Hi,
So like ofcourse i want to get lg 40% but i use software 320x200 so i was wondering if its "harder" for me than for ppl usin GL? Any difference between, lets say my setup and GL 640x480 besides eyecandy? Is there any technical reason why its "easier" to get better lg with high resolution GL than software low. Or is m0re prac just the way to go!! WEee!!

a lot of people thinks lging in gl is harder cause the blood isn't as red and visible as in software

RTFM
use r_lgbloodColor for change blood color
may be ezquake only.

yeah that's ezquake only, fte has something like that too

r_lgbloodcolor does not work in EZQuake. it has a bug when changing the default.
instead of blood there is shotgun hit effect

I'm using ezquake, r_lgbloodcolor work pretty well.

I know this bug, aqua, you must set "gl_part_gunshots 0" for it to work.

are you sure? in GL? what values?

most useless help ever!

lol

I want to know to!! GL or SW lg

gl_part_blood 1 in fuhquake.

sw renders quicker or something, whats the bet

i use software and my shaft is pretty hot with it... i would say its no different between the too... i use 320 x 240 res tho in SW

Welcome to 2006


LOL!

Well, with gl quake i do have a better shaft percentage wise... because the game actually feels slower..

With sw quake, the game feels super fast, movement, etce tc.. my reaction time with sw seems better.. for instance.. it takes a shorter time for me to start doing damage in sw, vice gl... call me crazy.. but thats how it seems.

I think if you play enough and know how people move, and have the right setup, settings.. then lg'ing can be done well by anyone.. the majority of it i believe is consintration.

Well, there are a couple of differences between SW and GL.
1: Drivers using tripple buffering can wait up to an extra frame before refreshing (eek! worst case 1/72th of a second!) I'm not sure if there is a difference between SW rendering and GL double buffered.

2: player models in sw rendering are slightly larger than in gl when at a slight distance, as a result they're slightly more visible.
(sw 'rounds' up)

3: particles, I guess. Again, screen area rounds up, and there are no transparent corners.

4: The very subtle aimbot found in all Quake-based sw renderers (okay, so I like an occasional joke).

5: Everyone using high priority stuff in opengl and very slightly lagging out their mouse/network drivers.

6: Depth perception (thus mental speed prediction) easier due to greater pixelisation.

7: OpenGL drivers ignoring the calls to do a buffer swap, and swapping later at their leasure (does gl_finish 1 help?).

8: Gamers being more used to sw rendering and being unable to aim with unfamiliar graphics (anyone play with both renderers about equally?).

9: Lots of monkeys escaping from the local zoo (and finding employment at an ISP).

10: Aliens playing with the space-time continum (damn aliens).

I dunno, could be anything really. I'm going to say reasons 8, 6, 2, 3 in order of significance (greatest first).

im still sure it feels like there is less latency in software qw. i can just feeeel it yo. incidently sys_highpriority 1 makes gl feel less laggy to me - perhaps its speeding up those inputs?

now thats what I call good helping!

"8: Gamers being more used to sw rendering and being unable to aim with unfamiliar graphics (anyone play with both renderers about equally?)."

I can shaft equally well in GL and SOFTWARE as I've played in both for roughly the same amount of time 98-2002 software, 2002-2006 GL.


"6 : Depth perception (thus mental speed prediction) easier due to greater pixelisation."

Irrelevant. You can set gl_miptexlevel 3, gl_texturemode nearest, to replicate the identical look of d_mipcap settings from software.


"2: player models in sw rendering are slightly larger than in gl when at a slight distance, as a result they're slightly more visible.
(sw 'rounds' up)"

This is legitimate, however any rounding-up in software is offset in advantage by the sharper definition of higher resolutions in GL.


"3: particles, I guess. Again, screen area rounds up, and there are no transparent corners."

Blood particles are the least important part of a great shaft. The most important is your own visibility and keeping your crosshair on the enemy model. Therefore using things like a black lightning beam skin (less distracting), and raising your v_viewheight to +6 to sit above particles being rendered in your face from taking LG damage are far more important (although this isnt any useful in real play only versus bots in LG vs LG competition, since your RL aim becomes totally innacurate)


Some tips to keep in mind...

- Don't use dinput, m_filter, m_smooth
- Don't use VSYNC
- Serial/PS2 mice are obsolete, buy a USB 2.0 mouse (Logitech G3/G5, Razer Copperhead, Microsoft Habu)
- Do use 1000hz USB patch
- Don't exceed screen resolution equivalent to one half of your mouse's DPI. For example, 1600 DPI mouse translates to max resolution of 800x600. 2000 DPI mouse restrict yourself to 1024x768.
- Use a medium sized crosshair. Too tiny will become difficult to aim with in LG vs LG, too large will obstruct your view. The perfect crosshair is large enough so that you can align its size over the enemy's model at lightning gun range.
- Practice, practice, practice getting a steady hand.
- Make sure you arent dropping a single frame when playing.

See my thread here for more....

http://quakeworld.nu/forum/viewtopic.php?id=1023

i use dinput m_filter and m_smooth... so what.. i just remove this and half my sens or is there some better way

why not use -dinput? im betting this is def's personal preference... as for 1000hz, anyone ever get this to run consistently at 1000? def?

m_filter and m_smooth ARE bad, we all know that tho dont we? ;p

It's not preference. Direct input is a part of DirectX and for one reason or another the average Hz is lower using direct input. You can verify this using DirectX mouse timing tool, which uses direct input. http://def.qwplayers.org/dx_mouse_timer_dialog.exe

Compare your average Hz versus another tool that does not use Direct input. http://def.qwplayers.org/mouserate.exe

You can also measure device movement versus cursor movement and more Hz measurements with this mouse movement recorder tool. http://def.qwplayers.org/moumrec_20060517.zip

when i use the dx mouse timer dialogue.exe, i get a very consistent reading.. avg 1.96ms 510hz

interesting thread!

- Don't exceed screen resolution equivalent to one half of your mouse's DPI. For example, 1600 DPI mouse translates to max resolution of 800x600. 2000 DPI mouse restrict yourself to 1024x768.

why so?

ive tested it again 1minute ago and not to use -dinput (direct input) with a highdpi mouse (read over 400dpi) in win is resulting
in negative acceleration. this can be seen with my sens (around 25cm) when i use diamondback(@1600) without -dinput or in any other game
that doesnt use direct input.
--when i make first a slow 360degree turn then a very fast one > around 50degrees are missed from a full turn.
but i guess most do know that, so if you use relativly slow or slow middlesens you should really not use a highdpi count (over 400)
and at the same time no direct input in windows. afaik there is no solution other than not to use the standard win input.
----
2nd thing ive tried and compared is the thing the average hz without directx input is higher and theremore more responsive.
after trying some time and compared all 3 mousehz checking tools i have the impression that there is no real difference in the hz reading.
-> i saw that the last hz value is in all 3 tools always the same, if i move it fast or slow. only the average count differs - so i believe
the average counter is only a different calculation in these tools because if the last actual value of the hz is always the same if i move it fast
or slow then its not possible that the average differs (ofc i havent proven it with slowmotion or smth like that).
i believe therefore that there is not a difference in hz reading of the 2 mouse inputs. more only in the calculation that results in the
onscreen mousemovement (which everybody can feel and see when playing)

Have the same feeling about direct input (-dinput) as s1k. Have always used -dinput, but recently i tested without direct input for a month, becouse of stuff like def said that without u should have more average hz on the mouse.
Last week i changed back, becouse it feelt like neg accel when doing flick shots. Without dinput doing accurate flick shots suffered a lot, and my rl aim was a lot better with dinput. Direct input feels faster and more responsive with the same sensitivity as no direct input. With -dinput i always use the same cm for a 360 no matter the speed i do a 360. (have a G1 mouse)
Jaco

hmm

hmmmmmmmmmmm...


All i know is that my flicks are much more direct with -dinput. No matter what settings i fiddle with i CANNOT get that same effect with the alternative.


??

anybody?

I'm on an old 440BX motherboard and 1000Hz works fine. However, there is *no* precievable difference
compared to 500Hz here, so I use that setting.


Regards,
PaRadiZer