[NSRCA-discussion] S.bus

[Atwood, Mark]

There's a huge difference though between reaction time and another delay in the response to that reaction.  Yes, it takes a quarter of a second for us to react, but if I then need to wait another quarter of a second for my reaction to take effect, that's significant.  So yes, latency is an issue.   Below 15 or 20 ms, it's probably not perceptible, but 50 -100 certainly is.    You wouldn't want a 250ms delay in your brakes when you're trying to avoid hitting something, because you're correct in that you already wasted 250ms starting your movement.

Mark Atwood
Paragon Consulting, Inc.  |  President
5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
Phone: 440.684.3101 x102  |  Fax: 440.684.3102
mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com<mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com>  |  www.paragon-inc.com<http://www.paragon-inc.com/>

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bill's Email
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 11:19 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] S.bus

I am amused by discussions about latency. We have long discussions about the perceived advantages of single digit differences in system latency while ignoring the fact that the average human reaction time (call it organic latency) is around 250 milliseconds.

I guess you can argue that since we are inherently so slow we need all the electronic help we can get!!





Jon Lowe wrote:
There is a great article on latency here:

http://www.rcmodelreviews.com/what_is_latency.shtml

A lot of people are hung up on transmitter/receiver latency numbers, and don't see the whole picture.  This gives as good a fact based write up as any I've seen.
Jon Lowe

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100709/953abb69/attachment.html>