Jump to content

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...

Mist Survival

Survival game added!
Read more...

Creative Destruction

Added with support for all scopes. Note that this game has some issues with smoothing/acceleration.
Read more...

The Long Dark

Use the Mouse Mod linked in the notes to disable acceleration and smoothing.
Read more...
Kilroy

Need slightly more clarification on monitor distance matching

Recommended Posts

Base FOV i think they match at 0%... Change your FOV and it drifts out, not 100%. Someone can clarify i'm sure. (EDIT: DRIMZI already did :D)

 

As for viewspeed and what games to match. I figure that speed is ALWAYS going to be your hipfire, so if some games you match ADS to viewspeed then your still just training your hipfire (not a bad thing).

 

The problem is not many gamers even know about FOV and mouse sensititivy changes, they just adapt when a new game comes out. It's really only the minority that take the time to look in to potential correlations. This reason alone is why newer titles are often providing less and less adaptability for sensitivity values (look at Infinite Warfare).

 

They don't waste time polishing parts of the game that 90% of users would never appreciate. Thank consoles for this degeneration.

Edited by DNAMTE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, after testing out the new "Viewspeed" option it has very similar results to matching monitor distance at 75%. In fact, it's often within a cm for a 360 calculation for it. Viewspeed calculation would not be much of a difference compared to monitor distance matched at 75% which is what both CSGO and BF1 USA use. All in all, if you were using 75% before or you were using USA in BF1, viewspeed should feel almost exactly the same.

 

Edit: I should say it's the same as CSGO Zoom Sensitivity 1, which is the default in the game. It actually corresponds to .978something for zoom sens on CSGO, basically extremely hard to tell the difference between 1 zoom sens and .978, I would argue that if you think you can it's probably in your mind more than anything else.

Edited by Bryan Redding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, after testing out the new "Viewspeed" option it has very similar results to matching monitor distance at 75%. In fact, it's often within a cm for a 360 calculation for it. Viewspeed calculation would not be much of a difference compared to monitor distance matched at 75% which is what both CSGO and BF1 USA use. All in all, if you were using 75% before or you were using USA in BF1, viewspeed should feel almost exactly the same.

 

Edit: I should say it's the same as CSGO Zoom Sensitivity 1, which is the default in the game. It actually corresponds to .978something for zoom sens on CSGO, basically extremely hard to tell the difference between 1 zoom sens and .978, I would argue that if you think you can it's probably in your mind more than anything else.

 

 

As previously posted by others in this thread, it comes out around ~70% - avg, pretty close in most comparisons, not all, But then the debate of which '%' for monitor matching has never been agreed upon. Now it's clear who was on the right path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know what CSGO uses underneath to calculate it's scope speeds?

IE monitor match %?

If i do 

1.15 Sense, Zoom Sense 1,

Awp single click scope is around 1.17 hipfire equivalent and awp 2 scope is like 1.18 with a viewspeed comparison. None of the methods seem to lineup for CS scopes.

Ie it would be great to convert csgo to pubg, then get the sensitivities on the scopes to scale identically to csgo. Currently can't do that.

Edited by Snook_

Share this post


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

Does anyone know what CSGO uses underneath to calculate it's scope speeds?

IE monitor match %?

75% at 16:9, 100% at 4:3 aspect ratio. You can see it by doing this conversion, when equals zoom ratio 1:

image.png

Share this post


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

75% at 16:9, 100% at 4:3 aspect ratio. You can see it by doing this conversion, when equals zoom ratio 1:

image.png

Thanks i'll try this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DNAMTE method is actually insane.
Possible the best thing I have seen in years.
Flicking in any game, from Widowmaker in Overwatch to Hand Cannons In Destiny 2 I have like 95% muscle memory.

I at the very least run 700 DPI on my Desktop (6.9669cm 2d distance) and just 360 Distance match it across games.
it varies per game what my cm/360 is but it's near perfect and identical.
I try to do the same with ADS, like Widowmaker, Ana or Hand Cannons in Destiny 2.
I'm still going to try this out in other games, but so far it feels flawless.

edit; or maybe somehow I read it wrong, but I'm pretty sure this method is really, really good.

Edited by NoMaD.oW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2017 at 2:06 AM, NoMaD.oW said:

DNAMTE method is actually insane.
Possible the best thing I have seen in years.
Flicking in any game, from Widowmaker in Overwatch to Hand Cannons In Destiny 2 I have like 95% muscle memory.

I at the very least run 700 DPI on my Desktop (6.9669cm 2d distance) and just 360 Distance match it across games.
it varies per game what my cm/360 is but it's near perfect and identical.
I try to do the same with ADS, like Widowmaker, Ana or Hand Cannons in Destiny 2.
I'm still going to try this out in other games, but so far it feels flawless.

edit; or maybe somehow I read it wrong, but I'm pretty sure this method is really, really good.

It is indeed perfect. The only limitation is some games don't have a good ratio matching system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2017 at 7:09 AM, Bryjoe said:

It is indeed perfect. The only limitation is some games don't have a good ratio matching system.

What do you mean by ratio matching system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, potato psoas said:

What do you mean by ratio matching system?

Some games don't have a way to adjust the zoom based on a ratio. This means that different scopes won't scale properly or that it is hard locked to some value they have set internally. A lot of times you can have one scope that scales properly according to the calculator, but the other scopes don't work.

This really isn't as big of a problem as it seems as even games with a lower or higher monitor distance match, you can adapt quickly. The idea is that you NEED some form of scaling for the change of FOV as you're are zooming, it must be slower or it doesn't feel right, and it must be based off your hipfire. 

Edited by Bryjoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bryjoe said:

Some games don't have a way to adjust the zoom based on a ratio. This means that different scopes won't scale properly or that it is hard locked to some value they have set internally. A lot of times you can have one scope that scales properly according to the calculator, but the other scopes don't work.

This really isn't as big of a problem as it seems as even games with a lower or higher monitor distance match, you can adapt quickly. The idea is that you NEED some form of scaling for the change of FOV as you're are zooming, it must be slower or it doesn't feel right, and it must be based off your hipfire. 

Oh ok I know what you mean now. Usually when that happens I just have same profiles on my mouse which increase my DPI when I ADS. And then I have some buttons which cycle through different profiles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2017 at 11:15 AM, potato psoas said:

 

Hey, here's a picture that might explain the maths behind what I'm talking about:

http://i.imgur.com/LiDfxls.png

 

LiDfxls.png

 

Basically, the equation of a circle is (x-h)^2 + (y-k)^2 = r^2, so if we simplify the equation in terms of y we can integrate it and find the average value of the equation. But since this is only for a single FOV, we need to create a list of average values for a given range of FOVs and then find the average of all those averages and that will give us the Monitor distance we are looking for. I know this is messy and I should use a triple integral, but I don't know how to do them (can't be bothered to learn how... but creating a list of single integrals and then finding the average of them is precise enough). The given FOV range is something you would be able to change to your liking. Just check this spreadsheet out and you'll find that you can have a FOV range of 172, 150, 126 or 96 (I didn't include anything lower than 96 as most games have at least 90 FOV): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1INqG-_fvx2BrsknyrPuPiNkx5UBoMGi3ULs_oCQcaBs/pubhtml

 

As you can see, the calculated monitor distances you can choose from are 30%, 25%, 20% or 15%. Since the mouse sensitivity calculator only goes up in increments of 5 and doesn't have decimals, you can only pick one of these 4 monitor distances. I personally chose 25%. I don't really intend to use anything higher than Quake Live's FOV of 130 so 150 FOV is more than enough for me. If I was using a 21:9 monitor and I wanted to go higher than I might consider using 30%. So depending on your circumstances, choose either 25% or 30%.

@potato psoas Just re read through this forum and stumbled across this excellent post. Could you explain how you use the table of values to obtain the monitor match for selected FOV's since the calculator now lets you match at any value.

Share this post


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

@potato psoas Just re read through this forum and stumbled across this excellent post. Could you explain how you use the table of values to obtain the monitor match for selected FOV's since the calculator now lets you match at any value.

Eh I wouldn't bother with this method or the scaled monitor match because they don't take into account the distortion of the eyes.

Share this post


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

Eh I wouldn't bother with this method or the scaled monitor match because they don't take into account the distortion of the eyes.

Yeh saw all the stuff on viewspeed and got the message! Thanks anyways for the replies. A bit slow on this ;_;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2017 at 7:36 AM, Drimzi said:

Putting DNAMTE's ideas into math.


360/hfov * desktop distance * chord /arc = 360° distance

We are playing CS:GO which has 106.26 horizontal FOV, on a 2560x1440 monitor, with a 400 DPI mouse. We can find our horizontal desktop distance by doing the following:


Resolution Width / DPI * 2.54 = desktop distance (cm)
2560 / 400 * 2.54 = 16.256 cm

The arc we can calculate by doing the following:


chord + chord * (fovradians - 2 sin(fovradians/2))/(2 sin(fovradians/2))

Our FOV in radians can be calculated like so:


hfov * π / 180 = fov (radians)
106.26 * π / 180 = 1.85459... radians

The full arc calculation is:


2560 + 2560 * (1.85459 - 2 sin(1.85459/2))/(2 sin(1.85459/2)) = 2967.34

So we have a chord distance of 2560 and an arc distance of 2967. When the game is 2967 pixels wide, you can see why it is distorted to fit into 2560 pixels. Now we have our two distances we can convert it to a 360° distance and find our perfect sensitivity for our given FOV.


360/hfov * desktop distance * chord /arc = 360° distance
360/106.26 * 16.256 * 2560/2967.34 = 47.51372 cm

This concludes that with 2560x1440 and a 400 DPI mouse, the perfect sensitivity to match the desktop pointer speed will be 47.51372 cm 360° distance. This is accomplished using 2.186936 sensitivity, equal to 875 eDPI as a reference point when comparing sensitivities to other players.

The full formula without using rounding would be like so:


360/106.26 (2560/400×2.54)×2560/(2560 + 2560×(106.26×π/180 - 2 sin(1/2 (106.26×π/180)))/(2 sin(1/2 (106.26×π/180)))) = 47.5137...

Simplified down to:


(4 π z sin(x/2))/x^2 where x = fov radians and z = desktop distance
(4 π (2560/400×2.54) sin(1/2 (106.26×π/180)))/(106.26×π/180)^2 = 47.5137...

 

Is this calculation done to match desktop speed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DPI Wizard said:

This is Viewspeed Horizontal.

”the perfect sensitivity to match the desktop pointer speed“,does this statement indicate the speed of the matching desktop pointer?Because I want to know the process of thinking of this method, so I look forward to your reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/02/2017 at 05:54, DPI Wizard said:

For those wondering, the monitor distance calculator works like this (very simplified):

  1. The 360° distance in counts is calculated for the input game. Let's say it's 10000 counts.
  2. If you choose 50% monitor distance, and the FOV of the input game is 90° (1.5708 radians), this equals atan(tan(1.5708/2)*0.5) = 0.4636 radians = 26.57°. And 26.57° = 10000/360*26.57 = 738.053 counts.
  3. If the output game has an FOV of 106.26° (1.8546 radians), we do the same here: atan(tan(1.8546/2)*0.5) = 0.588 radians = 33.69°.
  4. We now know that 33.69° in the output game should equal 738.053 counts. To match this, the 360° counts is calculated based on these two values: 738.053/33.69*360 = 7886.5859.
  5. The sensitivity for the output game is then calculated based on a 360° distance of 7886.5859 counts.

0% matching is using the same premise, but is instead using the formula tan(radians/2).

can anyone explain this with an example with more details as i couldn't understand well ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/12/2018 at 16:02, Ravi said:

can anyone explain this with an example with more details as i couldn't understand well ?

Have you had a look at this forum post?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2017 at 7:36 AM, Drimzi said:

Putting DNAMTE's ideas into math.


360/hfov * desktop distance * chord /arc = 360° distance

We are playing CS:GO which has 106.26 horizontal FOV, on a 2560x1440 monitor, with a 400 DPI mouse. We can find our horizontal desktop distance by doing the following:


Resolution Width / DPI * 2.54 = desktop distance (cm)
2560 / 400 * 2.54 = 16.256 cm

The arc we can calculate by doing the following:


chord + chord * (fovradians - 2 sin(fovradians/2))/(2 sin(fovradians/2))

Our FOV in radians can be calculated like so:


hfov * π / 180 = fov (radians)
106.26 * π / 180 = 1.85459... radians

The full arc calculation is:


2560 + 2560 * (1.85459 - 2 sin(1.85459/2))/(2 sin(1.85459/2)) = 2967.34

So we have a chord distance of 2560 and an arc distance of 2967. When the game is 2967 pixels wide, you can see why it is distorted to fit into 2560 pixels. Now we have our two distances we can convert it to a 360° distance and find our perfect sensitivity for our given FOV.


360/hfov * desktop distance * chord /arc = 360° distance
360/106.26 * 16.256 * 2560/2967.34 = 47.51372 cm

This concludes that with 2560x1440 and a 400 DPI mouse, the perfect sensitivity to match the desktop pointer speed will be 47.51372 cm 360° distance. This is accomplished using 2.186936 sensitivity, equal to 875 eDPI as a reference point when comparing sensitivities to other players.

The full formula without using rounding would be like so:


360/106.26 (2560/400×2.54)×2560/(2560 + 2560×(106.26×π/180 - 2 sin(1/2 (106.26×π/180)))/(2 sin(1/2 (106.26×π/180)))) = 47.5137...

Simplified down to:


(4 π z sin(x/2))/x^2 where x = fov radians and z = desktop distance
(4 π (2560/400×2.54) sin(1/2 (106.26×π/180)))/(106.26×π/180)^2 = 47.5137...

 

Is the calculation done this way to match desktop speed?

Looking forward to your reply,because I really want to know the idea of doing so.

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.

×