IIRC, higher dpi jazz is only useful if you're playing on huge resolutions or some crap

but mostly its marketed as if it will improve precision everywhere, and a lot of players firmly believe if they just had the right mouse they could do everything cooller/toxic/w3sp/whoever does and do it even better! perhaps sometimes they jsut want the feeling of placebo and need a reason to keep playing...a $50 mouse could keep things interesting...

Didn't w3sp claim to be a woman for some totally ephemeral reason?

Being a complete fag is an ephemeral reason?

I really don't know the guy, just remember the flames at the defrag forum, overdrivepc...something?

I gotta say that you shouldn't discount quality mice altogether, but I agree with you that those with quality mouse already who are constantly buying new mice for that extra 100 dpi or whatever are kinda delusional about how to progress as players. I moved from a $10 Logitech piece of crap to an MSIE 3.0 and noticed a HUGE difference immediately.

It is kinda silly how much difference a quality mouse makes over a standard mouse (for everyday use). And I resisted for a long time buying a new mouse because I believed it was just a bunch of marketing to sell these over-priced peripherals.

Having tried everything under the sun, it still is largely overpriced peripherals. You can dig up reviews I've posted on this site for many a mouse, but the only one I still fap to is the I.E. 3.0

I moved from a $10 Logitech piece of crap to an MSIE 3.0 and noticed a HUGE difference immediately.

Same here, except I replaced an MX518 with a broken left-mouse button with the IE3.0 and noticed a big difference. Then I replaced that (same reason, other mouse button) with a Deathadder and noticed a marginal improvement. Then I replaced that (exact same reason, except the side buttons were also pushed in) with a Deathadder 3G and also noticed an improvement with that, except the difference was even more marginal.

Bottom line: if you're looking for cost efficiency, don't buy gaming mice. :P

In my personal experience mice with higher dpi the mouse buttons since I use them for fire and jump seem to react a bit quicker, obviously not by much but it feels consistently quicker I guess you could say. Oddly enough though when I try to do rocket jumps with higher dpi mice sometimes it seems like it wont register them both at the same time everytime. And like you stunt with all the newfound speed it seems hard to find something that feels similar to before :/. So having to start over in finding your right mouse sens again always sucks :/

high dpi isn't in any way related to more sensitive switches in mouse buttons. what you're noticing is the trend in more expensive mice to have more sensitive switches for the buttons.

ted pretty much hit it on the head. functionally, higher dpi is for consistency across higher resolutions and nothing more. it's also a popular marketing gimmick for an industry tapped for ideas.

interesting.

danke will :)

danke?

wtf are you, german?

it's obvious he's mexican

no but being in germany for a week and a half it's at least a good idea to know how to say thanks ;P

play some quakelive man, if you have time, right now the NA scene is so stale. In dire need of quake talent imho :)

connect just got fixed so maybe i will :)

hehe thnx

u r only w/ teh elit3 if you have >2000 dpi las3r m0use1!1

stfu fat hamburger

didnt surpise me
try harder next time

He's just whoring for online acceptance.

yeah, i'm sad. :-(

wth are you talking about. if you have reason to insult me, at least do it in a half intelligent way. damn, im actually embarrassed for you when someone reads this

Reading comprehension?

I was talking about mash and his please 'plus' me stereotypical lmao@usa 'comment'

sry
i dont trust your ESRers :P

racist.

didn't know ESR was a country
idk though...
i heard Europe is a pretty bad country
worse than Africa, another bad country

country, race, continent

WTF?

sarcasm?

doubt it
he's not the kind of guy to do that sort of thing

if anyone uses 1600 pixel horizontal resolution and wants pixel precision and still do a 360 within 10 cm he will rughly need those 1800 dpi. (Given I didn't miscalculate somewhere)

But I doubt that anyone can move a mouse precisely by 1/1800th of an inch or 0.0141 mm ...

wouldnt it be smoother though? like if we assume a 360 @ 1600 needs precisely
1800dpi, if you only had half, 900dpi, wouldnt your crosshair skip every other pixel
thus make it choppy? im just guessing btw :P

hmmm.

maybe.

But in that case if you moved your mouse just 0.1 mm you would already cover 7 pixels so skipping 3 of them doesn't make a big difference, imo.

every calculation that i've ever seen on this issue is wrong.

the pixels at the centre of your screen represent larger angles than the pixels at the edge of the screen.

if you use the central pixels (the ones that matter for precision / small movements), the required dpi is much lower than the results that everyone keeps throwing around (which are based on an average of the whole screen, and thus a naive approximation anyway)

are you referring to crts or some ingame engine calculation?

im talking about the method that you are using to calculate how much dpi you 'need' for a given resolution / sens / fov / etc.

the type of monitor is irrelevant.

care to elaborate?

the mouse resolution determines the smallest angle you can rotate your view by in game, for a given sensitivity.

if you want this smallest angle to be small enough so that you can turn your view by 1 pixel (to the pixel next to where your crosshair is), you need to know what angle that distance of 1 pixel represents on your screen.

the current method that everyone seems to use calculates the average number of degrees per pixel over the whole screen. this is wrong, however it is the simplest mathematically.

the projection of the 3D world onto the 2D plane of your screen (read: fishbowl effect), means the pixels located near the crosshair represent much larger angles than those pixels located at the edges of your screen.

so to do the calculation properly, you have to calculate how many degrees a single pixel represents at the centre of the screen.

if you do it properly, you get:

R = ( pi * W ) / ( I * tan[ F / 2 ] )

where
W = screen resolution width
I = real sensitivity (distance per 360 turn)
F = horizontal fov

R = mouse resolution required


convert your sens to inches if you want R in units of dpi.

post more please.

how much does it differ from the simple method? could you give an example for 10cm/360, 1920 pixels screen res, fov 90?

i've done the hard work. you're quite capable of putting the numbers in yourself.

edit: go on then. for your example it gives

1532 dpi (above method)
1951 dpi (simple method)

the above method will always give lower values than the simple method.

hint: tan[ 45 degrees ] = 1

thanks... i'm not that good with calculations ^^

here's an excel calculator file:
http://h8m3.wippiespace.com/pack/DPI.xls
Dunno if it works in the english version of excel though coz the formulas are a bit in russian -,-

thanks dude! works :)

hmm, and is it possible to count the exact /sensitivity value which is the maximum possible at the current r_mode & fov without any pixel skipping. Smth like 1 windows pixel = 1 ingame pixel(at least aproximattely). I just wanna get the same sens in windows and ingame, using 1024x768+fov90+pitch/yaw 0.022

yes,

B = ( 360 * tan[ F/2 ] ) / ( pi * W * M )

B = sensitivity (cvar)
F = fov
W = screen res width
M = m_yaw


for your numbers it gives a maximum sensitivity value of 5.09

Perhaps you should just make an article with all these formulas etc. so people can just be linked to the one place for all these questions?

wow thx!

can i ask what do u mean by pixel skiping? are u saying if its not 1:1 it will skip?

the term 'pixel skipping' only really has any meaning when you are talking about a 2D mouse pointer.

people often (and incorrectly) use it to talk about rotations in FPS games.

the closest analogy to pixel skipping for rotations is what i described above in post #33.

Please explain how you came to that equation. proof? :)

the explanation is pretty much in the post already, however here's a sketch:

http://www.funender.com/quake/files/injx/injxsketch.jpg

the objective is to find R such that x=1 pixel for 1 count of input, in 5 easy steps.

p.s. there shouldnt really be a circle in the right-hand diagram, it's just a triangle inside the left-hand triangle.

when we have fixed DPI on mouse we should play only with our m_yaw, m_pitch and sensitivity right?

I = 360 / ( M * S * DPI )

and

I = ( pi * W ) / ( DPI * tan[ F / 2 ] )

then

360 / ( M * S * DPI ) = ( pi * W ) / ( DPI * tan[ F / 2 ] )

M = ( 360 * tan[ F / 2 ] ) / ( pi * W * S )

where
S = Sensitivity in game ( Windows sens default )
M = minimum values of m_yaw and m_pitch to get 1px precision
m_*** are actual angels of rotation per 1 mouse tick with S=1 aren't they?

to control game response to mouse movement we can set S below 1
0,5 would divide M by 2 so 2 mouse ticks would change angle of view by M

is it correct?

yep.

although in that form, M is a maximum limit, not a minimum.

You are awesome.

noone does a 360 ... 180 is fully sufficient

I routinely do 360 flick rails.

and then you turn 360 and walk away

imo using 360 as a starting point has to do with pad size and that you don't always start your turn at the very right or left and that you don want to always turn left or always turn right.

Marketing.

Logitech fully knows their optical mice are better than their laser, and they've even said so either on this site, or another one. The problem is that they know they'll sell more Laser mice, just because it sounds better. Think about it, first we have optical, now we have LASER.

"OOOOOHHHHH, LASER, ITS SO NEW AND AWESOME"

Higher DPI doesn't matter, except for the stupid players who feel the need to be able to do 17 360's by moving thier mouse 8cm.

laser mice sound better ...

pew pew !!! use the force etc

Marketing BS that unfortunately many people buy into - literally

Yup, the sole reason companies aren't going back to optical (except for Razer or SS)

Maybe they'll also do optical fibre mouse cords FOR LOWER LATENCIEZOMG1:!

Why do people keep calling it optical and laser? Both are optical.

marketing from the manufacturers
my guess is they had to distinguish the regular led mice already called 'optical' from the newer 'laser' mice.
and then people just went with it.

Lazers are cool.

gtfo my thread.

gtfo of my head

Im waiting to buy a phaser mouse with warp 9 dpi speeds =)

Maybe Im just not good at math but using #33's formula for max pitch and yaw I came out with 0.007 and that just seems absurdly low.

Im on 450dpi, 2.2sens, 1920x1080, fov 106.26 so with

M = ( 360 * tan[ F / 2 ] ) / ( pi * W * S ) it comes out to

M = -6391/(263679*pi)

M = 0.007

Im thinking maybe I did this wrong can anyone double check this?

M = 480 / (4224 * pi) = 0.036

neato