you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 20 points 10 months ago (13 children)

I don't understand why they bother with the "modern" method if the fallback works so well and is much simpler and cheaper.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago

    They didn't explicitly say but it sounds like the JPEG solution can't put out a substantial FPS. If you start to do fancier stuff like sending partial screenshots or deltas only then you get the same issues as H264 (you miss a keyframe and things start to degrade). Also if you try and put out 30 JPEGs per second you could start to get TCP queuing (i.e. can't see screenshot 31 until screenshot 30 is complete). UDP might have made this into a full replacement but as they said sometimes it's blocked.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    From what I read, the modern solution has smooth 60 fps, compared to 2-10 FPS with the JPEG method. Granted, that probably also factors in low network speeds, but I'd imagine you may hit a framerate cap lower than 60 when just spamming JPEGs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

    The modern method is more efficient if your network is reliable.

    Modern: I-frame (screenshot) then a bunch of P-frames (send only what changed). If a frame gets lost, the following frames aren't really usable, frozen until next I-frame Old: Send only full screenshots. Each frame has all the data, so losing one doesn't matter.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (2 children)

    I'm sorry, it seems to me that your first statement and supporting paragraph are taking the opposite position.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments