Mark Green of Sony Computer Entertainment Europe has said the reaction time for the PlayStation Move is just 22 milliseconds.
This is very old news... but good non-the-less
$150 for a webcam is a rip off.
Have a bubble for the laugh Na2ru1 :D
Still going to be cheaper than Natal I bet. The additional move controller is probably optional.
How do these statements from ages ago keep getting approved?
Let's be honest here, you're paranoid. Move doesn't get bashed much because it's impressively accurate and is bringing the types of games we always hoped the Wii would have but never did (SOCOM).
Whats your point about Move. Socom 4 needs = 1 Move and 1 add-on The fight game = 2 Move Table Tennis = 1 Move The party game = 1 Move (4 probably if you play with other people) Just need an eye all to them mix which will come out to two or three peripherals to play not four. Natal has only one game they show every time which is the Ball game. Burnout isn't shown no more because of the lag it has. I rather have a working peripheral then a barely working one.
So if Sony's is 4 pieces of hardware does that mean that its 4x better and have put 4x as much work in that anybody else? ^^ + it all comes bundled together in a nice neat packagae so shup troll
Like Wii, aren't we ? Comes with one controller and a light bar. Nunchuck is extra. Second controller is extra (oh, and the charger kit would be separate, too). Move is one controller and a camera. Second controller is extra, so is the Navigator. Funny nobody complained before. (charger included)
But the PS Move already does motion tracking with the PS Eye.... all they would have to do is upgrade the tech and it becomes a Natal.. ?
Aquanox must be really ignorant to keep posting such stupid comments when he gets proved wrong EVERY TIME.
Is that the response time of the sixaxis? they said it was the same.
This may help: http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...
So basically most games run on 100ms lag. The fastest controller response u can get is 50ms and that's on the ps3 xmb. 1 frame = 17ms so yeah, 22ms IS impressive.
Nice link. 22 ms is fantastic response.
thanks for that info that's impressive!
I'm ready for Socom 4 and KZ3 on the MOVE :D
I'm sure KZ3 will be no different. Socom 4 not so much but I'm still looking forward to it.
Its simply good to know that lag will be almost impossible to detect. Two thirds of a single frame for most games on Ps3 running 30 FPS. It'll increase controller latency, but by a near undetectable amount. This also means it'll still be useful online where extra latency is factored in...
Dude just refuses to let it go. Its kinda sad really. :-/
It really... really is...
This old news, there was an article here stating the same thing but "taking it" as something "bad" here: http://n4g.com/news/525537/... Anyways, Great News Again...
It's because they do not understand how much the controller lag works nor do they realize what it is in 360 games. They are not going to be so bold when they read the Digital Foundry article at Eurogamer I linked above. Ben Heck built the device to measure the lag.
22 ms is nothing...what IS something is the launch line up and titles that will support MOVE. MOVE now has all genera's covered for launch, or close to it... FPS...double check (Socom, KZ3) Sports/Golf...double check (TW, minigolf) Platformer....check (LBP2) racing...check (GT5 or MotorStorm3) casual...quad check (various party games) fighting...check (shown) sword fighting...check (shown) Star Wars light Saber... check (my prediction) sports/archery...check (shown) Sim... check (Eye Pet) turn based... check (patched eye of judgement)
for those who don't know one second is 1000 miliseconds, one frame at 30FPS is 33.3 miliseconds, in other words 22 miliseconds is less than a frame.
that is well gd
very impressive indeed
100 for a wii remote is a ripoff too
thats really good.
Wow, that's an impressive time.
whats the wii and wii plus's response time??
I'm curious as well to see the Wii's response time
About a month, then you realize you've wasted your money.
instantrimshot.com I think my wii is due for a dusting off now with monster hunter tri and mario galaxy 2. But I agree that my Wii was a bad investment
Its about .2 seconds for a human who is aware that something is about to take place. that 1/5 of a second which sounds pretty good huh? For a human who is unaware of something its closer to .3 seconds @jhoang that my point. I don't know why this is such a big deal. It not like we can experience the lag because we are not quick enough.
.2 of a second is 200 milliseconds if i remember correctly if not i need for study time. and thats 1/10 of that. quite impressive
now show us some freaking good games already.
Move has showed games...u must have meant natal
Wrong add-on They showed RE5, LBP, SOCOM... a pretty good looking sports game and some over stuff.
Those are attention getters. Titles that can be played with or without. I'm talking about standalones. Games you have to have Move to play, and make you want Move. And where Move has shown it can work, showed it when it was first shown and has been showing it ever since, Natal hasn't. Much less games that justify it.
Move Fight....Ape Escape...gt5
>>Games that make you want Move. If you would play RE4 on Wii, you would want Move for RE5, believe me. ))) .
and yet Natal's attention getter is a game where you catch big red balls. I'll stick with Socom 4.
Sony has over 20 internal studios. Dont worry about the games, they will be plentiful without a doubt. My only concern is when we get these games.
and GTA 4 had a lag of 166ms, so pretty good I say.
Impressive, most impressive
The reaction time of the fastest professional CS:S players is 100ms... so 22ms is actually pretty F-ing good, not much to add on top for the average user, most people would be 200ms + so the 10% is not that big a deal, it's games we're talking about after all, I don't think anyone will care how fast you bench a god damn casual game...
Damn I didn't know that bit, then that is hella fast :D
See but the thing is they are planning to use this for some hardcore games(Socom/fighters) so this is good news.
let me put it another way 60 frames in a second, is vfairly fast, each individual frame of that 60 frames is rendered every 16.66ms, they can react in 7 frames out of 60 in a second...that's f-ing fast EDIT: The "humans can only see 60 frames a second" is also a myth, people can visually bench up to 350 frames a second as far as brain recognition, as far as reaction, it is less so, the 100 ms above would be slow for a fighter pilot
The Human eye can only see 26 - 30 fps so anything above that just gives it space to drop up and down
Olympian taekwondo participants have a documented response time of 200+ ms. No way does a "fighter pilot" respond at 100ms, in any circumstances. Even on internet mouse-click response tests, getting faster than 200ms is next to impossible, and that's with an ultra-fast, wired input device (a mouse).
Actually, the human eye can see up to 120fps depending on lighting conditions and optimum eye health. Check out this link for details. http://www.100fps.com/how_m...
all you morons are wrong fighter pilot tests have a minimum eyesight test requiring the detection of images at 1/220th of a second, in other words, they can detect image changes at 220 frames per second http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01F...
It must make you feel proud, or somehow big, or accomplished to call people morons for contributing to a discussion, even when no one who actually posted insulted you. Bravo, you won the internetz with your comprehensive and in-depth knowledge of the human eye. Now if you could only use that, and your elitism about it, for good. Maybe the world would stand a chance. *sarcastic clap*
@dchalfont, thx for a link to a pretty useless article. This "uber" frequency has been used since ages to place subliminal messages between frames, it has nothing to do how fast you can actually recognize your environment and actually react to it. What they say, is basically that the human eye recognizes a constant stream of information. It simply is an "analog" device compared to a digital display device. It is hard to translate this to a real frequency, and it sure does not mention reaction time. What the article points out, is that this "advanced" frequency recognition of the eye does is process information like motion blur, etc. and creates the complex vision we experience every day with a huge amount of input data hitting our retina constantly. Saying we can actually see faster than the 30fps is meaningless, if you cannot react to it. What is said is, that a higher frequency gives you a more stable picture. But even a flicker-free 200Hz TV / video stream will not generate motion blur - I would believe, very contrary. If the animation/movie does not incorporate any post processing motion effect, the eye will not be able to add that just because you ramp up the animation/picture frequency. No post processing effect will make the recognition ultra sharp - with no motion effect at all, and thus will appear very artificial. I can imagine, however, having a higher refresh frequency (which has nothing to do how fast a animation frame advances) will result in a more relaxed visual recognition and will be healthier to the eye. The example with the fighter pilot is meaningless. What they did is let some information "flash" for 1/200th of a second. And let the pilots "interpret" those ghost images. It does not explain how long that interpretation actually took. They could have come up with the response seconds after they have seen that image. It certainly does not mean, they were exposed to a 200Hz signal of continues changing information and could in fact react to this in 5ms time. This is total BS. I would like to see how many buttons you can press every 5ms. I am sure your muscles will have something to tell you in that case. A human, no matter how low the "visual lag" is (because that's what it actually is - how fast can you recognize a "flash") cannot react to any given information faster then the already mentioned 100ms (200ms and above for "regular" people).
looks like we have nothing to worry about performance wise
100ms thats it? On this website my fastest was 13ms but my average is 178ms sad to say http://www.humanbenchmark.c...
I averaged 195 out of 3 tries.
hrmm 350 i have no reflexes but yea thats about right humans can see images rapidly but responding to the same is much much harder
174 I'm impressed with myself but feel i could do a lot better.
What's the latency of a normal controller? I presume it's less. I hope Move is compatible with online gaming.