[QUOTE=tratzzz;48140093]that feel when you keep buying the cheap mouse that always fails but it is so cheap and comfy that you just have to do it.
my friends have bought the same mouse I have and most are on their second or third. I was the first who bought it and I am still on my first, but it shows signs of wear.
a4tech x5 and x7 series if somebody wonders.[/QUOTE]
I used to do that with the Dell Moczul, cheap mouse, has side buttons and adjustable DPI, went through a few of them before I couldn't find them (without paying hilarious amounts for shipping).
[QUOTE=gman003-main;48143341]You missed the point of my meta-argument.
Community consensus [I]alone[/I] is not a good argument. The truth is not a democracy; it is not up for a vote. If you're arguing a point, and you're right, you'll be able to pull out facts and reasoning, perhaps capping it off with "and pretty much everyone agrees with this". If you're going up against logic and facts, though, you aren't going to win with just "everyone agrees with me" to back you up. All you'll prove is that "everyone else" is just as wrong.[/QUOTE]
You have one fact for 16:9 which is the fov.
i can see how a bigger fov could be more distracting
4:3 also makes it easier to see the minimap as it's closer to the crosshair.
[QUOTE=Chubbs;48143196]Well if you really can't position well enough that you're gimped by low fov then you do suck. Sorry for bursting your bubble.[/QUOTE]
I've never claimed that I was a good player. I play for fun.
And it doesn't matter how much having a low FOV hurts - it can [I]only[/I] hurt you, with the way CSGO scales with aspect ratio.
[QUOTE=Chubbs;48143196]Also I never said EVERYONE should use 4:3 I also specifically said that black bars is stupid and the only time 4:3 is worth it is stretched. I always claimed it was preference. You were the one trying to shit on me for using all low high shadow 4:3 stretched.[/QUOTE]
[B]MY [I]ORIGINAL QUESTION[/I] TO YOU WAS "HOW DOES HAVING A SUB-200 FRAMERATE HURT INPUT PROCESSING?"[/B]
You dodged that question by saying that every "pro" player runs at all low high shadow 4:3 stretched, and then everyone got too caught up with the [I]stupidest[/I] part of that sentence (4:3 stretched) to notice all the other things wrong with that.
So answer that question, directly and without evading. Do not appeal to authority, do not resort to ad hominems, do not claim it's a matter of personal preference. [U]You[/U] are the one who made that claim, and you made it as fact, now defend it.
What effect does a 200fps+ framerate have on input processing, as compared to a solid 60fps? What does it do differently, why does it work that way, and how does it impact gameplay?
isn't any framerate above what hz your monitor/tv is superfluous?
I believe FPS does have effect on monitor response time actually, simply due to way frames are rendered. It's something like 30ms between 40 fps and 144fps
[editline]7th July 2015[/editline]
Not enough to cause issues - but it's measurable.
[editline]7th July 2015[/editline]
Not only that but it higher fps it's a more consistent because there is less time between frames.
[QUOTE=srobins;48141025]I love it, I'm a total diehard fanboy of Logitech MX mice just for how comfortable and smooth they are. The battery lasts a few days without charge, sometimes a week, and then you just plug it into the cable for an hour and its full again. Tracking is really smooth and it feels great to hold. As far as software, I never use profiles or macro buttons so I haven't even messed with it. Using default settings I've had no issues though. Regarding buttons, I don't even use them but when I've played with them they feel accessible and natural to click. IMO it's worth the money, I use my mouse for gaming, design work, coding etc., and I prefer to have something high quality while I do it. Knowing that this mouse will last me at least 2-3 years like my last one (last one was an MX, was working fine but I wanted the shiny new one!), I don't mind paying $100.[/QUOTE]
I kinda wished it had the back and forward action when you push the scroll wheel to the left or the right as seen on the MX Performance mouse and even on my M560. Also the MX Master has a 1 year warranty while my M560 has a 3 year warranty. I'd expect a 4x more expensive mouse to at least have the same warranty length or longer.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;48143419]I've never claimed that I was a good player. I play for fun.
And it doesn't matter how much having a low FOV hurts - it can [I]only[/I] hurt you, with the way CSGO scales with aspect ratio.
[B]MY [I]ORIGINAL QUESTION[/I] TO YOU WAS "HOW DOES HAVING A SUB-200 FRAMERATE HURT INPUT PROCESSING?"[/B]
You dodged that question by saying that every "pro" player runs at all low high shadow 4:3 stretched, and then everyone got too caught up with the [I]stupidest[/I] part of that sentence (4:3 stretched) to notice all the other things wrong with that.
So answer that question, directly and without evading. Do not appeal to authority, do not resort to ad hominems, do not claim it's a matter of personal preference. [U]You[/U] are the one who made that claim, and you made it as fact, now defend it.
What effect does a 200fps+ framerate have on input processing, as compared to a solid 60fps? What does it do differently, why does it work that way, and how does it impact gameplay?[/QUOTE]
I would like to start by saying that some pros use the settings I use, by coincidence. Just like how some use the same settings you use by coincidence.
With that done: Having more frames in cs helps input processing in the same way that increasing polling speed on a mouse helps, ie your movements are averaged out by the engine less, which does happen and is funky as fuck, with more time between each frame giving a greater amount of mouse input to be averaged. Especially the problems with having rawinput on (or off, i dont remember), which makes it do all sorts of strange shit. There are youtube videos of guys using teensys to send set amounts of mouse counts to cs, and it behaving as intended (snapping from position 1 to 2 instantly) on one setting, but spazzing out on the other.
Secondly, if you have less frames than the tickrates you're using you will be at an instant disadvantage since your aim won't be as well synced with the server. As well as this if you are running at lower framerates you will have the issue of input lag (16ms at 60fps, compared to <5ms when you're over 200).
Also 200+ was a moderately arbitrary number I pulled. I cannot say definitely that there is a breakpoint at 200, just that 200 is a safe number to have.
[editline]7th July 2015[/editline]
Other fun source engine fact: if your sensitivity is outside the range of 1.6 to 3.0 you skip pixels.
For reference compare 1.6@400dpi to 0.8@800dpi.
[QUOTE=Itsamario;48143481]I believe FPS does have effect on monitor response time actually, simply due to way frames are rendered. It's something like 30ms between 40 fps and 144fps
[editline]7th July 2015[/editline]
Not enough to cause issues - but it's measurable.
[editline]7th July 2015[/editline]
Not only that but it higher fps it's a more consistent because there is less time between frames.[/QUOTE]
The issue is "on a 60Hz display, why should I reduce settings to boost my FPS from 60fps+ to 200fps+".
My next monitor will almost certainly be 144Hz. I'm just waiting for the G-SYNC / Adaptive-Sync war to sort itself out.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;48143517]The issue is "on a 60Hz display, why should I reduce settings to boost my FPS from 60fps+ to 200fps+".
My next monitor will almost certainly be 144Hz. I'm just waiting for the G-SYNC / Adaptive-Sync war to sort itself out.[/QUOTE]
I can argue you could very well see easier on worse settings due to less texture detail making models stand out more, but if you care more about the game being pretty than seeing shit you probably shouldn't.
Linus just did a video with confusing results comparing input lag with G-Sync vs Adaptic Sync actually. Comes out with really weird results.
why is it impossible to buy a good pc without building it yourself
something is seriously wrong with the prebuilt market
[QUOTE=Sand Castle;48143570]why is it impossible to buy a good pc without building it yourself
something is seriously wrong with the prebuilt market[/QUOTE]
Because they are all about making money. So they are gonna cut corners to make more money and as a result create in inferior product.
[QUOTE=Itsamario;48143583]Because they are all about making money. So they are gonna cut corners to make more money and as a result create in inferior product.[/QUOTE]
funny because i swore by my mac mini until a few days ago when i lost it -- and apple, a company that claims to care about ~design~ and ~customer satisfaction~ cut out ram upgradability, while not making the computer any thinner or different at all, and on top of that, purchasing the max amount of ram they offer costs 3 times what the sticks themselves cost on amazon from a good brand
uhh what
1.6@400 should be the exact same as 0.8@800
if it isnt then there is something clearly fucky
[editline]7th July 2015[/editline]
did you fail maths because 1.6*4 = 0.8*8
[editline]7th July 2015[/editline]
if you want try 3.2@200 dpi as well
[QUOTE=Chubbs;48143500]I would like to start by saying that some pros use the settings I use, by coincidence. Just like how some use the same settings you use by coincidence.[/QUOTE]
The "pros" also regularly throw games just so they can rig wagers for permission to use some different textures on gun models. They're not worth ever mentioning.
The fact that 1.6@400 feels fasther than 0.8@800 means that you're skipping pixels negatively (ie losing pixels) on 0.8.
I play on 0.7@800 and switching to 1.4@400 feels noticabley faster since you skip negatively less.
[QUOTE=lavacano;48143680]The "pros" also regularly throw games just so they can rig wagers for permission to use some different textures on gun models. They're not worth ever mentioning.[/QUOTE]
"regularly"
[QUOTE=~Kiwi~v2;48143673]no
on my g400s i can happily report they are the same im not skipping pixels or noticing anything different
[editline]8th July 2015[/editline]
non of this skipping pixel shit is happening[/QUOTE]
Moving the mouse as slow as possible probably isn't going to result in pixel skipping.
Try actually swinging it quickly.
[QUOTE=~Kiwi~v2;48143693]but im not experiencing this though?
i dont know what your point is[/QUOTE]
"also i just launched the game and moved my sens to 1.6 at 400 dpi
noticed nothing different except it was more sensitive but that's what you get when you go higher "
what does this mean then
[QUOTE=Chubbs;48143690]"regularly"[/QUOTE]
If you've cheated "once", you've cheated several times before and only got caught once. Prove me wrong.
[editline]7th July 2015[/editline]
And then once you've proven me wrong, drop the subject, because whinging at each other about CSGO configs is fucking retarded and frankly I expected better out of [b]all[/b] of you.
[QUOTE=lavacano;48143702]If you've cheated "once", you've cheated several times before and only got caught once. Prove me wrong.
[editline]7th July 2015[/editline]
And then once you've proven me wrong, drop the subject, because whinging at each other about CSGO configs is fucking retarded and frankly I expected better out of [b]all[/b] of you.[/QUOTE]
Unlike the serious business where we whinge about computers :v:
OK for the most famous throw, the ibp one, everyone could tell they were throwing. They were so bad at faking losing they wouldn't have gotten away with it more than once.
There was one other throw of similar scale in the eu but I cant remember what teams it was atm.
All the other "pros" throwing at t4-5 players from various balkan countries who are shit all at cs compared to actual pros (t1-2 players).
[editline]7th July 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Amiga OS;48143730]Well this is fun, why don't we get MIPS in here to lecture us all on how video games aren't a legitimate sport while we are at it :v:[/QUOTE]
Has mips ever played "real sports".
Or even done exercise lol.
[QUOTE=Chubbs;48143017]You get the same vertical fov on both, it scales horizontal fov to aspect ratio. Also if you can position worth a shit the loss of horizontal fov means nothing.[/QUOTE]
I'm almost certain that isn't how FOV works.. Stretching a picture taken with a regular lens doesn't make it a wide-angle photo, just like stretching a 70 FOV image doesn't magically render everything that exists beyond that FOV.
[QUOTE=lavacano;48143702]
And then once you've proven me wrong, drop the subject, because whinging at each other about CSGO configs is fucking retarded and frankly I expected better out of [b]all[/b] of you.[/QUOTE]
Exactly, this shit is for the CS:GO thread.
[QUOTE=srobins;48143781]I'm almost certain that isn't how FOV works.. Stretching a picture taken with a regular lens doesn't make it a wide-angle photo, just like stretching a 70 FOV image doesn't magically render everything that exists beyond that FOV.[/QUOTE]
When did I claim this. 4:3 stretched stretches the lower fov across my whole screen so I don't have black bars and it makes everything in the picture wider.
Learn to read.
[QUOTE=garychencool;48143498]I kinda wished it had the back and forward action when you push the scroll wheel to the left or the right as seen on the MX Performance mouse and even on my M560. Also the MX Master has a 1 year warranty while my M560 has a 3 year warranty. I'd expect a 4x more expensive mouse to at least have the same warranty length or longer.[/QUOTE]
You wanna fight or something?
[QUOTE=Sand Castle;48143611]funny because i swore by my mac mini until a few days ago when i lost it -- and apple, a company that claims to care about ~design~ and ~customer satisfaction~ cut out ram upgradability, while not making the computer any thinner or different at all, and on top of that, purchasing the max amount of ram they offer costs 3 times what the sticks themselves cost on amazon from a good brand[/QUOTE]
~Revolutionary~ designers need to eat too.
[QUOTE=Chubbs;48143805]When did I claim this. 4:3 stretched stretches the lower fov across my whole screen so I don't have black bars and it makes everything in the picture wider.
Learn to read.[/QUOTE]
"it scales horizontal fov to aspect ratio"? Your horizontal FOV will stay exactly the same, no?
[QUOTE=srobins;48143819]"it scales horizontal fov to aspect ratio"? Your horizontal FOV will stay exactly the same, no?[/QUOTE]
Ok I see where my wording was shit now.
I mean that csgo normally locks vertical fov and scales only your horizonal fov based on the aspect ratio the game is rendering at. You then upscaling from your 4:3 res to 16:9 to push to your monitor wont affect this.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.