What's the maximum supported mouse polling rate?

[darthokkata]

Older Build Engine games only support 125hz polling on a mouse. Going over that will cause mouse lag and stuttering.

As I recall, Eduke also has this limitation.

I know this is built on a modified Eduke, but I'm not sure if anything was done to bump up the polling rate support for modern mice.

Does this game support 500hz polling, or is it like older Build games where only 125hz is supported?

It can be hard to tell as sometimes it can take a while to manifest and it isn't always consistent. It can be a minor difference, but does impact accuracy overall.

I'm not asking for support for a higher polling rate if it doesn't have it already, I just want to know where I should set my polling rate for my mouse based on what the game supports.

[Soul]

Originally posted by darthokkata:

Older Build Engine games only support 125hz polling on a mouse. Going over that will cause mouse lag and stuttering.

As I recall, Eduke also has this limitation.

I know this is built on a modified Eduke, but I'm not sure if anything was done to bump up the polling rate support for modern mice.

Does this game support 500hz polling, or is it like older Build games where only 125hz is supported?

It can be hard to tell as sometimes it can take a while to manifest and it isn't always consistent. It can be a minor difference, but does impact accuracy overall.

I'm not asking for support for a higher polling rate if it doesn't have it already, I just want to know where I should set my polling rate for my mouse based on what the game supports.

I finished this game a couple days ago. I'm using a Logitech G502 at 1000 Hz Polling rate, and I didn't notice any mouse lag or stuttering.
EDIT: Did 2 playthroughs, and have around 20 hours.

[darthokkata]

Originally posted by Soul:

I finished this game a couple days ago. I'm using a Logitech G502 at 1000 Hz Polling rate, and I didn't notice any mouse lag or stuttering.
EDIT: Did 2 playthroughs, and have around 20 hours.

I entirely believe that, but I'm still unsure of the answer to my question.

Most of the time, even with a polling rate that is too high, a game like this is still entirely playable, it's just that fine aiming doesn't work as well consistently.

You could play and beat Doom or Duke Nukem 3D with a 1000hz polling rate and it wouldn't be too difficult to do.

It will just be a bit easier with a 120hz polling rate because fine movements register more accurately and you're less likely to "skip over" and miss pixels which can cause you to miss targets more often.

It's something a player can barely perceive, but still something that will have an impact on gameplay in the long run.

It's entirely possible to beat a game like this and never realize there's an issue that is making it slightly harder.

There is an optimal setting for the game, and it could be the old school 120hz, or a newer 500hz polling rate depending on how it was programmed.

The only thing that has me wondering which is best is that this is a new game made for new systems, using a modified, but also really old, engine based on a source port that doesn't bump the polling rate natively.

I'm not sure how the devs handled it and it is unclear where polling rate should be set for optimum performance.

If it's based on the engine or source port's default, it's probably 120hz, if it was programmed in by the devs as new code, it's probably 500hz.


Also, as a side note, I recommend that you don't use 1000hz polling. There's really no good reason for it and it's mostly a wasteful marketing gimmick that may actually do more harm than good.

No human can tell the difference between 500hz and 1000hz. You'd literally have to be a robot to notice a 1 millisecond difference. Some people will claim that they can, but they can't and it's just a placebo effect. Not even the greatest pro-gamer who has ever lived would be able to tell.

It's not like the whether or not someone can "see" a difference between 90 and 120 fps, but is actually a matter of how fast your brain can react to information. It's actually physically impossible for a human to perceive 1000hz polling over 500hz polling. The synapses in your brain literally don't fire off fast enough to register it.

All it does is make your CPU work a little harder and waste CPU cycles. On some less powerful CPUs, the performance difference could be enough that 1000hz is actually worse even if a game does support it.

Plus, a lot of newer, but not brand new, games only support a 500hz maximum polling rate. It was the standard for a long time.

Like I said, it won't break anything if you are running at 1000hz, and isn't going to cause enough of a performance dip to keep anything from running.

However, 500hz doesn't waste CPU cycles and may actually provide better fine accuracy than 1000hz depending on the game and your system.

The actual limit for what a human can probably perceive is likely around 300hz-400hz, but mice tend to go from 250hz to 500hz. 500hz is pretty much the absolute upper limit for what is a useful polling rate for a human user.

At best, 1000hz has no impact at all.

[Soul]

Originally posted by darthokkata:

Originally posted by Soul:

I finished this game a couple days ago. I'm using a Logitech G502 at 1000 Hz Polling rate, and I didn't notice any mouse lag or stuttering.
EDIT: Did 2 playthroughs, and have around 20 hours.

I entirely believe that, but I'm still unsure of the answer to my question.

Most of the time, even with a polling rate that is too high, a game like this is still entirely playable, it's just that fine aiming doesn't work as well consistently.

You could play and beat Doom or Duke Nukem 3D with a 1000hz polling rate and it wouldn't be too difficult to do.

It will just be a bit easier with a 120hz polling rate because fine movements register more accurately and you're less likely to "skip over" and miss pixels which can cause you to miss targets more often.

It's something a player can barely perceive, but still something that will have an impact on gameplay in the long run.

It's entirely possible to beat a game like this and never realize there's an issue that is making it slightly harder.

There is an optimal setting for the game, and it could be the old school 120hz, or a newer 500hz polling rate depending on how it was programmed.

The only thing that has me wondering which is best is that this is a new game made for new systems, using a modified, but also really old, engine based on a source port that doesn't bump the polling rate natively.

I'm not sure how the devs handled it and it is unclear where polling rate should be set for optimum performance.

If it's based on the engine or source port's default, it's probably 120hz, if it was programmed in by the devs as new code, it's probably 500hz.


Also, as a side note, I recommend that you don't use 1000hz polling. There's really no good reason for it and it's mostly a wasteful marketing gimmick that may actually do more harm than good.

No human can tell the difference between 500hz and 1000hz. You'd literally have to be a robot to notice a 1 millisecond difference. Some people will claim that they can, but they can't and it's just a placebo effect. Not even the greatest pro-gamer who has ever lived would be able to tell.

It's not like the whether or not someone can "see" a difference between 90 and 120 fps, but is actually a matter of how fast your brain can react to information. It's actually physically impossible for a human to perceive 1000hz polling over 500hz polling. The synapses in your brain literally don't fire off fast enough to register it.

All it does is make your CPU work a little harder and waste CPU cycles. On some less powerful CPUs, the performance difference could be enough that 1000hz is actually worse even if a game does support it.

Plus, a lot of newer, but not brand new, games only support a 500hz maximum polling rate. It was the standard for a long time.

Like I said, it won't break anything if you are running at 1000hz, and isn't going to cause enough of a performance dip to keep anything from running.

However, 500hz doesn't waste CPU cycles and may actually provide better fine accuracy than 1000hz depending on the game and your system.

The actual limit for what a human can probably perceive is likely around 300hz-400hz, but mice tend to go from 250hz to 500hz. 500hz is pretty much the absolute upper limit for what is a useful polling rate for a human user.

At best, 1000hz has no impact at all.

I never had any problems with 1000 Hz Polling rate, and tbh I never really thinked about it, I just usually set it to the highest that it can go and call it a day. Never ran into any performance problems because of it afaik, and I doubt my CPU is going to die because of it. I just know the basics of what Polling Rate is.
Whether or not I can percieve it, is beyond me, never tested it for myself, and tbh, I don't care much either way.

TBH I never heard anyone talk about a game having an optimal polling rate to be played in 24 years of my life, but maybe I just never payed much attention to it, or maybe with the passing of the years, it just became standard, and people stopped talking about it.

As I said before, I didn't find any skips or mouse artifacts while playing, aim is has smooth as any other shooter I've played in a while.

That was my experience with the game.
I don't really understand much about Polling rate, but you seem to know your stuff. Steam says you own the game, give it a try. I guess no one will be a better judge than yourself.

[darthokkata]

Originally posted by Soul:

I never had any problems with 1000 Hz Polling rate, and tbh I never really thinked about it, I just usually set it to the highest that it can go and call it a day. Never ran into any performance problems because of it afaik, and I doubt my CPU is going to die because of it. I just know the basics of what Polling Rate is.
Whether or not I can percieve it, is beyond me, never tested it for myself, and tbh, I don't care much either way.

TBH I never heard anyone talk about a game having an optimal polling rate to be played in 24 years of my life, but maybe I just never payed much attention to it, or maybe with the passing of the years, it just became standard, and people stopped talking about it.

As I said before, I didn't find any skips or mouse artifacts while playing, aim is has smooth as any other shooter I've played in a while.

That was my experience with the game.
I don't really understand much about Polling rate, but you seem to know your stuff. Steam says you own the game, give it a try. I guess no one will be a better judge than yourself.

I did, and it does seem that 120hz is working best, but that could just be me deluding myself into seeing an improvement. Placebo is weird like that. I'd like to see confirmation of it from someone who knows for sure.

I'm really just looking to tweak for optimal performance, not fix something that is broken.

As for the rest...

Basically, too high a polling rate in a game that doesn't support it bottlenecks the inputs and causes micro-jumps due to input lag. It won't cause the game to lag or have any impact on framerates, but is lag in the mouse input itself.

The game will still work, and will seem perfectly fine, but hitting small targets can be a little more difficult. 1000hz is usually "good enough" for casual gaming even in games that only support 120hz.

It also probably isn't going to actually impact your overall performance unless you have a low end or really old CPU. Though, it is going to make your CPU work slightly harder than 500hz will. I recommend not using it because 1000hz either has no improvement or worse performance, it's never better.

Overall, you probably won't notice it if your polling rate is too high as a casual player unless you're specifically looking for what it does. If you try to put the mouse cursor over a very small point, like say a point that is only a few pixels wide and tall, and find yourself "skipping" over it rather than moving smoothly, one of the things that could be causing it is your mouse settings.

It could also be inconsistent framerate or other performance issues, but if you're getting stable and consistent performance and still skipping over "spots" when you try to aim at a specific small target point, polling rate is one possible solution.

It also isn't the only possibility.

Generally, with your mouse, you want to set sensitivity as much as possible on your hardware and cut out as much "middle man" as possible. A high DPI and low in game sensitivity is best.

Most of the time you'll have to turn the in game sensitivity up at least a little, but for the most accuracy you want it as low as you can get away with and still aim freely.

If you have a mouse capable of it, use DPI settings to control sensitivity, and whenever possible use raw mouse input in games.

Disable any smoothing or acceleration, and have Windows mouse pointer speed set as low as you can have it and still move the cursor comfortably. [Some games use this setting as a base for sensitivity, some bypass it entirely.] Make sure 'pointer precision' is disabled as that is a form of mouse acceleration.

Turn off aim assist and/or sticky aiming as well. They are training wheels that can help someone learning to play games cope a little better, but will often be attracted to the wrong targets and can actually screw up your aim once you get better at mouse aiming.

Smoothing is great for touchpads and controllers, but bad for mouse aiming. Acceleration is great for desktop GUIs on multi-monitor high resolution setups, but bad for gaming in general.

500hz polling is also a good rule of thumb. Most modern games natively support that setting or higher, and it's just older engines like Build or old Source or ID Tech versions that might have an issue, and even then it will most likely be extremely minor at worst.