Menu
Reply
  • 9.37K
  • 362
  • 2.31K
Superuser
Superuser
2,115 Views
Message 81 of 96
Flag for a moderator

Re: Vivid 200 for gamers


DABhand wrote:


So the extra £5 or so a month for Vivid is paying for the lack of traffic management and 8mb more in upload bandwith.

A few people talked about it in the trial forum that there was no real difference at all and the whole idea didn't make sense. But it doesn't matter if everyone had a negative view... VM wanted the extra money and they were going ahead with it anyway no matter the trial outcome.

To be fair, quite a few people (the twitch streamers and uploaders mainly) did ask repeatedly on the general forums if they could pay £5 more for extra upload. I guess those people are now happy. So VM are satisfying some demand, just not what the regular gamers want.

Kinda sad, they should have the UBRs give out separate connections to reduce congestion problems etc for Vivid users, this would encourage people to get it and also reduce the congestion a bit on the normal conns for other users. Would have been a win win.


There's no such thing, if you're on the same node as everybody else in your area. Where would they get the additional frequencies to put the separate download and upload channels?

Unless you're talking about node segmentation, which would be extremely inefficient, time consuming and costly for just a few Vivid 200 Gamers per node. 

  • 2.12K
  • 40
  • 343
DABhand
Super solver
2,089 Views
Message 82 of 96
Flag for a moderator

Re: Vivid 200 for gamers

Yes I was, but I was putting it in laymans terms for others.

Of course there will be a costly expenditure... they were supposed to be doing it a couple of years ago but never did.

If they did do it, I think they would get a lot of customers going to Vivid if it had it's own dedicated nodes to their local cabs.

As said there is no real benefit bar as said the exception of the 2 things you get, traffic management has been a bit lax for a while anyway, so unless you are a twitch streamer (which isn't guaranteed to be better anyway on Vivid 200) there is no real point to it all.

And I find it annoying that they say it is for gamers. When it clearly isn't.

It is more for the seeders.

Majide!
0 Kudos
Reply
  • 20.59K
  • 544
  • 3.17K
Sephiroth
Alessandro Volta
2,084 Views
Message 83 of 96
Flag for a moderator

Re: Vivid 200 for gamers


DABhand wrote:

Yes I was, but I was putting it in laymans terms for others.

Of course there will be a costly expenditure... they were supposed to be doing it a couple of years ago but never did.

[SEPH]: See below.  Imo it would end up as not being cost effective in terms of income received.

If they did do it, I think they would get a lot of customers going to Vivid if it had it's own dedicated nodes to their local cabs.

[SEPH]: This is where we get tied up in terminology.  A node is in the street and is the fire link back to the area hub site.  I'm slightly vague on this level of detail - and will be corrected by anyone who knows more, but the line card that receives data from an optical node can be selected at the Edge QAM (EQAM).  Quite how this happens I don't know and thus don't know if that selection/routing can be performed according to a Service Group parameter. My gut feel is that this would not be trivial if at allpossible beyond reserving hard equipment for certiain Service Groups.

As said there is no real benefit bar as said the exception of the 2 things you get, traffic management has been a bit lax for a while anyway, so unless you are a twitch streamer (which isn't guaranteed to be better anyway on Vivid 200) there is no real point to it all.

And I find it annoying that they say it is for gamers. When it clearly isn't.

[SEPH]: Well, apart from you being right, what has marketing and sales spiel from VM ever resembled pure truth?

It is more for the seeders.

[SEPH]: And long may the seeders wait in frustration!

 


 

Seph - ( DEFROCKED - My advice is at your risk)

0 Kudos
Reply
  • 9.37K
  • 362
  • 2.31K
Superuser
Superuser
2,074 Views
Message 84 of 96
Flag for a moderator

Re: Vivid 200 for gamers


DABhand wrote:

Yes I was, but I was putting it in laymans terms for others.

Node segmentation won't work to improve the gaming performance for just a small group of users, because you can't separate the gamers from the other users on the local coax. Everybody (including the gamers) is still on the same contended line. So same latency and performance as other people on the same Service Group. 

What Seph suggested wouldn't change this. Being on your own line card won't separate you from the hundreds of users on your local node, or the thousands of users the nodes are combined with, until it gets to the EQAM level.. which is too late for latency.

Node splits will reduce the number of overall users on the node, but still sharing with everybody else, so no special treatement for gamers. If you want to improve performance, it has to be improved for everybody in that area. There are thousands of nodes and the work would take forever to get to a level that improves latency considerably.

The only thing that would work to improve latency massively is to create separate channels for the few Vivid 200 Gamer people in an area, then put them onto a separate line card at the CMTS end. That's not going to work either though. Unfortunately all the frequencies are used by regular users (or TV channels). In order to free some channels up you'd have to do massive node splits for everybody else, and around we go again.

Installing FTTP fibre direct to their homes (at huge cost for VM) for each of the Vivid 200 Gamers wouldn't change which channels they're on, as it'd still connect to the node I assume.

This is why business users don't get better latency than any of the residential customers in an area.


Of course there will be a costly expenditure... they were supposed to be doing it a couple of years ago but never did.

They're splitting nodes when necessary. Otherwise we'd never get where we're going. Unnecessary node splits in areas that don't need them done for regular users would be so costly and time consuming. 

If they did do it, I think they would get a lot of customers going to Vivid if it had it's own dedicated nodes to their local cabs.

Kinda like asking Tesco to open a special store for just 1-10 customers in every area of the UK they currently have a store. Both are not going to happen.

As said there is no real benefit bar as said the exception of the 2 things you get, traffic management has been a bit lax for a while anyway, so unless you are a twitch streamer (which isn't guaranteed to be better anyway on Vivid 200) there is no real point to it all.

And I find it annoying that they say it is for gamers. When it clearly isn't.

It is more for the seeders.


Except seeders (P2P) are still traffic managed I think, so it's not for them. There's still a fair use policy as well for the Vivid 200 Gamer.

 

0 Kudos
Reply
  • 2.12K
  • 40
  • 343
DABhand
Super solver
2,055 Views
Message 85 of 96
Flag for a moderator

Re: Vivid 200 for gamers

Yeah FUP of course, I wonder what it is for the Vivid 200 package, I wonder what limit they have deemed excessive? 

Considering most agents are trained to tell people 200GB a month is excessive, I can see it being a low amount.

I thought it was completely free of traffic management for everything else?

Between you and Seph there has been a bit of a debate about the nodes etc, it has been interesting, my networking knowledge isn't as great as Sephs and yours. But could maybe not doubling the QAM channels, and keeping the newer 256 channels for Vivid 200 customers not be better in a sense? Would that not be viable? Or would they require separate frequencies also? I see that 8m Hz separates each channel, would it not be possible to have 4m Hz separations for another 16?

Majide!
0 Kudos
Reply
  • 20.59K
  • 544
  • 3.17K
Sephiroth
Alessandro Volta
2,050 Views
Message 86 of 96
Flag for a moderator

Re: Vivid 200 for gamers


DABhand wrote:

 

<SNIP>

Between you and Seph there has been a bit of a debate about the nodes etc, it has been interesting, my networking knowledge isn't as great as Sephs and yours. But could maybe not doubling the QAM channels, and keeping the newer 256 channels for Vivid 200 customers not be better in a sense? Would that not be viable? Or would they require separate frequencies also? I see that 8m Hz separates each channel, would it not be possible to have 4m Hz separations for another 16?


Muddie and I don't disagree on the obstacles to providing the "Gamers" with dedicated resources.  My analysis, based on partial knowledge, was considering the upstream.  Muddie is quite right in saying that the constriction point would be at the optical node - long before discrimination at the EQAM could take place.  In other words, adding more fibres to the optical node and assigning them channels that form part of a specific service group would deal with that upstream question - at significant cost.

As to the separations, they are down to the laws of physics and transmission characteristics in glass, among other things.

 

Seph - ( DEFROCKED - My advice is at your risk)

0 Kudos
Reply
  • 2
  • 0
  • 1
bedda2590
Joining in
1,767 Views
Message 87 of 96
Flag for a moderator

Re: Vivid 200 for gamers

I'd like to know the fair usage amount too....we are currently getting virgin with vivid 200 gamer. and I buy all my games digitally, 200gb is nothing considering the list of games i have yet to install all coming in at 50-80gb each would have to spread out the installs over months and knowing my luck i'd end up wanting to play a game i hadn't yet installed

  • 174
  • 2
  • 60
boltedenergy
Superfast
1,686 Views
Message 88 of 96
Flag for a moderator

Re: Vivid 200 for gamers

who wanted a porky pie for xmas?

Well turns out the SH3 is dodgy for ultra low latency gaming...

http://community.virginmedia.com/t5/Gaming-Support/Hub-3-Compal-CH7465-LG-TG2492LG-amp-CGNV4-Latency...

--I'm just another virgin user like you. Please mark my answer as helpful, if it helped Smiley Happy
  • 2
  • 0
  • 0
sialdriuk
Joining in
1,671 Views
Message 89 of 96
Flag for a moderator

Re: Vivid 200 for gamers

Spoiler
yes i upgraded yesterday blistering fast well worth the extra 
0 Kudos
Reply
  • 120
  • 1
  • 35
bambamboyo
Up to speed
1,666 Views
Message 90 of 96
Flag for a moderator

Re: Vivid 200 for gamers