<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_REOPENED " title="REOPENED - Libinput 0.19 and 0.20 ignore POINTINGSTICK_CONST_ACCEL" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=91369#c33">Comment # 33</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_REOPENED " title="REOPENED - Libinput 0.19 and 0.20 ignore POINTINGSTICK_CONST_ACCEL" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=91369">bug 91369</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:justin.w.xd@gmail.com" title="Justin Wong <justin.w.xd@gmail.com>"> Justin Wong</a> <pre>> by feel mostly. and the fact that this accel method was largely aimed at > mice and the number of 200dpi mice is so low we don't really need to care > about them. and of course the obvious reason: it was relatively easy to > implement and gave us some solution that was 80% of the way there, which is > better than 0% :) I agree with you to make it 80% functional first. According to my test using mouse-dpi-tool, my trackpoint seems to be even slower than 200DPI. Maybe we should collect more feedbacks. Currently 200DPI trackpoint has almost the same accel with 400DPI device, that's apparently inappropriate. I still think we should modify incline with `dpi_factor`, no need to use `incline * v_us2ms(speed_in - threshold)/dpi_factor + 1`, maybe `incline * v_us2ms(speed_in - threshold)/(dpi_factor+0.5) + 1` or something, we can try to find a good value.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>