this cyber warfare weapon destroyed my secret nuclear weapon program

and wtf do you expect to achieve with the nuclear wep. thing?

Turn the vatican into a parking lot. Rome desperately needs it.

theres a huge underground parking lot just waiting for the likes of you!

the likes of me?

i think he just called you a fag

I ain't no cigarette!

- Pack of fags,
- You're a fag
- A fag is a cigarette, mate
-I'm not your mate ,fag

183ms 4.4*

60hz is gay

pfft stop being such a whiner 60hz is fine

>stop whining
>posted by S33N

You don't say 60hz is "fine" on a Quake forum.

It's not nearly as bad as some people say.

it's not terrible in general, but in terms of helping things like this where you're striving for lowest reaction time.. it's quite bad compared to 120hz or higher

It's not going to influence your reaction time to a noticeable degree. However what matters here is input lag and monitors with 60hz will more often have higher input lag than ones with 120hz.

in this specific test I think it would be very noticeable because you're having to constantly track a moving target, similar to lg'ing in quake.

Tracking stuff in a reaction test? dafuq?

have you tried the reaction test linked? @_@

This specific test is all about tracking :)

you don't really know how it works.... and you have never tried a crt obviously

<Insan3> lol
<Insan3> fucking high sens
<Insan3> 171 ms 4.4
<Insan3> and wtf
<Insan3> cant start again or it crashes?

what is this measuring? how is measuring reaction time? just following?

personal time lag is 209ms


average distance from target was 3.6 ...


i dont get it??

I always trust random exe's on gaming forums!

demiurge approved it!!

and he's soviet! trust labeled!

i used to do that too!

that's why I linked the original ql forum link, the authors page and I also could (but forgot) to link to totalvirus' scan

301ms and 6.0

pretty good considering ive been up for 22 hours now :/


im pretty sure i can get to 250 / 5.0 tomorrow :D

being up for that duration of time sux.

This is old btw

Hence the new in quotes

heh ya, didn't even bother reading th first sentence lol.

I am at work now, with some shiitty equip.

But made it to 187ms and 4.4, should hopefully be slightly better at home :>

Best try: reaction time 189ms off distance 3.8

usually 200ms and 4.1 off distance

so much hardcore ppl with good reaction :( i want that too :( do you take drugs or something?

they just have a good hardware

you can go to grafic settings and there u can adjust your sens aswell.

Cannot use it, cause I'm a lowsens player and always overshooting the target. Also, my hand cramps after it. :(

there is some mouse sensitivity option as thunda mentioned

personal lag time : 157 ms
distance from target: 3.8°

unhuman being

edit: actually, it isnt a big challenge to get 160ms reaction time. the REAL challenge is 100ms or lower xDD

you have to consider this is not reaction time only , the 160 include various input delays, lag etc...

and as stunt.us results say, reaction alone isn't everything, precision adds up to ingame results

I saw your thread on the official forums, and have to generally agree with Lorfa

personally I'm not a good aimer either with those results, because from a certain level on quake is really not about aim anymore

to improve your personal reaction time + precision I'd say keep playing and be sure you got good hardware (crt or 120 Hz screen help definitively)

so how could i have such a slow "reaction time" but stay within 3.5 pretty much closer than people with sub < 200ms



this is bs. phuck off.

i guess it measures your reaction time on how twitchy and fast you move the mouse... because sometimes you can barely move your mouse and stay well withing the target.

Twitchy move: 171ms 4.1º

slow and calm movement: 196ms 3.4º

so reaction time could be a negative during a tracking test.




this would be better imo if the target started in the center, counted down and moved off in a random direction and u had to click on it.

i think the degrees part is more important than the reaction time part, at least aim wise.

are you sure you run on high Hz?

someone make stermy take this test

I doubt there will be much better results than jwzrs, but I'd like to see killsen try :D

<oxid`twister> 178, 4.2
<oxid`twister> you have less so we can conclude it is not a good way to measure aim

lol what a ego bullshit statement

banter :D, don't worry

154ms 4.6
Edit:on 85hz

bumpppp
if anyone doesn't see it, i'm [+]'ing every contribution

146ms 4,5 beat my own best

178 and 4.9 in second try...

afraid of floating eyeball =(

188 4.1 first try

128
3.5
on third try or sth couldnt be arsed anymore then

o_O

just tried sitting russian style with my quake mouse, only 140 then but 3° off, might be that its on 125hz tho >_>

182 187 180
3.8 3.7 4.1

75hz

200ms
4.9 distance

Cheap 75hz monitor from Dell

173ms 4.5, on first try with 60hz monitor.

Seems very counter-intuitive since it moves more the closer you get.

Reaction: 204ms, Off-Target: 3.8°
first try, rubbish netbook :(

189@4.2

Plus me because I'm off probation :)

157ms 4,1avg

208ms, 4off

avg fps 27 :D 60hz monitor, random dell mouse and no mouse pad. Will try again at home :D

169ms 3,2off