Originally Posted by MaximilianKohler
What?? The market doesn't need higher DPI... manufacturers are deceptively marketing higher DPI as if it means higher accuracy... Ask 90% of gamers why they want a mouse with higher DPI. I guarantee you there is not a single one that says "yeah man, I just can't get my sensitivity high enough in games...".
What part of the market needs more than 1000dpi?? People with multiple monitors or 40"+ monitors... That is a tiny percentage of gamers... and even those people shouldn't need more than 1800dpi(?) on 6/11....
Where did I state that the market needs higher DPI? Where can I sample a group of unbiased gamers? General sales figures will prove the opposite as core audience isn't likely to buy 2-3 mice a year nor really go through trouble to understand technical things.
I don't know why is so hard to understand, but this is the current market. Until a major manufacturer wants the challenge the status quo, you're left with compromises that benefit the casual side of customers (sales). General audience does not understand the dynamics imaging accuracy or tracking specifics.
"No one really needs super high CPI"
I fully agree for my needs as I have trouble controlling CPI over 1200, depending mouse weight/shape.
To be introducing higher DPI along with higher amounts of smoothing and thus destroying the quality of mouse for 99% of gamers to appease the 1% is ridiculous.
We have to stop this by getting the word out that higher DPI = higher sensitivity, NOT higher accuracy. I've been trying to do this on my mouse reviews on newegg and amazon, as well as on related youtube videos. It's up to informed people to promulgate this information other wise manufacturers will keep marketing something that's actually WORSE to uninformed gamers.
See, I don't see things the exact same way. I consider these delayed properties introduced to algorithm beneficial for those that crank the DPI beyond 1200 or so. I like the degree of precision current mice at 2000+ DPI /1000hz are producing. Much better tracking than devices of the past.
Regardless of view point, you have to look the market as a whole and not just seclude yourself to personal opinions. I'm stating to realize this with a lot of things I considered poor or bad in the past.
If it were up to me, I would make effort to cater towards all sorts of gamers and not just an either or path. Manufacturer and users of this board seem to go two different ways. BOTH have valid reasoning, but I can't help but see people tagging on issues, just "because". Yes, I'm aware i've done the same.
Originally Posted by r0ach
Well, they aren't really wrong in their thinking that if a mouse is capable of resolving higher DPI, it technically should be capable of more precise lower DPI. This doesn't turn into reality once you find out they're running a fly by night scam and just multiplying the array outside of it's capabilities and not actually resolving any real, higher detail.
Cursor precision at any DPI should be very high and produce limited ripple. With older 1600+ CPI models, this isn't the case, granted 1000hz wasn't exactly standard either. A lot of those past "high" CPI units were rather poor when cranked up/forced. Sure, 5k+ DPI units are beyond unnecessary, but they sell. Plain and simple.
Regardless of imaging size being smaller than maximum DPI, there is still an issue of cursor control when cranking DPI upward.
Other than cost issues, I can reason with the decision to stop at 30*30 imaging. You can spend more on total image and have similar issues relating to ripple due to human limitation. Same with specific hardware parameters such as high FR when compared to lower registry of same release.
It's a general matter of getting tracking algorithm "right" when working with multiple variables.
PS: Didn't you consider the G100s decent?
From what can be assumed based on CPI count, that image matrix is scaled at least 2x higher than where current 3090 mice have stopped. Point and case.Edited by Skylit - 11/18/13 at 9:42pm