On October 24 2010 02:06 Vedic wrote: While this is correct, it's only correct up to a point. If you're striving for that 1:1 accuracy, you have to restrict yourself to your resolution. Using a 2000 DPI mouse in 1024x768 hurts you in the same way that using a 400dpi mouse hurts you in 1600x900.
Not true. It doen't hurt you in the same way. Using a mouse with dpi too low for fast 1:1 at a given screen resolution means you have to start skipping pixels. Using a mouse with dpi that's too high and that has to have it's sensitivity reduced below 1:1 means that some mouse movement has to be ignored, so it may take slightly farther to move between certain pixels than others. This is MUCH less noticeable than pixel-skipping, and unlike pixel skipping is not going to become a worse problem as the mouse move farther from 1:1
The problem is equally bad (and in some cases worse, due to the fact that no monitor uses 1:1 ratio), and should be treated with equal disdain. It's not a question of noticing the problem (though, if you're good enough, you'll notice it anyway), but a question of real accuracy. It's not like a human can be pixel accurate at any of these ratios anyway, but if you're using more DPI than your resolution, you're a sucker for marketing, and really just giving yourself a placebo.
I guess I wasn't clear -- I was talking about optical vs. ball, not optical vs. laser. Laser never came into my argument. You'll notice I don't mention laser mice anywhere in my post.
Ball mice really have no place in any mouse discussion, but optical win out in every division.
On October 24 2010 02:06 Vedic wrote: While this is correct, it's only correct up to a point. If you're striving for that 1:1 accuracy, you have to restrict yourself to your resolution. Using a 2000 DPI mouse in 1024x768 hurts you in the same way that using a 400dpi mouse hurts you in 1600x900.
Not true. It doen't hurt you in the same way. Using a mouse with dpi too low for fast 1:1 at a given screen resolution means you have to start skipping pixels. Using a mouse with dpi that's too high and that has to have it's sensitivity reduced below 1:1 means that some mouse movement has to be ignored, so it may take slightly farther to move between certain pixels than others. This is MUCH less noticeable than pixel-skipping, and unlike pixel skipping is not going to become a worse problem as the mouse move farther from 1:1
The problem is equally bad (and in some cases worse, due to the fact that no monitor uses 1:1 ratio), and should be treated with equal disdain. It's not a question of noticing the problem (though, if you're good enough, you'll notice it anyway), but a question of real accuracy. It's not like a human can be pixel accurate at any of these ratios anyway, but if you're using more DPI than your resolution, you're a sucker for marketing, and really just giving yourself a placebo.
I guess I wasn't clear -- I was talking about optical vs. ball, not optical vs. laser. Laser never came into my argument. You'll notice I don't mention laser mice anywhere in my post.
Ball mice really have no place in any mouse discussion, but optical win out in every division.
a perfectly clean and balanced ball mouse on a perfectly flat surface wins out over all other mice in my experiences, but that situation is so hard to come by that optical/laser come out on top also; a laser mouse > an optical one, esp. since opticals dont work on while/clear surfaces
Let's imagine you have a mouse that has to have a 4x increase in sensitivity to provide the level of sensitivity the user wants. It's going to skip 3/4 pixels. The problem increases as the difference between the mouses inherent sensitivity at 1:1 and the users desired sensitivity increases. It also means that 15/16 pixels on the screen are literally imposiible to hit.
Obviously, 1:1 is ideal, but now imagine that you've got a high dpi mouse that's got a slight dpi excess, and you have to dial down the sensitivity 75% to make it playable. What that means is that the mouse needs to move 0.75 pixels for every one pixel the mouse moves. That's not possible because only integer pixel movements are possible. So the mouse needs to move 4 pixels for every 3 pixels on the screen. For each cursor movement the mouse will move 1-1-2-1-1-2-1-1-2. This is not easy to notice, but not ideal. The third pixel requries an estra 100% the mouse movement to register on the screen.
Now, double the dpi on the mouse. Now the cursor needs to move 0.375 pixels for every 1 pixel the mouse moves, or 3 pixels for every 8 for the mouse. Now for each cursor movement the mouse moves 3-3-2-3-3-2-3-3-2. The third pixel requires 33% less mouse movement.
Doubling sensitivity again gives 3 pixels for every 16 of the mouse, and the cursor moves 5-5-6-5-5-6-5-5-6. The third pixel now only requires 17% extra movement.
The problem becomes less and less noticeable as the mouse dpi increases. So unless you can get perfect 1:1 (or 0.5:1 or 0.25:1, etc.), it's actually best to have the higest dpi mouse possible.
Regardless of that, even situation 1, where the mouse dpi was only slightly too high, most people who have used high dps mice prefer that to a mouse that skips. It's OK if you don't like high dpi mice, but please don't provide wrong information. And someone please correct me if I'm misunderstanding things.
The reaon I talked about ball mice was in direct answer to another post.
I have huge hands I have a claw grip, and I am right handed. I'd also prefer side buttons around my thumb (just two). I have the opportunity to get a fancy mouse, what should I get? (I'm biased towards Razer because they seem so dang nice, but I'll be open to anything)
On October 26 2010 01:38 Hikko wrote: I have huge hands I have a claw grip, and I am right handed. I'd also prefer side buttons around my thumb (just two). I have the opportunity to get a fancy mouse, what should I get? (I'm biased towards Razer because they seem so dang nice, but I'll be open to anything)
On October 24 2010 06:50 GagnarTheUnruly wrote: @Vedic
Let's imagine you have a mouse that has to have a 4x increase in sensitivity to provide the level of sensitivity the user wants. It's going to skip 3/4 pixels. The problem increases as the difference between the mouses inherent sensitivity at 1:1 and the users desired sensitivity increases. It also means that 15/16 pixels on the screen are literally imposiible to hit.
Obviously, 1:1 is ideal, but now imagine that you've got a high dpi mouse that's got a slight dpi excess, and you have to dial down the sensitivity 75% to make it playable. What that means is that the mouse needs to move 0.75 pixels for every one pixel the mouse moves. That's not possible because only integer pixel movements are possible. So the mouse needs to move 4 pixels for every 3 pixels on the screen. For each cursor movement the mouse will move 1-1-2-1-1-2-1-1-2. This is not easy to notice, but not ideal. The third pixel requries an estra 100% the mouse movement to register on the screen.
It sounds to me like you're doing a lot of theorycrafting, but you haven't worked directly with mouse input. The x/y don't correlate to fractions of pixels, as the program won't even be dealing with more than whole numbers. When moving multiple pixels, you're not losing 1/4 per pixel, but per pixel update. The decimal is dropped from the full value of movement, not from individual pixels.
When your operating system is going to lower the input to less than 1:1, it's applying that value (in your case 0.75, but you'll be hard pressed to find such an elegant ratio) to the full update value, but then dropping the resulting decimal. While this would potentially be a little less bad on an interrupt-based system, there is just no way to properly use higher DPI than your resolution.
On October 24 2010 06:50 GagnarTheUnruly wrote: @Vedic
Let's imagine you have a mouse that has to have a 4x increase in sensitivity to provide the level of sensitivity the user wants. It's going to skip 3/4 pixels. The problem increases as the difference between the mouses inherent sensitivity at 1:1 and the users desired sensitivity increases. It also means that 15/16 pixels on the screen are literally imposiible to hit.
Obviously, 1:1 is ideal, but now imagine that you've got a high dpi mouse that's got a slight dpi excess, and you have to dial down the sensitivity 75% to make it playable. What that means is that the mouse needs to move 0.75 pixels for every one pixel the mouse moves. That's not possible because only integer pixel movements are possible. So the mouse needs to move 4 pixels for every 3 pixels on the screen. For each cursor movement the mouse will move 1-1-2-1-1-2-1-1-2. This is not easy to notice, but not ideal. The third pixel requries an estra 100% the mouse movement to register on the screen.
It sounds to me like you're doing a lot of theorycrafting, but you haven't worked directly with mouse input. The x/y don't correlate to fractions of pixels, as the program won't even be dealing with more than whole numbers. When moving multiple pixels, you're not losing 1/4 per pixel, but per pixel update. The decimal is dropped from the full value of movement, not from individual pixels.
When your operating system is going to lower the input to less than 1:1, it's applying that value (in your case 0.75, but you'll be hard pressed to find such an elegant ratio) to the full update value, but then dropping the resulting decimal. While this would potentially be a little less bad on an interrupt-based system, there is just no way to properly use higher DPI than your resolution.
But the discrepancy should still decrease as dpi increases because you'll be smaller steps away from ideal ratios when you're at higher dpi.
I got it for 22 dollars when it was on sale. I use it with the Razer Goliathus Control mouse pad and must say that I am pretty pleased with the both. I'm just curious what others think! But still, I wonder how much more awesome or not is the Abyssus or Deathadder for SC2.
EPT![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/zIqC0.jpg)
