#Ninox venator manual software
Why don't you read the first couple of explanatory introduction comments to the software by its author? What you can't do, is to check if the speedometer is correct, by only looking at the speedometer itself, without comparing it to anything else. No matter how you do it, you need an external second measurement as comparison. This can be someone standing next to the street with a radar, a measurement of distance+time, GPS-data you can even use the tachometer values and calculate motor-rpm>gearbox-ratio>differential-ratio>tire-diameter>car-velocity. When you want to check if the speedometer in your car shows you the correct velocity values, you need an external second measurement to compare it against. Try it yourself, just enter a deliberatly wrong mouse dpi into the software by using half or double of Wmo's 400 dpi and spectate your perfect control speed magically change. The tool uses the mouse data itself to extrapolate the velocity of the sensor based on dpi, there is no external sensor that measures the actual velocity/acceleration and therefore the results are flawed right from the start, as soon as you enter an assumed dpi value that actually isn't true due to manufacturing tolerances, potentially wrong mouse reports aside. In the sentence I underlined, your usage of the plural ("instationary" conditions) makes it appear, like you try to extrapolate from those limited measurements to all sorts of thinkable scenarios, meaning you mistakenly generalise from a limited set of conditions to all kind of thinkable conditions. Here's an example of one such test result įirst you claim nobody moves the mouse that fast and then you post measurement data, which shows that people are moving their mouse that fast. The results confirm a 1.5 m/s tracking speed even in "instationary" conditions. They have their mouse and microe1's MouseTester software. People don't have "low acceleration" mouse testing rigs. WMO's malfunction speed is 1.5 m/s and nobody actually moves their mouse faster than that in a game. You will never see those theoretical 1.5, when in reality the mouse spins out at a lower velocity, because you applied an acceleration the sensor can't keep up with. What they don't tell you is, if you are actually able to reach those theoretical velocities under instationary conditions. the theoretical maximum achievable velocity under quasi-stationary conditions the consistency of the sensor at a certain velocity/mousepad (vertical spread) Ī similar restriction applies to the measurement setups that generated those malfunction speed datasets:Īs you can see, the disc spins up with a rather low and constant acceleration (horizontal growth of the curves) in order to generate a quasi-stationary process.
Nice calculation, just in your model the mouse doesn't have to start nor stop, you are taking the average velocity of a stationary process, while in reality the mouse starts at 0, during the process reaches a higher peak value than the average 1.75 that you calculated and ends at 0. It is impossible to make the wmo malfunction due to fast movement? Then how come I have repeatedly done it on cloth and plastic mousepads? And I am not talking about the cute negative acceleration speed, I am talking about complete spinouts at 500 where the crosshair/cursor stops horizontal movement and instead travels up and down. That is some major bullshit from both of you:
0 kommentar(er)
