EPTSC Game Response Time - Page 3
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
Jaedrik
113 Posts
| ||
|
AleXoundOS
Georgia457 Posts
they are so much better for gaming, with clear image at switching fast situations | ||
|
AleXoundOS
Georgia457 Posts
| ||
|
Piste
6175 Posts
On March 23 2016 04:01 WinterViewbot420 wrote: My whole thing right now is that the game (excluding mouse) renders in 24 frames per second on Fastest speed and the mouse renders in 60 frames per second, so all this talk is almost useless. Not only that, but this isn't a game that requires much visual comprehension aside from cloaked units or bunches of stacked flying units, which comes down to the visual quality of the monitor. This is a game where these discussions are important: isn't this more like a game that is playable without a monitor as you can just memorize the moves and the rythm. | ||
|
WinterViewbot420
345 Posts
On March 23 2016 05:38 Piste wrote: isn't this more like a game that is playable without a monitor as you can just memorize the moves and the rythm. Please tell me how in the name Aiur a human is supposed to memorize over three thousand key presses on seven different lanes, all timed by the millisecond. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20285 Posts
On March 23 2016 05:32 AleXoundOS wrote: mostly unacceptable "Grey to Grey" response time of LCD monitors plus it's input lag makes gaming experience so much worse compared to CRT The motion blur on modern LCD's is not due to response times, it's due to the way the screen tech interacts with eye tracking. Input lag is practically the same on good LCD's. Early LCD's (like 10 years ago) often sucked at both of those things isn't this more like a game that is playable without a monitor as you can just memorize the moves and the rythm. Rhythm games usually have you reacting and processing information that's shown around a quarter of a second to a few seconds before, depending on the game and setting | ||
|
LaStScan
Korea (South)1289 Posts
I am investigating that playing on CRT monitor response faster than lcd monitor. How much easy do I need to clarify you? well, I can make an example. 2 players are playing on #l2 room. One uses CRT, other one uses LCD. CRT user plays as near as #l1 and other one plays like no latency changer(old b.net). Does this help to understand? If not, I can make an another example from sc2. A person who lives in EU plays KR server. He plays with 200 ms ping (about 0.5~0.8 sec slow response). The guy who lives in KR and plays against him will take the advantage over European player because he plays with nearly 2 ms ping. Have you ever thought why pros and even in competition prefer to use CRT monitors all that year? (Talking about KeSPA Scene) By the way, most of Korean streamers use lowlat program. Not just launcher that improves latency. | ||
|
WinterViewbot420
345 Posts
Also, we are talking 100+ milliseconds between each latency tag on Fish to the point monitor doesn't matter. | ||
|
Scarbo
294 Posts
On March 23 2016 06:26 LaStScan wrote: Why are people talking about smoothness here? I am talking about game response time issue. I am investigating that playing on CRT monitor response faster than lcd monitor. How much easy do I need to clarify you? well, I can make an example. 2 players are playing on #l2 room. One uses CRT, other one uses LCD. CRT user plays as near as #l1 and other one plays like no latency changer(old b.net). Does this help to understand? If not, I can make an another example from sc2. A person who lives in EU plays KR server. He plays with 200 ms ping (about 0.5~0.8 sec slow response). The guy who lives in KR and plays against him will take the advantage over European player because he plays with nearly 2 ms ping. Have you ever thought why pros and even in competition prefer to use CRT monitors all that year? (Talking about KeSPA Scene) By the way, most of Korean streamers use lowlat program. Not just launcher that improves latency. Latency has nothing to do with the monitor and it has already been explained to you in this very thread. Yes we thought why pros prefer CRT and it's because of a lot of reasons also explained in this thread. Do you even read before posting? Or you think all of us are wrong? If so, why ask for help in a place where you assume everyone is wrong? | ||
|
LaStScan
Korea (South)1289 Posts
On March 23 2016 06:35 Scarbo wrote: Latency has nothing to do with the monitor and it has already been explained to you in this very thread. Yes we thought why pros prefer CRT and it's because of a lot of reasons also explained in this thread. Do you even read before posting? Or you think all of us are wrong? If so, why ask for help in a place where you assume everyone is wrong? Comparing the Games With and Without Lowlat Program Yes, I read it. But I feel that it is going to the wrong direction. That's why I replied in this thread again. Btw, I just found out this YouTube video. Take a look, and you can see that LCD seems a bit slow compare to CRT. Should I just say that this is "input lag?" or how should I word it? From Korean forums, I think people were saying that Pros preferred to play on CRT because LCD response a bit slow. An example of LCD 'lag' | ||
|
Scarbo
294 Posts
On March 23 2016 07:11 LaStScan wrote: Comparing the Games With and Without Lowlat Program Yes, I read it. But I feel that it is going to the wrong direction. That's why I replied in this thread again. Btw, I just found out this YouTube video. Take a look, and you can see that LCD seems a bit slow compare to CRT. Should I just say that this is "input lag?" or how should I word it? From Korean forums, I think people were saying that Pros preferred to play on CRT because LCD response a bit slow. An example of LCD 'lag' There are two thing that you're talking about here. One is game latency, the other one is input lag (response time). They don't have a relationship with each other and only response time has to do with the monitor. When you do any input (mouse/keyboard) that affects what's shown on screen, a signal is sent to the CPU, which processes it, renders a new image (with the aid of the video card), and sends it back to the monitor. The monitor only displays said image. At the same time that's happening, if you're playing BW, the information is sent to the other player via the internet. The time it takes for the monitor to display the image after it's received is what we call input lag/response time. This shouldn't be confused with internet lag, which also affects the game's response time, and is indeed diminished by lowlat. On top of that, there's the amout of images a monitor is able to display per second (measured in hertz), and how much blur it generates in moving objects. CRTs are better because they have high refresh rates, fast response times and low motion-blur, which makes for much smoother, clean and more responsive visual feedback. That's why it's preferred by BW pros. These days, however, there's the option for 144hz low response-times LCDs and LEDs, which claim to be able to do the same. They don't, but it's already a big improvement and a lot more convenient due to space limitations and the fact that CRTs are no longer produced. | ||
|
WinterViewbot420
345 Posts
On March 23 2016 07:11 LaStScan wrote: Comparing the Games With and Without Lowlat Program Yes, I read it. But I feel that it is going to the wrong direction. That's why I replied in this thread again. Btw, I just found out this YouTube video. Take a look, and you can see that LCD seems a bit slow compare to CRT. Should I just say that this is "input lag?" or how should I word it? From Korean forums, I think people were saying that Pros preferred to play on CRT because LCD response a bit slow. An example of LCD 'lag' Do you have a link to this? It would help foreigners in big lobbies without wDetector sooo much edit: I found it, definitely a hack and should be treated as such. I don't care if Afreeca players use it, I will not provide a link here. | ||
|
Wrath
3174 Posts
On March 23 2016 06:26 LaStScan wrote: Why are people talking about smoothness here? I am talking about game response time issue. I am investigating that playing on CRT monitor response faster than lcd monitor. How much easy do I need to clarify you? well, I can make an example. 2 players are playing on #l2 room. One uses CRT, other one uses LCD. CRT user plays as near as #l1 and other one plays like no latency changer(old b.net). Does this help to understand? If not, I can make an another example from sc2. A person who lives in EU plays KR server. He plays with 200 ms ping (about 0.5~0.8 sec slow response). The guy who lives in KR and plays against him will take the advantage over European player because he plays with nearly 2 ms ping. Have you ever thought why pros and even in competition prefer to use CRT monitors all that year? (Talking about KeSPA Scene) By the way, most of Korean streamers use lowlat program. Not just launcher that improves latency. Because monitors are OUTPUT devices. OUTPUT devices have nothing to do with latency issues. Here is what could relate to it: Network connection. You play the game on a PC, PC reads the input from Keyboard Mouse and process the input within in the CPU. The output result is displayed on the screen. The difference between CRT and LED / LCD is that CRT produces 144 images per second while LED / LCD produces 60 images per second. Since the PC that is processing the input and transmitting data over the network is the same, the only thing will change is how it will LOOK and that's it. Check this video, it explains better how it looks: P.S. Why do I keep reading lowlat as "lolwat"... | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20285 Posts
On March 23 2016 06:26 LaStScan wrote: Why are people talking about smoothness here? I am talking about game response time issue. I am investigating that playing on CRT monitor response faster than lcd monitor. How much easy do I need to clarify you? well, I can make an example. 2 players are playing on #l2 room. One uses CRT, other one uses LCD. CRT user plays as near as #l1 and other one plays like no latency changer(old b.net). Does this help to understand? If not, I can make an another example from sc2. A person who lives in EU plays KR server. He plays with 200 ms ping (about 0.5~0.8 sec slow response). The guy who lives in KR and plays against him will take the advantage over European player because he plays with nearly 2 ms ping. Have you ever thought why pros and even in competition prefer to use CRT monitors all that year? (Talking about KeSPA Scene) By the way, most of Korean streamers use lowlat program. Not just launcher that improves latency. Good LCD's have similar display latencies to CRT's. The difference between CRT and LED / LCD is that CRT produces 144 images per second while LED / LCD produces 60 images per second That's completely arbitrary, there are plenty of LCD's with CRT-like refresh rates and there are plenty of CRT's that are not set to ~120hz+ | ||
|
crate
United States2474 Posts
--- Framerate is not directly connected to display lag. Most CRTs used a refresh rate of ~85hz or less in most situations, as far as I can tell. Higher refresh rate does not automatically mean less display lag. --- There are two causes for LCDs to have more display latency than CRTs. Response time is reasonably well known and is some measure of the time it takes a display to change from displaying something to displaying something else. CRTs do this faster (order of 1 microsecond, which as far as I know is completely beyond human perception, though CRT images work differently anyway), but good LCD displays are still on the order of 1 millisecond. I think that's likely not noticeable on its own, since you will get similar lag issues from how games poll for input. For reference, that's 1/16ish of a frame at 60hz. Technically the response time sets an upper limit on the monitor's refresh rate (if the liquid crystals physically cannot change from displaying one image to another in 1/144 of a second then the monitor obviously cannot be a 144hz monitor), but this relationship only goes in this direction. It's entirely possible for a 60hz monitor to have the same response time (or even same display lag) as a 144hz monitor. But it's best to not worry too much about response time on its own, because there's another thing creating display lag that is usually (?) a larger effect. This other factor is that LCDs do some processing of their own* on the signal your computer sends them before they actually send an image to the liquid crystals comprising the display. This processing time is the main source of display lag for most LCDs these days as far as I can tell from some quick research, and is not particularly well-documented (manufacturers do not supply it). Most LCD displays' "game mode"s, if they have one, reduce the amount of processing the display itself does to the image so there will be less delay between the PC sending the signal to the monitor and the monitor displaying the image. As far as I can find, good LCDs have on the order of 10ms total display lag, but as I said this is not well-documented in general, so the actual number could be lower for very good ones. One frame at 60hz is 16ish ms, so if you can notice your display being one frame behind your input then you can probably notice the total effect. I'm pretty sure this is possible to notice, at least for some people (I personally did not notice extra lag from switching from a CRT to an LCD). Bad LCD displays or ones using suboptimal settings could be much higher, to the point where you're multiple frames behind, and that would definitely be noticeable. You might not be able to always avoid suboptimal settings with Brood War, since running at a resolution that is not the monitor's native resolution increases processing time. *I'm unsure what kind of processing CRTs need to do to convert the signal the PC sends into (ultimately, I'm going to ignore details here) an image on the screen, but it is definitely faster than what most LCDs do. Possibly fast LCDs are in the same neighborhood now though. --- Anyway the only site I could find with actual display lag measurements is the aptly-named DisplayLag. The database is far from complete, but it's a lot better than the nearly-zero other information I could find. --- Also important to note: you cannot measure any of this with screen-capture software like OBS. OBS works perfectly fine without any monitor at all, since it is just also rendering the signal that your PC is sending to your monitor. In theory you might be able to notice with a high-speed video camera pointed at the PC monitor that is also capturing the player's inputs (good luck getting that from someone in this topic), but it would be extremely difficult to do this with just a general recording of gameplay. You mostly need a controlled test setup to really measure display lag. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20285 Posts
Higher refresh rate does not automatically mean less display lag. It actually does (if everything else is the same), since the biggest delay in decent lcd's is the time between refreshes. If you do an action on a part of the screen that was just refreshed on 60hz, it can't start to be displayed for about 16ms no matter what happens. With a 120hz monitor, it could start to be displayed after half of that time. This other factor is that LCDs do some processing of their own* on the signal your computer sends them before they actually send an image to the liquid crystals comprising the display. This processing time is the main source of display lag for most LCDs these days as far as I can tell from some quick research With bad LCD's, this is true. With the best ones, this lag is very minimal (as low as a few milliseconds out of a ~10-20 millisecond screen delay) @60hz, the peak latency added from the refresh alone (not counting signal lag, time for pixels to change color or anything else in the input latency chain) is +16.67ms. At 144hz, that's +6.94ms. When the total time from action to seeing your input is about 15-40 milliseconds (on the desktop or in a low-lag game rendered at a high framerate), that +10 milliseconds matters a lot. This also adds a pretty huge variance. The lag range for a 60hz refresh is basically 0.0 - 16.67ms, while for 144hz refresh it's 0.0 - 6.94ms. That means you could have for example 20 - 37ms lag on 60hz, but 20-27ms lag on 144hz - a faster on average, but also more consistent experience because of the higher refresh rate. In theory you might be able to notice with a high-speed video camera pointed at the PC monitor that is also capturing the player's inputs (good luck getting that from someone in this topic), but it would be extremely difficult to do this with just a general recording of gameplay. You mostly need a controlled test setup to really measure display lag. http://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/preview2/ - exactly what you're looking for. It's testing an early implementation of gsync specifically, but it has control tests for 300fps vsync off and 143fps cap vsync off. Most of those game engines suck for latency when responding to clicks, CSGO does not. | ||
|
LaStScan
Korea (South)1289 Posts
Comparison It's in Korean, but there are plenty of images that are in English, and you can understand from it. "또 응답속도 역시 따지는 것이 무의미할 정도의 4ns! 4ms의 1/1000에 해당하는 수준입니다." This person was saying that CRT monitor's response time is 4ns. It should be 1/100,000 (0.000004 ms), but whatever with his calculation... Oh yeah, he also advertises BENQ XL Series monitor. 144 Hz refresh rate and 1 ms response time. Humans can't notice the difference, blah blah blah. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20285 Posts
| ||
|
Cryoc
Germany909 Posts
On March 23 2016 08:28 WinterViewbot420 wrote: Do you have a link to this? It would help foreigners in big lobbies without wDetector sooo much edit: I found it, definitely a hack and should be treated as such. I don't care if Afreeca players use it, I will not provide a link here. Just out of interest, why is it a hack, if it only lowers latency? | ||
|
mca64Launcher_
Poland629 Posts
| ||
| ||
