On May 06 2009 18:14 CharlieMurphy wrote: Hey that reminds me, How is Dan in sf4 compared to other chars? How is he compared to other Dans in previous games?
hes the coolest, of course
well, maybe second coolest to rufus, but only because i use rufus
dan pretty fuckin good compared to past dans. hes awesome imo. superjump taunt, awesome priority, great hurricane kick, decent pokes. plus his ultra is badass. plus its so badass doing a supertaunt hitconfirm ultra.
On May 06 2009 18:06 Naib wrote: I've visited the cinema with my friend Sunday (to watch Wolverine: Origins), and much to our pleasure there were X-boxes stationed in the cinema lobby. So after the film, we camped the SFIV one a bit...well, almost 2 hours in fact xD
We both really, really longed for trying this game out (even if the X-box controls are far from optimal to play on), and we had a ton of fun. The best thing about us VSing in fighting games (we're total scrubs in everything btw ) is that we always pick totally different characters. Like this time, I was playing with Ryu, Sagat, Abel, Rufus and C. Viper, whilst he was using Blanka, E. Honda, Zangief, Chun Li and Ken.
Oh well, just wanted to share my tales. This made me wanna own a copy of SFIV ;]
On May 05 2009 19:14 freelander wrote: Today wireless technology is good enough to make even mouses with it.
hell no stuff lags so much even on "gaming" wireless
Mmm yes, the technology has improved since like 10 years ago. Today's wireless technologies can provide data rates that are sufficient for gaming in optimal situations, definitely. Do you really care if your 60-byte packet gets transmitted at 24 Mbps (nominally 20 microseconds, but definitely < 200 microseconds including framing details) as opposed to 100 Mbps (nominally 4.8 microseconds)? The extra latency is negligible. But performance in real situations is still going to be heavily dependent on what your local wireless transmission environment (channel) is like.
Wireless mouses use Bluetooth, and the distance between a wireless mouse and receiver is correspondingly short. Even though Bluetooth uses the generally over-saturated 2.4 GHz spectrum in the ISM band, it can get by fine for these applications for the most part given the short transmission distance and the frequency hop spread spectrum (FHSS) modulation technique it uses. (The 2.4 GHz spectrum also is used by most Wi-Fi, many cordless phones, some TV services, and a whole bunch of general consumer wireless products--plus it gets interference from microwave ovens too.) Pretty much, even if other sources are interfering in the spectrum, enough of the Bluetooth signal can be picked up by the receiver to get 100% of the transmitted data. Other wireless controllers, such as the wireless Xbox 360 controller, use similar FHSS signals with somewhat similar range.
That's a separate issue from Wi-Fi for your network connection though. If you're far away from an access point and get poor signal-to-noise ratio etc., your performance is going to suffer some. But by far the biggest issue is multiple-access interference with competing Wi-Fi signals. Pretty much, if you've got a bunch of devices around using Wi-Fi in the same frequency as you and somebody else is already transmitting, you have to wait until it's your turn to transmit. Then, your transmission may collide with another, forcing a retransmission and even more wasted time (and the retransmission could fail, and its retransmission...). This can greatly increase the effective latency whenever everybody is trying to get on the air at the same time--thus degrading performance very noticeably. But if the air is mostly free, you can expect good performance indistinguishable from that of a wired connection. Just for one example, Ponder said he developed GGPO over his Wi-Fi connection to his router.
"Gaming" wireless is pretty much just a marketing ploy. The underlying technology is the same. The only difference may be a few small performance tweaks within the limits of the standards, but if there were tweaks that existed that improved performance so much, people would already use them for "normal" wireless.
edit: well okay, I may be exaggerating the abilities of FHSS, but it's certainly a huge improvement over what's in Wi-Fi. Wi-Fi modulations use a poverty direct sequence spread spectrum (DSSS) or no spread spectrum at all, IIRC (having spread spectrum helps in a lot of ways against multiple access interference, multipath, etc.).
I never understood why someone would need a wireless mouse/controller. I mean if the distance is so short where it doesn't matter doesn't that defeat the purpose of having something wireless? Like if I had a TV with a wireless remote (yes we all do) but it only worked 2 feet away then its effectively worthless so you might as well be corded.
And with wireless gaming controllers like wii and xbox360 its more of a hassle keeping the controller aimed at the sensor and having people not walk in the way. I prefer cords, even if occasionally someone trips on it and the controller/system flies.
I remember seeing this video bu thaven;t heard much since.
I've always like Dan's SRK, its like the perfect range/hieght and arc. I like his Tatsu better than the traditional one as well, which is why I liked Sean in 3s, but sean's sucks balls and you can't do it in the air, which is important imo if you wanna float over whiffed moves/supers.
PS- What is dan's secret costume? or all his outfit colors actually. Fuck this games needs to come out for PC already.
cool
lol what happened at the end?
This guy uploaded 18 vids of Dan play
can anyone link to any top level dan play?
Btw, I think dan's struggle throw animation shouldn't happen vs small/thin characters like sakura/viper etc. Like lol he struggles to get zangief up and over but also vs viper? wtf
i would seriously play dan ALOT more if his ultra could be shoryu fadc ultra like ken/ryu could also air tatsu and super jump taunt are really good at beating out airs and getting out and fakesteve his backdash is funny but i love both his throws way more
plus its so demoralizing if u get hit with super tauntxxultra lol
On May 05 2009 19:14 freelander wrote: Today wireless technology is good enough to make even mouses with it.
hell no stuff lags so much even on "gaming" wireless
Mmm yes, the technology has improved since like 10 years ago. Today's wireless technologies can provide data rates that are sufficient for gaming in optimal situations, definitely. Do you really care if your 60-byte packet gets transmitted at 24 Mbps (nominally 20 microseconds, but definitely < 200 microseconds including framing details) as opposed to 100 Mbps (nominally 4.8 microseconds)? The extra latency is negligible. But performance in real situations is still going to be heavily dependent on what your local wireless transmission environment (channel) is like.
Wireless mouses use Bluetooth, and the distance between a wireless mouse and receiver is correspondingly short. Even though Bluetooth uses the generally over-saturated 2.4 GHz spectrum in the ISM band, it can get by fine for these applications for the most part given the short transmission distance and the frequency hop spread spectrum (FHSS) modulation technique it uses. (The 2.4 GHz spectrum also is used by most Wi-Fi, many cordless phones, some TV services, and a whole bunch of general consumer wireless products--plus it gets interference from microwave ovens too.) Pretty much, even if other sources are interfering in the spectrum, enough of the Bluetooth signal can be picked up by the receiver to get 100% of the transmitted data. Other wireless controllers, such as the wireless Xbox 360 controller, use similar FHSS signals with somewhat similar range.
That's a separate issue from Wi-Fi for your network connection though. If you're far away from an access point and get poor signal-to-noise ratio etc., your performance is going to suffer some. But by far the biggest issue is multiple-access interference with competing Wi-Fi signals. Pretty much, if you've got a bunch of devices around using Wi-Fi in the same frequency as you and somebody else is already transmitting, you have to wait until it's your turn to transmit. Then, your transmission may collide with another, forcing a retransmission and even more wasted time (and the retransmission could fail, and its retransmission...). This can greatly increase the effective latency whenever everybody is trying to get on the air at the same time--thus degrading performance very noticeably. But if the air is mostly free, you can expect good performance indistinguishable from that of a wired connection. Just for one example, Ponder said he developed GGPO over his Wi-Fi connection to his router.
"Gaming" wireless is pretty much just a marketing ploy. The underlying technology is the same. The only difference may be a few small performance tweaks within the limits of the standards, but if there were tweaks that existed that improved performance so much, people would already use them for "normal" wireless.
edit: well okay, I may be exaggerating the abilities of FHSS, but it's certainly a huge improvement over what's in Wi-Fi. Wi-Fi modulations use a poverty direct sequence spread spectrum (DSSS) or no spread spectrum at all, IIRC (having spread spectrum helps in a lot of ways against multiple access interference, multipath, etc.).
I honestly don't have much scientific knowledge about the subject but in my experience when I've used wireless mice on starcraft, they've been laggy as fuck and unusable.
With regards to FG stuff, I don't know about controllers (haven't ever played FGs with a pad and I don't know any console game well enough to know about in lag with relation to other games). I do know that wireless stuff at a large console tournament is a problem because of there being a lot of consoles in one place so it's a bad setup to use.
On May 05 2009 19:14 freelander wrote: Today wireless technology is good enough to make even mouses with it.
hell no stuff lags so much even on "gaming" wireless
Mmm yes, the technology has improved since like 10 years ago. Today's wireless technologies can provide data rates that are sufficient for gaming in optimal situations, definitely. Do you really care if your 60-byte packet gets transmitted at 24 Mbps (nominally 20 microseconds, but definitely < 200 microseconds including framing details) as opposed to 100 Mbps (nominally 4.8 microseconds)? The extra latency is negligible. But performance in real situations is still going to be heavily dependent on what your local wireless transmission environment (channel) is like.
Wireless mouses use Bluetooth, and the distance between a wireless mouse and receiver is correspondingly short. Even though Bluetooth uses the generally over-saturated 2.4 GHz spectrum in the ISM band, it can get by fine for these applications for the most part given the short transmission distance and the frequency hop spread spectrum (FHSS) modulation technique it uses. (The 2.4 GHz spectrum also is used by most Wi-Fi, many cordless phones, some TV services, and a whole bunch of general consumer wireless products--plus it gets interference from microwave ovens too.) Pretty much, even if other sources are interfering in the spectrum, enough of the Bluetooth signal can be picked up by the receiver to get 100% of the transmitted data. Other wireless controllers, such as the wireless Xbox 360 controller, use similar FHSS signals with somewhat similar range.
That's a separate issue from Wi-Fi for your network connection though. If you're far away from an access point and get poor signal-to-noise ratio etc., your performance is going to suffer some. But by far the biggest issue is multiple-access interference with competing Wi-Fi signals. Pretty much, if you've got a bunch of devices around using Wi-Fi in the same frequency as you and somebody else is already transmitting, you have to wait until it's your turn to transmit. Then, your transmission may collide with another, forcing a retransmission and even more wasted time (and the retransmission could fail, and its retransmission...). This can greatly increase the effective latency whenever everybody is trying to get on the air at the same time--thus degrading performance very noticeably. But if the air is mostly free, you can expect good performance indistinguishable from that of a wired connection. Just for one example, Ponder said he developed GGPO over his Wi-Fi connection to his router.
"Gaming" wireless is pretty much just a marketing ploy. The underlying technology is the same. The only difference may be a few small performance tweaks within the limits of the standards, but if there were tweaks that existed that improved performance so much, people would already use them for "normal" wireless.
edit: well okay, I may be exaggerating the abilities of FHSS, but it's certainly a huge improvement over what's in Wi-Fi. Wi-Fi modulations use a poverty direct sequence spread spectrum (DSSS) or no spread spectrum at all, IIRC (having spread spectrum helps in a lot of ways against multiple access interference, multipath, etc.).
I honestly don't have much scientific knowledge about the subject but in my experience when I've used wireless mice on starcraft, they've been laggy as fuck and unusable.
With regards to FG stuff, I don't know about controllers (haven't ever played FGs with a pad and I don't know any console game well enough to know about in lag with relation to other games). I do know that wireless stuff at a large console tournament is a problem because of there being a lot of consoles in one place so it's a bad setup to use.
tbh my whole post should have said, "yes, wireless sucks if there are a lot of wireless devices present, thus interfering with each other; otherwise, it is just as good." Which is what we all know already. Still in final exam mode sorry.