Edited by GreenMeanie at 03:23 CDT, 15 July 2010 - 188881 Hits
Conclusion
This suggested switching method is intended to help mouse manufacturers and designers to overcome the over-sensitivity of the mouse cursor while under the maximum resolution setting. However, there may be more alternatives in terms of the speed threshold selection and number of switching stages which designers can adjust to optimize user experience accordingly. It is also recommended to implement a microcontroller function to enable or disable this algorithm set easily.
Most gamers prefer cloth mouse pads today, when using a mouse on a cloth surface, the movements will destroy the structure of the fibers bit by bit and static electricity caused by the friction between mouse feet and cloth will cause particles to stick to the lens very easily. This happens for both optical and laser lens, but the laser lens is more sensitive, resulting in a very unstable tracking when particles are gathered at the lens. The optical lens is not as annoyed by the absorption of particles and will continue to function flawlessly, as it pretty much ignores the particles.
Comparing the disadvantages of laser and optical, it is quite clear that the optical technology is still the best solution for gaming at any level
they do... like i sayed it should be a A3059 ;)
You say A2020 is a "fake name" just because that would fit in your theory.
Avago can name their sensor just like they want.
Btw, Avago introduced the A3060 about 2 years after the MX300/500.
I said that from the specs I'm pretty sure they use the A3080 (your fault that you didm't wanna bet :D), which has angle snapping "from the shelf" and every other mouse using the A3080 had angle snapping.
like i sayed. it a feature. and u only have to delete some lines in the code and u have one without prediction. the companysize dont matter.
I never said it's impossible to get a angle snapping free optical sensor from Avago, just that it's most likely not so easy for a small company like Zowie.
Razer is much bigger and they got one (also for the Copperhead/A6010) and Logitech would also easily get one if they wanted.
I still find it odd that Zowie doesn't advertise the no angle snapping thingy because you don't get it for free.
Maybe they just wanted guys like us disscussing this topic, gives them free attention.
I wouldn't be surprised if the EC loads "an" A3080 srom/firmware if you set it to 2000 CPI.
i wrote it ;)
With your example: you will move the 800 dpi mouse only half the way as a 400 dpi mouse to travel the imaginary 400 pix screen,
which means it could possibly be twice as accurate, and if you divide the sens by 2 it is.
Now look at my example to understand what pixel skipping actually means, a mouse setup where your mouse resolution isn't enough to cover the monitor resolution. That'S the only case pixel skipping could even occur!
i cant tell u something about zoomfov curz i dont know how it works. it can be that there is an algorism that affect the sensi.
I have to think about that tomorrow. Does that mean lower yaw/pitch is desired because like when zoomed you will move in smaller angle increments....?
To better understand what I am getting at: imagine the 3d engine rendering the world in infinite small steps. Now the only two variables limiting the accuracy is a) the screen (smallest step one pixel) and b) the mouse (smallest step 1inch/cpi). Now you go from low sens to ultra high sens, with a set fov. now if you look exactly at the middle of the screen, at some point you will make jumps that are bigger then one pixel. That's the phenomenon I am talking about, you cannot deny that it happens.
1count = 1 degree no mater what fov or screenresolution.
@r4pe, u got some things wrong
btw. from where u got the infos it they had used 3080?
second thing is 1 count != 1 degree
amount of degrees in game is described as far i know by the amount of pixel in resolution, so u don't have 360 steps when u turning around but 3215,36 if the game run in 1024x768px
Please try to read my post a little more carefully. The point of lowering yaw was to determine the smallest step in degree you can do. I assume from what I found that there is a limit. that's the real limit of precision, not '1 count = 1 degree' that's nonsense.