looks fine to me tho .... the only thing chaning server would do to you is make your stream watchable for others since its known that the frankfurt server has some weird problems from time to time and since the quality wont suffer if you change to amsterdam all you do is maybe pay with 2-3 seconds more play if even...
Question / Help Whats bottlenecking my stream? consistent lag
- Thread starter bone91
- Start date
There isn't a problem. The VODs looked fine to me as well. Even at 2000 Kbps it looked just fine in 48 FPS. What you must remember is that there is a very clear and unavoidable limit to the level of quality that can be attained in streaming like this.
It is a 1-pass encode, so compression and quality do have to be sacrificed somewhat in favour of speed.
It is a 1-pass encode, so compression and quality do have to be sacrificed somewhat in favour of speed.
No. Again, you could throw all the king's horses and all the king's men at it and there still would be a very defined limit to the quality of it. It is fine. The VODs in fact looked better than plenty of other Spelunky VODs/streams I have seen.
50% (at the very least) of the success of a channel is the streamer, not the quality of the stream.
50% (at the very least) of the success of a channel is the streamer, not the quality of the stream.
Thank you. Since i know now that a new cpu wouldn't bring any advantage to me, i have one more question. Here is a famous streamer playing spelunky and a recording from my stream playing spelunky. besides that he uses 1080p (which my internet connection isn't capable of i guess?), the image looks much smoother imo. or am i so focused on those mini lags right now that my eyes start lying to me? But if really is smoother, he must be doing something right
Lethalfrag http://de.twitch.tv/lethalfrag/c/2847534
My spelunky recording http://www.twitch.tv/b0ne91/b/455956665
Lethalfrag http://de.twitch.tv/lethalfrag/c/2847534
My spelunky recording http://www.twitch.tv/b0ne91/b/455956665
Do what your system is capable of, focus on your own stream... comparing your stream to other people's streams is the quickest way to ending up trying all the wrong things.
Your stream looks fine, the VODs looks fine. Be a better streamer, don't focus too much on quality. And, to be honest, I never much liked Lethalfrag. For either the quality of his stream or for himself.
Your stream looks fine, the VODs looks fine. Be a better streamer, don't focus too much on quality. And, to be honest, I never much liked Lethalfrag. For either the quality of his stream or for himself.
Thank you for your advice. I am really engaged in becoming a good streamer and being myself, I just wanted to make sure first that my streaming quality is as nice as possible.
Why did you gave me the advice to set my fps to 48 and my bitrate to 2000-3000 btw.? 48 seems really random to me.
Why did you gave me the advice to set my fps to 48 and my bitrate to 2000-3000 btw.? 48 seems really random to me.
Boildown
Active Member
bone91 said:
Your upload is fine. Go ahead and use 3000 bitrate and 2000 buffer.
48 FPS is just a whole number fraction of 60, 4/5th of it. You can just as legitimately use 3/4th of 60 (45 FPS), 5/6th of 60 (50 FPS), 2/3rds of 60 (40 FPS), etc. This assumes your monitor is running at 60 Hz (probably true). The higher your framerate, the more smooth your stream will appear, but the fewer bits will be allocated to each frame. So they'll be smoother in motion but worse in quality. If you judge 48 FPS to be too poor quality, change it down to 40 FPS... you'll sacrifice a little smoothness for increased quality. 48 FPS is just a good middle ground (personally I use 45 FPS).
Once you've found something that seems decent, you can start tweaking your settings. Bump up your bitrate to 3500 (not higher, Twitch doesn't like higher than 3500), bump up your buffer to match your bitrate, use a stronger or weaker preset, etc. Its up to you to experiment to really zero in on your best performance for your PC and for the game you stream.
Also remember your viewers have to be able to download the stream you upload. If a lot of your viewers have crappy internet that can't handle 3500 bitrate, there's no point in setting it that high. Stick to something lower, like 2000, as previously suggested.
Thanks you for your answers. So yesterday i spend the evening with a nice user that helped me conifgurating my stream live on twitch. I found out that xsplit only ran better because i was using vbr on it. with obs and vbr, i was even getting better results. But after some research, ive found out that the smoothest/best result can be obtained by using cbr. so today i try to find my sweetspot (2000kbit/s seemed to not lag at all it think?) and try to find out if a buffer is a good option for me to use.
If you can stream with VBR but cannot with CBR, that really does hint at an issue with your connection and not at an issue with the software. OBS' netcode is not somehow far more inefficient than XSplit's netcode. Personally i have no experience using Xsplit but I have been around here on obsproject.com long enough to vouch for the massive, massive improvements that have taken place on OBS' netcode.
So... if you cannot stream at CBR <x> bitrate, try going berserk a bit. And go with 50% of <x>. Just to see if you CAN get it to stabilize at CBR. Then, if that is stable, go with 75% of <x>. So, if you tried it at 2000 Kbps CBR, try it at 1000 Kbps first now. If that is stable, try it at 1500. If that is stable, try it at 1750.
So... if you cannot stream at CBR <x> bitrate, try going berserk a bit. And go with 50% of <x>. Just to see if you CAN get it to stabilize at CBR. Then, if that is stable, go with 75% of <x>. So, if you tried it at 2000 Kbps CBR, try it at 1000 Kbps first now. If that is stable, try it at 1500. If that is stable, try it at 1750.
Boildown
Active Member
Kharay said:
Based on what? 45 is just as even of a fraction of 60 as 48 is.
I think this is a common misinterpretation of Muf's post here: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=288&p=1610#p1610 that people have picked up on and spread. He didn't specifically mention 48 as being "bad", just as he didn't specifically mention 40, 50, or 54. By Muf's logic, 45 and 48 would be equally bad.
For the record, I don't agree with his logic. All those are equally fine. The OP should feel free to experiment streaming at 40, 45, 48, 50, etc FPS as a way of trading off smoothness for picture quality at the same bitrate.
I am not saying he isn't allowed to experiment, for all I care he streams at 120 FPS and 250 Kbps in 1440p. 45 simply is just what I implied it is, a non-standard framerate. 48 FPS is more standardized than 45 FPS is; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate -- You will not find 45 FPS in there.
Oh but they do. Since we're using x264 and x264 is not designed specifically to encode video game content. In fact, by far the most common use of x264 is in encoding pure video content (movies, series, etc.).
And regarding muf's post -- he is not the be and end all of all things technical. I personally take most of what he says with at least a couple of pinches of salt, for a very good reason. I would rather go with what is out there on the global Internet than what one random individual has to say.
And regarding muf's post -- he is not the be and end all of all things technical. I personally take most of what he says with at least a couple of pinches of salt, for a very good reason. I would rather go with what is out there on the global Internet than what one random individual has to say.