Very Sensitive to Input Lag

[darkwombat]

So I am very sensitive to input lag and I do have a nice low lag 32" LCD gaming monitor.
This post is just a brain dump with some questions that hopefully can be answered.
Yes I know about monitor and TV game mode, and joysticks matter as well, etc.
I love the brightness, color and everything about CRTs but they are tough to come by.
Im in the Los Angeles area if anyone has a nice one haha.
I do have a 14" CRT TV/VCR in storage. I am tempted by it has so much depth.

• Does a higher refresh rate help with input lag? My Monitor can go up to 165Mhz. Do I play around with VRR at all?

• I knw about sync 2 and always have that on, even though I dislike the black screen for a second when loading. Are there any other settings which have been to shave off lag?

• Should Freesync be set to "on" in my monitor settings?

• I have a question regarding VGA. Lets say I want to get a small 15" or 17" monitor for my Mister. I know CRT will always be the best BUT lets say you have an LCD with VGA and an LCD with HDMI. Will using the LCD with VGA be any better than the HDMI one? Or is the fact that its a flat panel display cancel out the fact that you are using VGA analog?

Thanks in advance!

[rhester72]

#2 I can answer - if not using SNAC, definitely run the fast_USB_polling_on.sh script to force millisecond polling (and if using native controllers converted to USB, choose an appropriate adapter with low lag, which nearly always means Daemonbite).

[darkwombat]

#2 I can answer - if not using SNAC, definitely run the fast_USB_polling_on.sh script to force millisecond polling.

Have that on already but thanks!

[Retro-Nerd]

A higher refresh rate only decreases display lag when the game actually runs in a high fps rate, e.g. 120Hz, 120fps. This isn't the case for old Retro games rather than modern PC/console games, which can achieve that.

VRR itself though helps to minize the display lag when it enables a low latency mode (LG displays are doing that, not sure about other brands). So yes, freesync enabled helps. It can also help to get a stable (without sync losses/black outs) and smooth image at all (im looking at arcade games here with weird refresh rates like R-Type -> 55Hz).

[darkwombat]

A higher refresh rate only decreases display lag when the game actually runs in a high fps rate, e.g. 120Hz, 120fps. This isn't the case for old Retro games rather than modern PC/console games, which can achieve that.

VRR itself though helps to minize the display lag when it enables a low latency mode (LG displays are doing that, not sure about other brands). So yes, freesync enabled helps. It can also help to get a stable (without sync losses/black outs) and smooth image at all (im looking at arcade games here with weird refresh rates like R-Type -> 55Hz.

I have a Freesync monitor. But a ways back I selected

; 2 - Force Enable Freesync

and the screen would not produce a display. I might have had Freesync turned off. Tonight I will turn it on in my monitor settings then try VRR option 2 again.

Do I need to do anything here or ignore this part below or just set them to 60?

; Freesync minimum framerate.
vrr_min_framerate=0
; Freesync maximum framerate
vrr_max_framerate=0
; VESA VRR base framerate. Normally set to the current video mode's output framerate
vrr_vesa_framerate=0

[Retro-Nerd]

Check your monitor manual what actual VRR range the display supports, and then set it accordingly in the vrr_min_framerate/vrr_max_framerate section. vrr_mode=2 is always correct for freesync and should work.

[darkwombat]

Check your monitor manual what actual VRR range the display supports, and then set it accordingly in the vrr_min_framerate/vrr_max_framerate section. vrr_mode=2 is always correct for freesync and should work.

Here is my monitor: https://www.lg.com/us/support/product/lg-32GN650-B.AUS

I looked under the manual and saw a ton of charts towards the back, got confused. Might just leave min and max at default.

[Retro-Nerd]

Just checked the manual and some reviews. Highest refresh rate is 165Hz but only with a display port cable. So you would need a HDMI to DP adapter. Normal HDMI out is up to 144Hz. So the VRR min/max values in the mister.ini are -> 48 min -> 144 max.

Further, the LG 32GN650 supports AMD FreeSync with a 48-165Hz variable refresh rate (VRR) range for tear-free gameplay up to 165FPS. Below 48FPS, the monitor uses LFC (Low Framerate Compensation) to multiply the frame rate (47FPS x 2 = 94Hz, etc.) in order to prevent tearing.

Since the native monitor resolution is 2560x1440p i would try videomode=12 or 14. The latter is is using the pixel repetition though.

[darkwombat]

Just checked the manual and some reviews. Highest refresh rate is 165Hz but only with a display port cable. So you would need a HDMI to DP adapter. Normal HDMI out is up to 144Hz. So the VRR min/max values in the mister.ini are -> 48 min -> 144 max.

Further, the LG 32GN650 supports AMD FreeSync with a 48-165Hz variable refresh rate (VRR) range for tear-free gameplay up to 165FPS. Below 48FPS, the monitor uses LFC (Low Framerate Compensation) to multiply the frame rate (47FPS x 2 = 94Hz, etc.) in order to prevent tearing.

Thanks for your help. Not sure it will help much but we will see.

[dshadoff]

Get a "MiSTer Laggy" to test out display lag at various display resolutions.
https://github.com/MiSTer-devel/MiSTerLaggy_MiSTer
They occasionally come up for sale here, but are currently out of stock:
https://www.tindie.com/products/pbretro/mister-laggy/
...But may also be available somewhere else too.

The internal scaler in the TV will most likely work better at some resolutions and worse at others - by this, I mean the HDMI resolution being produced by the MiSTer's scaler. 720P output may be better (or worse) than 1080P (etc.).

[darkwombat]

Get a "MiSTer Laggy" to test out display lag at various display resolutions.
https://github.com/MiSTer-devel/MiSTerLaggy_MiSTer
They occasionally come up for sale here, but are currently out of stock:
https://www.tindie.com/products/pbretro/mister-laggy/
...But may also be available somewhere else too.

The internal scaler in the TV will most likely work better at some resolutions and worse at others - by this, I mean the HDMI resolution being produced by the MiSTer's scaler. 720P output may be better (or worse) than 1080P (etc.).

I was thinking about getting a Laggy, but it's really for one-time use, I think.
If my monitor's native resolution is 1440, wouldn't it be best at either 1440 or 720 (a nice, even half)?
Or is that more for how it looks rather than lag?

[dshadoff]

I was thinking about getting a Laggy, but it's really for one-time use, I think.
If my monitor's native resolution is 1440, wouldn't it be best at either 1440 or 720 (a nice, even half)?
Or is that more for how it looks rather than lag?

It’s not something that gets used every day, that’s true, but if you use it once you’ll likely use it again at some point too. Plus it’s not expensive, and will give you quantitative measurements of what you’re asking about.

You might assume that the scaler in your TV works best under a particular set of circumstances, but the truth is - more and more - that you can’t assume anything about which circumstances are best for it.

[Retro-Nerd]

Try 1920x1440p first. It's 4:3, but a lot of monitors would run it framed inside the native 2560x1440p resolution of the display. Centred 4:3 with black bars on the left and right. Just like we want it. Anything smaller than that, e.g. 1920x1080p or 1280x720p, isn't a good option since the monitor would have to interpolate it (image get's more blurred and rough looking and maybe produces even more display lag).

[darkwombat]

Try 1920x1440p first. It's 4:3, but a lot of monitors would run it framed inside the native 2560x1440p resolution of the display. Centred 4:3 with black bars on the left and right. Just like we want it. Anything smaller than that, e.g. 1920x1080p or 1280x720p, isn't a good option since the monitor would have to interpolate it (image get's more blurred and rough looking and maybe produces even more display lag).

I will try that. When I run a 4:3 settings the menus and text get a little skinny which I actually dont mind.
How about the vscale_mode setting? I assume "0 - scale to fit the screen height" would be the choice because I prefer programs to use the full width.

I also have questions about refresh rates.
I have determined that my monitor runs best at a minimum of 48 and a max of 144. It can go to 165 but for arguments sake lets leave it at 144. The issue is there are two settings. I also force Freesync in the ini and have Freesync turned ON in my monitor settings.

So I matched them both as:

vrr refresh_min=48
vrr refresh_max=144

refresh_min=48
refresh_max=144

Do you see any issues here?
In my experience, I have noticed slight input lag when my monitor has Freesync turned ON.

Thanks a ton for your help.

[Retro-Nerd]

The vscale setting is a matter of choice, but yeah 0 and 1 (integer scaling) is the obvious choice. 1440p is a perfect integer for 144p, 240p, 288p, 480p, so fullscreen (mostly).

Freesync shouldn't add any additional display lag, quite the opposite. Have you checked the OSD of your monitor if freesync actually does something? It should show the exact fresh rate of each game. e.g. 60.1 Hz for the SNES.

Can't see anything wrong in mister.ini your settings.

This though isn't really needed for VRR:

refresh_min=48
refresh_max=144

I noticed that there a "1ms motion blur reduction" option in your monitor settings (according to the manual). It should be disabled when "freesync premium" is active. Or is it already greyed out when freesync is active?

[grizzly]

• I have a question regarding VGA. Lets say I want to get a small 15" or 17" monitor for my Mister. I know CRT will always be the best BUT lets say you have an LCD with VGA and an LCD with HDMI. Will using the LCD with VGA be any better than the HDMI one? Or is the fact that its a flat panel display cancel out the fact that you are using VGA analog?

Almost impossible to answer, and the only answer to give is.
It depends on the monitor/tv!

And by that i mean some monitors/tv works better using VGA (generally older ones).
Some works better with HDMI (generally never ones).
On some both VGA and HDMI works pretty much the same (as in picture quality and/or input/display lag).
On some VGA or HDMI works really bad (as in picture quality and/or input/display lag) while the other input works fine.

[limi]

Almost certainly VGA will be worse, since you are then relying on the LCD monitor’s scaler instead of MiSTer’s scaler.

[Alf]

As long as we are talking sub 16ms, no human being can feel those milliseconds. So just buy a low lag display (up to 10ms is my personal limit) and stop worrying about differences between VGA and HDMI

https://www.rtings.com/ is your friend.

[darkwombat]

As long as we are talking sub 16ms, no human being can feel those milliseconds.

This is 100% wrong in every way. It reminds me of these people on the internet years ago, "the human eye cant notice anything above 30 fps".
I have a couple of joysticks; one is rated at 8ms, and the other is like 0.75ms, and I can absolutely tell the difference.

[akeley]

The 3 things that are certain in life: death, taxes, and arguments about lag

[limi]

https://humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime

Of course, the point is that the accumulation of display lag, controller lag and emulation lag do add up. But if you can make the reaction time test in 8ms, please report to the nearest mutant registration facility

[darkwombat]

https://humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime

Of course, the point is that the accumulation of display lag, controller lag and emulation lag do add up. But if you can make the reaction time test in 8ms, please report to the nearest mutant registration facility

Wait are you saying that it is impossible for a human to tell the lag difference between a 10ms controller and a 0.75ms controller based on a website you linked where human physical reaction time can vary based on agility etc?

I assume you were joking.

[mcf81]

I’m pretty sure if tachyons exist, the retro gaming community will find them before research physicists in an attempt to subvert input lag.

[Alf]

This is 100% wrong in every way. It reminds me of these people on the internet years ago, "the human eye cant notice anything above 30 fps".
I have a couple of joysticks; one is rated at 8ms, and the other is like 0.75ms, and I can absolutely tell the difference.

Relax. I'm with you all the way. I play fighting games and I make my own custom arcade sticks.
I've been fighting with input lag since 2009 when getting a low lag display was way more challenging than it is today.

But judging from what you're saying, it seems like you fell way too deep into this rabbit hole, asking about lag differences between VGA and HDMI. Why don't you also ask yourself what is the delay between your brain deciding to push a button and you finger actually doing it? Would the delay be lower if you play on a full stomach?

Saying that you can feel a 7ms delay is frankly ridiculous. Reminds me of a friend of mine who was saying he can feel 8ms in pinball games. All the local fighting game community was laughing at him.
My point was that if you get a display that is rated as having low lag (anything between 5ms and 10ms is fine) and you don't introduce any serious lag with your controllers or online play, you will be fine.

[darkwombat]

This is 100% wrong in every way. It reminds me of these people on the internet years ago, "the human eye cant notice anything above 30 fps".
I have a couple of joysticks; one is rated at 8ms, and the other is like 0.75ms, and I can absolutely tell the difference.

Relax. I'm with you all the way. I play fighting games and I make my own custom arcade sticks.
I've been fighting with input lag since 2009 when getting a low lag display was way more challenging than it is today.

But judging from what you're saying, it seems like you fell way too deep into this rabbit hole, asking about lag differences between VGA and HDMI. Why don't you also ask yourself what is the delay between your brain deciding to push a button and you finger actually doing it? Would the delay be lower if you play on a full stomach?

Saying that you can feel a 7ms delay is frankly ridiculous. Reminds me of a friend of mine who was saying he can feel 8ms in pinball games. All the local fighting game community was laughing at him.
My point was that if you get a display that is rated as having low lag (anything between 5ms and 10ms is fine) and you don't introduce any serious lag with your controllers or online play, you will be fine.

I know, its all good. Didn't mean to sound pissed.

Two things can be true at once:

1. Yes, I am well aware I have fallen into the rabbit hole.
2. I do a specific test, playing the game H.E.R.O. on C64 or Atari 8-bit, where I move left and right really fast and the difference between using an Xbox USB joystick vs my Atari 2600 joystick plugged in via the 2600 Daptor (which is the same as SNAC or Daemonbyte) and I do see the difference.

SNAC is not popular just because you can use your old joysticks, one of the selling points is because of the input lag difference. Your argument is that anything below 16ms a human cant tell the difference. So in theory you are saying using this website (https://rpubs.com/misteraddons/inputlatency), find a joystick that is 16ms in delay and compare it against the iBuffalo rated at 0.69 and you say humans cant tell that difference?

Why then, on the website, is there groupings?

00-01ms (Diamond)
01-05ms (Platinum)
05-10ms (Gold)
10-15ms (Silver)
15-20ms (Bronze)
20ms+ (Rust)

Why would anyone group them like that when (no human can tell) and according to you it should really be:

00-15ms (Diamond)
16ms+ (Rust)

Maybe it is YOU who cannot distinguish anything between 1ms and 16ms?

Peace

[rhester72]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3tbcUszA2s

[FPGA64]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3tbcUszA2s

yes but

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

[Alf]

00-01ms (Diamond)
01-05ms (Platinum)
05-10ms (Gold)
10-15ms (Silver)
15-20ms (Bronze)
20ms+ (Rust)

Maybe it is YOU who cannot distinguish anything between 1ms and 16ms?

The difference between 1ms and 16ms is 15ms. I never said I can't feel 15ms, that's basically one frame. I would say I can feel one frame difference but you're saying that you can feel half the frame which is highly unlikely.

As for people giving tier lists to milliseconds, I have no problem with that. It's just when such lists are taken too seriously that it becomes absurd. To call 00-01ms Diamond and call 15-20ms Bronze, that's fine. But when you give titles to almost every 3ms difference in between, that's when it becomes ridiculous.
The power of placebo is way stronger than any of us suspects. I know a guy who won't drink instant coffee because he only drinks "real" coffee.
I know a guy who won't drink Cocacola because he drinks Pepsi. We actually did a blind test with him, gave him 10 glasses. According to his claims, he should have guessed 10/10. He did 4/10.

These things trick us into believing our hobbies have deeper meanings and that our lifestyles are sooo specific and important.
It's human nature, I guess.

[thorr]

I like my CRT's for these reasons and it mostly comes down to nostalgia:

• They look right.
  • Sitting in front of a flat panel does not have the same nostalgic feeling
  • The picture looks amazing when it is dialed in well, but it is not perfect, which is part of the look
  • The screen is curved, like it should be, unless you have a flat-screen CRT which will usually have unwanted geometry and other issues on larger screens. 20-inch and smaller flat-screen CRT's are fine in my opinion. After that, I prefer curved.
  • Even big CRT's look great with low-resolution games. They just work. Flat screens have filters, but it's not the same to me.
• They natively work with light gun games
• The electron beam is real-time. There is no magic going on turning a beam into a digital image. There is zero display lag (looking at the beam, not the middle of the screen).

There are of course drawbacks too, like flicker, whining noises, size, weight, power consumption, etc.

[d909]

Retroarch on a good PC can achieve lower input lag than a MiSTer thanks to runahead, if you really want the fastest possible setup.

I got the best results on high refresh rate gaming displays. I'm not sure why running the monitor at 120+ hz produced better results than 60, given that the games run at 60, but it probably either has something to do with the video driver's vsync taking X number of refresh frames, or the monitor just having bad lag when set to 60hz.

Retroarch can be a real pain to actually get working correctly with details like this, and a pain to measure the lag on, though. Also, getting your input latency lower than native like this is in no way authentic. Personally I just use MiSTer on a CRT.

Easiest way to roughly (4-8ms precision) measure input lag for Retroarch is probably a 240hz+ phone camera and a lag testing app like Is It Snappy.