Hey thanks for stating this. I've always wondered about it's performance in rts games. But did you have the software installed while testing?

 

So you are saying, that when you try to point at a target your cursor lands +- 2 inches away (plus target width). That is actually 5 rows of icons on your desktop or approx. 20% of your screen's width.
Now there are two options here:

1., You have a mouse that is just a hair away from qualifying as dead on arrival and since it is completely unusable even just to use on the desktop, you should RMA it.

2., You were using a DA, which is a bigger and heavier mouse. You were also using the Xai, which is also a bigger and heavier mouse and it has nice and rather large mouse feet. Given the fact, that the Xai is an old model, I would assume, that you feet is worn and slow.
Since you play RTS, I'm guessing you use high DPI (2500 on G100s ?).
And now, you switched to a small and light mouse with new feet and suddenly your aim is all over the place... Practice more.

Please select one of the options and I wish you good luck with your new mouse.

P.s.: Sensor FPS is not affecting precision at the level you are talking about, if at all (not theoretical level).

 

First of all: Please state your sources that document the "very, very low" framerate of its sensor. I'm not saying you're wrong, but not trustworthy either with that "I know for a fact" bs.
The mouse is/was heavily discussed here, on ESR, and to some degree on TL. General consensus is that it's a great bare bone mouse at a low price with a very accurate, and precise sensor with no built-in acceleration (other than that hitting after PCS naturally), and very low prediction. Only major con so far is its somewhat low speed of ~3m/s, which is only a problem for the lowest sensitivity players, and even those might never hit it in competitive play, but only when testing the mouse.
Minor flaws:
Cable too stiff (matter of a few seconds to work it in, no problem here)
shape not 100% that of MX300/G1
tacky design
squeaky button(s) (even the so called "fixed" batch introduces squeaking after a while of usage)
LOD too high on black cloth

Nowhere, however, have I read that its sensor is as imprecise as you state (1inch left/right = 2 inches of variance). And seeing that this would be quite a flaw, I'm pretty sure boards would be full of it.

I've been switching between my FK, and G100s for a month now on a daily basis, and could not find any imprecision or inaccuracy of its sensor thus far. It's precise to the pixel in Photoshop, and also very accurate. Prediction is so low that my hand is too unsteady to trigger it apparently. I need to move very, very slowly to trigger a predicted horizontal line, which will never happen in real usasge. Unlike the MX300, which practically drew horizontal lines only

- (and yet was considered on of the best gaming mice ever @1000Hz).
In QuakeLive that lets you set CPI (very handy to compare mice!) I couldn't tell the difference in aim between G100s and FK at 1000, and 488 respectively. The G100s is much easier on my hand though.
For desktop work I actually prefer the 1000dpi over the 1150-1200 of the FK, and again the shape and grip of the G100s.

 

Sometimes the cursor lands 2 inches either side usually less, but it is so clear that the accuracy of the mouse is not even in the same galaxy of the DA or Xai or any other high end laser mouse. It almost feels as though its an effort to select and move units in StarCraft II. The DA, Xai are effortless in this regard.

For SC II I use mid sensitivity (900-1000 DPI) and I have used BT mice from Microsoft and they feel FAR more accurate even with their prediction. After that I used 3.5G also very pleased with precision and comfort of use, likewise for the Xai.

Even though the sensor has no prediction or acceleration that does not justify its savagely poor cursor precision. I am talking from a perspective of a user, I have used the DA 3.5g and the Xai and with the G100s its painful and frustrating to play SC II games.

I have decided to use this mouse as a working mouse on my alternate non-gaming AMD rig.

 

I use my G100s as an office mouse and tried it with gaming before, there were no problems with cursor precision at all. Either you have a defective unit or something else is wrong on your side. How do you measure it being off? Because the only source for that could be acceleration. If it is just "not where you would expect it to be" it might be because you are not used to it.

Try some tests in paint if you get the same line length every time, or if there are cursor anomalies while doing lines with the pencil tool.

 

Is it not well known that the cursor quality is quite bad, the g100s also have an extremly low "fps" being way worse then 10 year old mice like explorer 3.0 making it less smooth.
Also shows well in tests like enotus, a new gaming mouse like g100s should not be way worse then a 10 year old one in smoothnes.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nivity

Is it not well known that the cursor quality is quite bad, the g100s also have an extremly low "fps" being way worse then 10 year old mice like explorer 3.0 making it less smooth.
Also shows well in tests like enotus, a new gaming mouse like g100s should not be way worse then a 10 year old one in smoothnes.

The G100s has better smoothness values than the DA 3.5G:

G100s
http://imgur.com/Yb40KQR

DA 3.5G
http://imgur.com/3a1Bjaw

But I heard that smoothness is bugged anyway,

 

Quote:

Is it not well known that the cursor quality is quite bad, the g100s also have an extremly low "fps"

How should it be "well known"? The sensor has no publicly available documentation, making it quite difficult to state facts, yet it's prone to assumptions. I'm not defending the G100s as a fanboy. I don't care what brand my mice are as long as they work. And the G100s does work, quite good as many experienced users (Skylit, TeasmLiquid) showed.
I do not like however that Logitech don't reveal more information about the sensor in use over the usual marketing crap like Delta Zero Technology, and (ab)use the whole "Science Wins!" nonsense when it comes to differentiating their new G-Series from other devices for press releases. As if all other mice so far were carved out of wood.

Quote:

Also shows well in tests like enotus

While Enotus may be quite practical to measure relative differences between devices, it is not a valid tool to measure absolute values.

 

Well the fact that the mouse lacks documentation at this stage is exactly why some points may be regarded as speculative at this point in time. However, you may later find these points to be absolute facts.

To begin with, the frame rate of the optical sensor is no where close to the G400, Deathadder, or the IntelliMouse Explorer 3.0 which I believe had a 9000 FPS frame capturing speed. The G400 has 6400 FPS. That is almost certain. AM010 M1301T DOES NOT have a 5.8 megapixels/sec rate of the Logitech G1. As you can see from the pictures I posted it quite clearly states '5.8 megapixels/sec'.

Although prediction may have been removed in the G100s compared to the Logitech G1, what many don't realize is the sensor itself is a massive downgrade in precision compared to the S2020 found in the G1. What this means is this mouse is overall worse than mice made 10 years ago.

Many people have reported the poor precision of the G100s, me included. Yes the mouse works, its functional but that is it.

Also, does this look familiar? Think about it. HINT: rotate the G100s sideways.

The picture on the right is a dell mouse, and the left a no name wireless mouse.

 

Guys, are you familiar with concept of internet trolling?

 

Hi.

I assume you're referring to lens which was a common design/model among Avago office based sensors. Sensor model A5050 for example also found it's way into knock off products like the first picture you linked.

In terms of frames A5050 runs at a maximum of 4500. Other office architectures per brand identity are also fairly close ranging anywhere around 4k. Contrary to A5050, Avago released a gaming oriented model sold under A3050 branding in 2011. This model offers a much higher 6666 maximum frame integer. There are also a few noticeable hardware differences when comparing the two.

Being a custom design with gaming in mind, one would doubt a downgrade, but like mentioned, there is no documentation. The CPI stepping setup is fairly close to that of previous 3050 and custom A3055. One thing that can't be ignored is obvious changes to tracking coding per model, though the original G100 can be proven to have 6666 FPS based on rating Korean and Chinese Logitech pages gave.

I would also like to clarify megapixel/s ratings as there's a big misconception. A sensor can have a small matrix and high framerate or a low framerate and large matrix and be rated with the same specs.

That means if willing, a sensor designer could pair a large matrix with relatively low frame rate and label that sensor with a higher MP/S rating compared to other common designs mentioned. I don't really like this rating model as there are two sides of the spectrum.

A3050 per documentation is quite close to the first release of ST MLT04. It's limited by a smaller array, but is bumped in frames.

19*19 @ 6666 vs 22*22 @ 6000 or 2.4mp/s vs 2.9 mp/s respectively. Frame rate is of course dynamic based on surface. One major difference is that the Avago model is heavily modified in terms of coding.

I don't know anything bout the inconsistency of tracking, but my impressions of G100s were rather well. Just don't like the idea that they're using weaker hardware in design I much like.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1374187/new-logitech-g-series/70

 

The original Microsoft optical mice released using the MLT04 sensor I believe had a lower frame rate but in a later release (for instance the Wheel Mouse Optical) the sensor was upgraded in frame capturing speed. With the Logitech G100s the sensor is custom but shares the same lens as many cheap office dell mice.

So basically, its just $5 riced out dell technology.

Also it would be helpful to compare the tracking accuracy for the user of the G1 and the G100s. It is known that the original Logitech G1 had a Avago ADNS-2020 sensor with prediction built in. However, it seems that this mouse is almost impossible to get hold of nowadays, but was widely used in SC:Brood War by many professional players.

I think its quite widely believed also, that the G100 was an absolute disaster and really what more can be said about the G100s? I don't see it being anywhere near on the level of the IME 3.0 or WMO 1.1, Deathadder, Xai, Savu or any other precise mice. Anyone can see from first usage that there is something wrong about the consistency of tracking. I think Logitech has made a double blunder, first with the G100 and now again with the G100s. Everything will be made more clear and evident as more information is divulged by Logitech about the specifications of the mouse.

 

I have both an MX300 with 2020, and a G100s.
Since the 300 is 400dpi, and the 100s is 1000 without drivers it's hard to compare them accuracy wise. While I'm not anal about my mice as long as they work I did some lines in paint and played different games. The sensor in the G100s apart from it's apparently much lower PCS than the (overclocked) 2020 architecture, felt definitely not worse than the latter. And as I mentioned, photoshop and other sophisticated software like CAD is a much better indicator for flaws in accuracy ad precision alike than any game. And the G100s did just as fine as my MX300, and my FK (3090 based) for that matter.
The G100s btw is not free of prediction as far as I can tell. However, it's much less pronounced than with the mx300 for instance.

Iirc frame rate was increased with the sensor implemented in 1.1a models by Microsoft, although there are some marked 1.1a that still feature the older model. Regarding WMO, usually a black shell is a sure sign for an updated sensor. No idea what that's got to do with anything regarding your thread though unless you wanna ***** about Logitech.

I think Skylit has given a perfectly fine answer, laying out what can be known about the sensor in use, and what could be derived from that without making baseless assumptions. His postings are always a great source to learn from. And yet you repeat your guesses from your other postings bringing nothing new to the table.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by nex83

Guys, are you familiar with concept of internet trolling?

Yeah, I guess you're right. Mindless bashing of a mouse that is perfectly fine if you're ok with relatively low max tracking rates and the dpi steps it has.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by precise

The original Microsoft optical mice released using the MLT04 sensor I believe had a lower frame rate but in a later release (for instance the Wheel Mouse Optical) the sensor was upgraded in frame capturing speed. With the Logitech G100s the sensor is custom but shares the same lens as many cheap office dell mice.

So basically, its just $5 riced out dell technology.

Also it would be helpful to compare the tracking accuracy for the user of the G1 and the G100s. It is known that the original Logitech G1 had a Avago ADNS-2020 sensor with prediction built in. However, it seems that this mouse is almost impossible to get hold of nowadays, but was widely used in SC:Brood War by many professional players.

I think its quite widely believed also, that the G100 was an absolute disaster and really what more can be said about the G100s? I don't see it being anywhere near on the level of the IME 3.0 or WMO 1.1, Deathadder, Xai, Savu or any other precise mice. Anyone can see from first usage that there is something wrong about the consistency of tracking. I think Logitech has made a double blunder, first with the G100 and now again with the G100s. Everything will be made more clear and evident as more information is divulged by Logitech about the specifications of the mouse.

Yes, 6000 and 9000 FPS, but dynamically adaptable. 3.0's after 2007 revision are all 9k variation.

While I'm not in total agreeance with your view point, it's obvious we're dealing with an entry level solution based on a similar architecture to that of previous G100. 19*19 = 361 * .8 = 288 > 250 base array multiplied.

I'm positive this newer solution is mostly tweaks to ensure tracking stability. G100 quite lacked.

Contrary to your opinion, I feel the sensor performance itself is rather precise. I believe my pictures via linked thread coincide. What I did not experience is what sounds like acceleration on your end.

PS: I also own a G1. While considerably one of most responsive mice I own, the angle snapping algorithm is quite apparent when compared. FPS players may also feel the 60 IPS limitation is too slow.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by precise

I think its quite widely believed also, that the G100 was an absolute disaster and really what more can be said about the G100s? I don't see it being anywhere near on the level of the IME 3.0 or WMO 1.1, Deathadder, Xai, Savu or any other precise mice. Anyone can see from first usage that there is something wrong about the consistency of tracking. I think Logitech has made a double blunder, first with the G100 and now again with the G100s. Everything will be made more clear and evident as more information is divulged by Logitech about the specifications of the mouse.

The Xai is considered as an accurate mouse? Would its "acceleration", which is another way of stating inconsistent tracking, not prevent it from having precise tracking versus the aforementioned non-laser mice like the DeathAdder, Savu, and etc.?

 

Yes it is known to me that laser mice such as the SteelSeries Xai have 5% of positive acceleration built into the sensor. However, this does NOT make the mouse imprecise by any means. Over the SteelSeries 4HD the movement felt extremely fluid and it never skipped. Modern high end laser gaming mice are extremely accurate on the correct surface.

The G100s on the other hand just feels imprecise overall, as though the tracking is inconsistent but not in a consistent way. It also feels as though the cursor skips pixels at random moments.

In a game like StarCraft II - the malfunction speed of the mouse is NOT an important factor, 1 m/s or more is sufficient. So I do not consider this when rating the usability of the mouse for my purposes seeing as almost all gaming grade mice have a >1 m/s IPS.

For your information I am using the mouse with out of the box settings (no drivers, 1000 DPI, 500 Hz).

 

The only problem with this mouse for me is that I normally use 800 DPI / 1000hz.. I bet it would feel much more precise at 1000hz. The higher polling rate would help mask the low-ish FPS.

 

On most mice there is like 0 difference between 1000hz and 500hz, and in alot 500hz is more stable.

1000hz is imo meh, wont mask anything over 500hz default.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nivity

On most mice there is like 0 difference between 1000hz and 500hz, and in alot 500hz is more stable.

1000hz is imo meh, wont mask anything over 500hz default.

Not even close for me. I've never liked 500hz on any mouse I've used.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by r0ach

Not even close for me. I've never liked 500hz on any mouse I've used.

Weird

Im extremly picky about latency, fps drops etc.
It's impossible for me to play on a 60hz monitor, I had crt forever.

I notice minimal framedrops in any game that no one else notice.

I do not notice difference between 500hz and 1000hz on any of my 10++++ mice.

 

Better mousefeeds, changing or removing the weight inside the shell, or covering the light source of the sensor, to fix the LOD can improve the G100s overall feel by far.

Also:

http://www.overclock.net/t/1410391/g100s-lighter-color-mousepad-less-lift-off-distance
http://www.overclock.net/t/1405000/something-about-mouse-manufacturing-i-really-dont-get

 

This thread still going on?

 

Good morning guys....
Yesterday i have buy this g100s ...i have see this discussion with crazy g100s test... why crazy g100s test ? Because this is my g100s test. .........

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by GINO-ITA

Good morning guys....
Yesterday i have buy this g100s ...i have see this discussion with crazy g100s test... why crazy g100s test ? Because this is my g100s test. .........

So? What do you mean to tell us? Performance at 2000 dpi is bad? We knew that.