Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / how fast are your reflexes?

Author
Message
Mussi
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Jan 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posted: 22nd May 2004 17:42
try this code and test your relfexes



I got 176ms, pritty slow



Specs: AMD Athlon 1800, 256 DDRRam 266mhz, 80GB HD 7200rmp U133, Geforce 4 Ti4400 128mb
flibX0r
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th Feb 2003
Location: Western Australia
Posted: 22nd May 2004 18:31
162ms, not too bad

MikeS
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Dec 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 22nd May 2004 18:41
151ms. I tried again and just kept clicking and eventually got down to 10 ms.



A book? I hate book. Book is stupid.
(Formerly known as Yellow)
Mussi
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Jan 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posted: 22nd May 2004 19:33
cheater



Specs: AMD Athlon 1800, 256 DDRRam 266mhz, 80GB HD 7200rmp U133, Geforce 4 Ti4400 128mb
KC27
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Mar 2004
Location:
Posted: 22nd May 2004 20:06
I got 2224ms

Give All The Credit Away
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 22nd May 2004 20:09
I keep getting a flat 219 ms, though I'm sure there should be some variation there .

Mussi
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Jan 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posted: 22nd May 2004 20:34 Edited at: 22nd May 2004 20:34
kinda weird that we people react so slow over all those generations



Specs: AMD Athlon 1800, 256 DDRRam 266mhz, 80GB HD 7200rmp U133, Geforce 4 Ti4400 128mb
Neofish
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Apr 2004
Location: A swimming pool of coke
Posted: 22nd May 2004 23:01
i did it and got 299, ive been on the coke which slows my reaction times so....


Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 22nd May 2004 23:22
Quote: " kinda weird that we people react so slow over all those generations "


Not really. It's not like we're evolving by the generation (*cough*or at all*/cough*). Besides, reacting to a red flash on a black screen is different than reacting to a knife thrown at you-- the first dosen't trigger adrenaline .

Hamish McHaggis
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Dec 2002
Location: Modgnik Detinu
Posted: 22nd May 2004 23:49 Edited at: 22nd May 2004 23:55
I got 130 quickest (without cheating or luck). About 160 average.

Athelon XP 1600+/Radeon 9600 Pro/256 RAM
Hamish McHaggis
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Dec 2002
Location: Modgnik Detinu
Posted: 22nd May 2004 23:52 Edited at: 22nd May 2004 23:54
Cheat-proof version ...



Athelon XP 1600+/Radeon 9600 Pro/256 RAM
1tg46
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Feb 2004
Location: I dont know!
Posted: 23rd May 2004 00:35
110ms with the cheat proof version, but I only got it once..so far

1tg46
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Feb 2004
Location: I dont know!
Posted: 23rd May 2004 00:40
And here is an cheat proof version (improved on Hamish McHaggis's). This will make it possible to hit escape to end the program, and instead of showing one dull color it shows random dull colors which makes it harder because you need to concentrate more.



My last post was not with this version


Tomy
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Dec 2003
Location:
Posted: 23rd May 2004 00:54
Quote: "kinda weird that we people react so slow over all those generations"


Well, 150ms should actually be the fastest eye-to-hand reaction of human beings, so 130ms isn't that bad
I got 180ms BTW


GameVisions Softwares - http://www.gamevisions.cbj.net
Peter H
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Feb 2004
Location: Witness Protection Program
Posted: 23rd May 2004 01:00 Edited at: 23rd May 2004 01:00
i got 188ms(non-cheat version)....but i'm reeeeaaaallllly tired right now

hehe i figured out the cheating thing also!
(before reading other peoples posts...)


Formerly known as "DarkWing Duck"
Clownpaint
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Dec 2003
Location: London, England
Posted: 23rd May 2004 01:11
best i could get was 156 on non-cheat version, every time i felt like i was doing it waay slower than i couldve, even on my fastest but i just couldnt get it any faster even though i felt i was slow!
Neofish
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Apr 2004
Location: A swimming pool of coke
Posted: 23rd May 2004 01:20
my fasted is 300 and my average is about 350, im waking up cos its late at nite


hexGEAR
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Nov 2002
Location: Naytonia
Posted: 23rd May 2004 01:54
using the cheat proof version, fastest was 95ms and 220ms on average.

I'm sure all those online unreal tournament guru's could react in 50ms

Neofish
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Apr 2004
Location: A swimming pool of coke
Posted: 23rd May 2004 01:59
the second cheat proof one doesnt work properly


Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 23rd May 2004 02:13
Quote: "I'm sure all those online unreal tournament guru's could react in 50ms "


That's me I challenge anyone here to a match of UT!

lol

Lost in Thought
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Feb 2004
Location: U.S.A. : Douglas, Georgia
Posted: 23rd May 2004 03:03
lol i can cheat on all versions i got 0ms on some. Added randomize timer() to the top of Hamish's and changed it to the random color background. I averaged 152 to 172ms with this one.



"People don't fail ..... they stop trying." Specs. P4 2.8GHz 800 FSB | 512MB DDR333
GeForce FX 5200 AGP 256MB | Windows XP Pro Full
Shadow Robert
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 23rd May 2004 03:29
lowest was 103 ... highest 196 ... adverage 112
guess the younger generations do seem to be getting slower

BatVink
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Apr 2003
Location: Gods own County, UK
Posted: 23rd May 2004 03:39
It took me 12.304 seconds to scan this thread and decide not to bother.

BatVink
http://facepaint.me.uk/catalog/default.php AMD 3000+ Barton, 512Mb Ram, 120 Gig Drive space, GeForce 5200 FX 128 Mb, Asus A7N8X Mobo.
Terms & Conditions apply
Dave J
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Feb 2003
Location: Secret Military Pub, Down Under
Posted: 23rd May 2004 05:46
First time I thought I had to wait for it to turn green or something so I got 28,840. Tried again and got 190. Tried a last time and got 31, I didn't click repeatadly but because it's the same time every go, I anticipated when it would turn red.


"Computers are useless they can only give you answers."
1tg46
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Feb 2004
Location: I dont know!
Posted: 23rd May 2004 07:45
@N30F15H
How does the second one not work properly. It seems to work for me.

Lost in Thought
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Feb 2004
Location: U.S.A. : Douglas, Georgia
Posted: 23rd May 2004 08:03
The second cheet proof one doesn't work here because if you hit your mousebutton every 200ms(or so) regardless of what you see I get 0ms reaction time.

"People don't fail ..... they stop trying." Specs. P4 2.8GHz 800 FSB | 512MB DDR333
GeForce FX 5200 AGP 256MB | Windows XP Pro Full
1tg46
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Feb 2004
Location: I dont know!
Posted: 23rd May 2004 18:44
Oh well I tried.

Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 23rd May 2004 21:01
I got about 288 as an average, but I am sitting quite far away from the screen, and red light travels slowly through cigarette smoke.

Signature? No! Obsolete! These days it's all about chip and pin!
Mussi
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Jan 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posted: 23rd May 2004 22:51
lol , how fast is light anyway?



Specs: AMD Athlon 1800, 256 DDRRam 266mhz, 80GB HD 7200rmp U133, Geforce 4 Ti4400 128mb
Phaelax
DBPro Master
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Apr 2003
Location: Metropia
Posted: 24th May 2004 04:33
Quote: "Quote: "I'm sure all those online unreal tournament guru's could react in 50ms "

That's me I challenge anyone here to a match of UT!

lol "


80ms, and I accept your challenge. Clan DNA cannot be defeated! It'll be instagib, right?

"eureka" - Archimedes
Dave J
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Feb 2003
Location: Secret Military Pub, Down Under
Posted: 24th May 2004 10:28
Quote: "lol , how fast is light anyway?"


3 * 10^8 m/s

That's

300,000,000 m/s

To put it in retrospect, if there were two people looking at something on the sun, one person was next to the sun, and the other person was on Earth. The person sitting on Earth would see the thing on the sun 8 minutes later then the person next to the sun. This also means if the sun vanished then it would take 8 minutes before everything goes black and we realise.


"Computers are useless they can only give you answers."
Mussi
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Jan 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posted: 24th May 2004 17:58
the m stands for meters right? so we'll never be able to play online acion games with people all across the globe without lag



Specs: AMD Athlon 1800, 256 DDRRam 266mhz, 80GB HD 7200rmp U133, Geforce 4 Ti4400 128mb
Francesco
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Apr 2004
Location: Milan, Italy
Posted: 24th May 2004 19:24 Edited at: 24th May 2004 21:24
Modified the code a little...now it makes the average out of ten rounds and it shows the time of each round. Oh by the way...I got 1ms without cheating...just luck!

Ps:
The code isn't very complicated, so don't write posts with saying that I could have done it better in another way...just post your code. I'm not much of a programmer!
Cheers
Francesco

Non si inalberi mica con me, sa!
Lei è venuto qui, lei ha il tombino intasato!
Siamo uno spurgo serio, noi!
Benjamin
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 24th May 2004 20:07
Quote: "First time I thought I had to wait for it to turn green or something "

Heh same here

Projects in progress: Lerioonia, Crescent
Mussi
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Jan 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posted: 24th May 2004 20:09
woot, I managed to get 101ms without cheating



Specs: AMD Athlon 1800, 256 DDRRam 266mhz, 80GB HD 7200rmp U133, Geforce 4 Ti4400 128mb
Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 25th May 2004 02:59
Quote: "the m stands for meters right? so we'll never be able to play online acion games with people all across the globe without lag "


Yeah, but 300,000,000 metres is about 7.5 times the circumference of the world. So it takes about 0.13 seconds for light to travel one complete circle around the world, and therefore 0.07 seconds for light to travel from one side of the world to the other. Couldn't consider that lag!

.. not that the communications are that fast in practice, but still the speed of light isn't really the cause of lag.

Signature? No! Obsolete! These days it's all about chip and pin!
Dave J
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Feb 2003
Location: Secret Military Pub, Down Under
Posted: 25th May 2004 13:12
Correct. Fibre optic and other cables can use the speed of light to carry messages to and from places but the real limitation comes in sending and receiving the messages. If you get a message on the other side of the world every 0.07 seconds but can only read and process a message every 5 seconds then it's not the speed of light that's creating the lag, but your modem that can't receieve it quick enough.

Of course, it would be too expensive to use fibre optics anyway, but you get the point.


"Computers are useless they can only give you answers."
Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 25th May 2004 19:39
I'm guessing we bounce most of our data off satellites using microwaves (obviously not the ones you cook your frozen curry in) to bridge the oceans. I don't know what the stats are for how far away a geostationary satellite has to be from earth to orbit, but I believe its 20,000 or 40,000 km. Which mean, in actual fact, the signals are travelling a hell of a lot further.

But anyway, yep, the real delay is in the routers, the other hardware and in particular, the protocols and their respective problems. And also the errors, and how errors are corrected in protocols. In most internet based protocols, they're not corrected. Frames are just dropped. But anyway, going into too much detail.

I guess the point is, don't blame the speed of light for lag!

Mussi
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Jan 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posted: 25th May 2004 20:00
why can't we go faster than light ?



Specs: AMD Athlon 1800, 256 DDRRam 266mhz, 80GB HD 7200rmp U133, Geforce 4 Ti4400 128mb
Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 25th May 2004 20:13
Where's Hawking when you need him?

Neofish
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Apr 2004
Location: A swimming pool of coke
Posted: 26th May 2004 02:37
@lrfudhg (dunt ask me to speel) - for me you press it then it flashes and it records the time from the end of the last sesson t the press (before the flash), i do not have a reaction time of above 30000!


mm0zct
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Nov 2003
Location: scotland-uk
Posted: 26th May 2004 03:05 Edited at: 26th May 2004 03:06
light only travels through optical fibre at 2x10^8m/s (200000000)

anyway, with the first version i get average of about 200ms, best=182 regular=188 most common<220<184

edit: its 12:10am here tho so i'm not really awake

http://www.larinar.tk
AMD athlon thoroughbred 2200, 512Mb ram, 40Gb HD, ati saphire radeon 9600 atlantis w/128mb ddr ram, good creative-labs soundcard, cd-rw + dvd drives.
flibX0r
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th Feb 2003
Location: Western Australia
Posted: 26th May 2004 14:32
Quote: "so we'll never be able to play online acion games with people all across the globe without lag"


Actually, if we can make internet devices that use quantum entaglement, then the speed of light would not be important anymore

Dave J
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Feb 2003
Location: Secret Military Pub, Down Under
Posted: 26th May 2004 16:53
Quote: "why can't we go faster than light?"


As your speed gets closer to the speed of light your mass increases exponentially. As your mass increases, you need more energy to continue to accelerate (and get closer to the speed of light). You can never reach the speed of light because your mass will hit infinity and to counter-act this, you would need an infinite source of energy to accelerate that little bit more to reach the speed of light. Hence you can't go faster or even at the speed of light.


"Computers are useless they can only give you answers."
flibX0r
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th Feb 2003
Location: Western Australia
Posted: 26th May 2004 16:56
the only reason photons can go at the speed of light it because they aren't really matter and thus mass-less

Mussi
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Jan 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posted: 26th May 2004 17:59
I tought so, that's to bad, guess we'll never encounter aliens



Specs: AMD Athlon 1800, 256 DDRRam 266mhz, 80GB HD 7200rmp U133, Geforce 4 Ti4400 128mb
Dave J
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Feb 2003
Location: Secret Military Pub, Down Under
Posted: 27th May 2004 10:34
On the contrary, both time and length dilutes as you get near the speed of light. So even let's say Mars is 20 light years away (It would take 20 years to get there if you were travelling at the speed of light) and you were going at 90% of the speed of light so on paper it should actually take you 25 years to get there. HOWEVER, Einstein's theory of relativity proves that when you go close to the speed of light time will slow down and length will contract, so in reality it may only actually take you 15 years to get there instead of the calculated 25.

This brings rise to the 'Twins Paradox', if you had a twin on Earth and then you went off to Mars, when you reached Mars you will have aged 15 years but your twin will have aged 25 years. So essentially if you were both 30 years old when you left, you would be 45 when you reached Mars and your twin would be 55. Crazy, isn't it? But believe it or not, this has actually been proven and is real.


"Computers are useless they can only give you answers."
Mussi
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Jan 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posted: 27th May 2004 19:13
wow, weird , that einstein guy really was a samrt one eh



Specs: AMD Athlon 1800, 256 DDRRam 266mhz, 80GB HD 7200rmp U133, Geforce 4 Ti4400 128mb

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-25 07:58:30
Your offset time is: 2024-11-25 07:58:30