279
edits
Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
Another thing I wanted to note is that I almost want to put the real Wii adapter in a class of its own. In terms of "Compatibility" if we were to compare to games, Wii Bluetooth is a "5 star" compatibility, whereas I'd rate everything else as 3 or lower (though, the old Azio comes closest.) Just some thoughts on it. The thing most users will complain about is audio though, as it's the most noticeable thing; range is also tied into audio + input lag... so it's complicated to remove any of them. I'm happy with the chart's detail, but, it needs some work. I just don't know how. [[User:JMC4789|JMC4789]] ([[User talk:JMC4789|talk]]) 13:11, 28 October 2016 (CEST) | Another thing I wanted to note is that I almost want to put the real Wii adapter in a class of its own. In terms of "Compatibility" if we were to compare to games, Wii Bluetooth is a "5 star" compatibility, whereas I'd rate everything else as 3 or lower (though, the old Azio comes closest.) Just some thoughts on it. The thing most users will complain about is audio though, as it's the most noticeable thing; range is also tied into audio + input lag... so it's complicated to remove any of them. I'm happy with the chart's detail, but, it needs some work. I just don't know how. [[User:JMC4789|JMC4789]] ([[User talk:JMC4789|talk]]) 13:11, 28 October 2016 (CEST) | ||
: I didn't suggest removing audio quality from the table, but putting "good" for anything that sounds the same as with the Wii BT module. Since there's still a difference, maybe we should change that back to "Perfect" or "Very good" for the Wii adapter? And yes, it's not easy to improve the chart's readability while keeping enough detail... [[User:Léo|Léo (leoetlino)]] ([[User talk:Léo|talk]]) 15:37, 28 October 2016 (CEST) |
edits