Host servers on your satellite

  • 2
  • Idea
  • Updated 4 months ago
  • Not Planned
Fortnite is to laggy with 600ms latency. Cut it in half by hosting servers up there so I can be happy. I don't want to hear excuses.
Photo of chris

chris

  • 23 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes

Posted 4 months ago

  • 2
Photo of Bev

Bev, Champion

  • 3067 Posts
  • 1285 Reply Likes
Not an excuse, laws of physics. You won't get any better latency no matter where the server is located, it takes that long for your signal to make the round trip to and from the satellite. Latency is in the 600 ms range PERIOD.

Any online game will lag it's just a matter of if the game is playable with that kind of lag or not.
(Edited)
Photo of Old Labs (VS1-329)

Old Labs (VS1-329)

  • 3803 Posts
  • 3844 Reply Likes
No, he want's to host servers up there - I've got nuthin' for that - except possibly that the other players would be there too?
(Edited)
Photo of Bev

Bev, Champion

  • 3067 Posts
  • 1285 Reply Likes
Well, I suppose EA Games, Gigabit, Arorus, NCSoft, Trion and, all of the other gaming companies could get together, build and launch a satellite, and give all gamers the same lag. Now good luck convincing them to stop competing and become one huge game company and, oh by the way, with the monopoly, hope you like paying 500 USD and up for games. LOL
Photo of JSheridan

JSheridan

  • 28 Posts
  • 10 Reply Likes
I needed a good laugh this morning.
Photo of Matt B

Matt B, Viasat Employee

  • 830 Posts
  • 423 Reply Likes
Chris,

As Bev stated, it wouldn't help, even if it were possible.  All communication is two-way.  So even if we were to be able to host a server on the satellite itself, the transmission time wouldn't change.

But hey, if you can think of a feasible solution, we'd be happy to hear it!
Photo of steve heller

steve heller

  • 96 Posts
  • 19 Reply Likes
Sure it would help, because the latency would be cut in half for servers on the satellite.

Right now, if you want to communicate with a server on the ground, it goes something like this:

1. User -> Satellite: 150 ms.
2. Satellite -> Ground Station: 150 ms.
3. Ground Station -> Satellite: 150 ms.
4. Satellite -> User: 150 ms.

But if the server were on the satellite, it would go something like this:

1. User -> Satellite: 150 ms.
2. Satellite -> User: 150 ms.

for half the total round-trip time.
Photo of Steve Frederick

Steve Frederick, Champion

  • 2780 Posts
  • 1751 Reply Likes
A server located within the satellite still would have to connect to the internet through the ground station, so there would be no reduction in the transit time(latency).
Photo of Old Labs (VS1-329)

Old Labs (VS1-329)

  • 3805 Posts
  • 3846 Reply Likes
That's Viasat-6, which will include an Internet Cafe with both wired and wireless access for weary space travelers as Viasat moves into the intergalactic market. It will include 300 Ybps (yottabits per second) to the consumer. We anticipate better plans which should permit teleportation without buffering and stalling (I hate it when that happens)... launch is scheduled for the SpaceX BFR (big friggin rocket).
(Edited)
Photo of chris

chris

  • 23 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
Yes, I think that sounds good. Thanks
Photo of melissa albea

melissa albea

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I've been trying for 2 days to get voice siverce with my internet but my cell phone don't have good reception so by time they get to the part we're they asked me what phone number I would like my cell phone cuts off so i have to keep calling back why can't they just do it by text i have a password
Photo of Matt B

Matt B, Viasat Employee

  • 788 Posts
  • 393 Reply Likes
Different topic from thread.

Please reference the new conversation here: Voice activation issues