Originally Posted by popups Comment (Click to show)
Well anything below 900 cannot be achieved with a sensor array of 900. It would just be a 900 step cut down by MCU.
I have come to accept having to use 800/900 CPI with the 3090. I rather have the 900 SROM over the 800 even though I use about 600. I have kind of given up wanting a 3050 because it isn't even a 500 CPI mouse.
Both Agilent and Avago never had an actual 900 CPI registry. Sensor matrix is 30*30 or 900, but they've only released multiples such as 1800/3600. 3500 is rather close too.
All other values are worked from what seems like a base of 800 counts. There's surely a reason to this as alternative sensor manufacturers have also compensated to a lower base. Sure LED power influences such.
The downside of working with a limited scale, (in this case 900) is that with each SROM enhancement increasing CPI, the tracking code is reworked to ensure smoothes, or at least passable tracking precision at highest values.
For those that can perceive it, there is an increase of delay, but it's not due to recalculation or anything of that nature. Just inherit to code.
They decided to have 4000 instead of 400 for marketing... I think it is better for sales that they have the 400 step. The original Kana's "maximum" is 1600 CPI and the 3200 is just doubled off of that anyway. So why not just have a maximum (non DCPI) of 3200 to retain the halved 800 step?
I don't. I feel as if it would hurt sales when you have competitors pushing a higher count. I'm not for extremely high DPI, but you learn to realize that you can't change general conception.
Btw, 400 CPI isn't technically available as spec'd, but you can load it. There are multiple routes to going about 400 CPI.
Why would your customers see reason to upgrade from a "3200" CPI kana? What incentive do they have? Steelseries even downgraded numbers such as IPS speed (even if those are given by manufacturer).Edited by Skylit - 8/10/13 at 10:41am