Ghosts suffers from the worst thing possible.

Call of Duty Ghosts XBOX 360

Re: Ghosts suffers from the worst thing possible.

in reply to lewdmouth

lewdmouth wrote:



The actual hitmarkers show on player 1's screen almost immediately (30-50ms). Player 2 does not receive information that he's been hit for 300ms or more and all bullets are felt at the same time on player 2. Like all the hit information is received in a burst as opposed to real time which to me indicates an extremely low tick rate.


So if you only test one direction the TV could be the problem, unless thats a typo.

And so how is your eyes going to tell the difference between 10 ticks a second and 20 ?

You as a realist shouldnt assume that its 10 ticks a second from just two TVs.

Level 72
Likes: 2027
Posts: 13592
Registered: ‎03-09-2011

Re: Ghosts suffers from the worst thing possible.

in reply to starbuckfrack

I'm talking about the server tick rate

Level 19
Likes: 302
Posts: 611
Registered: ‎24-10-2013

Re: Ghosts suffers from the worst thing possible.

in reply to starbuckfrack

Both tv's are 120hz

Level 19
Likes: 302
Posts: 611
Registered: ‎24-10-2013

Re: Ghosts suffers from the worst thing possible.

in reply to lonesapper

This is a post to lewdmouth not the OP,

You claim 200 to 300 ms in Black Ops 2 ?


-ybd2S-E


Doesnt look like that to me.


Should we go on ?


First you say you have proof then you have nothing. Then AGAIN you say you have proof. Again nothing. If you did provide any proof I am very sure you will doctor it to get the results you want.


You RENTED the game and you are complaining this much ? You put NO money into this game. The money you spent renting this you could have rented something else. You dont even deserve to have an opinion on this forum because you put no money into this game. You repetitively lie so much I would bet you became an "Electronics Consultant if you figure how to connect the wires on your speaker in the right holes.


I could understand if you want to help the game but when you come into the forum feeding people BS that does nothing to help the game. It only helps your ego.

Level 72
Likes: 2027
Posts: 13592
Registered: ‎03-09-2011

Re: Ghosts suffers from the worst thing possible.

in reply to starbuckfrack

There was little in the MW3 video but much more in the BO2 video. I would say a good 200ms. I will rent 2 copies of ghosts sometime this week and try it. (My reason for renting was to try it before I bought it). I rented it 4 times for a total of 20 days. I tried my hardest to like it but could not. Luckly I pay a 10 dollar fee for half price rentals most every month so it only cost me 3.50 each time I rented.

Level 19
Likes: 302
Posts: 611
Registered: ‎24-10-2013

Re: Ghosts suffers from the worst thing possible.

in reply to lewdmouth

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.

Level 72
Likes: 2027
Posts: 13592
Registered: ‎03-09-2011

Re: Ghosts suffers from the worst thing possible.

in reply to starbuckfrack

starbuckfrack wrote:



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.

Level 45
Likes: 1737
Posts: 5177
Registered: ‎24-08-2011

Re: Ghosts suffers from the worst thing possible.

in reply to deamonomic

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.

Level 72
Likes: 2027
Posts: 13592
Registered: ‎03-09-2011
Highlighted

Re: Ghosts suffers from the worst thing possible.

in reply to starbuckfrack

Any idea how many frames per second youtube uses when processing video? My phone does 60fps 1080p.

Level 19
Likes: 302
Posts: 611
Registered: ‎24-10-2013

Re: Ghosts suffers from the worst thing possible.

in reply to lewdmouth

I would use VSCD Free video editor to look at the frames before you let Youtube hack it all up.

But your video would only represent what YOUR LAN is doing. It wouldnt be a good enough representation of what the internet might be doing. Mine was a good representation because I used the actual internet, to the best of my ability to simulate in real time what is happening. So if your result do come out 500 ms thats can be your LAN, TVs, Xboxes, etc.

As for other things your white Xbox. What if the signal from that is only composite video and doesnt have an HDMI port ? That skews the results. How about your card inside the Xbox is it the older model or does it need the N based wireless adapter ? And YES older Xboxes did come without the HDMI port on the back. They upgraded them with shipments that came out 3 months after I got suckered into getting the older one.

Another would be different TVS, doesnt matter if they are 120 Hz. Different resolutions on the same TV can even change the output signal. If I run MS Flight sim at 1900 by 1400 (whatever) its going to run at about 3 frames a second, but if I run it at 600 by 800 it will run at 60 FPS. So not everything is equal on those TVs either. My TVs really werent the same either. One was a tube TV with only video (yellow cable) as opposed to my big TV which was HDMI at 720. If I would have run it at 1080 there would have been a longer delay. I even proved that when my KD ratio went up .5 or more by changing it to 720 output. If it WAS 1080 may I have gotten 200 ms ? You bet but it wasnt the game that caused it , it was the TV.

Level 72
Likes: 2027
Posts: 13592
Registered: ‎03-09-2011

Studios