This advice will make you drive faster - fact.
Moderator: Moporators
This advice will make you drive faster - fact.
Want to know the best kept secret of Elma pros? To drive quicker times, just move your eyes closer to the screen. For every additional centimetre you move closer to the screen, the light emitted will reach your eyes 0.00000000003 seconds sooner!* This advantage clearly adds up once you start moving multiple centimetres, and if you want to drive the seriously fast times, you're going to have to exploit it. You think Zweq drove Ramp Frenzy leaning back in his chair, wasting priceless picoseconds waiting for the light particles to reach his retinas? Hell no, he got up close and personal with the fuckers, and unless you want to be stuck with your sucky 46 minute TT for the rest of your career, you're going to have to man up and do the same.
*
Speed of light in air = speed of light in a vacuum / refractive index of air = 29979245800 / 1.000293 = 29970464453.9150029 cm/s
Time taken to travel 1cm = 1/29970464453.9150029 = 0.000000000033366182947... seconds.
Note that playing in a vacuum would be optimal; might be worth consideration.
*
Speed of light in air = speed of light in a vacuum / refractive index of air = 29979245800 / 1.000293 = 29970464453.9150029 cm/s
Time taken to travel 1cm = 1/29970464453.9150029 = 0.000000000033366182947... seconds.
Note that playing in a vacuum would be optimal; might be worth consideration.
[OMG] | [SpEF] | Apparently my TT was once 39:26:06
please remove that annoying sig of yours.
John: lol hittade ett popcorn i naveln
(19:52:06) (@Madnezz) The Golden Apple Award goes to.....
(19:52:36) (@Madnezz) ib9814.lev by igge!!!
(19:52:06) (@Madnezz) The Golden Apple Award goes to.....
(19:52:36) (@Madnezz) ib9814.lev by igge!!!
Zweq wrote:99.9999% of nabs haven't even opened the book yet and most of those that have are still on the first pages
mjau
ramone! yes ez, the longer I used to play a lev, the closer to the monitor hihi
infected: bängat bort glasögonen förra året, så det är linser som gäller, grattis förresten :*
ramone: <3 (im moving back soon, heard you called me. call me again after 1st march :* )
mjau
infected: bängat bort glasögonen förra året, så det är linser som gäller, grattis förresten :*
ramone: <3 (im moving back soon, heard you called me. call me again after 1st march :* )
mjau
Nekit for president
Of course I thought about this. But it doesn't matter. Whatever the time is between the retina sensing light and the brain recognizing it as light (I believe it is ~0.1 seconds), that is a fixed value, a constant. It doesn't vary with the length from the light source. So if I'm several light years away from the light source , it will still be ~0.1 seconds, just as if I was 1cm away. Therefore, the only other factor increasing the delay is the distance between the retina and the light source. Total time taken from light source existing until brain becomes aware of it = time taken for light to travel from light source to retina + time taken for retina to send information along the optic nerve and brain to translate the signals into digestible information.jaytea wrote:i don't think this really saves time. doesn't the eyeball have some 'refresh rate' at which it sends images to the brain.. i think the delay is significantly less than the time save you quoted sierra. im sorry but months of research is down the ass as they say
What saddens me is that you would have easily realised this if you'd given the matter some more thought, but once again, your eagerness to "win one over on Sierra" brought about your downfall. You got too eager.
[OMG] | [SpEF] | Apparently my TT was once 39:26:06
So, if elma was actually more accurate than it is now, we would benefit significantly from this increase per enclosing centimetre. Because now, this 0.00000000003 of a second won't do much for your 14.00 warm up time besides theoretically making it 0.00000000003×(amount of centimetres you're closer to the monitor) faster.
Well it's funny that you would choose Warm Up, of all levels, as your example, because I think that WR has the most exciting potential of all. Let's say you move 10cm closer to the monitor. Light gets there 0.0000000003 seconds quicker. That means if you drive what would have been 14.000000002, you will potentially be able to do 13.9999999999.tijsjoris wrote:So, if elma was actually more accurate than it is now, we would benefit significantly from this increase per enclosing centimetre. Because now, this 0.00000000003 of a second won't do much for your 14.00 warm up time besides theoretically making it 0.00000000003×(amount of centimetres you're closer to the monitor) faster.
[OMG] | [SpEF] | Apparently my TT was once 39:26:06
In fact, water slows light, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_l ... _materials
This, also, wouldn't matter. There must still be a threshold length of time beyond which 0,001 becomes 0,002. Therefore, in theory, one could turn a 0,0020000002 into a 0,001999999. Wherever you want to place the threshold, or however imprecise your measuring device is, it doesn't change the fact that time is a continuous variable.zworqy wrote:But elma only measures with a precision of 0,001 seconds, right? That's what the exact.exe program gets times out of recs with anyway.
[OMG] | [SpEF] | Apparently my TT was once 39:26:06
already knew welle. was actually trying to attempt at being sarcastic, guess it didnt workwelle wrote:In fact, water slows light, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_l ... _materials