EPTIn other hand this "game latency" is a really good thing to fix for Blizzard for next patch. C'mon, this game can run with 56kpbs modem and everyone should allowed to play on same latency without hack/tool.
Julia will thank later...
SC Game Response Time - Page 4
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
outscar
2832 Posts
In other hand this "game latency" is a really good thing to fix for Blizzard for next patch. C'mon, this game can run with 56kpbs modem and everyone should allowed to play on same latency without hack/tool. Julia will thank later... | ||
|
WinterViewbot420
345 Posts
This is StarCraft, it really doesn't matter. | ||
|
Cryoc
Germany909 Posts
On March 23 2016 21:05 mca64Launcher_ wrote: Cause works only for one side? Ok, make sense. Then the question remains, why is this latency option not implemented in the launchers for both players via #L3 for example. Would especially be useful for the Koreans. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20285 Posts
and usually your keyboard and mouse have higher input latency than your monitor does output latency Mouse input latency is usually very small when compared to the latency for a display to actually show the mouse movement | ||
|
Piste
6177 Posts
On March 23 2016 05:49 WinterViewbot420 wrote: 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. Well at least in the posted vid there are long part following a pattern, so you don't actually have to memorize each three thousand individual key presses. How can a musician play an instrument without notes? | ||
|
WinterViewbot420
345 Posts
On March 24 2016 03:43 Piste wrote: Well at least in the posted vid there are long part following a pattern, so you don't actually have to memorize each three thousand individual key presses. How can a musician play an instrument without notes? This isn't an instrument, and this is too much to memorize. Your argument is silly. | ||
|
corn322
United States16 Posts
Monitors are a Dell M782 and an Asus P248Q. Using the Response time test from this website www.lagom.nl and my cell phone camera, I captured these images. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IZzu4mf.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9BYDdJb.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZMUTaBJ.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CxpL6Rb.jpg) My LCD is about 3.5 frames, or about 50ms (0.050 seconds) behind the CRT. Does this affect my gameplay? If it does, I haven't noticed. Just thought I'd share. | ||
|
WinterViewbot420
345 Posts
On March 24 2016 09:05 corn322 wrote: I though I would post the results of my CRT vs LCD response time experiment I did when I got my monitor. Monitors are a Dell M782 and an Asus P248Q. Using the Response time test from this website www.lagom.nl and my cell phone camera, I captured these images. + Show Spoiler + My LCD is about 3.5 frames, or about 50ms (0.050 seconds) behind the CRT. Does this affect my gameplay? If it does, I haven't noticed. Just thought I'd share. Is that the really old StarCraft II launcher? 0_o | ||
|
corn322
United States16 Posts
Is that the really old StarCraft II launcher? 0_o LOL yes, these photos are from April 2013. | ||
|
wimpwimpwimp
168 Posts
On March 24 2016 09:05 corn322 wrote: I though I would post the results of my CRT vs LCD response time experiment I did when I got my monitor. Monitors are a Dell M782 and an Asus P248Q. Using the Response time test from this website www.lagom.nl and my cell phone camera, I captured these images. + Show Spoiler + My LCD is about 3.5 frames, or about 50ms (0.050 seconds) behind the CRT. Does this affect my gameplay? If it does, I haven't noticed. Just thought I'd share. That´s quite a lot! | ||
|
Dumbledore
Sweden725 Posts
On March 18 2016 11:43 LaStScan wrote: Can you still record a video with 120hz CRT? You can easily record a video with OBS or FRAPS. ...OBS doesn't record the screen, What OBS records has nothing to do with the screen.. It is not some kind of video camera put infront of your monitor | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20285 Posts
On March 24 2016 09:05 corn322 wrote: I though I would post the results of my CRT vs LCD response time experiment I did when I got my monitor. Monitors are a Dell M782 and an Asus P248Q. Using the Response time test from this website www.lagom.nl and my cell phone camera, I captured these images. + Show Spoiler + My LCD is about 3.5 frames, or about 50ms (0.050 seconds) behind the CRT. Does this affect my gameplay? If it does, I haven't noticed. Just thought I'd share. Your result is messed up in some ways because your camera exposure setting was too long and you captured multiple frames in a single picture, even on the CRT. Also again to note you're using the Input Lag / Display Lag test, not the Response Time test. Those two things carry very different meanings in display technology. There are differences in screen technology that are very relevant - a 60hz LCD, even a good one will display information for about 20 milliseconds after a refresh - LCD's continuously display the last frame until refreshed with a new one, which takes 16.67ms plus transition times. A CRT will only display the information for about 1ms - it flashes it once, then it's done. You can't capture "old" information from it using either your eyes or a camera which has significant meaning for both Stuff like that will give you confusing results if you don't understand them. I guess in this picture you have a screen that's not great for input lag (unlike many other lcd's) combined with camera setting issues due to the difference in screen tech. IMO investigate the lcd more, if it's really anything anywhere near +50ms of lag then it's important. To get this result you could have 50ms+ of total lag, while an optimized system with a high refresh rate (LCD, but CRT works fine too  ) monitor can get that down to 20ms or so.A 10ms difference in lag is roughly where it becomes blind testable for me personally if you want to know how big +40ms is. | ||
|
wimpwimpwimp
168 Posts
But yeah, it appears that the Asus P248Q is particularly bad in the input lag department, and that corn322's test isn´t accurately representing the typical input lag differences between a CRT and a decent LCD. Edit: Did you edit your post Cyro? I think I wrote the above responding to a somewhat different post of yours. But maybe I´m just in the need of coffee. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20285 Posts
The page has both Response Time and Input Lag (actually more accurately called display lag in this situation) tests, the previous poster used the Input Lag test and called it Response Time | ||
|
wimpwimpwimp
168 Posts
 | ||
|
kka34629095
20 Posts
On March 23 2016 02:56 WrathSCII wrote: So on CRT, will BW look this smooth? (...) I always wondered on old VODS the game looked way smoother than it looks now on LED screens... .... probably , because 24 fps has to be reformatted to 30fps for TV broadcast. Watching 24fps on a 60hz display will be jerky. Broadcast professionals used studio equiptment to handle the conversion, and amateurs skip it . | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20285 Posts
24*5 = 120 24*6 = 144 to get 24 to 60, you have to do 24*2.5 - specifically, you have to alternate between displaying a frame on every second and every third refresh which is very unsmooth. | ||
|
kka34629095
20 Posts
On March 24 2016 23:34 Cyro wrote: 24fps plays fine on 120hz and 144hz, btw 24*5 = 120 24*6 = 144 to get 24 to 60, you have to do 24*2.5 - specifically, you have to alternate between displaying a frame on every second and every third refresh which is very unsmooth. I think after around 2005 they had some digital reformatting with motion estimation and "fake" frames. 120hz and 144hz displays are less than 0.1% fraction probably closer to 0.01%, manufacturers don't like giving up profit margins. Besides , when it comes to eye-tracking blur 120fps is nearly as bad as 60hz, ~600lines vs. 300 lines equivalent of motion resolution. Not worth it. Probably some flicker countermeasure at <100fps is better way than "mindless" >100fps . | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20285 Posts
Besides , when it comes to eye-tracking blur 120fps is nearly as bad as 60hz Eye-tracking related motion blur is literally half as bad at 120fps as 60fps. It's based on the average error on what the screen is displaying vs how far ahead your eyes have tracked + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://www.blurbusters.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/CROPPED_60Hz.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://www.blurbusters.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/CROPPED_120Hz.jpg) ^60hz vs 120hz with very fast motion and a pursuit camera (1000 pixels per second) ![[image loading]](http://www.blurbusters.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/motion-blur-graph.png) | ||
|
kka34629095
20 Posts
On March 25 2016 00:25 Cyro wrote: (...) Yes I know, but it is not widely known , that "normal" 120fps translates to only 600 lines equivalent eg. 720p (unless there are "fake " or black frames,and only the latter can be inserted without extra lag) also to maintain 120 actual frames without software optimization seems quixotic , so no wonder 120hz monitors never succeeded really. | ||
| ||
