Starlink vs fiber optics for better latency - Page 3
Forum Index > BW General |
Jjb
1 Post
| ||
Branch.AUT
Austria853 Posts
On June 06 2024 03:15 Jjb wrote: OK, this is the most ridiculous conversation I’ve heard. It does not matter the situation if you have the availability of fiber optic cable as opposed to Starlink, The fiber optic cable will wipe the floor with Starlink. Whether it’s latency, download, or upload speed, fiber optic cable is by far the best. The same goes for regular cable although the difference is not as overwhelming as fiber optic. Starlink advantage is connection ability almost anywhere. This is because SpaceX is covering the lower orbit with literally thousands (like 12,000 eventually) of satellites. That’s the accessibility advantage over past satellite services like Hughes Net that flys only a couple. Starlink will have much better latency and speed than those other satellite companies simply because Starlink satellites are at a much lower orbit, closer to earth using microwave signal to communicate. Consider fiber optic moves data at close to the speed of light, and that’s about all you need to know. So, it doesn’t at all “depend”. Tell me again what is the speed of microwaves in air/vacuum? The limiting factor in all multi network internet connection is always going to be switch throughput. That is entirely independent of physical transmission medium. Because outside the switch the information travels at the speed of light anyway. "It depends" is the correct answer, because what causes the latency is the routing, the number of networks/routers involved, and the bandwitdth that router needs to handle. If one router delays your packet by 100ms, everything else is immediately irrelevant. Doesn't matter if the packet arrived via eleczromagnetic wave in fiber optics or electromagnetic wave in air/vacuum. | ||
rtyrt7
41 Posts
On April 24 2024 09:58 tec27 wrote: Ping is not really a realistic test of this as BW will be sending packets much more quickly (and also larger packets). Wifi is worse because of potential interference (which can happen from many things in your home like microwaves, vacuum cleaners, etc. as well as other people in your area using wifi). Many of these things are intermittent, not something that you would necessarily see in an isolated test, and may get worse at certain times of day. To make matters worse, when interference causes a packet drop on bnet, it will take at least a roundtrip between you and your opponent before any re-sent packet can be dealt with (this is something ShieldBattery improves upon). You might think everyone telling you to play on ethernet is stupid and it's all fine, but please, for the sake of everyone, just believe that we are correct and play on ethernet unless you absolutely cannot. Just to note, ShieldBattery can be set as a program to open replay files in Explorer, and you can also configure it to immediately launch the game with the replay (by default it will show some info about the replay in SB and give you the option of viewing it). Thanks! Knowing that you're the creator of ShieldBattery, which I thank you for, I'm gonna reference your post, as I grew tired of explaining why ethernet is better than wifi. | ||
| ||