Jack Kieser
Smash Champion
Man, what's this now? I use a Vizio TV and I get 0 lag. MLG shouldn't get CRTs, they should get better HDTVs.
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Event - MLG Anaheim 2014 So now that we know MLG hosts ridiculous smash tournaments...
- Thread starter ADHD
- Start date
- Status
Somebody more knowledgeable correct me if this is wrong, but the Wii's native resolution is not the same as most HDTVs and thus there is a small amount of conversion lag, even with component cables.
It has nothing to do with the cables, but the information that comes from the Wii and how the TV has to interpret it.
iRJi
Smash Champion
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2008
- Messages
- 2,423
Wrong. If you said this you obviously have not set a CRT and a Vizio next to each other and tested them at the exact same time. If you do so, you will realize that any HDTV you use will have input lag, even if it is a very small amount.
The wii can only go up to 420P, and because of that the progressive scanning is not fast enough to keep up with any HDTV for button input, it only increases graphics by a small amount.
Wrong. This is very wrong. Now, you must understand that it is not just the conversion cable that will decrease lag, but the hard/software that the actual device uses to decrease it. To but it blunt, no matter what HDTV you buy, a game will have input lag on them. It is just how HDTV hardware operates, as it is built for picture, and not speed. All HDTV's will have more processing time rendering pictures, no matter what setting you put it on, because that is what they are meant to do. Put the best CRT and the best HDTV, convert them to the highest settings possible for gaming, and even use the same cables if you will, and you will see that they will vary in terms of response time.
However, you bring up a point that needs to be addressed. A monitor carries no lag if used for gaming, as long as you buy the right kind of monitor. This is why I never understood MLG's choice of TVs. A LCD monitor costs less, easier to carry around and set up, puts out a very beautiful picture, and you can buy a Composite/component to VGA/DVI adapter for like $5.00 a pop. I wish people would just listen instead of saying and acting like "We are professionals, we know what we are doing" Even though while you might specialize in it, you are not the ones dealing with it on a constant bases for gaming. Personally I don't care how "special" or "professional" you are, if you think I am wrong, test it. I don't wanna see specs, I don't wanna hear reasoning, just test it, and the results will prove them selves up front. Take a CRT, A HDTV, and a LCD monitor, put them right next to each other with a splitter, or even individually, and just flick the control stick on FD with a character, and you will see how late the TV's will vary.
I should raise the point that physics dictates that ALL TVs have lag. The fastest the signal can travel from your Wii to the TV is the speed of light which is not "instant" (just very fast), and your TV will take some (small) amount of time to interpret the signal and output a display. However, we have the benefit that modern video games output their signal at a reliable 60 frames per second (older games are sometimes slower but almost always in a way divisible here, either 30 fps or 20 fps). This means that if the lag is significantly less than 1/60 of a second, it virtually does not exist. This also means the lag could be orders of magnitude greater on some set-ups and be virtually identical. If one TV has .005 seconds of lag and another has .00001 seconds of lag, they're virtually identical even though the former is a whopping 500 times slower than the latter.
The issue people have with HDTVs is signal conversion. Signal conversion takes a lot more time than simple signal transmission, and the precise amount of time is highly variable. Those super laggy HDTVs you've seen use very inefficient signal conversion algorithms. Some better ones are faster of course.
The cables can matter because the cables can alter what signal is being input. Using different cables may mean the TV is getting an easier signal to convert or even a signal it can natively render. Some cables may contain specialty conversion hardware within them that handles the conversion better than most TVs.
Some HDTVs have a "game mode" that is designed to handle the signals from older consoles (or from the Wii, which doesn't output at as high of a resolution as the Xbox360 or the PS3). I'm not entirely sure if they simply have an amazing conversion algorithm or if the TV is able to render lower resolution signals in this mode, but I am very sure some HDTV game modes are actually "lagless" in the only sense "lagless" makes sense (there is actually lag, but it's significantly less than 1/60 of a second so it is functionally zero).
As per the TVs at Columbus, word on the street is that they had 1-2 frames of lag, but I really don't know. I do know they weren't very bad at all, I know the vast majority of players play in such a way that 1-2 frames of lag is mostly irrelevant, and I'm going to throw out a wild guess here. Most people who are saying they were bad are influenced by confirmation bias. We've been trained to assume HDTVs are bad, and you are hearing people claim they are bad which makes you suspect they were bad. I'm not saying no one was affected, but I suspect most people claiming they were were either way less affected than they believe or were actually not affected but merely think they were. I mean, let's look at it this way. Let's say the TVs were the same TVs except the plastic casing (which does nothing) was redesigned so you thought they were SDTVs just looking at them. Now let's say no one on the boards was saying they were laggy. How many of you would still be thinking they were laggy? I imagine way fewer. Be very wary of confirmation bias; it's much easier to believe something is true when your past experiences and the words of others suggest it should be true even though neither of those things should factor into your judgment.
I don't have the equipment to do this, but I bet most people here have enough imagination. Let's say I have a TV that doesn't lag at all in significance to the frame rate of the game, but I insert a little piece in it that lets me set it to lag by an amount I choose by remote control. I set it to lag by 6 frames which is pretty noticeable to most people though not quite bad enough as to be unplayable. I have a group of people play 20 games, and after that I turn it down 1 frame every 10 games so on game 71 there is zero lag. If I ask the players on game 71 how they think the lag is (with them having no idea about anything I've been doing), I can almost guarantee they will say "it seems like it's not as bad as before, but it's still kinda laggy" even though the reality is "it's not laggy at all". On the other hand, if I have them play 70 lag free games and then set the lag to 1 frame on game 71, I doubt they will even notice.
The issue people have with HDTVs is signal conversion. Signal conversion takes a lot more time than simple signal transmission, and the precise amount of time is highly variable. Those super laggy HDTVs you've seen use very inefficient signal conversion algorithms. Some better ones are faster of course.
The cables can matter because the cables can alter what signal is being input. Using different cables may mean the TV is getting an easier signal to convert or even a signal it can natively render. Some cables may contain specialty conversion hardware within them that handles the conversion better than most TVs.
Some HDTVs have a "game mode" that is designed to handle the signals from older consoles (or from the Wii, which doesn't output at as high of a resolution as the Xbox360 or the PS3). I'm not entirely sure if they simply have an amazing conversion algorithm or if the TV is able to render lower resolution signals in this mode, but I am very sure some HDTV game modes are actually "lagless" in the only sense "lagless" makes sense (there is actually lag, but it's significantly less than 1/60 of a second so it is functionally zero).
As per the TVs at Columbus, word on the street is that they had 1-2 frames of lag, but I really don't know. I do know they weren't very bad at all, I know the vast majority of players play in such a way that 1-2 frames of lag is mostly irrelevant, and I'm going to throw out a wild guess here. Most people who are saying they were bad are influenced by confirmation bias. We've been trained to assume HDTVs are bad, and you are hearing people claim they are bad which makes you suspect they were bad. I'm not saying no one was affected, but I suspect most people claiming they were were either way less affected than they believe or were actually not affected but merely think they were. I mean, let's look at it this way. Let's say the TVs were the same TVs except the plastic casing (which does nothing) was redesigned so you thought they were SDTVs just looking at them. Now let's say no one on the boards was saying they were laggy. How many of you would still be thinking they were laggy? I imagine way fewer. Be very wary of confirmation bias; it's much easier to believe something is true when your past experiences and the words of others suggest it should be true even though neither of those things should factor into your judgment.
I don't have the equipment to do this, but I bet most people here have enough imagination. Let's say I have a TV that doesn't lag at all in significance to the frame rate of the game, but I insert a little piece in it that lets me set it to lag by an amount I choose by remote control. I set it to lag by 6 frames which is pretty noticeable to most people though not quite bad enough as to be unplayable. I have a group of people play 20 games, and after that I turn it down 1 frame every 10 games so on game 71 there is zero lag. If I ask the players on game 71 how they think the lag is (with them having no idea about anything I've been doing), I can almost guarantee they will say "it seems like it's not as bad as before, but it's still kinda laggy" even though the reality is "it's not laggy at all". On the other hand, if I have them play 70 lag free games and then set the lag to 1 frame on game 71, I doubt they will even notice.
MetalMusicMan
Sleepwalk our lives away.
The "game mode" turns off image enhancement, which is what causes the lag. No TV uses image enhancement on VGA though, which is why a VGA adapter is a good idea because even if a TV doesn't have a "game mode" setting, you are always in "game mode" on VGA because it never has image enhancement.
See my original post / full explanation in AZ's thread: http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=10449009&postcount=5
PK-ow!
Smash Lord
Players clearly have a right to play the game under conditions with less than 1 frame of delay.
At the very least, players should all play under identical conditions of input delay, the value of which should be made clear at the time of tournament sign-up. If the tournament can't provide these conditions, players can't be expected to trust the legitimacy of the competition.
I mean, if it can be said "you paid money, so no johns", then it's also true that players should be able to make the important evaluations before paying their money, right?
In a tourney with some laggy TVs and some not, that's just outright unfair. Players are being tested under different conditions. Should be no explanation here.
If the TVs are all laggy, but they work like these HDTVs, which I'm gathering can vary in the delay from moment to moment because of their crappy conversion algorithm, then that is outright unfair too, because the differences in these frames of delay is random. No one should have to put up with it. While it could be agreed to - an accepted "equal conditions of randomness" much like many Brawl stages, and its tripping - tournaments should not go on being organized with the expectation the community will just settle for laggy TVs. Because players shouldn't.
Players have a right to play the game with less than 1 frame of delay.
Cool numbers. Might wanna cite them bro, or I'm going to go with their source being your rectum.
Jack Kieser
Smash Champion
I'd actually like to know where he got those numbers, too. Does MLG use the same model of TV for all of their setups? And if not, how many separate models are there? Once we find out, is there any way to do the research necessary to determine EXACTLY how much lag each model will have?
Reizilla
The Old Lapras and the Sea
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 13,676
Yes, they do use the same TVs for all set ups. They're not some garbage monthly that borrows set ups from random people. >_<
Look up the Viewsonic TVs that MLG uses. I don't feel like doing that again. And until you do that, no one has proof that they lag either.
Look up the Viewsonic TVs that MLG uses. I don't feel like doing that again. And until you do that, no one has proof that they lag either.
Jack Kieser
Smash Champion
If anybody wants to see, here's the spec page for the MLG TVs. According to a mod on the MLG forums, MLG 2010 uses the Viewsonic NX2232W TV.
MATH TIME GOGOGO
MATH TIME GOGOGO
iRJi
Smash Champion
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2008
- Messages
- 2,423
I hope you do know that MS only refers to picture response time for HDTVs. It is based for ghosting of images.
dainbramage
Smash Journeyman
Response time is the time it takes for a pixel to go from black to a colour to black again. Not input delay.
hotgarbage
Smash Lord
I'd like to bring up something in regards to this. The Wii cannot output a VGA signal... so when you use a cable like the vdigi the cable itself is transcoding the component signal into a vga signal.
...Does this process add lag? If so how is it comparable to the mlg tv's upscalers? I honestly don't know the answer to either of these lol. Thought I'd throw this out there anyways though, perhaps someone does.
MetalMusicMan
Sleepwalk our lives away.
Yes it can, actually. The Wii can output 480p (progressive), which is compatible with VGA as are all of the various progressive resolutions.
480i (interlaced), the "default" Wii output (when you use Composite cables) is not compatible with VGA and therefore shows up as a black screen or "no signal". This is why you have to put the Wii in 480p mode (using the included single Component video cable included with the adapter or your own Component cables) before using the VGA plug.
There is no up-scaling or processing or anything, every Wii can output directly to 480p. The Vdigi VGA cable doesn't have a "box" or anything of the sort, it couldn't even do any processing if it wanted to.
I explained this in my original post: http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=10449009&postcount=5
What? Huh? What? What?
Could you not tell I was joking?
Overswarm
is laughing at you
- Joined
- May 4, 2005
- Messages
- 21,181
I have no sense of humor. Or heart.
Results from Taste of Armageddon - June 12th - New JerseyADHD said:
1: Nairo ($225.00)
2: Shadow ($112.50)
3: Atomsk ($67.50)
4: Jash ($45.00)
5: Yes!
5: Cheese
7: Orion
7: Rizakor
9: Inui
9: Penta
9: Pwii
9: Sagat
Using this stagelist:
That is what you get with EC ruleset. Does everyone think it is just a coincidence that the region with the most conservative stagelist also is the region most populated with MKs? This was from a tournament this past weekend, and IIRC there was a tournament just a month or two back with like 7/8 MKs in the top in NY/NJ area.
I'm still trying to figure out how they tricked so many people into believing that narrowing the stagelist actually helped other characters when MK still has an advantage on every stage they use.
Mew2King
King of the Mews
atomsk told me he 2 and 3 stocked shadow with Falco, and would have won the set 3-1, but he did an up smash at 130% from the bottom of Delphino, Shadow barely lived, then won the set 3-2 as a result of close games. This is what atomsk told me on aim last night.
m2k: Atomsk using Falco doesn't change the MK population of those results very much.
Mew2King
King of the Mews
yeah I know. I was just pointing that out. NJ/NY is the MK central of the world
ShadowLink84
Smash Hero
I a going to take a guess at it being the plaza area with the water to the left side and a walk off to the right.
Also designated as the DDD zone.
It isn't hard to trick people who are already in on the trick.AlphaZealot said:
O.O
Dark 3nergy
Smash Hero
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2008
- Messages
- 6,389
- Location
- Baltimore, MD
- NNID
- Gambit.7
- 3DS FC
- 4313-0369-9934
- Switch FC
- SW-5498-4166-5599
all i can say is god**** jash, how can u say your scared of my ddd when you were swimming in a sea full of bats this weekend wtf dis man got huge balls O_O
Arturito_Burrito
Smash Master
so what your saying is atomsk tried to use a non mk character on the ec stage list and lost?
![[FBC] ESAM](/data/avatars/l/92/92614.jpg?1365783210){kind=avatar}
[FBC] ESAM
Smash Legend
For all you guys johning about the stage list...here is how I saw it from the moment I found out.
9 neutrals is the best with stage striking and it doesn't advantage anybody (Nobody has 5 good neutrals or 5 bad ones, sans ganondorf).
There are 3 stages from the EC stagelist (Brinstar, Frigate, RC)
There is 1 that is popping up in more places (Florida, MW, Some other tournaments) In pictochat
There are 3 stages from the MW stagelist (GG, Norfair, PS2)
How is that biased?
9 neutrals is the best with stage striking and it doesn't advantage anybody (Nobody has 5 good neutrals or 5 bad ones, sans ganondorf).
There are 3 stages from the EC stagelist (Brinstar, Frigate, RC)
There is 1 that is popping up in more places (Florida, MW, Some other tournaments) In pictochat
There are 3 stages from the MW stagelist (GG, Norfair, PS2)
How is that biased?
MetalMusicMan
Sleepwalk our lives away.
I totally agree. A lot of people seem to think that the stage-list was somehow conspired by MW people (or just Overswarm) lol. MLG basically picked their own stages while loosely basing it off of BBR recommendations.
It's not my personal ideal stagelist, but it's certainly not that bad and does just fine in terms of the competition.
Jem.
Smash Master
Pictochats been legal most of brawls lifespan in Washington . We also used norfair in 08 but turned it off in 09.
. We also used norfair in 08 but turned it off in 09.
Sharky
Smash Master
if brinstar frigate and rc were stages that only ec used, this would make sense.
This is not the case.
I'm not taking any sides in this or anything, I just wanted to point that out.
did robo-m2k get on your account?
Budget Player Cadet_
Smash Hero
Nah, M2K usually has worse grammar. :V
ADHD
Smash Hero
A tournament in the midwest hosted by Nope had used the EC stagelist--an exact replicate of ours.Results from Taste of Armageddon - June 12th - New Jersey
1: Nairo ($225.00)
2: Shadow ($112.50)
3: Atomsk ($67.50)
4: Jash ($45.00)
5: Yes!
5: Cheese
7: Orion
7: Rizakor
9: Inui
9: Penta
9: Pwii
9: Sagat
Using this stagelist:
That is what you get with EC ruleset. Does everyone think it is just a coincidence that the region with the most conservative stagelist also is the region most populated with MKs? This was from a tournament this past weekend, and IIRC there was a tournament just a month or two back with like 7/8 MKs in the top in NY/NJ area.
I'm still trying to figure out how they tricked so many people into believing that narrowing the stagelist actually helped other characters when MK still has an advantage on every stage they use.
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=277756
The top 13 shows no correlation and an abnormal amount of metaknights whatsoever. It's merely a coincidence that our state is lazy & infested with metaknights.
Overswarm
is laughing at you
- Joined
- May 4, 2005
- Messages
- 21,181
Er... Nope's tournament is like, the only one that uses EC rules. It's not even standard at his other events. You can't fully expect one tournament's rule change to show a drastic change like that with a static userbase. It'd be like allowing Bridge of Eldin and expecting to see a ton of D3s and Falcos in the top spots... it wouldn't happen unless you had the D3s and falcos in the first place.
ADHD
Smash Hero
Nope's tournament proved that metaknights don't perform better under our stagelist. If you're talking about the stagelist promoting metaknight abundance, then you'd have to host more to prove it because it hasn't been done before. One state isn't enough.
Eddie G
Smash Hero
Riiiight...because Nope's tournament was simply filled to the brink with even half the amount of Metaknights/Top Metaknights that the EC tournament/s had. Not a viable comparison or argument to make. At all.
If I'm wrong, then I should be easy to refute, right?
ADHD
Smash Hero
Oh. I see all those top metaknights at that EC tournament!
And our alex strife-hosted tournaments were imported "top metaknights" that placed well when not many were even in the top 20.
- Status