my g400(not the g400s) is a newer version, I believe it has a avago S3095 and it has no angle snapping or acceleration or anything of the sort.
my g400(not the g400s) is a newer version, I believe it has a avago S3095 and it has no angle snapping or acceleration or anything of the sort.
But that's completely irrelevant to this discussion since that's an optical sensor, not a laser sensor.
snipWhile it may seem like it in theory, I find that lift-off distance issues and the PTE z-axis problem are both equally bad, if not worse, at higher dpi. Higher dpi means the cursor moves a significantly longer distance than it does at low dpi, even if low dpi often causes you to lift quite often(although I have found that an increase in dpi doesn't necessarily reduce lifting).
snipWhile it may seem like it in theory, I find that lift-off distance issues and the PTE z-axis problem are both equally bad, if not worse, at higher dpi. Higher dpi means the cursor moves a significantly longer distance than it does at low dpi, even if low dpi often causes you to lift quite often(although I have found that an increase in dpi doesn't necessarily reduce lifting).
So for me, lower dpi seems to have masked most sensor issues, although acceleration will still be worse at lower dpi where a small amount of accel can add up with all the movement going on.
snipWhile it may seem like it in theory, I find that lift-off distance issues and the PTE z-axis problem are both equally bad, if not worse, at higher dpi. Higher dpi means the cursor moves a significantly longer distance than it does at low dpi, even if low dpi often causes you to lift quite often(although I have found that an increase in dpi doesn't necessarily reduce lifting).
So for me, lower dpi seems to have masked most sensor issues, although acceleration will still be worse at lower dpi where a small amount of accel can add up with all the movement going on.
Hmm, that may be the case. I do not play at high DPI myself, but I noticed that for someone who plays arena shooters on low sensitivity like me, the issues that are just theoretical to some become quite noticeable. The Philips Twin Eye sensor you mentioned is one example of a sensor that is just unusable in my opinion, though plenty of people still somehow happily use their RAT7's and so on. Another example is that I ran into the max tracking speed of some mice (WMO for example, though I loved the mouse).
I guess it depends on which specific issues you are talking about.
Even though I'm a stickler for optical sensor with less acceleration..
I call bull**** on anyone that claim they can pick up on +/-5% accel with the laser.Show Image(http://www.cute-factor.com/images/smilies/onion/87a4e689.gif)
Even though I'm a stickler for optical sensor with less acceleration..
I call bull**** on anyone that claim they can pick up on +/-5% accel with the laser.Show Image(http://www.cute-factor.com/images/smilies/onion/87a4e689.gif)
Same. I play on very low sensitivity (Windows sensitivity setting 6/11, ~500 DPI, Counter Strike:GO ingame 1.75, Battlefield 4 ingame 5%) and I can not pick up on it either. And I am not just some scrub with bad aim who does not perform well in these games anyway. I use the optical sensors just because I want to avoid problems, however, I am sure I would be the same player performance-wise when using a Sensei , as when using my Zowie FK. When I used my teammate's Sensei at a LAN earlier this year, nothing in my performance changed. We see the same thing from professional players that change mice due to sponsorships (the guys in NIP for example, with their Steelseries products). It seems that skill remains the single most important factor, and that past some level of performance of your mouse, differences in sensor quality has no significant effect on performance. Arguably the best players in the world, for one of the most mouse-dependent games in the world (Counter Strike) dominated with mice that some label as broken (anything from the kana to the ikari optical). Kind of put things in perspective.
I should note however, that the first generation Avago 9500 sensors had noticeable problems tracking on cloth, which made the acceleration problem much worse. I have been told that this issue is no longer there, but I have not tested it, since I have not tried any laser mice for years now.
That said, when you are buying a gaming mouse, it makes perfect sense to prioritize having a good sensor (along with shape etc.)
Having long term use with the 9500 (G9x) and recently switching to the 3090 (Kone Pure opt.); I say there's no cognitive difference under normal mousing, but I have noticed I'm not missing/multi-clicking as much after flicking the mouse around (have been using the 3090 for a few weeks now). Whether it's placebo or developing more accurate memory, I couldn't say, but it's a happy change for me.
Having long term use with the 9500 (G9x) and recently switching to the 3090 (Kone Pure opt.); I say there's no cognitive difference under normal mousing, but I have noticed I'm not missing/multi-clicking as much after flicking the mouse around (have been using the 3090 for a few weeks now). Whether it's placebo or developing more accurate memory, I couldn't say, but it's a happy change for me.
Well, if you're missing/multi-clicking less, isn't that a cognitive difference? Regardless of the semantics, if I were missing/multi-clicking less with an optical sensor mouse, that would be enough reason to dump laser mice, for me.
Well, if you're missing/multi-clicking less, isn't that a cognitive difference? Regardless of the semantics, if I were missing/multi-clicking less with an optical sensor mouse, that would be enough reason to dump laser mice, for me.
While it could be the sensor, it could also be due to a more suitable shape/weight, or possibly the placebo effect.
Having long term use with the 9500 (G9x) and recently switching to the 3090 (Kone Pure opt.); I say there's no cognitive difference under normal mousing, but I have noticed I'm not missing/multi-clicking as much after flicking the mouse around (have been using the 3090 for a few weeks now). Whether it's placebo or developing more accurate memory, I couldn't say, but it's a happy change for me.
Well, if you're missing/multi-clicking less, isn't that a cognitive difference? Regardless of the semantics, if I were missing/multi-clicking less with an optical sensor mouse, that would be enough reason to dump laser mice, for me.
While it could be the sensor, it could also be due to a more suitable shape/weight, or possibly the placebo effect.
Well, if you're missing/multi-clicking less, isn't that a cognitive difference? Regardless of the semantics, if I were missing/multi-clicking less with an optical sensor mouse, that would be enough reason to dump laser mice, for me.
It's too hard to say exactly what the cause for the slight enhancement for performance is/was, mainly because it's not as if I can wave the cursor across the screen and see any difference between the two mice; I mean it's easy to point at the sensor because it's the most obvious change as well as being a noted upgrade when developing muscle memory. But, it could even be the placement of the sensor in relation to how I move the mouse or because I have only recently returned to using a cloth pad.While it could be the sensor, it could also be due to a more suitable shape/weight, or possibly the placebo effect.
Even though I'm a stickler for optical sensor with less acceleration..
I call bull**** on anyone that claim they can pick up on +/-5% accel with the laser.Show Image(http://www.cute-factor.com/images/smilies/onion/87a4e689.gif)
Meh. That's just you calling "bull****." Doesn't necessarily mean you're correct.
Also, if you think the acceleration of laser mice is bull****, then why do you still stick with optical mice, specifically for less acceleration? You're not making any sense.QuoteSame. I play on very low sensitivity (Windows sensitivity setting 6/11, ~500 DPI, Counter Strike:GO ingame 1.75, Battlefield 4 ingame 5%) and I can not pick up on it either. And I am not just some scrub with bad aim who does not perform well in these games anyway. I use the optical sensors just because I want to avoid problems, however, I am sure I would be the same player performance-wise when using a Sensei , as when using my Zowie FK. When I used my teammate's Sensei at a LAN earlier this year, nothing in my performance changed. We see the same thing from professional players that change mice due to sponsorships (the guys in NIP for example, with their Steelseries products). It seems that skill remains the single most important factor, and that past some level of performance of your mouse, differences in sensor quality has no significant effect on performance. Arguably the best players in the world, for one of the most mouse-dependent games in the world (Counter Strike) dominated with mice that some label as broken (anything from the kana to the ikari optical). Kind of put things in perspective.
I should note however, that the first generation Avago 9500 sensors had noticeable problems tracking on cloth, which made the acceleration problem much worse. I have been told that this issue is no longer there, but I have not tested it, since I have not tried any laser mice for years now.
That said, when you are buying a gaming mouse, it makes perfect sense to prioritize having a good sensor (along with shape etc.)
So you're saying... the sensor doesn't matter, but people should still purchase mice based on sensor? o.O You're contradicting yourself.
Also, just because players win with mice with sensors that are supposedly flawed, doesn't mean the flaws aren't there. It is very well possible players just decide to play despite the flaws in the sensors, and still win, simply because they are that good.
Yea, you could argue then, that skill is the most important thing, which I agree. But who is to say that mice with better sensors wouldn't help them out? Maybe they just don't know it yet.
Also, the mice you mentioned that pro CS players used were all optical mice (Kana and Ikari optical). Though there may be other issues with the sensors of those mice, it certainly isn't acceleration, which is the topic of this thread here.
That said, I'm not pretending I'm some amazing gamer, and claiming that I need the best mice with the best sensors to pretend that I'm a great gamer, but, honestly, I felt the difference between the Deathadder and the Taipan. I used them side-by-side and I could absolutely tell the difference. From what you're saying, Grim Fandango, you used the Steel Series Sensei at LAN event, which is some time and distance away from your home mouse, the Zowie FK, so you didn't really have a means of doing a side-by-side comparison.
I challenge anyone to make that side-by-side comparison, between an optical mouse (without mouse acceleration), and an Avago laser mouse.
Even though I'm a stickler for optical sensor with less acceleration..
I call bull**** on anyone that claim they can pick up on +/-5% accel with the laser.Show Image(http://www.cute-factor.com/images/smilies/onion/87a4e689.gif)
Meh. That's just you calling "bull****." Doesn't necessarily mean you're correct.
Also, if you think the acceleration of laser mice is bull****, then why do you still stick with optical mice, specifically for less acceleration? You're not making any sense.QuoteSame. I play on very low sensitivity (Windows sensitivity setting 6/11, ~500 DPI, Counter Strike:GO ingame 1.75, Battlefield 4 ingame 5%) and I can not pick up on it either. And I am not just some scrub with bad aim who does not perform well in these games anyway. I use the optical sensors just because I want to avoid problems, however, I am sure I would be the same player performance-wise when using a Sensei , as when using my Zowie FK. When I used my teammate's Sensei at a LAN earlier this year, nothing in my performance changed. We see the same thing from professional players that change mice due to sponsorships (the guys in NIP for example, with their Steelseries products). It seems that skill remains the single most important factor, and that past some level of performance of your mouse, differences in sensor quality has no significant effect on performance. Arguably the best players in the world, for one of the most mouse-dependent games in the world (Counter Strike) dominated with mice that some label as broken (anything from the kana to the ikari optical). Kind of put things in perspective.
I should note however, that the first generation Avago 9500 sensors had noticeable problems tracking on cloth, which made the acceleration problem much worse. I have been told that this issue is no longer there, but I have not tested it, since I have not tried any laser mice for years now.
That said, when you are buying a gaming mouse, it makes perfect sense to prioritize having a good sensor (along with shape etc.)
So you're saying... the sensor doesn't matter, but people should still purchase mice based on sensor? o.O You're contradicting yourself.
Also, just because players win with mice with sensors that are supposedly flawed, doesn't mean the flaws aren't there. It is very well possible players just decide to play despite the flaws in the sensors, and still win, simply because they are that good.
Yea, you could argue then, that skill is the most important thing, which I agree. But who is to say that mice with better sensors wouldn't help them out? Maybe they just don't know it yet.
Also, the mice you mentioned that pro CS players used were all optical mice (Kana and Ikari optical). Though there may be other issues with the sensors of those mice, it certainly isn't acceleration, which is the topic of this thread here.
That said, I'm not pretending I'm some amazing gamer, and claiming that I need the best mice with the best sensors to pretend that I'm a great gamer, but, honestly, I felt the difference between the Deathadder and the Taipan. I used them side-by-side and I could absolutely tell the difference. From what you're saying, Grim Fandango, you used the Steel Series Sensei at LAN event, which is some time and distance away from your home mouse, the Zowie FK, so you didn't really have a means of doing a side-by-side comparison.
I challenge anyone to make that side-by-side comparison, between an optical mouse (without mouse acceleration), and an Avago laser mouse.
I just tried to put it into perspective.
I said that it is not nearly as noticeable or as bad as some people make it out to be, and it does not have a profound effect on performance (at least not to the extent that people claim it does), even though I do not deny that the acceleration problems are real (and therefore do realize the laser sensors are less than optimal, however small the differences in performance may be). Despite acceleration problems on the newer Avago laser mice not being quite as terrible as some people make it sound, it still makes sense to prioritize the quality of the sensor when buying a gaming mouse, simply because generally it is one of the most important characteristics of a mouse. I said they should prioritize it among other things, giving shape as an example of another thing that is just as important.
Also, I was able to use my Zowie FK, that I brought to the LAN of course. I also brought my WMO 1.1a. I have also used all three of those mice (Sensei, WMO, FK) on different occasions as well. The reason I mentioned the LAN is because it was the only time where I actually switched back and forth , where usually I use a certain mouse for longer period making comparison harder (Mind you, this was as 3 day lan, and for a large portion of it, me and the other guy switched mice because he wanted to know whether he should switch mice, so it is not like it was a 5 minute comparison). I know this is hardly any kind of proof about how a sensor affects performance (anecdotal evidence by one guy is hardly enough). I just wanted to share my own personal experience, and it was largely the same game, same day(s), same maps even, against the same people (with detailed stats for comparison as well) so it was as good of a real world test as I was ever going to do. We have LANs 3 times a year, and we often try each other's peripherals. 3 guys in my team switched to mechanical keyboards after I told them about mine, though some others already had one.
I noticed my Logitech G9 never felt completely right. Same with my Laser version RAT.
My optical RAT3 just feels more precise. And that's enough for me.
It's fine for most normal tasks, but in-game it is noticeable, though hard to describe or show data for it. I wouldn't notice it so much if I didn't have a better mouse for reference. It makes enough difference that I only game with the optical one now.
I noticed my Logitech G9 never felt completely right. Same with my Laser version RAT.
My optical RAT3 just feels more precise. And that's enough for me.
It's fine for most normal tasks, but in-game it is noticeable, though hard to describe or show data for it. I wouldn't notice it so much if I didn't have a better mouse for reference. It makes enough difference that I only game with the optical one now.
I see. The laser sensor in the RAT, however, uses the Philips Twin-Eye sensor, which is actually known to not have acceleration.
Not trying to dismiss or question your experiences, of course. But maybe there are some other issues with the lasered RAT's, other than acceleration that make it less precise? Does anybody know?
I'm asking because I'm actually considering the RAT 7 vs. the RAT 3 myself.
Is that an issue with all PTE mice? I know exactly what you're talking about, as I experienced the exact same problem with the Razer Imperator. But I was under the impression the z-axis issue was more to do with Razer's implementation of the PTE sensor, and not the sensor itself.
The problem you describe occurs in mice with the funky "dual sensor" technology, but I think I've talked about it with you before, that the PTE sensor is NOT the entire setup. The PTE sensor is just the laser sensor part of the dual sensor implementation, and it is possible to use the PTE in a standalone setup, which you see in the Lachesis refresh and the RAT 7.
AFAIK, mice that use the PTE sensor in a standalone manner, and not in Razer's "dual sensor" setup, doesn't have that z-axis problem. Or, I've never run into that problem with the Lachesis refresh, at least, and I've never heard people having issues with that on the RAT 7.
Also, Oobly says he had issues with "precision", which I assume to be an issue with tracking, which would mean it's not an issue with the z-axis. Oobly, could you elaborate on the sensor issues you had with the lasered RAT mouse?
Iirc, the PTE is also unnaturally sensitive to dust; I've found this can be some what remedied a bit with the R.A.T. series by removing the skate that surrounds the sensor, but you will still need to blow it out with compressed air on occasion (just not as frequently as with the pointless skate).
It's an old RAT3 with laser sensor, not a PTE, just a single laser, similar to the G9 one AFAIK. It had the same "not quite" accurate feeling. Just enough to be irritating. Almost subliminal, you could say. The new RAT3 with optical sensor doesn't give that feeling, feels "tight". Some may argue that it's not inaccurate enough to make a difference to actual hit/miss, but it spoils the enjoyment for me, so that's enough reason to prefer optical, IMHO.
Is that an issue with all PTE mice? I know exactly what you're talking about, as I experienced the exact same problem with the Razer Imperator. But I was under the impression the z-axis issue was more to do with Razer's implementation of the PTE sensor, and not the sensor itself.
The problem you describe occurs in mice with the funky "dual sensor" technology, but I think I've talked about it with you before, that the PTE sensor is NOT the entire setup. The PTE sensor is just the laser sensor part of the dual sensor implementation, and it is possible to use the PTE in a standalone setup, which you see in the Lachesis refresh and the RAT 7.
AFAIK, mice that use the PTE sensor in a standalone manner, and not in Razer's "dual sensor" setup, doesn't have that z-axis problem. Or, I've never run into that problem with the Lachesis refresh, at least, and I've never heard people having issues with that on the RAT 7.
Also, Oobly says he had issues with "precision", which I assume to be an issue with tracking, which would mean it's not an issue with the z-axis. Oobly, could you elaborate on the sensor issues you had with the lasered RAT mouse?
No, the problem is inherent to the PTE sensor. So far, all PTE mice I have tried have the z-axis issue to some degree.
Also, do you have a source that says that the Philips Twin Eye(note the Twin part) is just a single sensor? And the Lachesis Refresh definitely suffers from the z-axis issue, I just tested mine.
What dpi are you using? Like I said, dpi seems to play an important role here, as I didn't really notice the issue until I went up to 1800dpi, and even then I don't actually notice it during use.
Iirc, the PTE is also unnaturally sensitive to dust; I've found this can be some what remedied a bit with the R.A.T. series by removing the skate that surrounds the sensor, but you will still need to blow it out with compressed air on occasion (just not as frequently as with the pointless skate).
Thank you. Will consider that if I purchase a RAT 7.It's an old RAT3 with laser sensor, not a PTE, just a single laser, similar to the G9 one AFAIK. It had the same "not quite" accurate feeling. Just enough to be irritating. Almost subliminal, you could say. The new RAT3 with optical sensor doesn't give that feeling, feels "tight". Some may argue that it's not inaccurate enough to make a difference to actual hit/miss, but it spoils the enjoyment for me, so that's enough reason to prefer optical, IMHO.
Thanks for letting me know.Is that an issue with all PTE mice? I know exactly what you're talking about, as I experienced the exact same problem with the Razer Imperator. But I was under the impression the z-axis issue was more to do with Razer's implementation of the PTE sensor, and not the sensor itself.
The problem you describe occurs in mice with the funky "dual sensor" technology, but I think I've talked about it with you before, that the PTE sensor is NOT the entire setup. The PTE sensor is just the laser sensor part of the dual sensor implementation, and it is possible to use the PTE in a standalone setup, which you see in the Lachesis refresh and the RAT 7.
AFAIK, mice that use the PTE sensor in a standalone manner, and not in Razer's "dual sensor" setup, doesn't have that z-axis problem. Or, I've never run into that problem with the Lachesis refresh, at least, and I've never heard people having issues with that on the RAT 7.
Also, Oobly says he had issues with "precision", which I assume to be an issue with tracking, which would mean it's not an issue with the z-axis. Oobly, could you elaborate on the sensor issues you had with the lasered RAT mouse?
No, the problem is inherent to the PTE sensor. So far, all PTE mice I have tried have the z-axis issue to some degree.
Also, do you have a source that says that the Philips Twin Eye(note the Twin part) is just a single sensor? And the Lachesis Refresh definitely suffers from the z-axis issue, I just tested mine.
What dpi are you using? Like I said, dpi seems to play an important role here, as I didn't really notice the issue until I went up to 1800dpi, and even then I don't actually notice it during use.
Well, look at the bottom of your mice that use the PTE. The Lachesis Refresh has only one sensor, while the Mamba has two. The Imperator has two as well. The RAT 7, on the other hand, like the Refresh has just one sensor.
I'm pretty sure the "Twin-Eye" is just the name, and isn't the same as the "dual sensor" system that Razer uses. The Taipan also uses the "dual sensor" system, but it doesn't use the PTE, and instead uses the Avago. So the "dual sensor" system is just something that Razer has implemented, but isn't necessarily the same as the Philips Twin-Eye.
And, are you sure z-axis problem exists for the Lachesis Refresh? It's possible to replicate something that feels similar to the z-axis problem with just regular mice (without the PTE), just by landing your mouse at an angle. It's possible you're doing that with the Lachesis Refresh. When I had the Refresh, I'm almost 100% positive it was very different than the issue I had with the Imperator.
The Mamba with two sensors does not use PTE; PTE only has one visible sensor on the underside. The Mamba with two sensors is the new non-PTE dual sensor system Razer uses, the original PTE one(which I have in my drawer) only has a single visible sensor underneath, as does the RAT7, Lachesis Refresh and Naga2012, and all of these display the z-axis issue. And yes, I am lifting the mouse straight since I am aware that off-angle lifts with high LOD can produce similar behaviour. Although in most cases, you'd be gripping towards the front of the mouse, so if anything the cursor would be more likely to jump straight up if the problem was LOD, rather than diagonally downwards like the PTE.
QuoteThe Mamba with two sensors does not use PTE; PTE only has one visible sensor on the underside. The Mamba with two sensors is the new non-PTE dual sensor system Razer uses, the original PTE one(which I have in my drawer) only has a single visible sensor underneath, as does the RAT7, Lachesis Refresh and Naga2012, and all of these display the z-axis issue. And yes, I am lifting the mouse straight since I am aware that off-angle lifts with high LOD can produce similar behaviour. Although in most cases, you'd be gripping towards the front of the mouse, so if anything the cursor would be more likely to jump straight up if the problem was LOD, rather than diagonally downwards like the PTE.
Actually... both versions of the Mamba use the PTE: http://www.esreality.com/wiki/Hardware:Mice_Sensors (http://www.esreality.com/wiki/Hardware:Mice_Sensors)
Well, if you say you have issues with the z-axis on the standalone implementations of the PTE, I can't really argue. I specifically do remember having issues with the z-axis on the dual sensor Mamba and Imperator, but not having the same issues with the standalone PTE Lachesis refresh, but I am going by memory, so I may be wrong.
Regardless, the thread topic is about acceleration, isn't it? =P Oobly said the laser sensored RAT 3 he used didn't have a PTE, so I'm still trying to wonder if the PTE has any acceleration...
4G Dual Sensor System
Experience the new pro-gaming standard of precision with the 6400dpi 4G Dual Sensor System, outfitted with a laser and an optical sensor to accurately calibrate the mouse to any surface for exceptional tracking.
Well, if you visit the Razer product page for their Mamba: http://www.razerzone.com/gaming-mice/razer-mamba (http://www.razerzone.com/gaming-mice/razer-mamba)
It says:Quote4G Dual Sensor System
Experience the new pro-gaming standard of precision with the 6400dpi 4G Dual Sensor System, outfitted with a laser and an optical sensor to accurately calibrate the mouse to any surface for exceptional tracking.
So... yea. It seems the "dual sensor" system is just an implementation brought on by Razer themselves, and isn't limited to just PTE sensors. They can choose whichever sensor to go in the "dual sensor" system, and the PTE just happened to be one of them for the latest Mamba and Imperator.
Also, there's a nice image that compares the older Imperator, to the newer 2012 Imperator here:Show Image(http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/5106/0kgi.jpg)
The older one is on the right, and if you notice the "profile" button on the right one, is replaced by a sensor on the left, newer 2012 version.
Yeap. They are the same. It's probably something to do with the angle of the photo.
And Razer calls it a "dual sensor system" for the Imperator and Mamba, so I have to actually guess it really is just two sensors.
I was under the impression that even some "optical" (laser is still technically optical) mice have negative or positive acceleration--depends on sensor and implementation.
Now I am curious as I am about to use the Avago ADNS 9800. Does it have acceleration by itself or does the mice with that sensor have acceleration in their firmwares? I was under the same impression as Photoelectric, that it was the implementations and their firmwares which had these "features".I was under the impression that even some "optical" (laser is still technically optical) mice have negative or positive acceleration--depends on sensor and implementation.