LiquidSky Test 1- Low Vram, Mediocre Performance


#1

I know that this is a Beta test-drive and nothing is supposed to be perfect at the moment but there is a long gap between 'Gaming on cloud at Ultra VS Gaming with 20 FPS and VRAM 4 times lower than it should be Ultra'
For Example:
I downloaded Watchdogs from Steam with a speed of 25 Mbps (pretty decent at the moment)
At first the game refused to start on normal mode- I get it, Watchdogs 2 is pretty new and there are bound to be bugs etc-
but there's the weird part; Although the game did start on the Ultra mode (2 Skycredits per hour) I went to the setting screen and what I saw was well... not Impressive.


As you can see here the game did meet the Vram threshold on the low graphics setting but when I cranked it up to medium the 1884 MB VRAM was definitely not enough hell- My 3 year old 280x has 3 gigs of Vram!
The settings go as Low, Medium, Very High and Ultra
The Ultra LiquidSky PC just failed at medium.
As in ultra:

The story's same. I do agree that 4.8 gigs is a bit too much but 1.8 gigs is way too low as well.
For those interested here's the photo showing that I'm in Ultra mode:

Yeah, the internet here in Turkey is horrid but it gets the job done:

I'm not trying to make LiqSky look bad but there's one thing for sure, we are just on the starting line and there's a looong way to the finish.
P.S:
Plus there's the stuttering issue everyone seems to experience that's a problem too, you know.

Edit:
As @LiquidSkyJustin suggested, I am going to upload a few more game titles with demanding graphics in here since it looks like watchdogs can cause some glitches and problems on Nvidia hardware. Since I was using a custom game-ready driver, my local results might've been different. Will post in 48 hours and btw, the CES invitation is great!


#2

Yeah, they need and will upgrade their vRam, this is a known issue.

Regarding the internet speed, well, steam never allowed me to download at max speed, especially when their servers are overloaded. I have downloaded at 100mb/s+ from google drive, so their internet is not the problem. 25mb/s is not bad for steam, though.


#3

#4

I am guessing as they do these upgrades perhaps maybe they only do one server at a time as this is a MAJOR job as all the people on that server have to use it too so just imagine upgrading 1,000s+ bays and letting people onto the new bays randomly until all the server is upgraded. Who knows turkey could be the last one to upgrade as they probably generate the most profit from the US. This is my theory anyways. You have to consider the expenses to LS when they do this also as they could be paying 500-1k on EACH upgrade so it may take months to years. I may be totally wrong idk but I think this could be one of the many possibilities. In the meantime we just have to sit around and wait as they do their server upgrades and they are upgrading to a new windows server and are in the process of doing it as we speak so this will probably help a lot with the lag also. Just so you know; Windows server is the worst server technology out there and LS only uses it because they have to run the most common format of games which is Windows. Most if not almost all servers run on Linux.

EDIT: I didn't think of this at this time but we need to check for packet loss which does not show up on speedtest,net so please download and install Java on your PC if it isn't there already and then open Internet Explorer as this is the default in most Windows Versions and still supports Java. Microsoft Edge and Chrome do not support Java. Now go to pingtest.net and accept the Java warning when it is doing its tests as Packet Measuring is not able to be done within the browser by itself. Post your results here. Anything lower than an A can cause problems.


#5

I agree. I started a feature request to get a higher tier: http://community.liquidsky.tv/t/need-a-higher-tier-than-ultra/1498/1

Go Like the first post to hopefully get some more visibility on the request/issue.


#7

I hope that I am wrong but from what I gather it seems that the extra VRAM will be via another package plan. This makes me really uncomfortable because I already pay 40$ a month, that may not be a lot of money to some but it is to me when you have other financial responsibilities. I really love LS I've been using it so much and recommend it a lot but ultra plan is already very expensive as it is for what we get.


#8

All I am going to say is that it is against the rules to call someone a retard and your post has been flagged for that reason. I am not going to bother to posting to flame.


#9

3 days ago when I made a post very similar to this deleted me ... I am still angry with liquidsky.


#10

Thanks for the feedback!

We have already been addressing this issue and there WILL be increased graphical performance coming in the form of another plan for users requesting stronger level of GPU/CPU processing.

However, in regards to your testing on WatchDogs 2, it is more of a concern with the game itself. While the justification can be found elsewhere, WatchDogs 2 has notoriously been found lacking on optimization and is buggy on even a local instance at times.

While we are working with game developers in order to circumvent and address both optimization issues and anti-hack issues, it is a long process, as each developer varies in their approach and priorities when dealing with other companies.

If you'd like, I'd invite you to test on other titles as well before completing passing judgement, but your voice has certainly been heard and we are already looking into improving graphical performance :+1:


#11

I am not trying to offend but I think it should be cut off at $39.99. That price should get top tier and it would be kind of unfair to charge anymore than that.


#12

I agree with this. If it goes higher than 39.99 then it stops being worth it.


#13

This, I'm not entirely sure if that's valid. $39.99 for unlimited usage is a reasonable price for what's being offered. I'm not saying they shouldn't bump up the specs on high and ultra a little bit, but asking for/setting a maximum price cap on the top tier plan is silly. There are people willing to pay $50, $75, or even $100 a month for higher performance unlimited plans. Gaming isn't the only use for LiquidSky, remember. You can use it for graphic design, rendering, compiling, etc. It is a functioning desktop.

A bunch of people keep bringing up the argument that someone can just buy a monster gaming rig for the same amount of money, or less. That is true. Except people have different reasons for wanting to use LiquidSky over having a tower at home, and the disposable income to make that choice.

The $40 Unlimited plan could use a spec bump, but demanding that the top tier plan stay at $40 is ridiculous.


#14

I think the opposite but we are entitled to our own opinions but I live on Social Security Disability and I get $538 a month which is like a joke. I just think that its impossible for me to leave money out of the check to wait forever to save up for a gaming rig. It is way more convenient to be able pay now and play now. If LS wants to come with a more expensive plan; I may or may not buy it depending on the bills and food I have in real life.


#15

@WDSnav91 Requesting that LiquidSky only offer plans you can pay for is self-centered and short-sighted.

If you are happy with what you are getting for $40/mo then there is no reason for you to upgrade.

If you can't afford more then $40/mo then you can't upgrade anyways.

Also, I don't think your thinking this through fully. For quite some time, enthusiast level pricing for hardware/services (new high end stuff) has always been inflated to cover the costs of creating more mass-market level stuff. If LiquidSky were to offer a plan for $100/mo, people who do need and can pay will. The profits from that tier goes to the company (LiquidSky) which in turn gets reinvested back towards improving general quality and performance for everybody.


#16

Well if the price is too too high to be reasonable in my opinion, like 100 you mentioned; people would not pay for that much. I don't see how it is self-centered as I am simply rewuesting in a nice way if they could keep the top tier to be at $40 because I think it is reasonable and this is what a discussion forum is for. We all can have your own opinion and insulting users is not a way to show a good example for the rest of the company calling me self-centered and short-sighted.


#17

Hey Redinferno-ae,

Do you have any game-play recordings? If there is a chance, could you share with me if you do. I am planning on buying WD2, however as you mentioned, in the current state, Liquidsky's performance is mediocre, I absolutely agree with you on the subject about VRAM. I would love to see how exactly the game runs to make a conclusion. Thank you!


#18

Wasn't insulting you personally - just a remarking on a statement you made. My opinion on it. There's a big difference between calling you personally short-sighted or self-centered (which I didn't do) vs referencing a stance you have.

In a nutshell, you are requesting that, because you are unable to pay for more than $40, that you think no one should be able to get a plan that costs more. That is a self-centered request that focuses on you being the center of the universe in this context and by extension anyone who also think similarly.

That stance is also short-sighted in that it is effectively requesting that LiquidSky cap their income right now at what it is. How will they be able to support a better tier if they can't get the funds for the extra equipment? Then they really will have a serious ratio issue on server slots.

I need more than what Ultra offers right now. $40/mo or not - the current Ultra tier is not enough for me. I am not requesting that the current Ultra plan cost more or to do away with plans that I don't use/need. I wouldn't pay $100/mo either personally as my usage is sparse enough to just rely on credits on the gamer plan.


#19

You must be misunderstanding; notice the keyword in my post your quoted which is this: COULD That is more like asking for a favor and not saying something like do it now or I will quit. I was not demanding like you are saying; I which I more of asked in a nice way and not demanding. Be careful with your choice of words please.


#20

Which is why, note the key word, "Request" is how I referred to it. Not as a demand. There isn't much to misunderstand in your request. The nature of it is clear as well.

If I were to ask LiquidSky: "Could I please have exclusive access to my data center for a day?" It is not a demand but it is still a self-centered request that doesn't take into account anyone else's usage or desires.


#21

I don't think @Xen0sys is insulting you really. Its just that when it comes down to it most products and services have a low end, mid market, high end and primer flagship tiers. The pricing at the uppermost end is almost always inflated and 85% of people will not be able to afford it. Of the remaining 15% that can afford it, 5-10% will not think its worth the investment and get it. But the small minority that does go with the flagship end helps to subsidize costs for everyone else and pushes the development and upgrade cycle along much faster.

Since LiquidSky is still starting out and in beta, right now the "flagship" tier is the unlimited $40 plan. Except it isn't really at the point where anyone considered to be an "enthusiast gaming" customer would glance at it or think about buying it. Eventually, the flagship tier will be at a significantly higher price point and offer more specs than any of us really want or even use. That's the point of it. It isn't meant to be available or priced so most people will want it. But by being there, it lets everyone else at the low, mid, and high end get way better specs and allows LiquidSky to continue growing.

I'm going to hazard a guess and say that by mid-2017 the current unlimited $40 plan will be the mid-market plan with something higher appearing for the high-end market. The current Gamer plan would be adapted slightly for the low-end market. Personally, I also don't see the whole "Sky Credits" concept continuing. I believe their original plan was to allow for customized instances based on what you wanted, meaning that you could decide everything from storage to VRAM, RAM, and cores available. Exactly like what you can do on Amazon or Google Compute. But the way that the service developed, it wasn't exactly the best model available so they shifted to the fixed specs on unlimited. That's just a guess though.

Either way, requesting that a cap be placed on the top flagship tier so that everyone can afford it is not something reasonable to both LiquidSky and the larger customer base. Most people that got into video games in the 80s and 90s are now grown adults with plenty of disposable income. Also, the demographic balance shifted quite a bit between PC gaming and console gaming. Most of the younger 14-22 demographic is focused on console gaming. PC Gaming is more dominated by adults, which is what led to the emergence of the "enthusiast gaming" consumer market. That's also why you constantly see posts about how the benchmarks aren't up to snuff or that the specs available to the high and ultra tiers are not great. Its because there's a lot of us that are currently subscribed to LiquidSky that are willing to pay for more performance but cannot.