Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 10th Sep 2007 20:24 UTC, submitted by hechacker1
Permalink for comment 270227
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-08-19
You're optimising for the wrong thing. Sending relatively tiny GL commands and textures to a cheap, 3D-enabled thin client is going to give you a much better experience (and bang for buck) than trying to pump a very rapidly changing framebuffer across the network.
You mention "massive 3D card", which is where I think your thought process goes wrong. It's just not the case now that these things are inappropriate or too expensive for thin client hardware.