It should not take 300-500 ms for the game engine to process bullet registration but it does.
Now that I shown you those videos you might want to learn something else. It doesnt take that amount of time for the game engine to process that information. In split screen, lan , and in online game modes the host is actually delayed purposely by the developers. It is present in all iterations of COD and including such other FPS games such as Gears for example.
All players screens are not synced and dont fire in sync either.
I also have to consider that I was using a wireless controller and not a wired one. A wired controller would have gotten a faster response.
I may try that later if I can find my wired controller, but it will have to be splitscreen since I am not moving my TVs for such an experiment.
I like accurate experiments before I am happy with the results. Wish I have a PVR to record 60 FPS.
Here is my proof that it is happening. Please share proof that it isn't
ok exactly the same youtuber...
oh look he was getting shot at and managed to turn around and shoot the guy , well there goes that then. next!
I'm confused. your name is runandgunerring, but you hate BO2, which was basically all run and gun? What exactly was wrong with BO2?
There is obviously something wrong with Ghost (lag, matchmaking, map design, etc.), that is making people camp. Probably 75% of the ppl that played BO2 were running around trying to ninja. Those are the same ppl that want to play this game, so why all of a sudden is everyone changing their game play and camping? Maybe you and other defenders of Ghost are not experiencing the lag problems that the rest of us are.
I tried to play Ghost again yesterday, played 3 matches, got bored and frustrated, stopped playing. Sadly, like most other players I really want to like this game, but its just bad. Not the COD experience, at all, more like BF.
Even though you might be right about the time you are actually close. I did the same with my camera which had better quality but still was sadly stuck at 30 FPS.
I did two tests. First one I did at about 50 feet across the backyard in Nuketown. It took 4 frames out of those 30 for the screen to react to a hitmarker. That actually would equal about 130 ms in hit time instead of 200.
Now the second test was from 2 feet away and guess what. It only took 3 frames to register a hit from two feet away. Thats 100 ms to hit so bullet time might be a part of it. The third try did 4 frames so its just not accurate enough to test this theory.
I dont have a PVR. Perhaps deamonic could reply but he has been real busy.
The way it worked in Black ops 2 was that there was a delay from when you fired off the shot to when it hit. This delay was anywhere from 67 Milliseconds to 200+ (WITH LAG). On average if there was minimal lag, you would be looking at 100 Milliseconds to get a registered hit to 167 Milliseconds. Host generally gets hit registration faster then the other player in the lobby. I must have tested this in atleast 2 dozen different videos from different people.
This is because of the time it takes for the information to go from your console, to the host and then back to you. Distance has no effect on how long it takes to get a registered hit.
Now that you say it, it comes back to me. Hence the reason I was trying to be wishy washy on my "time" results as well as the reason I tried it many times.
Thanks for replying I just wanted to be sure.
Now I tested it in splitscreen again with the camera and I THINK my results were the same, about 4 frames, problem was the difference in colors and brightness using the camera I couldnt get an accurate representation of what was going on. The video file needed major tweaking to see the hitscreen show up and I just didnt have time . Maybe tonight after I take care of personal stuff.