Looks nice. I like it. I'm not sure what being needs 12,000 DPI though. :D

#DealWithItMLG420SnoopDoggBlazeIt 14/yo CoD kids find it an interesting gimmick, which is all that's to say about it, a gimmick.

More importantly so it has a 3360 sensor which is in my opinion the best sensor ever made and the 12k dpi just comes with it I guess ;).

Just seems to me that a consumer interested in purchasing mice such as this - would be an enthusiast, and well-educated, likely; not poor.
2x 4k monitors at 3840 × 2160
7680 x 4320
Wouldn't it be best practise to have hardware that supports traversing, comfortably -- standardly; at just under an inch, rather than rely on o/s software sensitivities, which are unpredictable and historically "patched" to provide "a true base-line" input, anyway.

I'm guessing the main market for mice such as these is the gamer market, not necessarily desktop users with two 4k screens.

If you did have two 4k screens and wanted to traverse them easily, using a linear sensitivity would be quite stupid imo.
The reason is obvious: while it makes traversing the large distance easy, you lose fine grained control when you want to move slowly.

If you're suggesting using a linear sensitivity of 1 so that you can traverse those two screens horizontally in 7,680 / 12,000 inches, then you're going to have to move your mouse 1 / 12,000th of an inch if you want to move one pixel (say doing graphic work or whatever). That's pretty much impossible. And if you use a lower sensitivity than 1, the 12,000 DPI becomes unnecessary.

Even with a pretty standard DPI of 1800, you can traverse those screens in one inch of mouse movement with a high speed acceleration resulting in a sensitivity of about 4, while it can be less than 1 for slow, detailed movements.

Yes, it is unfortunate that, at least, Windows control over sensitivity and acceleration parameters is so limited without hacks.

i'm not suggesting any sensitivities.
i was purely saying, with 4k screens being affordable and 8k screens available.
makes sense to increase DPI.

using linear sens is never stupid.
it's measurable with entirely lesser factors; solid af.
if you do pixel work. you use zoom.

i'm sat here now using a 1680 x 1050 res, at winSens: 5, 1500 dpi
i feel like i have no problem, moving pixel basis...

with being at winSens 5, doesn't your reasoning mean that I would have difficulty? assuming a linear sens of 1 in windows is an-actual correlation to the math you've stated.
winSens 5 should at least double my DPI, in terms of cursor distance, and create some near environment to your theory?

1680 / 1500dpi (times at least 2, for winsens 5)
1680 / 3000dpi = 1320
7,680 / 12,000 = 4320

so my current experience is a quarter of what you are suggesting to be -- thats assuming winSens 5 is actually winSens 2, based on your math.

if it isn't:

1680 / 7500dpi (times at least 5, for winsens 5)
1680 / 7500dpi = 5820
7,680 / 12,000 = 4320

now, i have a greater experience and like i said. my cursor control is fine.

but, youll have to ignore my argument here -- because at the end of the day, i wasn't aware that a linear sensitivity of 1, in windows, infact represents an inch of cursor movement.

which is what you're suggesting, aren't you??

What is this magical benefit to using linear sens in a desktop environment? There's a reason acceleration is enabled by default on every popular desktop environment. Even in FPS, there is no advantage, purely personal preference, but let's not go there.

You only really need it to be linear at low speeds for detailed work. The rest of the time, you are jumping big distances, and there isn't any reason for that to be a big movement of your mouse or to make it a small movement by using ridiculously high DPI that causes small cursor movements to be completely inaccurate.

You realize that if I'm using 12,000 DPI with a sens of 1 (the lowest it could possibly be to make that DPI necessary), and I move my mouse by so much as 1mm, my cursor will move 472 pixels on the screen right? That's 12% of the width of your screen even at 4k resolution---for a 1mm mouse movement!

Windows sensitivity slider 5/11 is apparently a sens of 0.75 without acceleration.
I assume you have "Enhance pointer precision" disabled.

At 1500 dpi, this will mean for 1mm of movement, you get 1500*0.75 / 25.4 (44) pixels of movement.
At 1680 x 1050 resolution, that corresponds to 2.6 percent of your screen width.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

You realize that if I'm using 12,000 DPI with a sens of 1 (the lowest it could possibly be to make that DPI necessary), and I move my mouse by so much as 1mm, my cursor will move 472 pixels on the screen right? That's 12% of the width of your screen even at 4k resolution---for a 1mm mouse movement!

so a sens of 1 would be a winSens slider sens of 6/11?

if so, then you would lower your software sensitivity and your hardware will never be behind the software(at the hardwares OPTIONAL HIGHEST DPI SETTING), while ridding inconsistances in acceleration (regardless of your personal preference or opinion of it) and always keep ontop of any additional conditions such as a second or third 4k OR 8k monitor.

LOGICAL.

Any modern mouse that isn't a turd will perform just as well at a lower DPI as at its maximum DPI. The DPI will act as nothing more than a scaling factor, just like Windows sensitivity setting or your in-game sensitivity. If you lower your desktop sens below 1, the additional DPI is serving no purpose.

Just set your mouse DPI to whatever you need it to be for gaming, and then adjust game and desktop sensitivity till it is comfortable.

Hint: for gaming, you will never need more than 2000 DPI. (With 1800 DPI at a sens of 16cm/360, 100 fov, and 1920x1080 resolution, the smallest turn I can make is 0.03 degrees or 0.45 pixels horizontally or 0.02 percent of my screen width. More than fine grained enough.)

You want 12,000 DPI to move easily between multiple screens with high resolution, but setting a sens less than 1 negates that purpose. You would do just as well setting sens to 1 and using a lower DPI. Ultimately, no matter what you do, with linear sensitivity, your sens * DPI cannot be greater than what allows you to move the mouse cursor accurately for small movements. Therefore, when you have your ten 8k displays, you're going to have to use mouse acceleration. :P

Alternatively, if you're hellbent on linear sensitivity, you might need to use the keyboard to move the cursor between screens.

i think you're missing the point.
nice talks.

The only point here is that 12,000 DPI is utterly useless. :P

for somebody who calls linear sensitivity stupid - i'll stop defending the logic in it. :P

At best, linear sensitivity is a personal preference. It has no universal benefit---while desktop mouse acceleration has the benefit of allowing fine grained movements and easy long distance movements.

If linear sensitivity is your preference, then you're going to have to live with the limitation that sens * DPI cannot be greater than what allows accurate small movements.

the universal benefit of anything linear, is consistent result, with the least factors possible.

Yes, but there is nothing linear about your muscle memory. In fact, most human sense perception is not linear and can often be mapped to an exponential curve: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevens'_power_law

Your brain remembers not only distance but also speed (in fact, it is likely that it gets better feedback for force and duration). That is why if you've ever played an instrument, you might have found playing something fast easy---because that's how your muscle memory remembers it---but if you play it slow, you have to consciously think of the notes, and it becomes more difficult.

So yes, in games and on the desktop, you will learn and adapt to acceleration (so long as it is not some bat shit crazy level, which could just as well be said for sensitivity values in general).

i'd rather rely souly on my supposedly unreliable anatomy, than include various new external unreliable factors.

No one is saying your anatomy is unreliable. I just don't know where this idea of linearity having anything to do with it came from. A linear plot is as arbitrary as any particular exponential curve when it comes to describing feedback sensation of the body.

i have no idea where the sensation of the body or anything related to muscle memory came into it.
i was talking about hardware and screen pixels.
instantly you included software acceleration.

software should never have been included in the fundamental point.

AND, you included it after passing your opinion of not having it.

There are some basic themes to this conversation, which are related.

(1) 12,000 DPI is useless.
(2) Desktop acceleration is useful and means you do not NEED 12,000 DPI even if it were useful, which it is not.
(3) Your view that acceleration is evil, and we can't use it.
(4) My view in my last couple of posts showing that acceleration is not evil because your body can adapt to it just fine because there is nothing inherently linear about the way our bodies work.

you've attached your argument to software acceleration, that isn't consistant, isn't the same in all operating systems, and isn't widely available in games; let alone the same.

and then you try and make me accept its unreliablity, based on your source of biology convincing me that i can just adapt to inconsistancies, in my systems controls. rather than just get a sensor that can scan more dots and give me the options i may need depending on how many fucking dots i have.

There isn't really anything unreliable about software sens or acceleration, and whatever game or OS you use, you will have to rely on the software to map hardware inputs to cursor movement or view angle change, or whatever.

So it is different from one OS to another. That's unfortunate, but I doubt it is a big problem. For most people, there will be one computer they use with one OS, and they'll just set that one up to be comfortable. If they use another one temporarily, then they can live with the mouse settings not being perfect for that time.

This is the first time you've actually given an argument for using linear sensitivity anyway---other than your previous one that all things linear are somehow more consistent, which doesn't make sense to me. I thought you were coming from the usual angle that it was about being easier to use or somehow more accurate, but now you are saying it is about different implementations in software. Yeah, it would be best if acceleration was implemented and configurable in the mouse itself, or at worst in the mouse drivers.

There is Povohat's mouse driver for this that implements QL accel settings at the driver level, but I don't think it is a signed driver.

"just get a sensor that can scan more dots and give me the options i may need depending on how many fucking dots i have."

The problem with this is more dots doesn't solve the problem. You can never use a system where sens * DPI = 12,000, and if you lower sens less than 1, the 12,000 DPI becomes irrelevant. So you logically have two choices: (1) live with that limitation (this involves not using 12,000 DPI because it is pointless); (2) use acceleration.

If you're happy with your setup and it works for you, then fine. All I'm saying is if that limitation ever becomes a problem for you, you won't fix it by increasing mouse DPI, and then you might want to consider using accel, which won't take you very long to get used to anyway.

you keep talking about acceleration.
it's making it difficult to tell if you're trolling me or not.

The problem with this is more dots doesn't solve the problem. You can never use a system where sens * DPI = 12,000, and if you lower sens less than 1, the 12,000 DPI becomes irrelevant. So you logically have two choices: (1) live with that limitation (this involves not using 12,000 DPI because it is pointless); (2) use acceleration.

If you're happy with your setup and it works for you, then fine. All I'm saying is if that limitation ever becomes a problem for you, you won't fix it by increasing mouse DPI, and then you might want to consider using accel, which won't take you very long to get used to anyway.

previously you made some conditions where 1mm of mouse movement would traverse 470~ pixels.
how could i ever possibly be limited, if this were true.
who's timing sens by dpi? how does dpi become irrelevant in any-case, since the sensor is still scanning the surface?

Mate, there is a reason I keep talking about acceleration, which you don't seem to be getting.
It's just as much a part of the equation as any sensitivity setting you're already using.

Acceleration is the only way to traverse large distances with your mouse easily (small movements) while still maintaining fine grained control.

It is RELEVANT because we're talking about the NEED for 12,000DPI, and there is no such need.

"previously you made some conditions where 1mm of mouse movement would traverse 470~ pixels.
how could i ever possibly be limited, if this were true."

You will be limited because at that level of sensitivity, you will have ZERO FINE GRAINED CONTROL.
If 1mm of mouse movement causes your cursor to traverse 12% of your screen width, how on earth will you ever make it traverse much smaller distances. On your current setup, 1mm traverses 2.6% of your screen width. You would have to move the mouse 1/5th of a mm to traverse the same distance with a 12,000 DPI setup. It is absolutely useless.

If all you want to do is be able to traverse large distances easily with your cursor while having no fine grained control to speak of, then sure go one million DPI if you want. You'll just end up with a spastic cursor that jitters around randomly with any tremor of your hand.

i think you're confusing the whole thing with PPI.
there's no way my current setup cursor moves 40~ / 2%~ per mm, right now. so until I can be arsed -- I'll provide a better reply.

Here is the calculation from my previous post based on the numbers you gave me:

Windows sensitivity slider 5/11 is apparently a sens of 0.75 without acceleration.
I assume you have "Enhance pointer precision" disabled.

At 1500 dpi, this will mean for 1mm of movement, you get 1500*0.75 / 25.4 (44) pixels of movement.
At 1680 x 1050 resolution, that corresponds to 2.6 percent of your screen width.

Where is it wrong?

Maybe you have some sensitivity set up in your driver software too. Either way, if your total sensitivity factor (all sensitivities multiplied together) is less than 1, your DPI is unnecessarily high for desktop usage. Making your DPI 8 times higher isn't going to make that any better even if you increase your total desktop resolution.

Windows sensitivity slider 5/11 is apparently a sens of 0.75 without acceleration.

show me some documentation where windows 6/11 is sens 1 and some evidence of what '1' represents.
even that alone makes no sense to have 11 notches and have the 6th notch standing for a whole unit.

irregardless of that -- im currently on 1700 dpi / notch 5 (supposedly 0.75) / 1680 x 1050
and i must be moving my sensor around 2~ inch for the whole screen width.
does your math support that?

44pixels * 2inch (50mm)
2200 pixels at 1500 dpi per every 2inch.
that's definitely not the case here. and im on higher dpi.

It has been known in gaming circles since time immemorial that the 6/11 notch represents a sensitivity of 1. But here is a source on a reputable gaming website:

http://wiki.teamliquid.net/counterstrike/Mouse_settings

In particular:

At a pointer speed setting of 6/11, for every one mouse count your computer will move the pointer one pixel on your screen, a 1:1 ratio. If the mouse pointer speed it set higher or lower than 6, Windows will artificially modify the mouse input. For instance, at the 7/11 mark, your computer moves the cursor 1.5 pixels for every one mouse count and at the 11/11 mark, your pointer moves 3.5 pixels for every one mouse count. This means that not only does Windows skip pixels, it actually can become impossible for the mouse cursor to land on certain columns. Conversely if you have your slider at the 5/11 mark, your pointer will move .75 pixels for every one mouse count. Since computers cannot show 1.5 pixels, it rounds to either 1 or 2 making uneven mouse movements.

The exact multipliers for these values go as follows:

6/11 (default) - 1.00x
1/11 - 0.0625x
2/11 - 0.125x
3/11 - 0.25x
4/11 - 0.50x
5/11 - 0.75x
7/11 - 1.50x
8/11 - 2.00x
9/11 - 2.50x
10/11 - 3.00x
11/11 - 3.50x

It explains what a sens of "1" means. And it can only mean that. That's what linear sensitivity means:

output = sensitivity * input

where input is the value coming from your mouse in "counts" (one count being 1 / DPI inches) and output is the number of pixels (on the desktop) or degrees (in an FPS).

Of course, "sensitivity" there can be composed of multiple values. You may have a driver with its own sensitivity on top of Windows sens. In QL, you have m_yaw, m_pitch, and sensitivity.

You are now saying you have a DPI of 1700, whereas before you said it was 1500. So which is it?

At the end of the day, all of this doesn't matter, because for desktop usage, if your total aggregate sensitivity is less than 1, your DPI is too high or unnecessary. If that sensitivity is 1 or higher, then 12,000 DPI will be too high for anyone---since as we've seen that would mean 12% screen width traversal for 1mm mouse movement even on a 4k screen.

Calculate it yourself. 1 inch = 25.4mm. Therefore, your mouse will report 12,000 / 25.4 counts for a 1mm horizontal movement. That's 472 counts. If this is scaled by a sensitivity of 1, your cursor will move 472 pixels horizontally. With a 3840 horizontal resolution, that's 472 / 3840 * 100 percent of your screen width, i.e. 12.29%.

Now, you'll say "well just turn down your sensitivity". You can do that, but that will make the 12,000 DPI unnecessary because you could just as well keep the sensitivity at 1 and reduce your DPI for the exact same effect.

Okay.
I vaughly remembered this. But, wasn't sure.
So while your arguements are solid -- I'm going to go back to what I said originally.

Without acceleration, which the majority of gamers do not want, and using the info of the 1:1 count, a gamer with 3x(yes 3) 4k montiors at 24".

11520 px / 12000 counts = 0.96
And with the density of those pixels at that monitor size there's no way you'd loose any control and as for fine grained, you'd zoom?
So if precision is key. In this scenerio, we'd need just 480 dpi less.

First of all, using the desktop is not a game. You can have acceleration on your desktop and linear sens in your game quite easily---unless the game is retarded enough only to allow the use of Windows mouse input.

Do the majority of gamers not want acceleration? I haven't seen any statistics on this, but using acceleration seems very common in pro Quake player configs. It would be cool to see an ESR poll actually. One may already exist. I gave you my reasons earlier for why linear sens is just a preference and not some universal-advantage-giving thing.

As already discussed, you're going to have no semblance of precision at 12,000 DPI. Not everything is zoomable even if you wanted to have the inconvenience and delay of having to do that all the time. Even the little X button in the corner of this window on my screen is only a tiny percentage of the width and height of my screen, certainly nowhere near 12%.

I'd say you can't really go much over 2000 DPI for desktop use (and it's kinda pointless for gaming as well) while using sensitivity values that make sense.

If I had three 4k screens, the ideal for me would be to set up some kind of sens and DPI that gave me precision in low speed movements---at the very least so that I can easily hit that X button without accidentally maximizing the window all the time.

Then, ignoring the fact that the only option Windows has is the crappy "Enhanced pointer precision", I'd try to set it up so that when I move my mouse 5-10 inches very fast, the sensitivity will be jacked up such that I can go from my far left screen to my far right screen.

If I'm using 1500 dpi like you, and I need to travel 11,520 pixels horizontally, to do that in 5 inches, I need 11,520 / (1500*5) = 1.536 sensitivity at that fast mouse movement speed. That's not really a high amount of acceleration, going from 1 to 1.536.

You can work it out based on whatever values you prefer. It's ultimately moot though unless you can get a driver or some software that lets you accurately specific the acceleration curve. Povohat's mouse driver is the only thing I know of for that. With that many 4k screens, I'd definitely give "Enhance pointer precision" a go.

ACCELERATION AGAIN REALLY?

lets put it this way
without a 12k DPI mouse -- gamers with 3x 4k screens cant game at a 1:1 baseline ratio without acceleration.

they can't use multiple 8k monitors.

THAT my friend... is far too LIMITED for 2017 when your EYE TECHNOLOGY far exceeds the technology you USE to CONTROL what you are SEEING!

AT THE MOST WHOLE OF NUMBERS IN EVERY ASPECT YOU CAN IMAGINE.

WITHOUT SOFTWARE.

WITHOUT ACCELERATION.

WITHOUT CURVES.

WITHOUT ENHANCEMENTS.

WITHOUT LESSONS IN BIOLOGY.

everything you are saying is based on _SOFTWARE_ accel!

With a 12k DPI mouse running at 12k, whether you use acceleration or not, you will NEVER have fine grained control on your desktop. That is simply a fact---unless you're telling me that you can accurately position your mouse down to tenths of millimetres.

Of course, you can get that fine grained control by reducing sens below 1, but then you're get ZERO advantage from running at 12k DPI and may as well be running at a lower DPI.

I really thought we had been over this.

If you want to have multiple 8k monitors, and you want to have fine grained control, and you want to do this using only your mouse, you have NO CHOICE but to use acceleration.

The limitation isn't in your "eye technology" or your mouse; the limitation is in the human body and how accurately you can move your hand.

By the way, I have no clue why you emphasize "software" when referring to accel. It makes absolutely no difference to the end result whether that accel is implemented in software or hardware. It would be cool if it was in the mouse itself; then you could just plug and play on a different computer, but that's really not necessary; it's just icing on the cake.

I think you drastically overvalue linear sensitivity to the point that you won't even consider acceleration despite the fact that it is the only solution.

I am CURRENTLY; perfectly controlling, smooth and precise as a dragon hunting motherfucker --
a 1700 DPI SENS 6/11 MOUSE AT 1680.

I have all the control, I would ever need moving around the desktop, at supposedly just under an inch.
If I want to photo edit, I'll use photoshop and ZOOM.
If I want to click my close button, I'll move 1/4 of an inch / 0.653 cm / 6.35 mm, toward the top-right of my screen and ..........
CLICK IT.

Yeah, haven't we already been over the fact that your setup is quite different from the 12k DPI setup even at 4k resolution?

Did I not already painfully spell out the math that shows without a shadow of a doubt that 1mm of your mouse movement would correspond to 12% screen width movement of your cursor?

The only way you're going to be convinced is by getting yourself a 12k DPI mouse, running it at 12k DPI, setting all your sensitivities no less than 1, and trying to control your desktop cursor yourself.

lets put it this way
without a 12k DPI mouse -- gamers with 3x 4k screens cant game at a 1:1 baseline ratio without acceleration.

they can't use multiple 8k monitors.

since 1700dpi at 1:1 ratio is working out perfectly fine right now on 1680 pixels wide

i'd imagine 12000dpi at 1:1 ratio is going to work out almost EXACTLY the same at 11520 pixels wide.

Why are you repeating yourself?

Here's what my response to that was:

With a 12k DPI mouse running at 12k, whether you use acceleration or not, you will NEVER have fine grained control on your desktop. That is simply a fact---unless you're telling me that you can accurately position your mouse down to tenths of millimetres.

The reason they can't game at "1:1 baseline ratio without acceleration" with those multiple 8k screens is that they don't have that level of accuracy in their hand movements.

EDIT for your EDIT:
You imagine that it will be the same, but it won't---because when you go to a higher resolution not everything necessarily gets scaled up in size in terms of pixels.

You imagine that it will be the same, but it won't---because when you go to a higher resolution not everything necessarily gets scaled up in size in terms of pixels.

elaborate.
I'm too angry to reply.

There's no reason to be angry, dude. This is a conversation about mice.

The main reason to have multiple screens is to have more SPACE, so you can fit more stuff on the screens: more images, more text, more windows, more applications, etc.

You will not be able to do that if everything is scaled up in size. If I double my horizontal and vertical resolution, I will have a 4k screen, but that will be useless in terms of space if everything on my screen as it is now is simply doubled in pixel size.

Increasing resolution has in the past worked in two directions. On the one hand, it gives you more space, and on the other hand, it renders things the same physical size but with greater quality. After we exceed 4k, we'll most likely stop increasing space, and just focus on the quality part because the physical size of the screen will be staying the same.

But that's not the case when you add more than one monitor. When you add more than one monitor, the resolution increase comes with an increase in physical size of total screen dimensions. If you increase resolution beyond 4k without increasing the size of the screen, it makes sense to scale graphics or things will appear too small on the screen. But if you increase resolution and increase screen dimensions along with it, then you don't need to scale anything; you can instead benefit from the increased space.

What this means for your mouse DPI is that when you add multiple monitors, your resolution may be increasing, but the size in pixels of the things you'll be clicking on will stay the same, which means your level of pixel precision must stay the same even when adding more screens. Increasing DPI reduces your pixel precision.

The main reason to have multiple screens is to have more SPACE, so you can fit more stuff on the screens: more images, more text, more windows, more applications, etc.

You will not be able to do that if everything is scaled up in size. If I double my horizontal and vertical resolution, I will have a 4k screen, but that will be useless in terms of space if everything on my screen as it is now is simply doubled in pixel size.

are you real?
you've doubled your pixel count within the same space!
you've created DOUBLE your original playground.
desktop icons will be half the size, yet double the quality?!

My desktop icons will be the same physical size and higher quality if they are scaled up. If they are not scaled up, they will be half the size, but I will have more space to put shit on the screen, which is good assuming I can still see it well enough.

Thing is, adding more screens is about adding more space, not about increasing quality of icons by scaling them up to a higher resolution that occupies the same physical space.

look.

you've started opinionating on multiple screens and have now create a new argument.

a pixel is a fucking pixel.
scaling or not. the pixel. is. still. a fucking. pixel.

a count is still a count.
and 11540 pixels at 12000 counts is as close to 100% accurate you're going to get.

if you increase your pixel count within your current monitor size.
you have more space.

* at the same CONTAINER SIZE;
since a 20pixel by 20pixel image in a 20pixel canvas will fit. * within a container of 24"
if you place that same image in a 100pixel canvas, it will not fit. * within a container of 24"
it will be smaller and you will have space.
it will look more detailed regardless, because it's smaller. * because the pixels have gotten smaller to fit 24"
it's already scaled 100%; true to the image. and instantly looks better/more detailed AND you have space.

I'm not really giving you any opinions here.

It is a fact that increasing DPI reduces your pixel precision, i.e. how precisely you can click on things that are small in pixel size. The only time that won't matter is if you no longer need that level of pixel precision, which is not the case when adding multiple monitors, which as I said is done for space.

Are you now going to tell me that you're not adding multiple monitors for space and that you actually want to scale up the size of your icons and everything else in line with the increased resolution?

Remember we are discussing desktop usage.

Also this is not a "new argument"; this is information needed to explain my original argument that I thought was general knowledge.

if you increase your pixel count within your current monitor size.
you have more space.

* at the same CONTAINER SIZE;
since a 20pixel by 20pixel image in a 20pixel canvas will fit. * within a container of 24"
if you place that same image in a 100pixel canvas, it will not fit. * within a container of 24"
it will be smaller and you will have space.
it will look more detailed regardless, because it's smaller. * because the pixels have gotten smaller to fit 24"
it's already scaled 100%; true to the image. and instantly looks better/more detailed AND you have space.

This seems to be where you misunderstood what I was talking about what I said "scaling".

If I have a 20x20 icon on my 1080p screen, and I increase the resolution of my screen to 2160p, the icon will appear half the size, and I will therefore require the SAME pixel precision with my mouse to click on it; I therefore cannot increase DPI.

If on the other hand, I SCALE that icon up to 40x40 on my 2160p screen, it will appear the same size as it did at 1080p, perhaps with better quality. In that case, I don't require the same pixel precision to click on it, so I can double my DPI.

If I have a 20x20 icon on my 1080p screen, and I increase the resolution of my screen to 2160p, the icon will appear half the size, and I will therefore require the SAME pixel precision with my mouse to click on it; I therefore cannot increase DPI.

if you are using a 1000DPI mouse at 1080p
it's 1 inch for whole screen width.

you need 1cm to click a 20px icon.
* based on it's position on the desktop. we're placing it somewhere, where you need 1cm of mousemovement to click it.

if you are using a 2000DPI mouse at 2160p
it's 1 inch for whole screen width.

you need 1cm to click a 10px icon.
* based on it's position on the desktop. we're placing it somewhere, where you need 1cm of mousemovement to click it.

the only thing that has changed is the icon size.
the pixels are smaller and the image is smaller but the distance in mouse movement has remained the same because the dpi has increased.

1080p refers to the screen height: 1080 rows, 1920x1080 resolution.
Double that and you get what is often called 4k (3840x2160) even though true 4k is 4096x2304.

So yeah, at 1000 DPI, it's about 2 inches to traverse the width of my screen.

That detail aside, the point I am making is that when you increase your DPI, any error in the movement of your mouse will be magnified.

Let's say in order to move from where my cursor is to where I want it to be, I need to move my mouse exactly 23mm.
Because I am an imperfect human, when I try to move it, I might move it 22mm instead. Now, if I'm on 2000 DPI, I will be 79 pixels off my target. If my DPI were double that (4000 DPI), I'd be 157 pixels off my target. So apart from the rounding difference, the error in my hand movement has resulted in twice the error on screen when I doubled my DPI.

Now, that's all very well and good if the target has become twice the size (in pixels), but if the target is the same size, doubling the error will make it a lot harder to hit the target reliably.

i was just trying to nail the point quickly because this has become the highest frustration to me.

when you increase your DPI -- AS LONG AS IT IS IN REFERENCE OR CORRELATION TO YOUR PIXEL WIDTH YOU WILL NOT INCREASE ANY MAGNIFICATION OF ERROR. YOU WILL KEEP THE SAME MOUSE DISTANCE PER INCH AND SAME COUNTS AT A 1:1 RATIO.

What you are saying is true if the required pixel precision has been reduced, and that will only happen if the things you are clicking on have increased in size in pixels.

That will happen when you go from 4k to 8k on the same sized screen (since scaling would certainly be done), but it will not happen when you add multiple monitors.

When you add a second or third screen, the size of the X button, for example, is not going to change. You will therefore need the same pixel precision to click it reliably, which means you cannot increase DPI.

what?
no matter what size of anything -- the hand distance is still the same.
the cursor travel distance is the same as the hand distance.
the cursor is rendered within the same environment as any icon rendered.

the controls are exactly the same.

the environment is smaller, has more definition, and more space.

the only scaling happening here, if you would call it that -- is using nvidia surround or a resembled amd/ati driver to make multiple displays act as one display.
so your desktop is one.
not,
1 and 2 extras.


"It is a fact that increasing DPI reduces your pixel precision"

yes, while that is true -- I've created a environment for the arguments sake; defending the entire point behind a 12K DPI mouse.
the only conditions your FACT is TRUE is an environment where the number of PIXELS wide is LESSER than the DPI.
- which can be many.
BUT NOT THE ONES YOU ORIGINALLY ARGUED ABOUT.

I think I'm running out of ways to explain this.

I already explained how errors in hand movement are magnified when you increase DPI.

If you can move your hand perfectly like a god, then by all means, use one billion DPI. It won't hurt.

Obviously if you are human though, you can't do that, so there will be errors. An error of one millimetre will correspond to a different error on screen depending on your DPI. The bigger the DPI, the bigger the error. This on-screen error is measured in pixels, so when you increase resolution, if everything is scaled up in size in terms of pixels, then the increased error won't matter, and you can use the bigger DPI. The thing is, when you add monitors, nothing is scaled; things stay the same size in pixels, and that increased error due to ramping up your DPI matters.

So with such high DPI, you overshoot or undershoot your target, and then have to move your mouse microscopic amounts to make the final leg of the journey, and if the DPI is high enough, you may overshoot or undershoot a second time, etc.

i don't need to move my hand like a god, because no matter what - i'll always be moving an inch to do what i want, EXCEPT using a smaller cursor to do so.
my movements will never, ever, change!

Yes, but can you move an inch (or any other required distance) perfectly every single time? If you can, then you have god hands and should be totally dominating at Quake. :P

Anyway, you're not convincing me, and I'm definitely not convincing you, so let's call it a day.

well it's the exact kind of measurement, you would imagine anybody would want to go from -

1 inch
1 screen distance
1 set dpi
1 set pixel
and the 1:1 ratio of windows sens:mouse counts

1700 dpi
1680 pixels
1 screen
1 inch
1:1 windows sens

then i upgrade

12000 dpi
11570 pixels
3 units behaving as 1 screen
1 inch
1:1 windows sens

how much more precise could it be and cleaner; no windows sens multipliers and extra math, no accel, etc.

and yes. im glad youve said that! :)

All you two are really arguing about is whether using accel on a triple screen setup is necessary or not. Whether the argument started out that way or not thats what its turned into :p

I think its pretty obvious that if you have 1:1 sens in windows then its perfectly precise at a technical level, no matter what DPI you use, also that if you double your resolution and scaling, then doubling your DPI will feel the same - when you're using just one monitor anyway...

Thing is with triple screen monitors you still end up working on one screen at a time, so if you like 1600 DPI on a 4k screen, then you probably won't like using 4800 DPI just so you can move between monitors easier, so thats why accel is helpful, and doesn't have to be 100% precise if its just meant as a way of moving between monitors.

No, man we're not.
He's trying to tell me that;

800 pixel canvas
At 800x600 res (800 squares per horizontal line)
At 800 counts per inch.
Per every 1" of mouse moment you're pointer would have concerned the screen.
That's fine.
But.

He's saying with same method, at a higher pixel count and dpi, I have more margin for error. Due to some bullshit.
And what I'm arguing is --
If you have been using the 800 pixel canvas at 800 counts per inch movement and you're not bat shit blind, clicking anything in an increased canvas sized using the same method, will be exactly the same movement and sensation as your original canvas. Except smaller looking with more space(which he doesn't understand)

It's like a painter, painting with a 15px brush on 30px canvas - two strokes of brush, he's done and that's all he wants.

If then since the cursor is the brush;
Do you think the brush will stay the 15px size if the canvas is now 60px.
No, it will be 30px -- following the painters original dot per stroke count.

The cursor will always be the brush
And without the right painter(mouse) you'll never reach a high siEd canvas.
Baring in mind, you have precision in mind.
Simple.

Which is the windows 1:1 ratio that he seemed to understand since the beginning of time.


So if you or any gamer wants to game on a 3x 4k monitor setup -- it is beyond a doubt they would need a 12k DPI mouse in order to maintain the 1:1 ratio.
And the only thing that has changed is that the cursor or crosshair is smaller.
Any distances and any accuracies have remained the same.

And so, for each monitor your mouse will act in-accordance; representing 4kDPI per screen -- being accurate and feeling as precise over that one screen out of three, in lesser space. Ultimately feeling, as it would feel in a screen of 1680 pixels at 1700 -- if you was to work on 1/3 of your screen.
In gaming you would have all screens as one, use direct input, at 1:1 ratio and you have 1 inch per whole screen, the same as your desktop, with all and any HUDS being displayed over the whole of screens, as one.
A perfect 1:1 ratio at a very precise, controllable, inch.

Given that all screens in reference are 24".
The only thing that ever changes is your pixels Become smaller and so does your cursor.

Ah well, I don't disagree with you that:
1600 DPI / 1600 res is the same as
4000 DPI / 4000 res
In both cases you move your cursor an inch and it travels the entire screen. As long as the icons etc are the same size its not a problem, its basically the same just with more detail.

Thats just a simple fact, don't see why anyone would disagree.

But with a triple screen setup it does work a bit differently, even though its technically the same when you look at the raw amount of horizontal pixels and DPI.

Seems that if you have 12000 total horizontal pixels you'd want 12000 DPI. But in practice it doesn't feel right, because you usually just focus on one screen at a time, so 12000 DPI would feel about 3x faster than you'd want on each screen.

However if you had a single monitor with 12000 horizontal pixels and you scaled up the icons etc then 12000 DPI would be the right amount.

The thing is with triple screen setups is that usually the scaling of the icons etc is based on one monitors res, not all 3 monitors total horizontal res. Otherwise you'd have each 4k monitor, instead of being 2x the scaling of a 2k monitor, you'd have to make the scaling 6x, which would be too big for each individual monitor. But if you could live with the 6x scaling then it would be fine to use 12000 DPI. But I don't think many people would do that since it'd be like having the top third (12000x2000) of a huge (12000x6000) monitor Oo (I mean look at the top third of your monitor and ask yourself if you'd want that stretched over 3 screens)

Seems that if you have 12000 total horizontal pixels you'd want 12000 DPI. But in practice it doesn't feel right, because you usually just focus on one screen at a time, so 12000 DPI would feel about 3x faster than you'd want on each screen.


you believe you're going to focus on one screen at a time, if you're playing some stupid LoL game, at a reasonable viewing distance?
or how about when you're watching a movie and you want to click the close button.
1x 4k screen @ 4000dpi is exactly the same as 1x 12k screen(rendered with 3 monitors) you even said it yourself.

everything else is lack of GPU software rendering knowledge and pure speculation. ~by us both. (right now, anyway).

Yeah, what happens is you need high sens to move the mouse between screens, but when doing the finer stuff you don't want that high sens.

I know that sounds strange, because its in conflict with the technical data, but there are nuances to it which are hard to explain :D

"1x 4k screen @ 4000dpi is exactly the same as 1x 12k screen(rendered with 3 monitors) you even said it yourself."

They are the same on 1 monitor, but the 3x 4k monitors don't use the same scaling as 1x 12k monitor (12000x6000 vs 12000x2000), so its different. You could use the same scaling, but like I said it would probably be too big, you'd want to reduce the scaling and then you'd want to reduce your sens because of that. Then you end up in the situation where you want accel for those times when you want to go from pixel 1 to pixel 12000.

well, man.
I appreciate you:

I know that sounds strange, because its in conflict with the technical data, but there are nuances to it which are hard to explain :D

being straight with there and not talking megaman lazer shit like the other guy. he should be in politics(sry guy).

pretty strange ending to the conversation.
technical nuances.

LOL.

I think I spent enough time and effort trying to explain it as clearly as I could, keeping calm while you were getting "angry" and "frustrated". I wasn't trying to misrepresent anything, like a politician. I was doing this for your benefit and for the benefit of anyone who cares to read. It doesn't actually matter to me in the end whether you believe what you will believe.

The fact that 12k DPI will not work on 3x 4k screens is not really in conflict with technical data unless you ignore certain things and only look at the data through one model, and the only model you have is "xk DPI on xk screen works so yk DPI on yk screen will work".

Interpreted correctly, the "technical data" will tell you that this only works when what is displayed on the screen is scaled up with the screen resolution.

You cannot actually scale up a single 4k screen into three 4k screens in any meaningful way because the aspect ratio is different, so like bst says, you'll end up with only the top third of your desktop visible on those three screens---if you are doing the scaling.

No scaling, no 12k DPI.

I think 12k is overkill these days, but its just there because the sensor can do it, I'll see what DPI values people would like on the mouse to replace it, in an optional FW update.

Thing is it all comes down to the resolution/PPI you're using, if you use 2k DPI on a 2k 24" screen, then 8k DPI will feel the same on an 8k 24" screen. On the 8k screen you will lose "pixel precision", but if the icons/buttons are scaled up then it shouldn't be an issue, it should feel the same, likewise on a 12k 24" monitor with 12k DPI.

12k is overkill, but I have no problem with the mouse being capable of doing that, especially if it is a reflection of the internal accuracy of the mouse. I mean, even if I'm running it at 2000 DPI, it'd be good to know that is a very accurate 2000 DPI.

It's true that if you increase resolution and scale up the pixel size of the graphics while keeping the screen size the same, you can make use of a higher DPI, but the case I'm talking about with Melted is when screen physical dimensions increase too by adding multiple monitors, in which case you require the same pixel precision while needing to be able to traverse wider areas. This can only be done with acceleration (if you want to restrict the process to the mouse only).

What I'd really like to see in your mouse is built-in QL-style acceleration settings, so it is the same in every game, and I can unplug the mouse and plug it into some other computer and have those same settings. :D

Ah yeah, I see what you mean, makes sense. Though I think I'd be ok with 4000 DPI on a couple of 8k monitors, would be similar to 2000 DPI on a couple of 4k monitors which feels good to me. But yeah if I had 3 8k monitors then I don't think I'd want to bump it up to beyond that and would look into using accel.

Built in QL accel is definitely something I'd like to do, since I use it in QL and miss it a lot in other games. I wanted to keep this release simple for now, but will be trying things like that out soon.

i dont know what to think about to have the same mousesettings in CS like QL... btw i dont play CS.

but since QC have champions with different movementspeed i am thinking about movementaim vs mouseaim and the combinations of it.

maybe it is not a bad idea to have different sensi or dpi settings for each champion.

IIRC it's a native step. Don't see why not mention it if it helps to move units.

Should also mention that the customer won't be supported when they get ripped off. Not to help move units, but you know... in the interest of ethics.

Judging by the pictures it looks like a perfected Logitech G403/Zowie ZA13 crossover. No oversized sidebuttons, a higher and more palm filling butt. Left side looks more caved than the G403 and last but not least a 7g weight cut (total of 80g).

Too bad there ain't a pic of the right side of the mouse. I'm curious to see if it's also more caved like the left side. If so, then it would be a great 403 successor for me since the G403 is a great mouse, just feels uncomfortable due to the lacking ergonomics.

How high are my chances of receiving one if I order (based off people buying aurora?)


This is what happened to the right side of my G403 after 2 months of usage. The lackluster shape forced me to grip the mouse extra hard whilst playing a claw/finger hybrid. Stuff like this really makes me want to buy another mouse because my hand and fingers hurt each time playing.

[mods can you resize the pic for me?]

Nah, it's just 'cause you're a monster. :D

your crushd the side of your mouse with your finger strength????

Bravo. sorry the mouse sucked for you though. Dont think I could do that without a hammer lol.

Yeah and it's the 3rd G403 with faults I have in 6 months. First one had rattling scrollwheel, 2nd one squeeking scroll + rattle eventually. This one has this shell problem. On my way to receive my G Pro from Logitech as an apology for this bullshit.

The shape is good for palming, the G Pro could possibly fit your grip better, not sure though. Almost all ppl gripping like you tear dents in the rubber sides of rubber sided mice, no matter what brand :) And you propably DO turn werewolf once a month right?

but can it rocket jump ?
:thinking:

If FM is anything to go by, probably not, though i guess BST at least made sure that they fix it before release, or at least i hope so.

It can :)
But more importantly, it uses a flash MCU, so if there are any issues, they can be fixed, instead of being stuck how they are, like the Aurora was with its non-flashable MCU :(

"Weighing only 80 grams"

Too heavy, come back when you make a g100s copy.

Time to lift, old man. :P

not falling for this crap again

the shape looks similar to razer abyssus.
i think there was someone who was looking for the replacement for aby on this website.

Isn't the newest Abyssus version pretty flawless?

it uses a g100s sensor, which has a little bit of smoothing

So I see that BST's been busy since the Aurora. Nice.

Perhaps now he'll check my support ticket for the bricked Aurora I have (didn't know not to press 'Reset' in the drivers).

**checks ticket**

Right... I need to log in.

Can't log in.

Request to reset password.

Nothing comes.

Ok, I'll see if I can register with the same email to check if I'm still in the database.

**new registration on old email goes through without a hitch**

Oh... lovely... So I guess I'm stuck with a bricked Aurora. Wouldn't be that bad if I at least could use it as a paperweight, but it's too light even for that.

You must be using the old helpdesk, go here: http://ninox.freshdesk.com/
I'll get it sorted for you, I'm the only one on there atm.

That's awesome, man.

I'll get on that.

Thanks! =)

It looks nice and a really good shape (for me) but I'd be a bit dubious after reading the threads about the previous Ninox mice. I presume that it being sold through Amazon will give you some protection if it goes bad?

Honestly I loved the Aurora until it started to break down (cable problems).
At the end I also started noticing the mouse1+mouse2 problem where one would register later.

If it weren't for that, I'd buy it and try it out.

I'd support BST np. The Ninox Aurora was pretty decent besides the button issues.

#fuckBST

Is the sensor of the G203 Logitech exclusive? It seems to perform at the same lvl as 3360 at a much lower price point. So it would be cool to see more mice using this sensor.

Pixart® PMW-3360 Sensor

https://youtu.be/q2rVcxkbIQc?t=8

Just ordered one :). I miss side buttons on my Abyssus.

Let us know how you like it please:

- Shape (including quality), also what you think it compares (most) to other mice (you've had)
- Sensor performance (should be perfect due to sensor)
- Buttons (heard they have some pretravel, like to hear your opinion)
- Rattling/Shell quality (is anything squeeking, rattling or moving during use?
- Cable (Is it flexible and durable)
- Lift-off distance
- Picking the mouse up and putting it down, does it toggle any of the buttons if you use slightly more force than usual?
- How do you perform with it? What style of grip do you use? Palm/Claw/Finger or a hybrid between any of those 3
- Coating

Would be nice if you or someone else who bought this mouse could give us answers to the above questions for more insight.

Thanks!

Received it this tuesday.

- shape is really good for clawgrip, very narrow, closest one I had its Kana. Never used abyssus, but it looks similar also.

- sensor is perfect for the moment, played around 20 QC matches and its flawless.

- buttons are very well placed and steady, feeling is great.

-no rattling, its very well assembled, if you shake the mouse, nothing happens.

- cable is top for my taste.

-lift-off distance is very low, I like it a lot.

- no problems when picking up and putting down.

- claw/finger grip, also palmgrip for small hands should be ok, my hands are quite big.

- coating feels great, best I ever tried, dunno if it will last for a long time.

Theres also 2 extra pack of surfers with the mouse.

10/10

/Lokario

Whats the size of your hand? And does it fill up your palm properly?

Thanks for post, plussed.

also interested in hand size

Trump disapproves of this conversation.

I like the Venator very much, so I replaced my Abyssus v1 with it.

- Shape: Great, compares to Razer Diamondback Plasma.
- Sensor: It's perfect, works on Steelseries I-2 black, Artisan Shiden, Artisan Raiden.
- Buttons: Great.
- Rattling/Shell: If i shake the mouse, the mouse wheel rattles. The wheel is not as sturdy/nice compared to my Abyssus v1.
- Cable: It's flexible, no criticism.
- Lift-off distance: 1 CD.
- Picking up / putting down: No problems.
- Performance / grip style: I like it. I use a hybrid of palm/fingertip.
- Coating: The sides have little "holes". I had to get used to them (didn't take long) as my Abyssus is smooth on the sides, but now it doesn't annoy me any more.
- Hand: My hand is 18 cm from the tip of my middle finger to the base of my palm.

- Shape (including quality), also what you think it compares (most) to other mice (you've had)
Quality is superb, I've swapped from a G203, so it feels slightly bigger but also quite narrow so its much better to grip imo
- Sensor performance (should be perfect due to sensor)
Well yeah, perfect
- Buttons (heard they have some pretravel, like to hear your opinion)
Maybe very slightly? But its no more than any other mouse
- Rattling/Shell quality (is anything squeeking, rattling or moving during use?
No rattling or squeaking, feels like a normal mouse, similar in quality to zowie mice
- Cable (Is it flexible and durable)
yep yep
- Lift-off distance
Very low, which is perfect for me as I hate it when a mouse keeps tracking when you lift it
- Picking the mouse up and putting it down, does it toggle any of the buttons if you use slightly more force than usual?
No
- How do you perform with it? What style of grip do you use? Palm/Claw/Finger or a hybrid between any of those 3
I use probably a combination of fingertip/palm grip and I could use any grip with this mouse
- Coating
Feels good

I think this is my "finalmouse". I have no affiliation with bst except we did used to play Quake 4 around the same time.

edit: the only tiny nitpick I have and I don't know if its just my unit, but the scroll wheel feels quite sunk into the mouse. I rarely use the scroll wheel though so its not a deal breaker for me at all :D

Could someone confirm if this mouse tracks on icemat?

It works on Steelseries I-2 black.
http://esreality.com/post/2875203/n-a/#pid2875203

Yeah tracks flawlessly on black icemat & blue frostpad

23x10 cm

/Lokario

Play QL Lokario, atm I woulkd say that QC isn't a very trustworthy platforming for trying out performance of mice. Plus it would be nice to see you play some ctf again ;)

I tried the mouse playing 3 maps of QL CTF a week ago. The feeling is great, but I wasnt very confortable with the movement and aim as the mouse is way smaller than the sensei raw I used the last 2 years.

I really miss CTF but theres not enough free time and omega is 16/16 every night i check it :(

I'll be more active in july :D

I got this mouse last week, and I'm having a good experience with it playing QL,
I'm using it in place of my usual 1.1a. So far, I'm very impressed, feels way smoother than wmo.
Using on icemat and sometimes shiden kai.
You can pretty much use any grip with the shape, palm/finger/claw.

WHY has no one just literally copied the wmo shell? I don't understand. There is a huge community waiting with their wallets full of cash to throw at it.

Can someone just copy the wmo shell and put in a good sensor and problem solved?

I would pay the same if not even more than a zowie mouse for a wmo shaped flawless mouse.

There would be no need to buy new and new to test if shape is ok or almost good enough.

You can't just copy it exactly... copyright and all that.

But I am actually working on something like it right now :)

Thats one of the reasons the Venator came first, to show the firmware that will go into the new mouse is decent. I'm probably going to have to fund some of it by a kickstarter, so its better if theres no ambiguity over the sensor/firmware etc.

I guess I'll find out if I done enough and if there is really a lot of people waiting with their wallets in the not too distant future :D

Just make an improved EC2-a, c'mon you can do it ;). You'd be on dat Scrooge McDuck time b4 you know it.

Edit: Put a 3360 in it, improve scroll and side buttons, make the shell quality solid, give it your own aesthetics to dodge copyright bullshit = win.rar

What's wrong with EC2-A?

There's nothing wrong with it but it ain't a perfect product. If he perfects it with abovementioned attributes then it would be an all-time classic.

Well, the mouse is kind of a build it yourself, you get different shells in the box. So it does have an ergonomic shape :)

The reason I'm doing that is because factories always want a minimum order quantity for each product. So if one product can be 12 different variants, then its 12x cheaper. But it doesn't work out much more expensive as a product since it only has one PCB and just a few bits of extra plastic.

My wallet is ready. It has been for years.
Just for your information; I bought 4 mice in desperation to find a similarity to the wmo.
And I know there are tons of hardcore oldschool gamers out there waiting for the wmo copy.

Speaking of copyright. Doesn't it decay after some years. I mean is it eternity? I know for medicine, (I'm a med student) you can make generic drugs of same compound. :D

Yeah, maybe the copyright/patent is void now, but still I'm wary about saying things like, "its exactly the same" or making it look the same.

The difference is mostly at the front, because I thought the front was a bit short, so it has been extended a bit. It doesn't curve down at the front like a WMO, and the buttons don't wrap round the sides. I think both of those things are an improvement. It still has the forward sensor position :)

A lot of people want the exact shape. Not almost. There are tons of mice out there that are close to the shape.
Please make it exactly the same. I predict you will get tons of buyers.

The mouse is excellent, I came from a wmo, and my frags have actually improved. Yeah the shape is slightly different (similar to ZA) but I got on fine with it.I think people who keep banging on about the shape of the wmo are just on the bandwagon.

Cool, glad to hear it :)
I think it depends how you hold the mouse, some people prefer the hump to be more in the middle, which the WMO has, and they like the wide palm area. But idk how many people actually want a WMO, and how many are on the bandwagon :D But it does get asked for a lot.

Yeah but I don't think any company is going to want to do a 1:1 copy. Changing the front is the least intrusive change that can be made. I really can't see how its going to affect many people, just because the buttons are straight and the sides have more area to grip? (because the buttons don't extend down the side of the mouse).

Changing the buttons is fine. As long as the "grip" feels the same as in the shape, height, curve, length and how it fits your hand in the back!

I think it can be good change. In this new mouse you are working on, wide in the front will be the same or wider?
What worries me is that changable shell, if it will be good quality.

Its 58mm wide at the front, so exactly the same.

The quality should be good, there are "normal" mice built using the same kind of technique, I'm just making it easier to change parts (I use screws in some places where they'd use clips). Also its not a "quick release" type of attachment, so once the parts are screwed in, they should be very stable. It doesn't use magnets anywhere.

I've found a lot of bad quality is actually bad design tbh, theres a lot of things where if it was just designed better, it would have been fine. It happens a lot on OEM mice, which is why I don't use the factories CAD designer but chose my own :D

Most important is the back part, and how the slope/curve. That is what makes the mouse so comfortable. Not too tall. And the sides' width.

Isn't Zowie FK1+ pretty similar actually? Now that I think of it.

Another failure to replace WMO.

Can't you just made a fucking simple shaped mouse with no sidebuttons?

> Can't you just made a fucking simple shaped mouse with no sidebuttons?

Having a quick look on ali there are no decent looking OEM shells like this.

mouse is great. thanks for this. finally found something to replace my wmo

BST, I need to get my hands on a black Ninox Venator.

I see it's out of stock on Amazon.

Any chance it will be back in stock soon?

PM please

Edit: Also, anyone having this piece of equipment for sale is welcome to PM me.

Best mouse ever.

looks good, i have the ninox aurora, to small for me.