Jump to content

Atlas

Added!
Read more...

Just Cause 4

Just added!
Read more...

Supraland

Acceleration is fixed and sensitivity numbers are added, so this game is in!
Read more...

Hitman 2

Pretty much the same as the previous Hitman, but here it is!
Read more...

Spellbreak

In-game and config file sensitivity added!
Read more...
randomguy7

A Guide to Moving Exactly 1 Pixel for Every Mouse Count

Recommended Posts

I did a video about a reddit post from here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/GlobalOffensive/comments/5wn3dg/elige_explains_pixel_skipping_and_turns_out_its/debe51b

 

Here's the video. I'd love it for this site to add this feature!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7EICVElyEs&feature=youtu.be

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 count is 1 pixel is dependent on the location on the screen. For the center of the screen it's unsurprisingly match distance for 1/960th of the screen (for a 1080p monitor). However for the edge of the screen it's a bit more complicated.

The equation I'm using is

(arctan(1/960*4/3*tan(90*pi/360))*180/pi-arctan(0/960*4/3*tan(90*pi/360))*180/pi)/.022

Which is basically

(1st pixel's degrees away from 0th pixel)/m_yaw    (counting pixels from the center of the screen)

To get the multiplier m_yaw needs so that 1 count is equal to that number of degrees.

So CS:GO http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(arctan(1%2F960*4%2F3*tan(90*pi%2F360))*180%2Fpi-arctan(0%2F960*4%2F3*tan(90*pi%2F360))*180%2Fpi)%2F.022

3.61716 sensitivity

But for pixels at the far right of the screen

(960th pixel's degrees away from 959th pixel)/m_yaw    (counting pixels from the center of the screen)

which is

(arctan(960/960*4/3*tan(90*pi/360))*180/pi-arctan(959/960*4/3*tan(90*pi/360))*180/pi)/.022

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(arctan(960%2F960*4%2F3*tan(90*pi%2F360))*180%2Fpi-arctan(959%2F960*4%2F3*tan(90*pi%2F360))*180%2Fpi)%2F.022

1.30305 sensitivity

If you apply this to AWP Zoom 1 the sensitivity multiplier would be 0.817919 (when the default is 0.444444) for a horizontal match distance of ~621%.

 

Unless I made a mistake in my equation, you probably shouldn't set your sensitivity based on 1 pixel per 1 degree at the edge of the screen or really any part at all. (worth nothing that a pixel is a completely arbitrary unit of measurement and has no direct link to perceivable skipping).

Edited by Skwuruhl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only use center, and i am very sensitive to direct pixel by pixel movements because muh autisms. But thanks- its a "middleman calculation" for sure. I made that phrase up, but it fits well. It isnt stupid if it works.

Edited by randomguy7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, randomguy7 said:

I only use degrees to measure how much i would need to move a single pixel in one  count, and how many inches a full 360 would be at a count per inch.

What use does this have to you if not an upper bound on sensitivity since it's dependent on resolution? And why do you choose to call it a 'middleman calculation' ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You gotta calculate the degrees you turn with one pixel for say 120 fov, then divide that by 360 and invert to find the number of counts you would need for that, and divide the total counts needed your dpi to find your inches per 360.

 

Its just easier for me to aim, one pixel at a time

Edited by randomguy7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, randomguy7 said:

You gotta calculate the degrees you turn with one pixel for say 120 fov, then divide that by 360 and invert to find the number of counts you would need for that, and divide the total counts needed your dpi to find your inches per 360.

 

Its just easier for me to aim, one pixel at a time

What DPI do you play at?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, randomguy7 said:

I only use center, and i am very sensitive to direct pixel by pixel movements because muh autisms. But thanks- its a "middleman calculation" for sure. I made that phrase up, but it fits well. It isnt stupid if it works.

Center pixel is just 0% monitor distance match, which is already in the calculator.

 

1 hour ago, Arramis said:

This is cool stuff. However is there any actual reason beside preference, that this is better than having more than 1 count per pixel?

1 count per pixel is just an arbitrary constraint. There is nothing special about this. Less rotation per count will always look smoother, and more counts will always be more responsive. If you went from a 720p monitor to an 8k monitor, you wouldn't have to suddenly change sensitivity to prevent skippy aim, as the angular rotation will be the exact same.

The benefit here, at least when it comes to matching the center pixel, is that the sensitivity will scale proportionately with the fov and the mouse sensitivity will feel most similar to the pointer speed. You don't have to use 1 count per pixel though, the Windows sensitivity is there for a reason. While maintaining the distance for a pixel, you can go as far as 32 counts with the lowest Windows sensitivity.

Edited by Drimzi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pixels is relative to the screen. The head could be 32 pixels on yours, or 320 pixels on mine. You can think of the monitor as a window to the game, and the pixels as a wire-screen panel bolted to the window. The room is rotating. How you perceive the movement is dependent entirely on the rotation. The wire-screen panel is irrelevant. When it comes to 'skipping', it's not about the pixels, it's about the degrees turned per count.

The main benefit in this is to 'match' the sensitivity of the desktop, not to try prevent 'pixel skipping'. When matching the desktop sensitivity, you are constrained to matching the distance for the center pixel. For now, with our low resolutions, a pixel is representing a large area of the world, so a low windows sensitivity is highly recommended when matching the desktop sensitivity in order to make the angle increment small enough. But in many years time, that requirement will go away as pixels get smaller and smaller. Matching a pixel only matters if your matching desktop sensitivity, as the cursor increments in pixels. But for everyone else who is just worried about skippy aim, then it has nothing to do with pixels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And even then, it doesnt matter what makes it skippy. Only that it FEELS skippy. I tried increasing my dpi to tye same in/360. It felt worse, i aimed better when I tracked pixels. Degrees are invisible! You SEE pixels. You should therefore aim pixels.

If i asked which part of the screen the degree you wouldn't be able to do it. Degrees are inferred and measured, but pixels are seen. You'd describe the mesh wire by how many holes it moves and by how smoothly it does so. You would know its not moving holes- but you SEE the holes. By counting pixels move you are skipping steps visually (or conceptually). Degrees can be whatever, they are meaningless, of an abstract conceptual value.

 

Edited by randomguy7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, randomguy7 said:

You SEE pixels.

Only if you sit real close to your monitor.

You should trust us, 0% monitor match does pretty much what you're asking to do. It maintains muscle memory at the crosshair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, randomguy7 said:

I'm using that, for monitor distance vertical, for windows sensitivity. it's in the video!

The argument they're making is that 1. you're effectively using 0% monitor match, by matching at the pixel next to your crosshair, you're having a monitor distance match percentage of

1/n - 1/2n = 1/2n

Where n is the number of pixels from the centre to the edge. This leads to 1/(no. of pixels along edge)

for vertical on a 1920x1080 monitor that's 1/1080 = 0.0925...% monitor distance match

and for horizontal or a 1920x1080 monitor that's 1/1920 = 0.0521...% monitor distance match

In terms of the calculator, these both effectively = 0% in fact I wouldn't be surprised at this level if it even rounded them to 0%

Any why have this variation in mm% across different resolutions when you could just use a set monitor distance match?

The argument they're making about why they think this is pointless is because everything in the game works on the angle of you have in the game world, not what you see on screen. So theoretically you could move your mouse such that the screen doesn't change, but you've moved in the world just not enough to register it on your screen, and this theoretically could be the difference between hitting a head shot and not. Imagine you have a player so far away his head is aliased out of existence, most people won't hit this shot anyway, but if we think theoretically, it would be impossible for you to hit the shot and someone with a lower sensitivity who skips less angles could as they could in effect aim between the pixels. This makes the overall experience feel smoother too. Plus, with a higher DPI and lower sensitivity, the exact same thing will happen, after n counts, our screen will move one pixel just as yours does in one count. 

But if it's what you're comfortable with and you're not going to give up then stick with it

Edited by Skidushe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, randomguy7 said:

I have watched my ktd, and I play better with this method. I like making my screen match the degrees in the game.

Placebo. That's what I thought and said when I played with 100% mm.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×