Jump to content

Drimzi

Premium Members
  • Content count

    820
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    47

Drimzi last won the day on February 16

Drimzi had the most liked content!

About Drimzi

  • Rank
    Also a wizard!

Recent Profile Visitors

2,458 profile views
  1. Lol you shouldn't base it off of discrepancy alone. If you use a different method to convert to other fovs, then that 0% monitor match for widowmaker's scope is a massive discrepancy from the preferred scaling. The discrepancy is also so minor that you wouldn't even notice. For those that are really paranoid about discrepancy, here are some tips: Try out higher DPI and lower WPS, there are a lot of benefits and a lot of the times you can get lower discrepancy outputs. You can always change the FOV as well. Vertical monitor match provides near 0 discrepancy in OW at 102 FOV for example, for both hipfire and scope.
  2. The calculator uses a percentage of your width. If you had a square monitor, then 100% would be identical to 16:9's 56.25%. Just to add, these are the equivalent values for other aspect ratios: 1:1 - 100% 5:4 - 80% 4:3 - 75% 16:10 - 62.5% 16:9 - 56.25% 21:9 - 42.1875% 32:9 - 28.125%
  3. My point is that the most common OW sensitivity is not matched to 2D is because most people use only 400/450 or 800 DPI, as that is what any aim enthusiast had to use with last gen mice. Games let people set their sensitivity granularly and it will be rare for their preferred 3D sensitivity to be the same as 400/450 or 800 DPI. People that do want to match 2D and 3D will always have to force themselves to use 2D sensitivity in 3D as the DPI steps are just not granular enough.
  4. Perceived sensitivity

    These are just my thoughts atm, I could just be talking shit. Grain of salt lol. I don't think 0% matches velocity. That must be what viewspeed accomplishes. I reckon the issue is that every fov has a different size, different curvature, represented on a screen that doesn't change size and stays flat. If velocity is equal for all fovs, but the distances change, and the screens not accommodating this, then the perceived sensitivity is thrown off. Low fovs are fast, high fovs are slow, with desktop at 0 fov being the fastest. To fix this, your movement needs to follow the shortest path possible, follow the geodesic, rather than follow the curvature of the fov. This is what happens when you apply the arc correction, which results in monitor match. Velocity is changed for every fov to accomodate the different lengths, and the perceived sensitivity becomes constant. The biggest question I have is if the perceived sensitivity is different for everybody, and whether or not different methods are correct for different people. This is why I am asking whether 0% actually FEELS perfect for you, can you play at any FOV and use existing muscle memory or does it feel like learning a completely new sensitivity?
  5. Perceived sensitivity

    Feeling is only satisfied if the distances you see and the assumed hand distances required to rotate said distances are matched, and the velocity of the rotation is what is expected. Thankfully vertical monitor match does that, if 0% does that for you then kudos.
  6. Perceived sensitivity

    In regards to 'feels', it feels like 0% is the precursor to viewspeed V2, which is the precursor to 1:1 monitor match. The flaws of 0% feel fixed when switching to viewspeed v2, with low fovs not slowing to a crawl or high fovs spinning out. Zooming in and out and speed seems preserved, but then analysing each fov on its own and it becomes clear that all of the fovs feel different, due to their arc difference I'm assuming. The low fovs with the smaller arc feel too fast, and only low fovs feel similar to the desktop (0 fov). High fovs are just too slow in comparison. This flaw feels fixed with 1:1 monitor match, which you get when multiplying viewspeed V2 by the ratio between chord and arc (viewspeed v1 idea). They are precursors in math too. Even though viewspeed is just sin ratio, the non simplified formula used the tan ratio (0%). cos * tan is just sin after all. Monitor match is just fov ratio, but the non simplified formula uses sin ratio and chord/arc ratio. I spent all of yesterday afternoon training flicks on 1:1 monitor match and everything felt the same again with no occasional 'odd' feeling. Desktop felt natural coming from any fov too. So even though 1:1 monitor match failed the zooming script test, I'm still sticking with it because it just feels the best and I don't really have any complaints with it in real world use. For those sticking with 0%, are you forcing yourself to use it due to 'math', or does it really feel natural to you?
  7. Try not to change the input. Keep it as CSGO hipfire with 1.3 sensitivity. Only change the output. The output will always get the correct value if you do this. If you match to Zoom 1 and then convert from Zoom 2 using the sensitivity value intended for Zoom 1, then you are converted from an incorrect input. Since the game has many different zooms fovs, and you can only offset the scaling so that it is correct for one zoom state, all other zoom states are going to have an incorrect sensitivity. Don't use these as an input. 'Match at' defines a point a certain distance away from the crosshair where the mouse distance required to rotate to that point is identical at all FOVs. If you set 100%, it will match at the edge of your screen, and the mouse distance required to rotate to the edge of the screen will be the same for all games and scopes. My recommendation is to either use Viewspeed v2, Monitor Match with 0%, or Monitor Match set to match at the top/bottom of your screen. The 'match at' percent for this can be found by putting this into a calculator: resolution height / resolution width * 100 Example: 1080 / 1920 * 100 = 'Match at: 56.25 %' Try each one and see what feels most natural to you, as it is different for everybody.
  8. You can buy lifetime membership here. AFAIK there is no discount code for a reduced price.
  9. Perceived sensitivity

    Vertical matching is the only static monitor match method (other than 0%) that in my opinion is correct, since mouse pitch is always a consistent movement, following the shortest path on the sphere representing the fov, whereas yaw moves differently depending on pitch. So horizontal matching in my mind is flawed, and what distance do you even choose? They are all arbitrary. If you look straight up or down, you will notice that trying to look sideways will follow the curvature of the FOV instead of following the shortest path. You can't just look left or right. The one thing that makes me question it is what you said, you don't necessarily have to match to what you can see on your monitor, the one redeeming factor for vertical matching though is that your vertical FOV is what determines how everything is projected, the size of that sphere is determined by the vertical FOV and it is that angle that you are matching to. Expanding the aspect ratio merely lets you see more of that sphere, but its size doesn't change. Vertical monitor matching fails the CS:GO zooming test for me. Viewspeed v2 feels pretty much flawless for that, but I still prefer vertical monitor matching. I'm trying to give Viewspeed v2 another shot though due to the CS:GO test but it just doesn't feel right when actually using low and high fovs on their own (without the constant zooming). Some extra cool (but useless?) tidbits for vertical monitor match: If you were to evenly redistribute the FOV on the screen (using measurements for the 1:1 portion only), so that every pixel contains the same number of degrees, the rotational increment will be equal to a pixel if you were to convert from the desktop. Since the increment is a pixel, this is the same increment as the cursor, and it works for all FOVs. Another cool thing is that the converted sensitivity for BF3 and 90 FOV is the same value as the one used in DPI Wizard's thread 'How sensitivity works'. Due to it matching the desktop like this, converting from the desktop at 90 FOV will increment exactly 90 degrees, 5400 arcminutes, or 500π milliradians with a 1x1 resolution (lol). Now divide this by your resolution height to find out your angle increment at your resolution. For convenience, you can use a script to increment mouse pitch as many times as half your resolution height in order to rotate to the top of the screen, so if a game's sensitivity is incorrect, it will rotate too much or too little, and you can dial it in until it is perfect without having to resort to this website's calculator (if you are poor and can't afford a subscription or if a game has not yet been added). Vertical monitor match isn't just a simple angle ratio without any trigonometry. You can generate the same values using sin or tan. To scale an existing sensitivity value, vertical monitor match is simply: sensitivity * fov ratio. If you were to generate the sensitivity value from scratch, it is: (fov * wps)/(chord * yaw) But you can also generate it using tan or sin too. (fov * wps * tan(π/chord))/(π * yaw) (fov * wps * sin(π/chord))/(π * yaw) Generating produces the tiniest discrepancy, but the scaling is the exact same.
  10. Sweet, it might work for WAW and BO1 too since they have console enabled. For all other games, you will need to DPI switch. I highly recommend decreasing WPS to 3/11, multiply your DPI by 4x, and then you have effective DPI steps of 20 rather than 80. This will make it possible to use this method. You also get 4x more rotation increments in raw input games and a more accurate representation of physical mouse movement, so it is a huge benefit even without the DPI switch. Also I wouldn't recommend 100% monitor match. If you are new here and haven't read up on verdicts, 56.25% and viewspeed v2 (a better 75%) are my most recommended methods to try first. 100% is a completely arbitrary match point and should only be used if preference outweighs the more *sensible* methods.
  11. Hmm, strange that you need some additional multiplier for the sensitivity. I would assume you would just set the 100% monitor match sensitivity in the bind and be done. Dividing by that value is like using a 400% monitor match sensitivity value.
  12. If that script was correct, then just replace hipfire sens and ads sens with the appropriate values generated from this calculator. The only cod that has an ads sensitivity slider is WWII. Console scripts probably only work in COD4. They dumbed everything down since MW2, removing console, locking FOV, etc. The only surefire method is DPI switching, which I already provided the script for.
  13. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

    It scales the sensitivity for different FOVs by using the tan ratio between the Hipfire and ADS FOV values. You will notice you don't keep the same 360 when you aim or change the FOV. This scaling formula is the same as using monitor match in the calculator with 0%.
  14. People aren't going to match 2D and 3D sensitivity if they assume that the only DPI steps they can safely use is either 400/450 or 800.
  15. sen or distance which is best

    ADS and hipfire are just two different FOVs. Use the exact same method that you use to convert between games. Yes I recommend Viewspeed v2. For monitor match, you put in your monitor resolution, not your game resolution. 75% will return 8.02 as well.
×