500Hz USB mouse polling in XP SP3

Shihonage, When I said Quakeworld I meant Quakeworld. 'Quake'(aka Quake1:) was only ever good for singleplayer. As for connection bandwidth/reliability constraints of 1996, (and you'd know this if you ever played the game) no one in their right mind would have used an uncapped /rate, /cl_maxfps) settings in their client unless they had an expensive T1 cable connection, (commands which limited your network fps to less than the maximum allowed by the server). The original network frame rate of Quakeworld was 72fps which was soon changed to 77fps. The '2000 byte' limit you speak of for a network packet is (and was) controlled by the /rate command, and is 500 bytes short of the minimum rate a Quakeworld server will allow you to use today. My connection to my lowest pinging QW server is, for all intents and purposes, a LAN connection. As I said I can't speak for the latest games, perhaps they are as low-fi as 20hz, but I doubt it.

shihonage wrote:

As for the mouse refresh numbers, I believe you missed my point entirely. Hint: it has something to do with being human.

What's that supposed to mean?.. Well let me explain more explicitly: the logitech MX500 mouse when running at 125Hz has a linear response up to slightly less than 1m/s (negative accel: if you move it faster than 1m/s your crosshair won't go as far as you'd expected). However if you run it at 1000Hz (probably 250 or 500Hz is sufficient to correct the problem) then it has a perfect linear response up to 3.91m/s.

I told you, you sha'n't have the last word.

(Sorry I was mistaken about the mx500's dpi its actually 800)

foe wrote:

I told you, you sha'n't have the last word.

Yeah, good luck with that one.

foe wrote:

Shihonage, When I said Quakeworld I meant Quakeworld. 'Quake'(aka Quake1:) was only ever good for singleplayer. As for connection bandwidth/reliability constraints of 1996, (and you'd know this if you ever played the game) no one in their right mind would have used an uncapped /rate, /cl_maxfps) settings in their client unless they had an expensive T1 cable connection, (commands which limited your network fps to less than the maximum allowed by the server). The original network frame rate of Quakeworld was 72fps which was soon changed to 77fps. My connection to my lowest pinging QW server is, for all intents and purposes, a LAN connection.

You used Quakeworld as an example of an ancient game that "way back then" already used a packet rate that exceeded my claims. Even if you did have a LAN connection to a Quakeworld server in 1996 that would make you in the absolutely, terrifyingly vast minority.

In fact, still, in the modern days, hardly anyone has a LAN connection to an online game server, and those that do are still in the vast minority.

Frankly I have trouble finding exact information on this subject. Even if Quakeworld server/physics engine framerate is 77fps, that's not the same as network update rate.

I do find it strange that one game in the modern day would stand out as an exception while the others still use 10-30fps updates.

What's that supposed to mean?.. Well let me explain more explicitly: the logitech MX500 mouse when running at 125Hz has a linear response up to slightly less than 1m/s (negative accel: if you move it faster than 1m/s your crosshair won't go as far as you'd expected). However if you run it at 1000Hz (probably 250 or 500Hz is sufficient to correct the problem) then it has a perfect linear response up to 3.91m/s.

Yeah, and my point (among several others; see prev. post) was that given the fact that humans are organic beings with imprecise muscle control, such numbers don't carry significant relevance. Also I am not so sure that the rate at which the mouse refreshes internally to detect the surface underneath it is actually linked to the rate of updates at which the Windows driver demands them from the mouse.

It makes more sense that since the mouse precision is always meant to be as high as possible, its internal detection runs at very high rates, no matter what the driver is set to, because it is directly linked to its PRECISION, by the nature of mechanism, and it MUST meet the numbers that are on the box.

I told you, you sha'n't have the last word.

You wish to believe it's going to make you a better player, have fun with your snake oil and magnetic bracelets. Especially if that belief is so important for you to maintain that you signed up to an Internet forum to stand up for it. I've expressed myself as clearly as possible and yes you can have the last word should you choose to post again.

Many people are not finding these hex values in the sp3 usbport.sys. I tried deleting it from both locations in safe mode thinking a new one would be created upon reboot. o_O Luckily I had a ps2 mouse handy. Is there any way to create a default usbport.sys or ...?

For the record, the difference is quite noticeable when making large fast sweeping motions. I'm no big tech guy and you can throw numbers at me all day long, but you'd have to be very unaware not to notice in practice. This reminds me of the argument that 18 fps is sufficient for the human eye. Anything more is just fluff or "snake oil" that doesn't really help? Well, good luck gaming at 18 fps with a 125hz poll rate.

shihonage, no serious gamer would use anything but a CRT. At least not when I was a serious gamer, in the early to mid 2000s. I'm not serious anymore, but I'm still rockin' the CRT from those days (if it ain't broke...). So yes, I'm witnessing this on a real monitor that "allows me see the difference between 125 and 500hz."

I'm not going to argue with you about whether or not I'm seeing what I'm seeing. I'm sorry your eyes or monitor don't allow you to see what I see.

Then again, perhaps you don't need to see what I see. Perhaps I don't. Since I no longer game (much), perhaps I should toss out the CRT and get a low-end LCD so none of this matters. Until then, I simply cannot tolerate 125Hz. There is a pronounced, unmistakable choppiness in the cursor motion. And it isn't due to faulty hardware, because I see it on other machines as well.

You can spout off all the technological and biological theory you like, it won't make my eyes lie to me. Seeing is believing.

foe wrote:

I told you, you sha'n't have the last word.

Although Lord knows certain posters have a talent for steering dialogues in that direction, I think you'd be well served to drop some of the combative tone of these posts. Let your points stand on their own, rather than framing them with a "you'll never get the last word" schtick, which just makes you appear to be arguing for the sake of an argument. Even if the use of "sha'n't" is amusing.

foe, apparently I am not man big enough to leave you without a reply. At least, I am going to try and avoid the sliced-up format and address it as a whole, as it is less irritating that way.

You can't first refer to Quakeworld as "even that 12-year-old game" to support your argument, and then isolate its tweaked-out version in 2008 and a very specific case (T1/LAN play) to support your argument, again. It's either one or the other, and neither one of those actually works. The first case is simply untrue, as I debunked it earlier with simple facts of 1996 hardware. The latter case you cite is a rare exception rather than the rule, and therefore, it doesn't count for anything.

I am not sure you fully understand what you're talking about in terms of latency and "tic rate". Since you tie them together in an attempt to prove something by using one variable as a function of another, it appears you actually believe that the two are linked. They're not.

Your link to the mouse review article is merely about a bunch of nerds (and I say this without mockery, as I am one as well) doing calculations under the microscope. It is just numbers, ones that carry little significance in reality of imprecise, organic human-computer-internet-computer-human interaction.

You'll have to excuse me as I quote this:

So in other words: you are incapable of moving a mouse faster than ~1m/s, :{ poor you, so your cognitive and physical deficit is why you're so persistent, so dedicated to your bs?

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. I never timed my mouse movement speed. That said, I'm not a cyborg... and neither are you. My FPS skills remain unaffected as long as the mouse I use stays above 80hz refresh. After that, the mouse becomes margin of error rather than defining factor of my game.

I frequently took second or first place on the winning team using 80hz with an old-ass, $10 generic PS/2 mouse. Should've taken more screenshots.

IMAGE(http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/7912/mopped2qf5.jpg)
IMAGE(http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/6348/barnburnerlo6.gif)
IMAGE(http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/8612/moppedmr7.jpg)

So yeah, I find these claims from the "xtreme mouse tweakers" to be rather similar to buying bottled water because it's "from the pure snow-covered mountains of Nicaragua".

,,, okay, I've gathered the remains of my willpower now and will stay away from this thread from now on.

I leave you with a recommendation for this invaluable purchase. You are clearly into this sort of thing.

Interestingly, this card actually is somewhat less of a snake oil than the mouse tweaks, and may actually be worth a purchase for a super-hardcore FPS player.

shihonage wrote:

You used Quakeworld as an example of an ancient game that "way back then" already used a packet rate that exceeded my claims.

Indeed it did use a packet rate that contradicts you, if played on LAN or a T1 connection where enough bandwidth was available. Incidentally, if you think Quakeworld is a relic you're wrong, the game has been played online every day for the last 12 years all across the world, has multiple currently developed clients, still attracts new players, and is still used in prize money tournaments.[/quote]

Even if you did have a LAN connection to a Quakeworld server in 1996 that would make you in the absolutely, terrifyingly vast minority.

Eeeeerm... yeah whats your point? Irrelevant.

In fact, still, in the modern days, hardly anyone has a LAN connection to an online game server, and those that do are still in the vast minority.

Note I didn't say a literal LAN connection, it was just to illustrate my point about the network frame rate of the game: since my latency to the server is consistently lower than the frame rate of the game (1/77=.01298~), my ping in game remains at 12.98~ms, if my latency to the server exceeds 12.98~ms (but remains less than 2/77=.02597~), which it used to, then my ping is consistently 25.97ms.

Frankly I have trouble finding exact information on this subject.

Translation: The exact information contradicts what you're saying.

Even if Quakeworld server/physics engine framerate is 77fps, that's not the same as network update rate.

Heheh, wrong again.

I do find it strange that one game in the modern day would stand out as an exception while the others still use 10-30fps updates.

Haha likewise, and I can't comment on recently released games with the same degree of certainty, but have you been ignoring the people who've stated that HL Source engine games use a 'tic rate' of 100?

Yeah, and my point (among several others; see prev. post) was that given the fact that humans are organic beings with imprecise muscle control, such numbers don't carry significant relevance.

So in other words: you are incapable of moving a mouse faster than ~1m/s, :{ poor you, so your cognitive and physical deficit is why you're so persistent, so dedicated to your bs?

Also I am not so sure that the rate at which the mouse refreshes internally to detect the surface underneath it is actually linked to the rate of updates at which the Windows driver demands them from the mouse.

Just google it. - http://www.esreality.com/?a=longpost...

It makes more sense that since the mouse precision is always meant to be as high as possible, its internal detection runs at very high rates, no matter what the driver is set to, because it is directly linked to its PRECISION, by the nature of mechanism, and it MUST meet the numbers that are on the box.

Engineering isn't always done most sensibly, for e.g. the model that followed the mx500, the mx510 was vastly inferior in terms of linear response, and another two models further the G5 was worse further in this respect. Make superficial sense? Hell no! They f*cked up, but that wasn't much of a big deal because no one had ever (at least publicly) measured those parameters before.

I told you, you sha'n't have the last word.

Just a quick thought and a thank you,

While I agree with shihonage that the advantage over 125hz in an FPS is practically non-existent mainly due to human limiation, but I feel compelled to mention that the polling rate obviously has an effect on more than just mice. Controllers and converters, for example.
Specifically, rhythm games that can have timing windows as accurate as 12ms can benefit greatly from an increased polling rate, as since the latency change is fluctuative (due to the discrepancy in frequencies between the game ticking and the polling updates) "compensating" for the lag often doesn't quite stack up. At least at higher rates, these fluctuations are minimized in comparison to the timing required.
I, for one, found this information very helpful and increasing the polling rate was useful for me when using a beatmaniaIIDX controller with a usb adaptor. You make a good point shihonage, but considering the article does not mention a game advantage at all, I think it is good to remember that this information may be useful elsewhere for a different purpose.

So thank you Legion, this is just what I needed to keep my stuff working right.

Holy crap, my eyes kinda shifted into my brain trying to read this thread.

If you want to see the actual merits of using a higher polling rate, in a controlled comparison, I suggest checking out this link
http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=...

and see just how much of a difference (a LOT) it makes to increase the polling rate for your mouse.

Thank you for this post. I've actually had SP3 installed awhile back, and noticed something was terribly, terribly wrong. It turns out that it was the polling rate of my mouse. I had previously set it to 500hz long ago using USBMRS1.1 (google if you're using sp2) and I'm now looking for a way to get back to 500hz while using SP3. I'd simply uninstalled Sp3 altogether months ago, because no matter what improvements it made, it was not enough to justify getting stuck with a 125hz polling rate. I own the Logitech G5 and Razer Death Adder as well, which both have the polling rate option in the drivers themselves, but I don't like those mouses. The best FPS gaming mouse there is, is the Microsoft Intellimouse Explorer 3.0 @ 500hz polling. I have also used extensively the Logitech G9 and the Logitech MX518. I never cared for the ambidextrous shaped Razer mouses, so they were a no go until the Death Adder came along.
This is apparently exactly what I was looking for. Thank you so much Legion, and ignore the noobs. There are just as many people like me that want the maximum performance out of their system as there are uninformed people that don't know any better (such as Shihonage).

Ceasama wrote:

Just a quick thought and a thank you,

While I agree with shihonage that the advantage over 125hz in an FPS is practically non-existent mainly due to human limiation, but I feel compelled to mention that the polling rate obviously has an effect on more than just mice. Controllers and converters, for example.
Specifically, rhythm games that can have timing windows as accurate as 12ms can benefit greatly from an increased polling rate, as since the latency change is fluctuative (due to the discrepancy in frequencies between the game ticking and the polling updates) "compensating" for the lag often doesn't quite stack up. At least at higher rates, these fluctuations are minimized in comparison to the timing required.
I, for one, found this information very helpful and increasing the polling rate was useful for me when using a beatmaniaIIDX controller with a usb adaptor. You make a good point shihonage, but considering the article does not mention a game advantage at all, I think it is good to remember that this information may be useful elsewhere for a different purpose.

So thank you Legion, this is just what I needed to keep my stuff working right. :)

Not trying to spam, but no, gaming with 125hz vs 500hz is a completely different world. Human limitation is not as low as most people think. I didn't know any better either until the first time I played an actual professional gamer and assumed, of course, that he was cheating. After learning more about the competitive aspect of the specific FPS games I was playing, I started learning more and more about how to take advantage of a systems settings, and completely optimize the gaming experience for me. I'm far from a pro level (I'm too old, got a kid, full time job) but I'm in the top 10% if not top 5% of North American FPS online gamers.

just to say thanks for info Legion, it was clear and works, thanks

Hi.
I understand, this is good idea to make your mouse moves smoother.

But, I have different question. I want to COOL my notebook when it uses WiFi usb2.0 device, and I want to turn polling rate down for ALL usb devices.
So, what should I change in usbport.sys to make polling rate less then 125Hz, if it possible.

Thank you.

Even tho it is an old post, I figured out to bring easy example where this thing does matter even in FPS gaming.

Pollrate 125hz

Time passed since start
Start 0ms
Mousepoll 0ms
Mouse button press 1ms
Game engine update 3ms
Your data sent to server 4ms
Mousepoll(button press) 8ms

With 500hz polling it would poll the mouse button at 2ms after start, and the game would update it and then this button press would be sent to client.

Now if it really is 10hz time intervals the data are synced with server, it means
the button pressed will be registered 14ms later than it was meant to. Now if you are playing fps and the other person shoots you using 500hz polling, you end up being dead before your computer even reads the mousepoll for you, not to mention it must also be read in game engine, and after this it must be synced with game server.

Ofcourse the above situation happens rarely, but it could happen. By this, it really does give one competitive advantage.

*Legion* wrote:

125Hz means a maximum delay of 8ms between input and having that input read by the system. 8ms behind? Yeah, you can "see" that.

I doubt any human can see 8ms difference in anything let alone react faster. And would this increased rate mean that the computer has to spend more time keeping track of the mouse? Does the USB even support 500hz with no problems? I guess if you really feel it helps you, then go for it, though I think 99% of people won't notice any difference.

Norsu wrote:

Even tho it is an old post, I figured out to bring easy example where this thing does matter even in FPS gaming.

Pollrate 125hz

Time passed since start
Start 0ms
Mousepoll 0ms
Mouse button press 1ms
Game engine update 3ms
Your data sent to server 4ms
Mousepoll(button press) 8ms

With 500hz polling it would poll the mouse button at 2ms after start, and the game would update it and then this button press would be sent to client.

Now if it really is 10hz time intervals the data are synced with server, it means
the button pressed will be registered 14ms later than it was meant to. Now if you are playing fps and the other person shoots you using 500hz polling, you end up being dead before your computer even reads the mousepoll for you, not to mention it must also be read in game engine, and after this it must be synced with game server.

Ofcourse the above situation happens rarely, but it could happen. By this, it really does give one competitive advantage.

125hz is 8ms. 500hz is 2ms. 10hz is 100ms. After that I am sort of lost. Sorry but I can't grasp the significance of what you're saying.

It appears to do something with a scenario where you press a mouse button at 93ms --> 100ms mark between the network polls ? I.E. a 500hz mouse poll would shorten that "dead" range to 99-100ms ?

Dead range being "now I have to wait another 100ms for a poll before this data is sent" ?

Yeah, that could happen. Keep in mind though, that one's mouse is only part of the control (which includes keyboard movement), and that BOTH players are still polled at this low rate. Due to to continuous nature of this polling, combined with the fact that the players are equally likely to press fire anywhere between the 0-100ms interval, the degree to which such factors matter becomes minimized toward the point of margin of error.

shihonage wrote:

okay, I've gathered the remains of my willpower now and will stay away from this thread from now on.

You're slipping! Is this like an AA thing, is there a sponsor you can talk to?

Oh let the debate rage on.... it's been too long!

By the time we get to debating milliseconds, I think folks tend to overestimate their personal reaction speed, making it moot.

No second chances on drunk posting. Fired. - Certis

elenchus wrote:

Crazy stuff

Wow, is this crazy person week?

Eezy_Bordone wrote:
elenchus wrote:

Crazy stuff

Wow, is this crazy person week?

Seems that way, but then I imagine we'll be short one particular crazy person once Certis meanders through the tech board.

I wish everyone posted while drunk.

QUENTEN you stupid idiot...

sorry guys... but that was really funny to me when i was drunk last night... anyways.. somewhere in there i had a legitamite point. maybe after some coffee to clear up this hangover i can make it coherently.

Ok, now being sober it is clear I am still kind of an idiot, and I definitely do not have the technical insight other contributers to this thread have. Despite this, I do have a sincere interest in this topic and would like to understand it better, and maybe help resolve the debate, or at the very least find a combination of settings so I can maul people even easier in games.

First off, it seems there are 3 variables I can change that have an affect on 2 important gaming factors. The 3 variables are: monitor refresh rate, mouse USB rate, and in game frame rate. The 2 affected factors are: smoothness of video/gameplay, and smoothness of mouse cursor/xhair movement. Sorry if this comes across as obvious, or/and has already been stated, but as I stated I'm an idiot.

So, in a set unit of time, these 3 variables are being processed and calculations are being made, like having 125 frames rendered in one second for example. Further, during a sequence of these units, the 2 gaming factors are observable. The impression that I get from reading the thread is that a "buffer" of some sort, organizes this data/input in the order it is received, makes some calculations or takes some other actions I don't know about ( once again, idiot, not good with the technical stuff), and in certain intervals spits out the processed data.

I assume that changing the 3 variables in such a way that the "buffer" can do its magic most harmoniously will provide the most ideal result for the 2 gaming factors. It seems this is accomplished by settings these 3 variables up so that the incoming data is received in nice even sections.. numeric multiples.

That being said, I am still quite lost (idiot). In quake 3, the standard is 125 frames per second. For reasons I do not understand (or care about unless they are relevant to this dicussion) this made certain things possible with the physics of the game that other settings did not. Anyways, this seems contrary to that desirable harmonious "buffer" state. I have not heard of a 125hz monitor refresh rate. If it exists, no gamer I have spoke with has it. 120 (monitor refresh rate) and 125 (fps) do not seem relatively harmonious. Perhaps the difference (5) is too small to make a disturbance? Or perhaps this particular example is irrelevant because the "buffer" is not concerned with monitor refresh rates, only the relation between frames per second (125) and the mouse rate (standard default 125, often patched 250 or 500) which would seem a harmonious one.

I decided to do some experimenting, due partially to my lack of technical insight, but more so because regardless of the science and numbers, ultimately it's the subjective experience that I can feel and judge.

A few settings combinations in quake one had the most noticeable and hopefully relevant results:

a) 120 refreshrate / 125 fps / 250 mouserate -- this produced a very smooth mouse movement, perfect feel. the video/gameplay was a bit choppy, i know it can be improved.

b) 120 refreshrate / 120 fps / 500 mouserate -- mouse movement felt "too fast". it became almost too responsive, perhaps desirable to some, and had the general feeling of "lack of control". the video/gameplay was flawless.. perfectly smooth.

Due to these results I'm led to believe that having the fps and the mouserate in harmony is desirable for mouse movement, and that having refreshrate and fps in harmony is desirable for smooth gameplay/video.

The problem with this, is that there is no 125 refreshrate that I know of for monitors, at least not mine. So perhaps the solution is to drop down to a 100 refreshrate, 100 fps, 500 mouserate, and not play quake 3. That sucks. There must be a better solution. Ideally I'd like to retain 125 fps and 250 mouserate. Or am I incomprehensible and/or totally off in my analysis?

Hopefully this wasn't a total waste of time, if so I'll stick to getting drunk and posting crazy stuff that is mildly humorous.

Old topic but thought I'd still contribute my experience. I'm an electrical engineer who also games (mainly FPS, RTS).

Changing polling rate from 125Hz to 1kHz is definitely noticeable to me. For some reason I'm extremely sensitive to stuff like refresh rates. At times (depending on how rested and good I feel at the time) I easily notice flickering below ~100Hz at least on CRTs. When I first sit down at my LCD (Samsung 226BW) I can also, at times, notice flickering of the backlight until I get used to it. Can't wait for my replacement LED backlight LCD down the road btw.

Try thinking of the whole mouse polling rate this way:
You're moving your mouse to draw a curved object using MS Paint (basically traversing a path). If you move extremely slowly, then at 125Hz you should draw relatively smooth curves (accurate). However, try drawing that same curve extremely fast and what do you end up with? Obviously straight line segments between the polled (sampled) points along the curve resulting in a less-than-ideal result. Clearly, the effect would be less obvious when polling at 1kHz because you now have 8x the datapoints (let's assume no other interpolation).

The same thing goes for just aiming or looking around with the mouse in FPS games. If you look around, your aiming and look movements are "capped" at 125Hz and the path taken is less defined and as smooth than if it were at 1kHz. Your FPS drawn by the vid card is still decoupled since between those mouse polls the screen should still be redrawn by the monitor at it's refresh rate, and at the FPS your particular PC can handle (CPU, vid. card, RAM, etc.).

To me it's somewhat analogous to ADC. Ever noticed the difference between 8kHz and 96kHz sampled audio or 16bit vs 24bit audio bit-depth? There is quite a difference unless you're using crappy, mono headphones/speakers.

Also, just because some percent of the population do not perceive or notice (or care about?) the differences such as this doesn't mean that we should ignore the part of the population who do. Heck, I even have my work PC at 1kHz polling rate because the mouse, which I clearly use all the time, feels so much smoother that way and that's the way I like it.

Do I care about the initial (and subsequent) 8ms vs 1ms delay from when I move my mouse? Not really, but why not minimize any delays anyway if it's so easy to improve?
Plus, I typically expect nothing but the best from what I purchase and configure. Anything less is sub-optimal.

zombie thread kill it with fire!!!!

Probably should retire it. However, I had to apply the patch today.

Seems like an excellent argument to me.