ps3 and wii are not comparable to mice. the muddy and imprecise controls+ rendering lag in consoles is quite worse. the natural imprecise control of joypad hides lag naturally, it only works because they build the game around compensating for this, whether its with aim assist or whatever. look around and you can google up articles like this
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-lag-factor-article
consoles get away with a lot because of the natural muddiness of controls. if you really game a wired gaming mouse would be better, esp ones that allow for very high polling rates. the ones with nano recievers that are wireless are less trouble than bluetooth, no pairing issues etc. those might be passable for you, but no wireless ive ever tried has been as good as a wired gaming mouse, its subtle but its there, whether it matters to you is your call.
the lag isn't so bad that it would cause you to miss a click on an icon or block unless you were moving it so fast that its a bit ridiculous. i think you just had the mouse accel settings wrong for your preferences.
Thanks for discussing this with me.
"Naturally imprecise?" "Joypads" are HOW I became a discerning latency-conscious gamer.
Granted, I'm not talking about the wireless controllers used today. In fact, that was one of the first things I noticed about playing classics on the Wii Virtual Console... latency was bad. In fact, even more so with the Classic Controller than with a Gamecube Wireless Wavebird or wired controller. Now there is input latency, which seems noticibly worse on BT controllers than proprietary RF, latency on the TV, latency within the console's frame buffer, an emulator (in the case of the Virtual Console), and so on (translating IR pointer input for shooters, as you point out). I am aware of this. What I'm saying is that response time is obviously adequate for precise platformers and digital input (D-pad, action buttons, etc), my VC example excluded, of course. BT can't be faulted for exacerbating TV latency anyway. In fact, I suspect that many proprietary solutions are often just a "mode" in what is really a differently-configured BT-capable chipset. Look at the XBOX 360's 7-device limit and "mysterious interference" that was investigated a while back.
Anyway, the latency I detected in my old mouse was most certainly real and not an acceleration issue. These weren't large icons, but small blocks in Minesweeper, which I would move across at a certain pace alternating between the left and right mouse buttons to clear and flag blocks (yeah; not exactly a "gamer's game"). The latency wasn't just in the button input, but also in the pointer motion, though you would never know it if just browsing the web and clicking icons. What was wrong was the mouse I blamed. It was actually the mouse included with my Logitech Cordless Desktop MX Duo, which I think was an MX700 or something.
Regardless, it wasn't the BT MX900 like I thought. Anyway, the cradle/BT receiver for the MX900 in the DiNovo kit worked even before the BT drivers andthe BT stack were installed, so it also functioned in a dual mode with proprietary RF simulating standard HID input w/o pairing. It was a $300 set, so I guess they did it for the customers who couldn't get it set up otherwise so they don't get angry when they find out that they have a harder-to-setup kit that cost so much more. I was thinking that if there was a BT gaming mouse that couldn't overcome any inherent BT latency that it could do it this way somewhat. As for the advantages of a nano receiver, I consider the presence of another 2.4GHZ transmitter wasting power in a notebook to be a serious disadvantage. Not being able to use the mouse elsewhere without switching the dongle is also something I dislike.
So I did a little digging and the Razer Orochi looks like the best of both worlds. It is a wired gaming mouse with a detachable wire and it also works as a Bluetooth mouse. It's small, portable, and the cord is short because it's intended for a laptop. PERFECT! I just wish it didn't cost so much.
I'm still wondering if BT can match dedicated gaming wireless mice, like the G7, especially with the SIG knowing that game companies planned to use it. I'd bet that BT2.0 has a low-latency mode in certain profiles/protocols just for this sort of thing. My G7 is a great mouse that I never found laggy like the MX700, even if it was "there." As it stands, I scoff at the whole "weight cartridge" idea, considering that the idea first came from Logitech using the G7's battery slot for something else just to avoid having an empty hole in the bottom of the corded version (G5). Logitech got to use the same mold to save money and gamers only "need" it because they fell for it!
I went to Fry's Electronics the other day and say a "G7" Wireless Gaming Mouse from a no-name brand (elaborated "G7-###" on the side). It's a shameless rip-off saying things like "0 - No any lag!" all over the package and saying things like "2.4GHZ to ensure interference-free communication" (LAWL!) and "Gold plated nano receiver" as if that's going to improve the WIRELESS connection.
Also, "Two-Way communication" (?!). I almost got it just out of curiosity, but then I remembered that I didn't want another dongle occupying a USB port, even if it's a small "nano" one.
Anyway, is there a cheaper alternative to the Razer Orochi? As it stands, $80 is too much (I only paid $25 for my G7... just kept an eye on slickdeals.net ; my friends did the same even when the second version came out). I think I'm a little clearer on the BT mice I already own now. I'm pretty sure one is the MS Wireless Notebook Presenter Mouse 8000 (Laser pointer and Powerpoint controls on the bottom) and the other is the Microsoft Wireless Notebook Mouse 5000, IIRC. I'll have to try them both, but I already know that they play Minesweeper just fine, unlike the MX700.
Facebook
Twitter