?
Yes, your understanding is fundamentally flawed. Starlink add a fixed latency on top, if you ping to a server was 2ms with fiber and 52ms with starlink, then your ping to a server that would be 100ms with fiber would be 150ms with starlink
corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
- Run a
traceroute
liketraceroute cnn com
- Kill that by
ctrl-c
at the third line. - Ping that third IP address.
Don’t try to ping UK.battle.net or your numbers will be skewed by everything in between.
- Run a
pennomi@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Of course. Still, an exception doesn’t disprove expected averages.
xthexder@l.sw0.com 3 weeks ago
You’re probably really far away from the VR Chat server. Try pinging Google or Cloudflare, which will tell you ping to the nearest datacenter (a rough estimate of ping caused by your local ISP).
cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de 3 weeks ago
My average latency on Starlink over the past year is 32 ms. It varies throughout the day from around 20 to 40 ms.
If you are getting 90ms on fiber, you are either pinging a server that’s a long ways away or something is very wrong.
paraphrand@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
If you look at the rest of the comments, you’ll see I was taking about my ping in a game. Not my shortest path to a nearby server.
originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 3 weeks ago
ha yeah... not having to make a 340 mile round trip instead of the hundreds of feet to the nearest router will do that
Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Uh, how often are you using the Internet to connect to a computer in your home town? Maybe 5% of the time?
I’ve never used Starlink, but with a basic understanding of geography and optics, I’m going to bet that in most scenarios the latency difference between Starlink and fiber is negligible.
That said, I’m not suggesting Starlink is a realistic replacement for fiber, just that latency isn’t the big issue.
randompasta@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
Much more frequently than you think with CDN endpoints.
Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Ok, so actual question, How useful are CDN endpoints these days with https everywhere? Because you can’t cache encrypted content. Also you can’t cache live content like video calls or online games. I’d imagine the percentage of cacheable content is actually fairly low these days. But like I said, I don’t actually know the answer to this, i’d be curious to hear your take.
Anivia@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
I live near DE-CIX and have fiber. So a decent chunk of web services I use is available with a latency of under 5ms. And everything else hosted in a European datacenter with under 20ms.
So almost all of my internet traffic has a lower latency than starlink has under ideal conditions
ubergeek@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
Living right near a massive CX that services the US-Canada border… most times.