|
Seconding the "don't buy headsets" recommendation. You're just selling yourself short, those things are crappy quality and break super easy. Just get a nice pair of headphones with some cheap rear end desktop mic. Personal recommendation: Sony MDR-V6. A tad on the pricey side, but worth every drat penny. These things sound amazing and will maintain their crystal quality even at eardrum-blowing volumes. Perfect for gaming and music alike. Also, whatever you do, never, ever buy surround sound headphones. They are a scam in the truest sense of the word. It's physically impossible for headphones to be 'surround' in the way that speakers can be. If someone wants a detailed explanation I can give it, but please, don't buy them. They're a massive waste of money and usually don't even have good sound.
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2010 03:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 06:24 |
|
|
abigserve posted:3rding this, also never ever ever ever buy anything that has the word "gaming" on the box Most of the time this is true, although like others have said, there are exceptions. (Logitech mice being the most obvious) Speaking of the MX518, I have one that doesn't have that lame bullet hole pattern on it, just plain red. Got it on sale at Target years ago for $30. It owns.  After Googling it it looks like it was a Target only thing. Weird. Anyway, here's one that has a slight pattern but at least it's not the bullet holes. http://www.amazon.com/Logitech-Performance-Optical-Gaming-Mouse/dp/B0007Z1M50
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2010 05:04
|
|
|
Get a second 1680x1050 and dual-screen 'em.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2010 20:43
|
|
|
Srebrenica Surprise posted:The Zalman clipons are flimsy and staticy and the cord is annoying. Buy the Logitech USB $20 one, change its volume level from 5 to like 80 in Windows, then set it wherever on your desk you have space. It'll pick up your voice without static from anywhere. I have one of those, and it's at 100 in Windows and in game, but everyone complains that it's quiet. Not a problem in voip where people can turn me up, but in everything it's really quiet and I wish it was like all the others who are apparently super loud. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2010 06:31
|
|
|
The Bramble posted:Can someone recommend some quality WIRELESS headphones? Wired headsets and headphones have been the bane of my existence for years. I am forever getting the wire caught in some crack of my chair and having it tug on my head, or getting tangled in it when entering and exiting the chair. I've gone through so many in the past years, and i want the pain to stop! They all suck, without exception. There's a reason you almost never see them, nobody sells them. Get something with a coiled cord, when coiled it's pretty short so probably won't get stuck in your chair, but it's also long so you won't just have it tug on your head.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2010 06:40
|
|
|
Same story for me. Normally an nVidia guy, but when the 4850 came out I thought I'd try ATi again (after a previous TERRIBLE driver experience with the X1300... don't remind me). It was complete hell from the moment I put it in. OpenGL barely ran, every game I tried got about 2/3 of the performance as the 8800 I was replacing, Linux drivers were completely broken, they wouldn't even start without crashing despite hours of tweaking. So I returned it, got a 9800GTX+ for the same price, and have never had driver problems and have easily double the performance. Sure, ATi may have great hardware, but that doesn't mean anything when their drivers fail on every level.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2010 07:51
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:I run a 4850 and I can max out basically every game I own on it at 1080p with 30+ FPS with the exception of Crysis Warhead and Metro 2033, and it never has given me any issues in Linux, including running games through Wine. Maybe you got a bum card hardware-wise? It's possible, but that gives me a 0 for 3 track record with ATi, each one being more lovely than the last, so I'm not going to bother wasting money on them again. My nVidia experience has been without problem since day one, so I'll go with "if it's ain't broke, don't fix it".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2010 08:24
|
|
|
iceaim posted:How does Xbox 360's 3.2 GHz PowerPC Tri-Core Xenon compare with a Core 2 Duo E8500? I know technically the 360 has more cores, but I have heard that the cores are scaled down. Can someone shed more light on this? I don't know that much about the CPU, but I'm guessing yours is pretty close. But yeah, the real difference would be in your GPU and RAM, Xbox is bad in both areas with that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2010 20:35
|
|
|
J posted:Mousepads Get a piece of paper and tape it down - seriously. It's small, doesn't get in the way, is slick, cheap, and replaceable. 'Generic' mousepads are terrible, they're sticky and they slide around a ton, you always have to shift them around. I haven't used one in probably 8 or 10 years.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2010 06:26
|
|
|
Probably dead skin and grease from your hand/wrist. (not kidding)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2010 06:54
|
|
|
Athropos posted:My hands are pretty small and I hated how the MX518 was so huge that my fingers barely got up to the 2/3 of the lenght if I wanted to lay down the bottom of my palm on the mat and use a palm grip. The Razer Deathadder was an improvement in every way in the ergonomics department for me, but it's not a very solid mouse. I expect it to start doing the single click/double click thing that all razer mice do with usury. Wow, your hands must be tiny. I have an MX518 and if I hold it under my palm, my fingers go past the end of the buttons.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2010 09:15
|
|
|
Well I've been gaming since 3 and playing piano since 9, so maybe that influenced my hand growth?  I have huge monster hands.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2010 10:22
|
|
|
Yup. Consoles are literally holding games back in every aspect. Graphics, difficulty, memory requirements, and so forth. Thanks, Microsoft and Sony.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2010 06:05
|
|
|
systran posted:Starcraft and SC2 are really the only good RTS games unfortunately... but they are good enough that they can carry the genre on their own. Ummmm, no. There's a ton of variety out there and not to mention actual strategic gameplay. SC is one of the most plain and formulaic RTS games out there.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2010 06:58
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:While I think I agree with you in spirit, I'd only call what you are talking about "holding games back" if by that you mean working to reach the largest customer base possible, and thus making the most money possible. The industry probably doesn't consider these bad things. Oh, I know it's the most profitable option so of course they do it, however I do know it's frustrating to a lot of developers that they're financially obligated to limit the potential of their games because of console hardware limitations. I'm tempted to judge them still, though, for just not taking the high road and designing a great game instead of sacrificing many areas of quality just for mass exposure. But sadly I know that would be financial suicide for a lot of studies, but... ugh. Gameplay > everything.  systran posted:I've had this argument many times before and we don't really need to derail: but as far as an actual competitive multiplayer RTS games and not one that is fun to play through the single player campaign and dick around with your friends, it's really the only option. If you're going to try to argue that point, show me another RTS game with an actual competitive scene other than SC1 or SC2. Oh, I'm not denying that SC has the biggest and best comp scene. But due to the largely inaccessible gameplay that's inherent to a good RTS game, the ones that are arguably the best are far from being the most popular. If you've played more than a couple RTS games you know that SC is one of the most simplistic and formulaic out there. Everything from the unit choices to the economy to the map design to the UI limitations is centered around making it simple. I'm not saying it doesn't require skill, obviously the top tier SC players are the best of the best, but it really is a skill that's centered around how fast you can click stuff, and not in the FPS way that requires amazing reflexes and accuracy. Because of its simplicity and hard-counter style, there's little room for improvisation or the strategic unexpected, almost every move is a memorized tactic or counter, and that makes the primary difference between players to be how fast they can execute the memorized moves. Sadly, SC is basically the only RTS that has a comp scene, C&C had a couple phases, and SupCom did for a while, but it wasn't built very well for comp play. Still, I'd put it before SC as far as how much skill it takes, albeit one of a different type. More complex economy, far more varied unit choices, a UI built around letting you perform complex actions with the least amount of click spam as possible, and of course - varied maps. Even still, it's not the best. It's predecessor TA was better IMO, less emphasis on the "epic battle" type stuff and more on fast actions, though it lacked perfect balance. Even better than that though its remake BA. The same, only with better balance and UI and graphics. Is it popular? No. But in my book, that's not what should define how good an RTS is. Doesn't float everyones boat but that's just how I feel about RTS. I wouldn't call SC a bad game, I just don't feel it does justice to the genre of RTS, which has way, way more potential than SC shows. It's just too bad the other games get so little attention. I'm still not sure if it's marketing, or just simply the gameplay, but I feel that SC is pretty weak as far as RTS goes. But with a giant like Blizzard behind them and a solidly entrenched fanbase, I know they're not going anyway, I just hope that along the way I can keep showing people what they're missing. And just to clarify, no, I'm definitely not the campaign RTS player, nor the turtle for 30 minutes type or "omg rushing is gay" type. I like a highly competitive and balanced RTS that puts demands on every area of skill.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2010 08:13
|
|
|
Footboy posted:You'd prefer a tough PC-only game that required a beefy CPU? I heard that worked out great for Crysis. No? Way to miss the point. Examples: TF2 can't be updated on consoles because of memory limits Many games delay updates for very long periods of time in order to release PC and console updates together, because they have to wait for the approval process on a console. This makes things take forever and is just generally annoying for everyone. Menus that don't functions, keys that can't be rebound Games that are ported and not playtested or optimized for PC. AKA buggy laggy piles of crap Games with a skill curve geared toward analog sticks and not mice. Games that limit AI ability due to processing power, etc etc. Out of all the ways consoles are holding back gaming, graphics are the least. However, it's just another one of the many ways that consoles are basically ruining any gaming that isn't uber-casual. Don't get me wrong I like casual games too, but I still want a game that has a skill curve and isn't easy as pie after 30 minutes like literally every console game I have played since 360/ps3 came out. Taffer fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Jan 4, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2011 02:07
|
|
|
Red Baron posted:
Yes, assuming you have enough free space. It's mostly risk free, although yes, I would never partition my drive without backing up everything on it first.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2011 20:03
|
|
|
Yeah, if you're having input lag, the first thing to check is vsync. The most basic (and common) form of vsync simply works by buffering frames, which as you can imagine causes some bad input lag. More advanced vsync methods make it less noticeable, but it will never be able to avoid the issue completely, no matter how it's done. Not to mention, if your FPS drops below 60, vsync will force your framerate down to 30 to keep an even ratio on refresh rate. 30 FPS kinda sucks.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2011 00:15
|
|
|
The best way to maintain battery life is to not leave it plugged in when it's fully charged, I believe. If you're gaming, I'd say plug it in since that obviously sucks serious power, but at other times, charge it, then unplug it, and repeat.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2011 05:08
|
|
|
systran posted:My ISP doesn't understand either because they advertise as "3M" and they definitely hard cap it at 300kb/sec exactly. ISP's are not known for their integrity and honest business practices.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2011 05:42
|
|
|
The "PC gaming is dying" debate is so loving old. It's not dying, it never was. If anything, it's bigger than it ever was. Yes, there's another very big market in gaming that wasn't there before, but it's a different group, and it's not displacing PC gamers. With Steam, PC gaming is doing amazingly well, it's bigger now than it ever has been. So please, lets just stop this stupid idea of the "decline of PC gaming". Yes, there are a thousand and one absolute poo poo console ports, but that doesn't mean PC gaming is dying, it's just bad developers.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2011 02:00
|
|
|
Node posted:Developers, if anything, will be more like Epic. I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure when Gears of War sold like poo poo on the PC, CliffyB (of Epic) bitched and moaned about how piracy is killing PC gaming sales because "if you know how to upgrade a video card you know how to torrent their game." When in fact the port was extremely lovely and the game wasn't anything new or interesting in the first place. That's pretty much the standard excuse for not wanting to develop multi-platform or do the testing necessary to have a bug-free PC game. PIRACY a-bloo-bloo. When usually it's just because the game was crap or the port was crap.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2011 02:19
|
|
|
RightClickSaveAs posted:I think Steam is sort of doing to the PC gaming market what Itunes did to the music industry. They're proving that given the option, most people will pay for quality games when you make it convenient and REASONABLY PRICED (Steam sales). Are you suggesting that the music industry was dying and that iTunes fixed it? What?  But yeah, Steam has put a ton of new life into PC gaming, especially in the last couple years, and on the subject of DRM - it's really good at that too. Yeah, Steam games still get pirated, but ones that have a dependency on Steam are extremely hard to pirate and require very regular updates to prevent constant breakage. Basically, it gives convenience, insanely low prices especially with sales factored in, and probably the most effective DRM out there while remaining non-intrusive and not doing things like limited installs. Piracy is a problem, yes, but it's not as big of a problem as many developers/publishers make it out to be. Good games will still sell really well, regardless of piracy. Also, 90% of DRM systems solve nothing. You could even argue that in some cases they make piracy worse (Spore).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2011 08:40
|
|
|
RightClickSaveAs posted:Not at all, that's why I was careful to put lots of qualifiers in my (uninformed) statement. Also no one said anything about the PC games market dying. Ah yeah, I see what you mean. I totally agree, people pirate not so much because they hate paying (though this is often the case), but because it's easy and fast. They can click a few buttons and download the game quickly and play it right away. Steam does the same thing just faster and without the worry of whether you got a legit crack etc. Definitely the same situation with music piracy, and iTunes did help with that (but still, gently caress their formats, seriously). I still roll my eyes whenever I hear some person in the higher-up music/movies/games industry talk about how they're trying to fight piracy with DRM and other nonsense, and it's amazing how consistently they miss the point. TV shows could use a lot of the same treatment, like streaming online with adds at the same time as it's airing on TV. A lot of people (myself included) don't watch TV because of time restrictions and excessive ads, but if they allowed streaming on their site from the time of airing and for an indefinite period after, I would absolutely watch it there instead of downloading it. But it's still easier to just wait and download it, and that's the point they miss. This is why Valve is so great, Gabe is extremely smart and understands how people work and instead of fighting them(RIAA, developers whining about piracy, etc), he works with them. It not only played a big part it turning the industry around but gave Valve a near-monopoly and boatloads of cash. Anyway, that's a bit of a tangent, I'll stop talking about piracy now.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2011 20:03
|
|
|
4000 Dollar Suit posted:I have duck tape over so many power box LEDs it's ridiculous, the front of my Tivo, my xbox brick, the blinking standby light on my tv It's duct.  (I'm sorry for this post but I feel the need to stop the misinformation of duck/duct)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2011 07:08
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Ahem That's just some lame brand that used that name as a pun. It's called duct tape because it was made for taping ducts.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2011 07:13
|
|
|
I'm still just waiting for those touchscreen tabletops they were showcasing like crazy a couple years ago. RTS on a tabletop with multitouch support would be pretty rad.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2011 04:19
|
|
|
NativeAlien posted:AMD currently has nothing capable of taking on even Intel's previous generation processors in terms of value ....What? I get people that like Intel way too much but this is just completely wrong. For equal performance AMD CPU's are often half the price of Intel. Basically any performance/price comparison between AMD and Intel will be at least 80% cheaper. Intel makes more super high-end stuff, and some people claim it's more reliable (as if CPU's ever burn out?) but the simple fact is that AMD is way, way cheaper for anything below the very top-end. If you really want I can find links but I thought this was basically common knowledge at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2011 23:42
|
|
|
When people act like AMD is way low-end and not near as good as Intel you can pretty much write them off as fanboys. You can get the same performance for way less money, even with lowly AMD, even on high end stuff! *gasp* It's not even like GPU's where drivers come into play. It's pretty straightforward.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2011 00:00
|
|
|
bbcisdabomb posted:Not nessicarily. I was using an AM2 Athlon X2 4000+ overclocked to 2.6GHZ before I got my current rig. Going to an i5, losing a gig of RAM and using the same video card, I took my framerates in quite a few games from ~15 to ~50. That's not because of an AMD/Intel transition, that's because you moved up two generations in your CPU.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2011 00:02
|
|
|
Amrosorma posted:Probably so you don't set it to something that makes it break instantly when you launch it and can't change it back? The opposite side of that is things that don't support multi-core at ALL can crash on startup when set at default, so you can't change them without literally making a batch script that runs the game with affinity set prior to launch. If you're lucky it's a game and will be slow to launch and you'll be able to set the affinity before it crashes.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2011 00:54
|
|
|
bbcisdabomb posted:e. Dammit 404. Nice. Haven't had to force affinity on something for a while but this should come in handy anyway, thanks for the link.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2011 01:12
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Reacting poorly to alt-tab is nothing new in the world of PC games though. No kidding.... There is no reason at this point to not have an option equivalent to Source's -noborder option. gently caress games that take forever to alt-tab.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2011 01:25
|
|
|
4000 Dollar Suit posted:That was pretty bad rear end I remember loving that about WoW. All Source games since the Orange Box have it as well, including CSS which got an engine upgrade. -noborder -windowed in launch options.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2011 08:34
|
|
|
rivetz posted:From quite a while ago but I'd love a couple sentences on this if you're up for it. I ask because I had a pair of Razer phones for awhile that actually had seven or eight speakers in them, in a circle around the ear. It seemed like a pretty good idea to me Well, it's a bit hard to articulate it (or I'm just really bad at it) but I'll do my best. So our ears detect directional sound by two things - time and volume difference. That's all combined in your head and you can tell which direction things come from. So if there's a sound to your right, you'll get that sound louder and sooner in your right ear than in your left ear. But if a sounds is directly in front of you, that's where things get tricky. In an empty environment, you wouldn't be able to tell if that sound was in front of you or behind you, because you only have two ears, you don't have one on the front of your head. So how can you tell easily even when sounds are in front or behind? By the bouncing of sound waves off of your environment. These are little things your mind does subconsciously and it's really quite impressive. Now, surround sound speakers work on this principle. Say you have a 6 channel setup; you can tell when the speaker to your rear-right is making noise and not the one to your front-right because of the way the sound interacts with the room you're in, just like any other sound. Now, headphones are way different. Rather than having speakers all around you and sound interacting with your environment, you have a can over each ear that totally isolates the sound. One ear alone has no ability to decipher direction at all, in an open environment you m ight be able to make a pretty good guess based on the way sound bounces around you but headphones don't interact with your environment, so one ear alone couldn't tell right from left. Which means that even if you have 4 speakers in one can, as far as your ear is concerned it's all coming from the same speaker. Your ear can't tell if it's the one in the back or front playing, or the one in the middle. The only way headphones can fake direction in games is pure volume/delay effect, we don't have advanced enough sound engines that can simulate sound bouncing that are able to run well in game, and the only 'environmental' sound environments that games have are things like "echo", or "small room", that are just sound filters. But that still has no way to differentiate between a sound that's from in front of you or one that's behind you. The thing is, neither do surround sound headphones. As far as directional capability goes, they're exactly the same as 2 channel headphones. So you're just paying for really expensive headphones that have 6 speakers in them when you could pay the same for pair of headphones that just has 2 speakers and get 3 times the sound quality and no loss in directional ability. That was a bit rambly and I hope it was clear. Now, to give a pure price/quality comparison...: Razer Megalodon 7.1 Surround Sound Headset Price: $150 Frequency Response: 20Hz–20KHz Input Impedance: 32 ohm Sensitivity: 102 ± 4dB @1kHz, 1V/Pa Sony MDR-V6 Studio Monitor Price: $80 Frequency Response: 5Hz-30KHz Input Impedance: 63 ohms Sensitivity: 106dB/mW As you can see, the Razer 7.1 cans have really bad frequency response and sensitivity, and yet cost nearly twice as much as the Sony 2 channel. Of course this is just comparing 2 headphones, but nothing is stopping you from looking up more and seeing the huge price/quality difference that's pretty much universal. Bigger speakers sound better, and if you try to cram 3 speakers into the same space where you could have 1 bigger one, it's simply not going to sound as good, that's really what it comes down to. Edit: Click new pages before posting 
Taffer fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Feb 5, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2011 19:18
|
|
. They worked great, especially in tandem with the Razer Barracuda sound card. Too bad both broke after relatively light use. gently caress off, Razer.
|
darkhand posted:^^ I have a soundblaster Arena headset; It's probably not anywhere near STUDIO QUALITY but my desk is huge and my room is noisy, making a deskmic annoying, useless and noisy. The mic on the arena headset is really nice and it sounds a lot better than any lovely consumer-grade pc-speakers I could have got. PC gaming is largely about compromise, and getting a "gaming headset" to me was a decent compromise to make. ...What? I didn't even talk about 'gaming headsets' in my post, I was talking purely about surround sound. Generally I would say yes, you're often paying more than you should for stuff labeled for 'gaming' but it's not what I was talking about at all. Van Ishikawa posted:Though Taffer's post made me curious, when I buy headphones in the future, what should I be looking for in terms of Response, Impedance, and Sensitivity? High frequency range is generally better I can assume, but the other metrics are lost on me. For what most people are looking for, frequency range would be the main thing to look at. As I'm sure you know, sound is in waves, and the frequency and amplitude determine how it sounds. A very low frequency results in a very low sound, this is the first number you're looking for. 20hz is ok, 5hz is good, and so on. The second number is the higher range, a good upper range is the difference between painfully shrill high sounds or good sounding high tones. 20khz is ok, 30khz and up is very good, though much higher than 5hz-30khz is starting to go into the professional sound producer range, where headphones start costing $300+. Sensitivity is basically how much power it takes to produce a certain volume on the headphones, this isn't one of those things where higher=better, it's generally based on what you're looking for. For a set of gaming/music headhpones that'll mostly be used with your computer, anything around 100db is fine. Impedance is a measure of the electrical resistance of the headphones, this is closely tied with the sensitivity but still a little different. Higher impedance means it will take more power to make sound equal to the volume of headphones that have a lower impedance, but because of this the sound quality will be more 'pure', for lack of a better word. It makes it harder for distortion and static and background noise to come through your headphones. This is why you often hear a lot of white noise or even small bursts of sound as your computer is working when you have earbuds or crappy headphones plugged in. Taffer fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Feb 5, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2011 20:15
|
|
|
RightClickSaveAs posted:
They're great headphones, but they were extremely uncomfortable, to me at least. They grip your head like a vise, to the point where I would literally have a headache after 30 minutes of wearing them. Great sound, but not worth the pain. I had to take them back and get a different set of headphones.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2011 02:25
|
|
|
RightClickSaveAs posted:Ahhh gently caress, that doesn't sound good I should have been a little more specific, they don't actually crush your ears. Like brainwrinkle said, they're circumaural. But they press on your entire head. of course everyones head size and preference is different so you might actually like it, but just giving you a fair warning. I have a pretty big head, so maybe that's it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2011 03:14
|
|
|
Red Baron posted:While the topic of good quality headphones is out and about, I want to ask a question or two about amps. I hear a lot of talk from some people I know about how there isn't a point to even using higher-end headphones if you're not using one of those desk amps or something. Honestly I'm not really sure what they mean, because I feel like my headphones work just fine. You won't gain anything from an amp unless you have a very high end set of headphones with a really high impedance. If you don't notice lack of sound quality or a pretty low volume limit, you don't need an amp.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2011 04:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 06:24 |
|
|
Chortles posted:Any way to train hand-eye coordination for first-person shooters so that I can actually track a moving target with a mouse during a twitch shooter? (I'm looking at you, Call of Duty.) For starters get all the technical issues out of the way, first, you're going to suck at tracking with 15-30 fps no matter what, you can't track well with such a slow and uneven response time. Second, turn off vsync. It will not only cause input lag but it will attempt to give you a 'steady' framerate, and it does that by bringing your framerate down to something your monitor can display with an even rate. i.e., if you're getting 60+ FPS, it will bring it down to 60 (1-to-1 generated frames/monitor hz), if you're getting 59 fps, it will bring it down to 30(2-to-1), and less than 30, down to 20(3/1), etc. This is bad and will ruin your tracking. Lastly, mouse acceleration. Now, let me just say that this is largely up to personal preference, I often switch acceleration on/off depending on what I'm playing. But typically most people don't like it and it will usually just mess them up. It works by adjusting the distance your cursor moves based on the speed you're moving your mouse. So without acceleration, you move your mouse 5'' and you do a 360 in-game, regardless of speed. With acceleration, you'll do a 360 if you move it really slowly, but if you move it fast you could do a 360 in 1'', or anywhere in between 5'' and 1''. Another thing that's preference: sensitivity. This is of course up to whatever you feel is 'right', but typically if you're having trouble tracking, your sens is to high. Lower it, try it out for a couple hours, and see how it feels. Other than that, just play more. If you really want to get better at it, play a game that's extremely fast paced and where tracking/twitch are more important (Quake, UT, CS. Quake Live is something you could try, it's browser-based and free)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2011 01:19
|
|