Reaction Times Comparison (Test)

[KraigA]

A thread by Twinturboedge proposing an online lobby challenge between drivers, using the same stock cars, on auto transmission, to test out reaction times solely, got me thinking. The cons of this are obvious - ghost lag / ping playing more of a factor than actual reaction times itself.

I have came up with this

http://www.fetchfido.co.uk/games/reaction/reaction_test.htm

The above link directs you to a simple online reaction test calculator. Which is simply a Red light which after 3-7 seconds, will change color, and when it does - you click on it and your reaction time is measured, with no lag or ping playing any issue whatsoever. It tests you 5 times in succession and your overall average is calculated. It also penalises you if you try to 'guess' click.

This thread isn't any kind of 'leaderboard' so don't sit at it for 20 times before you get a fluke run. I'm just interested in seeing what the average reaction times are of users on this site. This way we can get an idea of how big reaction time alone can effect your online 1/4 runs... before we even consider ghost lag, and other variables.

If you want to try it out and post up your times, just so we can try to see how big a difference reaction times can actually make.

As, if one user gets 0.250 and the other gets 0.300 - the difference in their reaction times being 0.050 is literally a car length in itself, if they ran with the same tune, with perfect shifts before you even account for ghost lag!

 

[twinturbowedge]

1rst time on a phone I got a averge of 0.389

 

[KraigA]

1rst time on a phone I got a averge of 0.389

Hm, a phone might have some 'input' delay if its a screen touch? I use a laptop, so it's the pad clicker I use. Maybe a mouse clicker or pad clicker is best for your reflexes...

But even with that read out, thats 0.100 difference from mine, so technically, for example, if you ran an 8.990 Enzo and I ran an 9.090 Enzo, I could still win if our launches were based on a ghosting tree. Get it? Cause I'd end up taking off 0.100 quicker than you, dialling out your tune's advantage.

Now that analogy is obvious, but its interesting to see it down on paper and it'd be interesting to see the total variance in reaction times between the users here, just to establish an average baseline.

 

[Slash]

Last time I did this I was right around .230-.250

 

[twinturbowedge]

Lol when I get home ill have to try it on the computer

 

[KraigA]

Last time I did this I was right around .230-.250

Yeah, the site says anything between 0.200 and 0.250 is 'average'. But I dunno, I like to think anything between 0.225-0.250 is FAST and any average consistently lower than 0.200 is super human lol. I would have thought the average is 0.250-0.280

 

[Mikeybc]

My results, though Kraig you have quicker consistent results, I just had a really good one in there

 

[twinturbowedge]

Lol had a 0.120-180 light and my last light I jumped bhahaha
This is very addicting lol

 

[KraigA]

That's pretty good Mikey and a really good final reaction. At least I've got the "your reactions are 0.002 faster, thats why you won" excuse now

 

[KraigA]

Lol had a 0.120-180 light and my last light I jumped bhahaha
This is very addicting lol

Yeah, I sort of involuntarily jolted and got a 0.004 light and it brought my overall average from 0.240 to 0.192 lol but it aint accurate as it contained a fluke light.

 

[twinturbowedge]

I went from a averge of 152 and that jump made me have a 308 lol oh well.

 

[Dom00000]

Lol heres my best

 

[KraigA]

Pretty good.

This isn't really accurate, just showing the effects of how one or two freak times can effect the average lol. Without 'em, my average would have been around a 0.245 in this particular run. But its better to have a clean run with consistent times to work out a proper "average"

 

[Mikeybc]

Throw out high and low then take the average if remaining 3 results, that should be accurate enough .

 

[Slash]

Add that reaction time to your internts ping, then add that time to your car's time and thats what it runs online.


Just did it real quick and this is what I got without really trying.

 

[KraigA]

Slash your results are really good. Cause theyre all consistent. You've got better reactions than me anyway. 👍

 

[Slash]

They weren't too bad for not really trying. The 2nd and 3rd were the worst of the set. Thanks man!

 

[KraigA]

Only seen results from top draggers, but its interesting to be seeing an average trend of .022-.024 range.

Still to see the others. I'm still confident the 'average' is around .25-.28 as I feel we've posted "quick" times, but until I see other 'casual' times, I'm unable to determine what is average and what is fast.

 

[dr_slump]

Sometimes it gives you stupidly low times like 0.030.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

I am not that often do drag racing in GT5, I just curious about the little test, my average were around 0.2x, but I did have one bizarre reaction time then got distracted while was getting good average

I don't know how I got that 1st reaction time, a fluke

 

[Slash]

This one is a bit better.

@Rido, I'd take that again.

 

[MSTER232]

Pretty good.

This isn't really accurate, just showing the effects of how one or two freak times can effect the average lol. Without 'em, my average would have been around a 0.245 in this particular run. But its better to have a clean run with consistent times to work out a proper "average"

You guess clicked on the 0.044 reaction time .

Anyway, I got about 0.23 as my average even though I'm tired right now. It would be quicker if I was feeling a bit better then I am right now.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

@Rido, I'd take that again.

I had another 1st quick time then slower average again, this test is weird.

 

[MSTER232]

I had another 1st quick time then slower average again, this test is weird.

0.05 holy 🤬

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

0.05 holy 🤬

That would be 0.050 rounded, I had 0.015 on previous picture - which was "WTF" moment, but this one is more close to my "fastest" average which has no fluke time :

 

[Slash]

That's more realistic.

 

[Slash]

I did this test with a wireless DS3 on my PS3 via HDMI/HDTV and all results were .100 slower.

 

[Mikeybc]

The test I posted before was an old test from DLR's forum when the topic was posted back in what I like to call "the day"

New test tonight...I was very consistent over 3 tests. I surprised myself...guess the coffee helped

 

[Slash]

Very nice!!!!!

 

[Mikeybc]

This must have something to do with a wired mouse on a fairly fast computer (i7-2720qm) I remember a long time ago struggling to get low .2's I'm beginning to think this test isn't too accurate now.

another quick test