Jump to content

Overkill's The Walking Dead

Just added!
Read more...

Krunker

Browser-shooter added!
Read more...

Zula

Just added!
Read more...

World War 3

Pre-alpha added.
Read more...

Dead Frontier 2

Use the registry calculation for best accuracy!
Read more...

Recommended Posts

If you want something added to this main post, you can add a comment and I'll consider adding it. It doesn't just need to be about these methods, anything of value to general people in one place is the idea.

My aim is to make this as non-technical as possible and so I'll try keep the language as consistent as possible, but there is some language you'll need to know and understand in some form.

Key Language

Spoiler

FOV - The angle (usually in degrees) created from your camera and the lines to each edge of your screen. This is often given as vertical or horizontal FOV. The difference is whether you use the top and bottom edges of your monitor or the left and right ones. (This also has nothing to do with viewmodel FOV in csgo) A diagram is easier though, keep in mind the camera is the game camera, not your head. That's something different (Visual angle). If you want to know more about FOV in games, here is a good resource

Left equivalent to Vdeg in calculator, right equivalent to Hdeg Res in calculator.

VFOV.thumb.png.eb9954aaf6be3d481af598daca046e21.pngHFOV.thumb.png.7b1f165e4f9d77cc9d03b9f31e375304.png

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Count - A bit of information sent to your computer about change in direction on your mouse pad. Sent after your mouse senses you move a certain distance (given by your DPI(CPI)). Each individual count will relate to a certain angle moved in 3D space (given by your in game sensitivity) or a certain distance along the desktop (given by your Windows pointer speed)

DPI (CPI) - The number of counts the mouse will send if you moved your mouse 1 inch along your mouse pad (resolution of the sensor) useful video

mm - monitor match - monitor distance match - all the same thing

Aperture/monitor  - You can think of the monitor as a window to the game world. The size of the window is the aperture, the pixels is like a mesh screen-door.

How to use the calculator

Spoiler

This video shows how to use it but is old, the image below is more recent.

CaptureMEthods.PNG.8a8cd56a848601f9190ef42c5e902bec.PNG

Above shows the conversion methods from converting from the input game -> output game for each type of aim.

  • Normal: hipfire
  • ADS: Scope with no zoom
  • Scope: Scope with zoom
  • Win/2D: 2D conversions

calculatorinfo.thumb.png.a3401f333139a0a04520d39377f11120.png

The main problems people seem to have here are the FOV and FOV types. I suggest you look up more about them in the key topic thing above, but as a general rule:

  1. If you haven't changed any in game FOV settings, leave the calculator values alone, they're normally right by default
  2. If you have changed any ingame settings set the FOV value to the in game value and leave the FOV type default, it's normally right by default

Why there isn't one perfect conversion for 3D games:

When playing a 3D game the information is displayed through a 2D monitor. We encounter the same problem map drawers had many many many years ago, there's many solutions that go about it in many different ways but all have their benefits and drawbacks. Gnomonic projection is what 3D shooter games use and is what we're all used to and it works by taking points on the sphere through to a camera and where it intersects a plane which is the monitor, we colour the pixel that colour as you can see if you click on the images, look at the car in the CS:GO images. 

Gnomonic.png.c9a6d5fd9308fd45666f60b329fb5067.pngGnomic.PNG.d096c6ab015b60aff46d6aa64c74988d.PNGdistortion.thumb.png.68acfd4a4022dd3a4b364c7a0e3de34b.pngnormal.thumb.png.afd1bc8f60982ea4700e8ac154720c84.png

This creates distortion at the edges of the image as rays that get closer to the max FOV of 180° get put really far away on the plane so angles on your screen are not preserved for different FOVs what this means is that when you have two different FOVs there will not be two respective sensitivities that match everywhere. This has lead to many methods of converting sensitivities that all have their pros and cons as there is no perfect conversion. The lists of pros and cons below should help you decide.

Conversion Methods:

360° distance:

This is the method most people think of when wanting to convert sensitivity, and is the one people usually try do themselves with some paper measuring the distance and then turning 360° in game and matching sens so the distance is right. This website can do this for you much more accurately but there are some caveats. 

This method matches angles around you in 3D space. So for example every 360° swipe will be the same, and every 180° behind you onto a target will be the same. This is good for general spacial awareness if you know someone's behind you etc.. but it's good for not much else. Plus if you know someone's behind you the other methods as you will see will put you in the right ball park anyway (unless the FOV is very different) and then you can aim more accurately with those other methods as you will see.

This method will only really work if the FOV is exactly the same across the games (but every conversion method would give you the same value anyway) or you're into general spacial awareness,  I give that as a pro of the method but not the sole reason to use it.

Monitor distance:

This method matches your sensitivity perfectly for a specific point(s) on your monitor. You can imagine a ring around your crosshair where it matches but this isn't strictly true. Why is this better than 360 distance? Well when you aim at something, your mind doesn't calculate the angle between you and your target and then aim that much angle, instead we're more bound by how much distance there is on the screen between our crosshair and them. This means you may not be accurate turning around 180° but you'll be more accurate for the targets on your screen around where you've set your perfectly matched 'ring' up. This is good as you'll be better aiming at targets on your screen over different FOV's and also, due to using it matching distance on your monitor, we can use it to convert hipfire sensitivity to ADS sensitivity. Anyone who's tried to use 360 distance on a scope will see what I mean, and why 360° distance is bad for muscle memory aiming at targets near your crosshair.

What about the different percentages??

The percentage is the ratio of the distance from your crosshair to the point on your screen you want to match on and the edge of your monitor. In simpler terms, it's the point from the centre to the edge you want to match. 50% is in the middle of your crosshair and the edge of your monitor, 100% would be matching at the edge of the monitor and 0% would be matching on the crosshair.

This is shown best on the image below, taken from this video which is a very good watch if you want more understanding. 

image.thumb.png.6a2f4a5279b6d87bff6cbfb8f8914d57.png

What's the difference between vertical and horizontal monitor match??

The image above shows the horizontal monitor distance match, going from the centre to the left and right edges of the monitor. Vertical monitor distance match is as if you rotated the scale 90° and fit it on the monitor, so instead of going to the centre to left and right edges it went from the centre to the top and bottom of the monitor.

There's both options as the vertical match is aspect ratio independent (doesn't matter how wide your monitor is compared to how high it is) and therefore easier to talk about as if you have a 4:3 monitor and matched horizontally to the left/right edges of the monitor that would be 100% monitor match, but if you were to talk about the same distance (when converting) to someone with a 16:9 monitor it would be 75% horizontal monitor match. But if you were talking about 100% vertical monitor match it would be the same for both 4:3 and 16:9 monitors. So if you talk to someone about it on the forum you will need to say which you're using, and if horizontal you'll need to give the aspect ratio of your monitor.

Keep in mind there's nothing fundamentally different between them they will both give you the same values if you use the same converted mm% e.g.

100% vertical mm -> horizontal mm (16:9 monitor) 100%*(9/16) = 56.25% So 100% vertical monitor distance match will give you the same sensitivity values as 56.25% horizontal monitor distance match on a 16:9 monitor

30% horizontal mm -> vertical mm (4:3 monitor) 30%*(4/3) = 56.25% So 30% horizontal monitor distance match will give you the same sensitivity values as 40% vertical monitor distance match on a 4:3 monitor

What's the best percentage monitor distance match??

This has been of much debate on this site, and I guess will continue to be as people have different opinions and so I'll try give you it as unbiased as possible.

The best % to hold up mathematically is 0% and from experience myself and should probably be under it's own name you may hear it called zoom ratio but I'll keep it with this section for sake of simplicity. This is the best I've tried after I've gotten used to it. Every other % match is essentially just arbitrary change in sensitivity that may happen to be close to preference, and if you chose it it's down to personal preference, for example 100% 4:3 horizontal monitor distance match (75% 16:9 horizontal monitor distance match) is what CS:GO use for their scoped sensitivity conversions so if you've gotten used to this and you're some pro legendary AWPer, this might be the way to go for you when converting in other games.

One thing to bare in mind when using anything other than 0% everything around the crosshair not on your mm% is essentially not matching at all and you're mind is interpolating the sensitivity, so muscle memory will take longer to build but with 0% you're muscle memory is at the crosshair, so things like micro adjustments when making a big flick (which is what happens in every flick, you're not perfect), and controlling recoil back onto someones head is perfectly matched across all FOV's and this is the massive advantage of low % matches.

The video below will show you what I mean by only certain points match, and that everything other than those points is too fast or too slow as your mind has to guess:

The only real advantage of larger % matches is when making large flicks out of your view onto a specific point, and the speed feels 'right' but with 0% your flicks will feel slow at first but after a while they'll be really accurate no matter where they are on screen as it's just constant really quick micro adjustments.

Here's some examples showing a low mm % vs a high mm%.

You can see when aiming at the target with the high mm%, the accurate point is further away from the target, so the sensitivities in the middle will be made up by your mind as it has no reference to an accurate sensitivity you converted from.  Your mind would learn these made up sensitivities over time with the larger mm%, but in my mind I'd rather have muscle memory for everywhere on the screen through these small adjustments with a low mm %.

With a low mm% you can see here there's been 4 'micro adjustments' which can make it's way onto the target with multiples of your perfect accuracy. You can imagine this tending down to smaller and smaller intervals as you approach 0%

HighMM%Example

LowMM%Example

Spoiler

If you're interested, this picture isn't fully accurate due to how you move around in 3D space in game. If you aim anyway other than along the equator, your crosshair aims towards the poles, so you may think you've moving in a straight line, but it actually curves. You can see this by putting your crosshair close to the top of your view, then trying to move diagonally away from the pole. You'll see your crosshair curve to the top.

Also the repeater 'accurate' points wouldn't be evenly distributed as shown here, they'd get further apart as you get further from the centre of the screen as your view warps due to the 3D -> 2D gnomonic projection

But it's good enough for a simple explanation

Math for nerds:

Spoiler

mousedistance.thumb.png.7b86f2ad4c45560cc1d8ce1e69ff7ebc.png

View speed:

Viewspeed tries to unify the perceived camera speed across different FOVs while using a constant mouse motionSince the FOV determines how many degrees are squished onto your screen, higher FOVs naturally look faster as there is more information moving, and low FOVs naturally look slower, and Viewspeed attempts to equalise this. And it does 'feel' right when you use it. But feeling the same in this case doesn't translate to best aim or muscle memory building. It suffers from the same problems as high monitor distance match percentages, aiming close to your crosshair is too fast for varying FOV's

Because viewspeed uses a sine wave (continually varying), when you calculate sensitivities over different FOV ranges, you get a varying equivalent monitor distance match percentages across FOV's. It lies around 60-80% for 16:9 horizontal match.

It's useful If you want to keep the mouse input relatively the same when you change FOV on the fly. It scales based on the chord length. This is the method that you would want to use instead of Monitor Distance Match, if you wanted the 'window to the game world' to influence the sensitivity. Your mouse input will not scale proportionately with the zoom. Instead, you wouldn't scale it at all. The result will be completely wrong for Hipfire, but when comparing sensitivity relatively before and after a change in FOV, it becomes useful. Subconsciously, you would want to scale your mouse input according to the change in image, so you would probably scale your mouse input to some degree, how half-assed of an attempt at doing so, depends on the person. This makes Viewspeed feel too fast. Drimzi made a solution to this in another post, where you specify how much you need to scale your input by, proportionately with the change in image (zoom), or none at all (viewspeed). Which makes a kind of slider between viewspeed and 0% monitor distance match bare in mind this is completely arbitrary.

Maths behind viewspeed - vertical here

What's the difference between vertical and horizontal view speed??

In the same way vertical and horizontal monitor distance matching varies by the top/bottom edges of the monitor and left/right edges respectfully viewspeed does something similar too. @Drimziis the expert on this forum on this topic it seems, so I'll quote him:

  • Viewspeed - Vertical : An aperture (monitor) dependent conversion, scaling the sensitivity by the change in Vertical Chord Length.
  • Viewspeed - Horizontal: An aperture (monitor) dependent conversion, scaling the sensitivity by the change in Horizontal Arc Length, as well as the difference between Horizontal Arc and Chord Lengths.

The Viewspeed methods don't just change the measurement axis. They are both completely different methods. Viewspeed - Vertical should be using 1:1 measurements rather than Vertical. Horizontal is an older idea that was similar to Monitor Distance Match - Horizontal, but scaled by the difference in Horizontal Arc and Chord lengths.

tldr: So what's the best conversion?

0% monitor distance match (- vertical) unless you're really good and/or are more comfortable another method, even then it's worth trying 0% and seeing how it goes imo. This is the best method for building muscle memory fundamentally, but might not work well practically for really low sens players.

Also remember, don't copy other people's set up because they're good. Unless there's a good reason not to use what you're using for technical reasons, find what works for you. (I'm mainly talking about weird resolutions and stretching)

Other FAQ's

High DPI or Low DPI? (+ pixel skipping) :

This question get asks a lot and is unknowingly the wrong question to be asking. As explained in the key language section, DPI or as I will be changing to the right terminology here, CPI (counts per inch) is the number of counts registered and sent to your computer when you move your mouse 1 inch. Now a count is just telling your computer to move 'some' amount. and more counts coming in means just move that 'some' amount more. So changing DPI (CPI) will directly affect your sensitivity, but in neither a positive or negative manner. It will just make you move more lots of 'some' angle in game or more lots of 'some' distance on the desktop.

So the question should really be how do you decrease that 'some' distance/angle so that you can be more precise.

If you want to get a better understanding of this 'some' distance see this thread there's some nice gif's

Well for games that's by decreasing your sensitivity and then in turn increasing your DPI to keep the overall sensitivity (sometimes referred to as eDPI) the same. So if you half your sensitivity, you double your DPI. So yes, if you want more precision you should decrease your sensitivity and increase your DPI.

This video shows it very well, along with WPS skipping. Keep in mind he talks about pixel skipping, not angle skipping (which is what's happening)

Bare in mind:

  • This becomes solely placebo after a certain point
  • Increasing your DPI too much can have a negative affect on your accuracy as your mouse starts interpolating to make up counts
  • Some game's minimum sensitivity values mean that if you went too high with your DPI, you couldn't get the right sensitivity to match other games. This starts around 1600 DPI.
  • This will change your desktop sensitivity (read next Q for recommendation)

Windows pointer speed (WPS) 6/11 ? :

Windows pointer speed relates the that 'some' distance moved for each count mentioned in the prior question. The reason 6/11 is accepted as the right setting for gaming is that here the multiplier for that 'some' distance is 1, and 1 x anything is itself so this means the data coming from your mouse to motion in non-raw input games is as if windows wasn't messing with the data (even if it is still adding a slight delay/packet loss which is why raw input is the better option).

But 6/11 isn't the ONLY correct option as lots of places seem to state: here is the list of acceptable ones (this post has further correct options but they involve registry edits).

Control panel notch:

  • 6/11 --> 1x count multiplier
  • 4/11 --> 0.5x count multiplier
  • 3/11 --> 0.25x count multiplier
  • 2/11 --> (1/16)x count multiplier
  • 1/11 --> (1/32)x count multiplier

Why are these valid options? Well you can multiply all the multipliers by a integer to get back to 1x because they're all fractions in the form 1/n

What this means practically is that even with these options you'll never miss an equivalent spot where 6/11 would be correct, so no skipping.

This means if you use a higher DPI for games to be more precise (skip less angles) but it means your desktop sensitivity feels too high for you, you can chose one of these options to get it back to a desktop sensitivity you'd prefer.

Same desktop sensitivity too (adjustable DPI mouse) ? :

My recommendation here is for if you use 0% monitor distance match for everything, is to convert from your 'best aim' game to desktop as so (using windows desktop), then using this sensitivity to get sensitivities for all games. I'd also recommend using a lower WPS as talked about above if you use a low sensitivity as low DPI values can be output.  Why do this? Well it means that all your sensitivities in all games are the same, and if you wanted to increase your sensitivity in all games, all you'd have to do is increase your DPI, and all the overall sensitivities including desktop will increase perfectly without needing to calculate new sensitivities for each game.

Here's an example converting to windows to get the DPI, then back all your other games, keep in mind the right display scale from your windows monitor settings and WPS benefits from earlier:

Spoiler

towindows.thumb.PNG.7668d6d7a3181e207866c23626f88c89.PNG

windowstother.thumb.PNG.34b17689b53de60ab0352f77b59d54a1.PNG

keep in mind this only works if you use 0% monitor distance match for everything. If you want to use another method to convert to desktop DPI, you won't be able to convert back to the other games using desktop as the source, you'll need to use the game you converted from with the new DPI value and appropriate sensitivity. 0% will match the speed at the centre of the monitor which is perfect but as the cursor moves to the corners of the monitor it will feel slower as it's physically further away from you. You can reduce this feeling by moving your monitor back or in a perfect scenario have a curved monitor. As an aside this also applies to games, your sitting distance will less affect your perceived sensitivity the further away the monitor is, but there's more of that in the threads below along with the negatives, can't see small details.

You can convert to desktop using other methods like viewspeed, you just won't be able to convert from it to other games. 

Best cm/360°  ? :

There's no one value I can give you for this as at the end of the day it's down to personal preference, but I'll give you a few considerations for practicality. My assumptions here are based on a pretty average FOV for shooter games, around 103°.

First thing to consider is the size of your mouse pad:

  • My recommendation here is you can do at least 180° on your mouse pad and at most 360°. Why at least 180°, well if there's someone behind you and you start spinning and hit the end of your mouse pad before you can rotate enough to hit them you're pretty much dead if they're any good as you'll have to pick your mouse up move it back and swipe again, plus it gets pretty laborious if you have a large mouse mat. Why max 360°, well in most shooter games your main focus is aim, and if you can do more than a 360° on your mouse pad, you're giving up accuracy everywhere in your view for being able to rotate fully, then some more when you could've just moved that 'some more' distance in the first place. 

What kind of games you play:

  • Some games may require a really high sensitivity for fast moving tracking on a large object, tbh the only thing that comes to mind is Minecraft but I'm sure there's other games out there... A swipe greater than 360° may be favourable here but only if you play only these games or you have a different sensitivity for these games. If you use this in a FPP game, you're using at the detriment of accuracy unless you have a really large mouse pad.

Large mouse pad:

  • I've talked a lot about degrees turned on the mouse pad above, but for people with really large mouse pads they have the freedom to set the sensitivity however they want as following those guidelines may make the sensitivity too low for faster paced games or too low that if you convert with 0% it's hard to play with. The optimal range for this kind of thing seems to be about 30-40cm/360°

At the end of the day go with what you are comfortable with but they're just some hopefully useful guidelines.

This thread is useful and goes into some more discussion also about mouse speed

Thread references and useful topics:

Spoiler

Quoted threads:

 

Main discussions:

 

Polls and stuff:

 

Visual angle discussions and explanations:

 

Other Requests:

 

Random discussions and explanations:

 

Helpful forums + places:

 

 

Edited by Skidushe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Skidushe said:

Monitor match:

 

This method matches your sensitivity perfectly for a specific point(s) on your monitor. (It forms a ring around your crosshair of points where the sensitivity matches perfectly)

Just note that this isn't true. It will only match perfectly for the pure horizontal or vertical points. The reason is because the aim will curve with the pitch as soon as you deviate away from the equator. Any movement that isn't pure yaw/horizontal, is a change in pitch. Even pure yaw movement is circumstantial. As an extreme case, look straight up or down, your aim will be so curved you will be a spinning ballerina, yaw movement will not reach the point on the ring. Diagonal movement will not perfectly match a point on the ring either. The only movement that will reach a point on the ring would be vertical movement.

2D is flat, so the cursor always moves in a predictable way. 3D isn't, only pure vertical movement is always moving the shortest path and will match the point on the ring. Horizontal is circumstantial, requires a pretty neutral pitch. Diagonal will not match any point. This is a reason why I think monitor 'distance matching' isn't helpful in any meaningful way. The result is just an arbitrary change in sensitivity that may happen to be close to preference.

Edited by Drimzi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So let's say you have a game with a restricted fov, like idk Overwatch. And another game with unlimited or very high fov limit (like 100 degrees vertical) and you prefer having it very high in that game or games. How is having sensitivity massively different in both games by 0% monitor distance matching anything but detrimental? I'm having difficulty understanding this.

Like if my 360 in the 100 vert game (let's say BF4) was 35cm, it would be 79cm 360 in Overwatch. I'm really struggling to see how that makes any sense whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I talked about in the 360 section where I say it matches angles, so gives you a better sense of spacial awareness. 0% would give you much better aim at the crosshair, where you need it most often for micro adjustments etc... (which happens in flicks too) This makes it so you're muscle memory moves away from remembering arbitrary aim points with larger % matches and 360 to having good memory at the crosshair and what you have to remember, as the trade off is the general spacial awareness which comes much more easy than aiming precisely as there's much more margin for error.

If you want it the other way round too your situation is equivalent from a scoped sensitivity to a hipfire sensitivity in a way.

The other thing to point out is that while you can match sensitivity, sometimes it's not practical. If you were a low sens CSGO awper with something like 0.8 sens and 400 DPI, you could transfer this to a really fast paced game where there's lots of dramatic rotations, and you'd probably do well(ish). But it's often more practical in this case to have a higher sensitivity and that's a trade off you take on either game A or game B.

That's just my opinion anyway, I've never been in a situation as you've said. In my opinion it's like trying to compare scoped sensitivity to hipfire and that you'd be doing 180's in scoped, you just wouldn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone has any opinions on an example like @spyder256 's where they've found something that works for them, I could try put it in, I just don't have any experience with really high FOV and low sens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shoot I mean if I could increase the fov in Overwatch I would but.... yeah. 103 hdeg is pretty limited imo, not the worst but not good either. I don't get sick like some do at low fov but I like having more spacial awareness and such

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, spyder256 said:

So let's say you have a game with a restricted fov, like idk Overwatch. And another game with unlimited or very high fov limit (like 100 degrees vertical) and you prefer having it very high in that game or games. How is having sensitivity massively different in both games by 0% monitor distance matching anything but detrimental? I'm having difficulty understanding this.

Like if my 360 in the 100 vert game (let's say BF4) was 35cm, it would be 79cm 360 in Overwatch. I'm really struggling to see how that makes any sense whatsoever.

Ideally you would keep the distance to rotate a full revolution the same, but it's currently not practical. When you zoom in a game, the monitor doesn't move forward and back, all it does is reduce the angle of view. Since the monitor doesn't grow or shrink to change the angle of view, the game zooms. If the monitor did move forward and back, or if a change in FOV resulted in the monitor physically growing/shrinking, you could keep the 360° distance and it wouldn't feel too fast or too slow.

Since the monitor size is constant, changing the angle of view results in a change in zoom. It's the only way to do it. You can think of the monitor as a window to the game world. The size of the window is the aperture, the pixels is like a mesh screen-door. You don't base the sensitivity on any properties of the window itself, but you base the sensitivity on the change of the game world. When you change the FOV of a game, you change the zoom (focal length when you include physical measurements). Scaling the sensitivity by the tangent (0% monitor distance match) will scale the sensitivity by the change in zoom. Changing the physical size of the window (monitor size), you also scale the sensitivity as it is a change in focal length. Not directly using 0% monitor distance match, since that is only based on zoom, but by changing the physical sensitivity (mouse CPI) in addition to 0% monitor distance match.

The fault with 0% monitor distance match is when you change FOV on the fly, like when you aim down sights or use a scope. Your comparing a zoomed state to a non zoomed state, where the scale of everything is different. The sensitivity will feel different relative to each other, as you have to scale your mouse input proportionately with the change in scale. The sensitivity would only feel identical if you moved the character forward/back to counter the zoom, and compare with identical scale. As seen in this video. So 0% is the way to go if you want to convert Hipfire. You can also convert with 360° distance if that is a preference that you want to keep.

If you want to keep the mouse input relatively the same when you change FOV on the fly, that's where Viewspeed comes in handy. It scales based on the chord length. This is the method that you would want to use instead of Monitor Distance Match, if you wanted the 'window to the game world' to influence the sensitivity. Your mouse input will not scale proportionately with the zoom. Instead, you wouldn't scale it at all. The result will be completely wrong for Hipfire, but when comparing sensitivity relatively before and after a change in FOV, it becomes useful. Subconsciously, you would want to scale your mouse input according to the change in image, so you would probably scale your mouse input to some degree, how half-assed of an attempt at doing so, depends on the person. This makes Viewspeed feel too fast. I actually just made a solution to this in another post, where you specify how much you need to scale your input by, 0 proportionately with the change in image (zoom), or none at all (viewspeed).

 

1 hour ago, spyder256 said:

Shoot I mean if I could increase the fov in Overwatch I would but.... yeah. 103 hdeg is pretty limited imo, not the worst but not good either. I don't get sick like some do at low fov but I like having more spacial awareness and such

You can't increase the FOV, but you can change the zoom. Just reduce the resolution, with black bars, to change the aperture (the physical size of the window to the game world). Scale the sensitivity by the change in aperture size. You can make it the same as a higher FOV game, but the extra FOV is just blackness instead. With this method, you can make every game have an identical focal length, despite having different angle of view. This is the only way to keep 360° distance identical in every game, using different FOV, and have it feel the exact same.

Edited by Drimzi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I could start using a more reasonable fov for most games. Like 74 vertical, which is apparently about what cs:go uses, and I know that's the limit in Planetside 2.

Initial impressions converting that to Overwatch, actually doesn't feel too horrible and slow. So maybe I'll try this for a bit.

Though for some games the really high fov's are really nice, oh well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Skidushe said:

Let me start by saying, I don't know it all but I know enough to give people who start a good idea of where to go. If you want something added to this main post, you can add a comment and I'll consider adding it. It doesn't just need to be about these methods, anything of value to general people in one place is the idea.

We definitely need a proper forum post where we can refer new people to, maybe with videos explaining each concept. So much clutter in the forums and confused members. And being accurate with your explanations is extremely draining. When you just want to help people but it's hard to put mathematical concepts into simple terms that the average player can understand. So much jargon: "monitor matching", "viewspeed", "visual angle", "zoom ratio", "chord ratio", "geodesic", "gnomonic/rectilinear projection", "3D projection onto a 2D image", etc... most people won't understand what any of these mean. Yet you need to bring them up to explain the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, spyder256 said:

I guess I could start using a more reasonable fov for most games. Like 74 vertical, which is apparently about what cs:go uses, and I know that's the limit in Planetside 2.

Initial impressions converting that to Overwatch, actually doesn't feel too horrible and slow. So maybe I'll try this for a bit.

Though for some games the really high fov's are really nice, oh well.

 

So did you try converting the high FOV -> overwatch with 0% ? Just wondering what your thoughts were on that kind of conversion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, potato psoas said:

We definitely need a proper forum post where we can refer new people to, maybe with videos explaining each concept. So much clutter in the forums and confused members. And being accurate with your explanations is extremely draining. When you just want to help people but it's hard to put mathematical concepts into simple terms that the average player can understand. So much jargon: "monitor matching", "viewspeed", "visual angle", "zoom ratio", "chord ratio", "geodesic", "gnomonic/rectilinear projection", "3D projection onto a 2D image", etc... most people won't understand what any of these mean. Yet you need to bring them up to explain the situation.

I'm going to add a kind of key words section. My aim is to make it non technical in explanations, but have it there if people want it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Drimzi said:

Just note that this isn't true. It will only match perfectly for the pure horizontal or vertical points. The reason is because the aim will curve with the pitch as soon as you deviate away from the equator. Any movement that isn't pure yaw/horizontal, is a change in pitch. Even pure yaw movement is circumstantial. As an extreme case, look straight up or down, your aim will be so curved you will be a spinning ballerina, yaw movement will not reach the point on the ring. Diagonal movement will not perfectly match a point on the ring either. The only movement that will reach a point on the ring would be vertical movement.

2D is flat, so the cursor always moves in a predictable way. 3D isn't, only pure vertical movement is always moving the shortest path and will match the point on the ring. Horizontal is circumstantial, requires a pretty neutral pitch. Diagonal will not match any point. This is a reason why I think monitor 'distance matching' isn't helpful in any meaningful way. The result is just an arbitrary change in sensitivity that may happen to be close to preference.

Does the 'ring' approximate a circle when your crosshair is on the equator, just for the sake of explaination?

Edited by Skidushe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Skidushe said:

So did you try converting the high FOV -> overwatch with 0% ? Just wondering what your thoughts were on that kind of conversion

Yes that's what I meant. It's not quite as jarring converting from 74 vert.

mouse sens.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if it helps but I made a list of all the forum posts where we discussed everything (or at least all the ones I've posted in):

(main discussions)

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/5-how-sensitivity-works/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/3280-perceived-sensitivity/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/720-viewspeed-v2/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/693-best-usa-coefficient-for-battlefield-1/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/632-is-there-a-best-fov-for-matching-via-viewspeed-from-2d/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/582-need-slightly-more-clarification-on-monitor-distance-matching/

 

(polls and stuff)

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/4710-whats-your-preferred-conversion-method/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/3264-need-some-feedback-from-you-guys/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/3507-which-percentage-monitor-distance-matching-do-you-use-for-sync-your-sensitivity-between-fovs169/

 

(requests to add visual angle to the calculator and explanations why/discussions about it)

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/4534-can-we-incorporate-monitor-size-into-conversion-calculations/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/3232-feature-request/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/682-pixel-density-and-sensitivity/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/4631-same-game-monitor-size-change-different-aim-can-you-help/

 

(other requests)

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/4313-a-better-way-to-calculate-sens-between-games-and-zoom-levels/

 

(random discussions with explanations)

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/3496-ow-fornite/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/4486-why-0-match-is-best-for-tracking-and-100-match-best-for-flick/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/4656-viewspeed-v1-vs-viewspeed-v2-vs-monitor-distance-0-5625/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/4524-completely-confused/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/3520-360°cm-method-still-has-its-use/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/4684-360-vs-viewspeed-guidance/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/4635-csgobattlefield/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/4709-converting-hipfire-between-different-similar-fovs/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/4528-csgo-sens-to-fortnite/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/4687-picking-an-ads-sens/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/4648-same-cm360-every-game-is-good/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/4639-r6-to-aimhero-360-distancemonitor-distanceviewspeed-v1-or-v2/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/4622-is-there-any-benefit-to-match-desktop-into-games/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/4621-battlefield-usa-coefficient/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/3459-should-i-use-viewspeed-or-monitor-distance-for-muscle-memory/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/3497-sen-or-distance-which-is-best/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/3271-viewspeed-v1-vs-v2/

 

(helpful forums)

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/753-program-used-to-move-mouse-a-set-distance/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/747-formulas-for-converting-from-different-fov-types/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/709-what-is-the-logic-behind-viewspeed/

Edited by potato psoas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, potato psoas said:

I don't know if it helps but I made a list of all the forum posts where we discussed everything (or at least all the ones I've posted in):

(main discussions)

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/5-how-sensitivity-works/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/3280-perceived-sensitivity/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/720-viewspeed-v2/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/693-best-usa-coefficient-for-battlefield-1/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/632-is-there-a-best-fov-for-matching-via-viewspeed-from-2d/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/582-need-slightly-more-clarification-on-monitor-distance-matching/

 

(polls and stuff)

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/4710-whats-your-preferred-conversion-method/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/3264-need-some-feedback-from-you-guys/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/3507-which-percentage-monitor-distance-matching-do-you-use-for-sync-your-sensitivity-between-fovs169/

 

(requests to add visual angle to the calculator and explanations why/discussions about it)

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/4534-can-we-incorporate-monitor-size-into-conversion-calculations/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/3232-feature-request/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/682-pixel-density-and-sensitivity/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/4631-same-game-monitor-size-change-different-aim-can-you-help/

 

(other requests)

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/4313-a-better-way-to-calculate-sens-between-games-and-zoom-levels/

 

(random discussions with explanations)

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/3496-ow-fornite/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/4486-why-0-match-is-best-for-tracking-and-100-match-best-for-flick/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/4656-viewspeed-v1-vs-viewspeed-v2-vs-monitor-distance-0-5625/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/4524-completely-confused/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/3520-360°cm-method-still-has-its-use/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/4684-360-vs-viewspeed-guidance/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/4635-csgobattlefield/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/4709-converting-hipfire-between-different-similar-fovs/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/4528-csgo-sens-to-fortnite/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/4687-picking-an-ads-sens/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/4648-same-cm360-every-game-is-good/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/4639-r6-to-aimhero-360-distancemonitor-distanceviewspeed-v1-or-v2/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/4622-is-there-any-benefit-to-match-desktop-into-games/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/4621-battlefield-usa-coefficient/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/3459-should-i-use-viewspeed-or-monitor-distance-for-muscle-memory/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/3497-sen-or-distance-which-is-best/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/3271-viewspeed-v1-vs-v2/

 

(helpful forums)

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/753-program-used-to-move-mouse-a-set-distance/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/747-formulas-for-converting-from-different-fov-types/

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/709-what-is-the-logic-behind-viewspeed/

I'll go through and add what I can in, and put the rest at the bottom sorted out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2018 at 11:03 PM, Skidushe said:

Does the 'ring' approximate a circle when your crosshair is on the equator, just for the sake of explaination?

The issue is thinking of it in terms of 2D, or basically the whole idea of matching to pixels. It's only going to work in pure horizontal or vertical movement because 3D !== 2D. Monitor Distance Match works by matching distance to degrees, not pixels. So if you did a conversion, and have 90 degrees angle of view, horizontally, in one case, and 60 degrees in another, the distance to rotate 45 degrees (90/2) will be the same distance to rotate 30 degrees (60/2). This is reasonable. Now when you try and put this into a 2D perspective, like saying it is matching to a ring of pixels an equal distance away from the crosshair, it falls apart.

 

What's actually happening in each method:

  • Viewspeed - Vertical : An aperture dependent conversion, scaling the sensitivity by the change in Vertical Chord Length.
  • Viewspeed - Horizontal: An aperture dependent conversion, scaling the sensitivity by the change in Horizontal Arc Length, as well as the difference between Horizontal Arc and Chord Lengths.
  • Monitor Distance Match - Vertical : An aperture dependent conversion, scaling the sensitivity by the change in Vertical Arc Length, using a user defined aperture size.
  • Monitor Distance Match - Horizontal: An aperture dependent conversion, scaling the sensitivity by the change in Horizontal Arc Length, using a user defined aperture size.
  • Monitor Distance Match - 0%: An aperture independent conversion, scaling the sensitivity by the change in Throw Length (zoom).

 

The Viewspeed methods don't just change the measurement axis. They are both completely different methods. Viewspeed - Vertical should be using 1:1 measurements rather than Vertical. Horizontal is an older idea that was similar to Monitor Distance Match - Horizontal, but scaled by the difference in Horizontal Arc and Chord lengths.

 

All methods except for 0% depend on the aperture, which is the hole you are viewing the game world through. The hole being your monitor. Since you get different results for using different measurements, you end up with so many different methods. The only consistent method is the one that ignores the aperture, which is 0%. You can use vertical, horizontal, diagonal measurements, it doesn't matter, the result is the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've added a section with a diagram on how to use the calculator, and some notes about it. Hopefully this will help people and get even more confused what's happening with the simple mode

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Skidushe said:

I've added a section with a diagram on how to use the calculator, and some notes about it. Hopefully this will help people and get even more confused what's happening with the simple mode

DPIWizard also made a video of how to use the calculator, though it will need updating for the new version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info, it's a topic I've been following with great interest lately. I've recently jumped from Viewspeed to Monitor Match 0% and haven't looked back.

However, I had a quick round of Quake Champions with a buddy earlier and used 360 to convert my Hipfire. In Quake Live I use 103 FOV which = 118.36 HFOV and 86.63 VHOV. 118 FOV in QC produces very similar numbers (118 and 86.22 respectively) If I understand correctly, this would be a case where 360 conversion would result in an accurate feeling for in game and physical mouse movement? Provided HFOV and VFOV are relatively close, does 360 produce the "closest" feel? Are there cases where HFOV is close but VFOV is way off?

Thanks again and keep up the great work guys!

Edited by Audile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Audile said:

Thanks for the info, it's a topic I've been following with great interest lately. I've recently jumped from Viewspeed to Monitor Match 0% and haven't looked back.

However, I had a quick round of Quake Champions with a buddy earlier and used 360 to convert my Hipfire. In Quake Live I use 103 FOV which = 118.36 HFOV and 86.63 VHOV. 118 FOV in QC produces very similar numbers (118 and 86.22 respectively) If I understand correctly, this would be a case where 360 conversion would result in an accurate feeling for in game and physical mouse movement? Provided HFOV and VFOV are relatively close, does 360 produce the "closest" feel? Are there cases where HFOV is close but VFOV is way off?

Thanks again and keep up the great work guys!

Because the FOV's are close together you can use any conversion method with nearly any parameters and it will produce the same sensitivity values. Especially in your case when they're ± less than a degree. 360 will give you the right numbers, and the difference will be imperceivable from other methods, that said it's still good to be consistant with your conversion method.

There could be cases where HFOV is close and VFOV is off, but this is when you'd have a vertical monitor setup and the games were set to change the vertical FOV, but this never happens because no-one does this so no-one codes it. So basically no 😛

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Skidushe said:

Because the FOV's are close together you can use any conversion method with nearly any parameters and it will produce the same sensitivity values. Especially in your case when they're ± less than a degree. 360 will give you the right numbers, and the difference will be imperceivable from other methods, that said it's still good to be consistant with your conversion method.

There could be cases where HFOV is close and VFOV is off, but this is when you'd have a vertical monitor setup and the games were set to change the vertical FOV, but this never happens because no-one does this so no-one codes it. So basically no 😛

Of course. Sorry, I should've realised. I'll continue to match HFOV as closely as possible and stick to MM0%, then.

Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2018 at 11:56 PM, Skidushe said:

Here's some examples showing a low mm % vs a high mm%.

You can see when aiming at the target with the high mm%, the accurate point is further away from the target, so the sensitivities in the middle will be made up by your mind as it has no reference to an accurate sensitivity you converted from.  Your mind would learn these made up sensitivities over time with the larger mm%, but in my mind I'd rather have muscle memory for everywhere on the screen through these small adjustments with a low mm %.

With a low mm% you can see here there's been 4 'micro adjustments' which can make it's way onto the target with multiples of your perfect accuracy. You can imagine this tending down to smaller and smaller intervals as you approach 0%

LowMMExample.thumb.png.f276880776db3f259b24e2e5c886b789.png

HighMMExample.thumb.png.6a98f09f0fc9fe9adc5759451f3f64b1.png

I've added in a section with some lovely pictures that hopefully convey the fact that your mind is interpolating the points around your mm% and why low mm% is better for control at the crosshair under the 'best mm%' section

Edited by Skidushe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×