Re: Experience & Opinion: 240hz displays are blurry
Posted: 09 Jan 2018, 22:04
LOL that thread is terrible... I hate monitors, people misunderstand so much about them it’s terrible. Even with proof they ignore it.
Who you gonna call? The Blur Busters! For Everything Better Than 60Hz™
https://forums.blurbusters.com/
What makes me laugh is all the kids thinking it actually makes 1% of difference at their skill level whether a panel has 1 or 2ms more latency or not My standard response is always kind of harsh, but true none the less, and something to the extent of 'you don't actually believe you're that one-in-a-million special snowflake who can actually notice that difference to the extent that it'll actually make you go up a rank or two, do you? You think you'd stand a chance against a professional player when you're using the fastest 240hz panel @ 500 fps locked with him using a simple 60hz panel? Really?' which is triggering, of course. But at times it makes them think.darzo wrote:On for instance the Overwatch forum you'll read stuff like it's basically about input lag and all you need for that is fps, not a monitor. This in a 60hz vs 144hz context. A lot of people actually appear to focus rather exclusively on input lag, pros included, which drives me nuts. Input lag is just how long it takes for you to see an action on a monitor after the fact, and my impression is at higher refresh rates you can take an action at a more precise and exact moment (combining finer mouse movement with smoother object motion), which is much more valuable. It's a pain in the ass trying to argue unless you're really prepared and on top of it, which I lack at the very least the patience for.
You make fair points as always, Chief I was purely referring to, especially younger, gamers who act as if they simply cannot play competitively on anything but the highest refresh rates, fastest monitors pixelresonse-wise etcetera and trash-talk every other option there is... while they still haven't been able to climb out of the most mediocre of ranks in competitive gaming. That kind of sheep'ish talk is triggering to me. I've played at 'decent' competitive levels (amateur, of course) on an old 60hz flatron while 144hz was the standard for a few years already and got accused of cheating so many times it wasn't even funny anymore at one point. And I'm not even that good. Sure I could've been better with decent gear back then, absolutely. Especially the jump from an old LG Flatron to any decent 120hz+ monitor would've improved my play, but I'm not going to act as if it made the difference between me being above average or pro, like many on forums like reddit or game-specific forums do.Chief Blur Buster wrote:Around here, milliseconds matter -- so no matter how silly it sounds, we respect the unexpected -- so I don't namecall those who fuss about the millisecond.
Even when a human cannot feel the millisecond, there's also the "cross-the-finish-line" effect. In a 100 meter sprint, finishing just a tiny bit ahead (even if you don't notice until you see high speed video replay). The "see each other, react at same time, frag each other at same time".
With near-identical human reaction times, the input lag of equipment can be the deciding factor of a specific reaction-time win.
The "It seems like my reaction time seems better with this lower-lag setup" is a powerful effect even if one can't always feel the millisecond or few directly. When competing in professional leagues, the reaction time spread is tighter, so tiny lag differences matter more. This affects statisticals wins in their favour.
Whether or not it is placebo, I still respect the millisecond.
P.S. I offer incentives/payment for peer reviewed science studies on eSports competition times, I commissioned a researcher (spacediver) to do a little (informal) research on this -- Foreword | Page1 | Page2 | Page3 .... More intensive rigorous study is desired & needed.
In other contexts (e.g. persistence), it unexpectedly matters too. People have also read about how a millisecond affects the optical illusions at Eye Tracking and Persistence Of Vision animations. These are motion-blur-optical-illusion animations that utilize the formula "1ms of persistence = 1 pixel of motion blur per 1000 pixels/second" in order to create precisely-generated motion blur illusions.
And, we're already familiar with that 1000Hz mice feel (generally, in many metrics) smoother than 125Hz and 500Hz. And also, Microsoft's tests with 1000Hz touch screens which actually made a visual difference.
What I am saying, is milliseconds matter in more ways than expected, even if we don't "notice or feel" the millisecond, sometimes even to the average user. So I have come to respect thy millisecond, even if my guts tell me not to always believe it.
Certainly there is a lot FUD/noise though, and misinformation! But I know enough not to kid around the millisecond (whether it be lag, display artifacts, absolute lag, differential lag, screen response, persistence, poll rate, stutter, frame pacing, etc). So, around here, we are nice to people who fuss about milliseconds.
This is so true. But there is another side, which is hardly mentioned or discussed anywhere. There is a BIG difference between playing on LAN at the highest/pro level and playing via internet (at all skill levels). People put too much focus on what pros are actually doing, what gaming gear they have, and what setting they are using. When in reality it doesn't matter, not in the slightest. Skill is the most important factor when you have the same playing field and all things are equal (LAN, same monitors, same hardware and virtually exactly the same gaming gear used). The world that pros operate in and the world where casual (including competetive) players operate are two completely different beasts.KindOldRaven wrote: What makes me laugh is all the kids thinking it actually makes 1% of difference at their skill level whether a panel has 1 or 2ms more latency or not My standard response is always kind of harsh, but true none the less, and something to the extent of 'you don't actually believe you're that one-in-a-million special snowflake who can actually notice that difference to the extent that it'll actually make you go up a rank or two, do you? You think you'd stand a chance against a professional player when you're using the fastest 240hz panel @ 500 fps locked with him using a simple 60hz panel? Really?' which is triggering, of course. But at times it makes them think.
I mean we all know it matters, but the herd-mentality of try-hard competitive gamers really overblows that stuff. Practise and talent is so much more important than any tech advantage, besides perhaps 20+ ms input lag in fast shooters or *extreme* motion blur, which would actually instantly impact people to the point of playing way worse than they normally could.
It all depends on the context. Everyone wants to seek perfection, so in reality every improvement (even marginal) matters. For example, increased perceived smoothness due to G-SYNC and/or higher fps/hz may not give you a tangible difference in performance and results in the game (ignoring lag difference for a second...) but it can definetly make you feel better and make gaming more enjoyable and 'real' without certain artifacts.Chief Blur Buster wrote:Around here, milliseconds matter -- so no matter how silly it sounds, we respect the unexpected -- so I don't namecall those who fuss about the millisecond.
...
You are entirely correct. There are just too many factors and variables in place (human related factors, game/engine related factors, internet related factors) for a 1 or 2 millisecond to matter. But it doesn't mean that we shouldn't pay attention even when talking about few milliseconds differences. In the end, faster = better, and as i mentioned above every little improvement is still progress.RealNC wrote:Opinions are split. Personally, today I consider 1 or 2 milliseconds completely inconsequential, even in the highest possible level of competition. All the "finish line" instances are so rare as to not matter. I'd still be interested in a scientific analysis on how often the "finish line effect" occurs though. I suspect the answer is "virtually never", but that's just me.
Well, without trying to insult anyone. PUBG is a definition of mediocrity... skill wise. Words like "competitive" and "pro" when talking about PUBG shouldn't be even used when talking about this game, because this is an insult to other games where an actual skill matters the most. And even if we would not talk about players skill in this game, there is so much wrong with this game, including engine/network code. Also, the gameplay itself where playing field is never equal and luck also matters based on loot that you will find (plane drops too), including energy field that might work in your favor or in favor of other teams and players.KindOldRaven wrote: Every-single-day I see people tell others to avoid Gsync/Freesync because of the 'insane amount of input lag it induces, completely unusable for competitive PUBG' and stuff like that... Ah well, I'm very happy to have found this community