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...
espe89

Question about the 0% monitor match.

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone,

Yesterday I was doing some test with 0% MM and 100%MM. (converting windows to csgo)

I finally choose to stay with 0% MM. I was wondering how wide the the circle of matching points is big.

 

I mean, with 0% MM, the cursor is matching with points inside the circle and start to deviate outside of the circle, but how big is the circle ?

 

image.png.1426d057cec9fdb2be7e0cd04eb0cbda.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Match distance isn't "accurate within a circle." Any match distance will only be perfectly matched at that specific distance and just get more and more off the further you are from it, whether it's more inside or outside. However distance match only works when you're starting at 0° horizontal. I.e. if you're aiming up or down at all, even a little bit, then the concept of a distance being matched stops working entirely.

The big reason to use "0% distance" is that it's actually scaling by zoom ratio aka focal length. This is desirable most obviously because you're, well... scaling by the zoom. 2x zoom means 1/2 sensitivity. A secondary reason this is desirable is that this mimics how your brain automatically scales aiming based on distance from target. E.g. if a target moves from 100 meters to 50 meters then you have to move your mouse 2x the distance to stay on target. The target will also appear 2x as large since it's half the distance away (kind of like 2x zoom).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this may be born out of a comment I made in my guide. The 'ring' isn't strictly true, and I do mention this in a spoiler but it's a good analogy for what it's doing if you ignore some weird affect of moving around a 3d sphere with a 2d mouse pad which sounds stupid but works for lower FOVs as way of thinking about it.

You can see this, go into a game, look up to the top, then look down a bit. Move your mouse as perfect a diagonal you can on the pad and you'll see your crosshair curl up to the pole of the 'ball' which is your view.

The ring you've drawn if you take my representation (which is still strictly wrong yes) is about 25% monitor distance matching, if you were to aim to a point on that 'ring' on your screen in one movement, it would be the same movement across all FOV's on your monitor  *When you aim vertically or horizontally from the equator of the ball

0% takes the focal length scaling as Skwuruhl said, but I think though they do the same thing it's easier to take the calculus approach, smaller and smaller rings, to see what it gives you.

Imagine a ring smaller than what you've drawn, then smaller again, then again and you'll end up with a ring underneath your crosshair, taking the analogy your 'one movement' to get onto the ring is now infinitely small, and you're always on the ring, so however you aim, you're always aiming with perfect muscle memory at the crosshair in small motions. It changes from the matching flicks mentality (match distance) to matching moving around on your screen.

Imagine painting on a piece of paper from far away, then you move your head towards your brush so you can get some fine detail in. To your eyes you need to scale your input to make it so your movements match the original movements physically, so say you zoom in 2x, to do some fine work, you now half your movements to your eyes to keep everything the same on the paper but you can now see much better and be more precise at 'moving'. Note not jumping around the page as is analogous to distance matching, but moving the brush. Hopefully you can see how this is analogous to a sniper scope

Edited by Skidushe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

0% isnt a distance, so it wont 'distance match' to some point on the screen. The matching points won't be a ring either, but a single point at each pole.

0% scales the sensitivity by the things that actually change, such as zoom and curvature, so it preserves your sensitivity and it's just the curvature of the image that makes it behave differently.

Pretend you are at the center of a sphere. You can think of 2D as 0 fov, an infinitely zoomed in, infinitely flat portion of a sphere is on your screen. As you raise the fov, you zoom out, revealing more of the sphere. The physical size of the sphere reduces as you zoom out, and the curvature within the physical space that is your monitor increases. This change in zoom and curvature is what 0% is scaling the sensitivity by.

You traverse a pretty flat image at low fovs, and a highly curved image at high fovs. Then you also have the size of the sphere changing, so low fovs require long distances and high fov require short distances to rotate 360 degrees. No matter what, it will always be a different experience at different fovs. 0% will properly scale the sensitivity itself, but you still have these factors changing the experience. This is where you try other match % to try and make it feel more comfortable, but I wouldn't decide what % to use based on some distance rule as the distance thing has pretty much no benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, espe89 said:

I finally choose to stay with 0% MM. I was wondering how wide the the circle of matching points is big.

As said earlier a circle is not technically correct, but the distance between the points are infinitesimal.

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.

×