That said, 2300 is still usable, just, as noted, too sensitive for some.
Trying to make the ultimate Gaming Hardware Post. - Page 4
Forum Index > Tech Support |
GuitarBizarre
United Kingdom332 Posts
That said, 2300 is still usable, just, as noted, too sensitive for some. | ||
llIH
Norway2126 Posts
On February 08 2013 00:56 GuitarBizarre wrote: Yeah. I used to use 2300, and had kind of adjusted, but now my normal DPI is 1600 (Simply because the sensor in my mouse has a native, non-interpolated 1600dpi step and I wanted to see if I had been getting interpolation), and having adjusted to that, 2300 feels twitchy and imprecise. That said, 2300 is still usable, just, as noted, too sensitive for some. What mouse do you have? It sounds like something I would be interested to get. | ||
GuitarBizarre
United Kingdom332 Posts
Interestingly, however, I may be wrong about my personal mouse, I might have to experiment with 1800dpi, since the whitepaper for the sensor says the standard DPI steps are 1800 and 3500, but bst on ESReality, maker of the Ninox Aurora and Velocity mice coming out soon, says:but bst on ESReality, maker of the Ninox Aurora and Velocity mice coming out soon, says: Recent firmware changes have changed the default steps to 4000 dpi is a native setting on the 3090 sensor since a few months ago since Avago updated the SROM, the native DPI steps are now: 800/1600/3200/4000 | ||
llIH
Norway2126 Posts
On February 08 2013 01:05 GuitarBizarre wrote: Logitech G400. Thanks. You know the non interpolated step you talked about. Do you know of other mice that have this? | ||
GuitarBizarre
United Kingdom332 Posts
On February 08 2013 01:12 llIH wrote: Thanks. You know the non interpolated step you talked about. Do you know of other mice that have this? Its dependent on the sensor, and the default manufacturer's DPI steps. Again, according to bst Well its pretty complicated, I'm still learning about it atm. I don't really know how it works in the sensor, but from what I understand, when Avago makes the sensor and sets the DPI steps, its done really thoroughly, to rule out any errors or unwanted behaviour. So although it may still be interpolated in the end, its better left to Avago, who spend a lot of time and money to get it right. From what I've learned so far, the coding can be quite complex, in order to iron out any problems. Also I think there may be more control at the sensor level, than at the MCU level, there may be things that can be done there that can't be corrected by the MCU. I think thats why there can be a lot of difference between different mice using the 3090 sensor, because the DPI steps offered by the sensor are only 1800 and 3500, so each manufacturer has different ways of creating more DPI steps from it. | ||
Cyro
United Kingdom20150 Posts
(wrote this at end of last page, went afk, oops) | ||
GuitarBizarre
United Kingdom332 Posts
On February 08 2013 01:29 Cyro wrote: I switched from ~450dpi to ~800 recently, needed a little more than 450 to be comfortable with much faster mechanics in sc2, but i cant imagine anybody playing anywhere near optimally with more than 1.2-1.5k or so, actually i pretty firmly believe ~600-1k DPI is best range for micro and working with a 2d 1920x1080 RTS interface like sc2, it's just that it doesnt really matter as much as all the other things in the game in terms of making you win, it only helps what you already have. Lastshadow for example beating a midmaster zerg without using a keyboard in a game that went like 20 minutes long IIRC, but being able to snap halfway across the screen and select a marine in a tiny fraction of a second is invaluable for micro and lower DPI's are simply better at that, without realistically limiting you in any way unless you go far too low (wrote this at end of last page, went afk, oops) I dunno. I think people have different preferences. I tend to favour interfaces and items, even in bikes and guitars, where I have to exercise control to reign in a thing that is slightly too much, where I can easily go too far or push too hard. Other people prefer to force things to do what they want without worrying about going too far, perhaps at the expense of having to force things a little more. Diff'rent strokes. Edit: Thats a really convoluted way of doing things. Let me rephrase: Some people prefer the equipment to be their limiting factor, and to push past it or exercise their will upon it to reach exactly the level of performance they require. Other people, like me, prefer themselves to be the limiting factor, and to have to reign in a thing with too much capability to bring it to the level of performance they require. Its just a case of some people preferring "barely enough" and others preferring "easily enough". | ||
llIH
Norway2126 Posts
| ||
timurStas
68 Posts
On February 07 2013 23:56 llIH wrote: By the way. I wonder what is the minimal movement a human hand can do with a mouse. That would also be interesting to consider! :D My guess it is somewhere in the hundreds of micrometers range for someone who does something with fine hand motion for a living - think surgeon, dentist, watchmaker. | ||
GuitarBizarre
United Kingdom332 Posts
On February 08 2013 06:03 timurStas wrote: My guess it is somewhere in the hundreds of micrometers range for someone who does something with fine hand motion for a living - think surgeon, dentist, watchmaker. This is quite likely, and is also why we see players play professionally with such incredibly sensitive setups. Day9 is one example, he typically likes his setup even more sensitive than me. On the other hand, Artosis has everything set quite slow. | ||
BoCCoNFusioN
United States1 Post
| ||
Cyro
United Kingdom20150 Posts
It does take more hand/arm movement and energy, but i played 40 or so games yesterday with no negative effects, pain or discomfort @800dpi and if i had used 360/450dpi steps like i used to, it would only cause minor discomfort (aching in upper right arm) | ||
GuitarBizarre
United Kingdom332 Posts
On February 11 2013 04:55 Cyro wrote: I dont like the association between low/high DPI and slow/fast, it seems like a misconception to me. It doesnt take notably longer for the mouse cursor to cross the screen within X accuracy It does take more hand/arm movement and energy, but i played 40 or so games yesterday with no negative effects, pain or discomfort @800dpi and if i had used 360/450dpi steps like i used to, it would only cause minor discomfort (aching in upper right arm) I don't understand, nobody is saying that. But it is fact that, all other things being equal, higher dpi means the cursor moves further and therefore faster, for the same hand motion, yes? | ||
SoulWager
United States464 Posts
| ||
Deleted User 135096
3624 Posts
On February 11 2013 06:32 SoulWager wrote: At 1080p 1:1 6/11. If you pivot from your elbow, you're going to be most effective below 1k dpi. If you pivot from the wrist you'll be somewhere between 1.5k and 2k. Grip style and mouse shape also have an impact. Bigger(longer) mice require higher dpi with a fingertip grip+wrist pivot, because there's less travel forward and backward under your palm. That's why fingertip grip people usually like small mice. I think you are slightly overestimating the amount of CPI you need. I use 800 and I can easily traverse my entire screen (1920x1200) with wrist movements only. On a similar note, people really need to read the article I wrote, either for the first time, or a second time as it seems that some fundamental ideas around these things are still being missed by a lot of people. | ||
GuitarBizarre
United Kingdom332 Posts
On February 11 2013 08:09 wo1fwood wrote: I think you are slightly overestimating the amount of CPI you need. I use 800 and I can easily traverse my entire screen (1920x1200) with wrist movements only. On a similar note, people really need to read the article I wrote, either for the first time, or a second time as it seems that some fundamental ideas around these things are still being missed by a lot of people. You critiqued my writing style before. May I possibly critique yours? Instead of continually recommending your own work, why don't you link directly to the relevant sections, or copypaste them to give context? Few people are going to read through many, many screens of your article, and take the time to comprehend many tables and formulae, simply in order to satisfy you. Even fewer of the people who DO read through it all, are going to be the people you seem to be so annoyed at for not reading it. Not only that, but you continually phrase this recommendation as if it is a correction or rebuttal, which is needlessly antagonistic and not in the slightest bit helpful given the lack of direction you provide to the reader. (And in fact your tone in this last comment is rather derisive) I appreciate you have a lot to say on the matter and that much if not all of it does exist within that article, but you are coming off as abrasive and arrogant by refusing to actually engage in the discussion or provide genuine feedback beyond continually reminding us of the existence of another source. I made this thread in order to obtain help in doing what I want to do, which is to help others. You seem to have taken the attempt as a direct challenge to your own work, and thus far, while your article has been helpful in many ways, I have to say that your comments in this thread have not been exactly constructive, save for when I requested specifically that they be so. I'd like to request that if you have further input it would be kind of you, if not outright excellent of you, to actually give it directly, or quote the relevant reference, rather than simply pointing to an entire, extremely lengthy, article of reference elsewhere. I would say this is doubly so given that I have asked you to clarify once already, and in PM already explained to you that I find some sections of your article a little heavy going re: their practical application to this article. If you were quoting the relevant pieces to me and others, a dialogue could form which would let me and others ask questions and confirm directly anything we don't understand or might have missed on a readthrough of your article, which would doubtless make for a superior article on my part and better understanding on the part of others. | ||
Thezftw
Finland116 Posts
| ||
mizU
United States12125 Posts
| ||
Targe
United Kingdom14103 Posts
Other than that, one of the best reads on tl for a while, I laughed like fuck at some of the swearing. | ||
IPS.Blue
Germany309 Posts
On February 11 2013 20:37 mizU wrote: I can't agree more. Pro gear doesn't make a pro player Wannabe-pro gear doesn't make a pro player! | ||
| ||