Should I use viewspeed or monitor distance for muscle memory?

[Skidushe]

Viewspeed in my head seems like the 'optimal' solution, however, in ads, is muscle memory more trained to distance or speed? For a real life example, if you push a brake pedal in a car, your muscle memory tells you how much pressure to apply much better than how far to push it, muscles are better at 'remembering' tension, is there an equivalence in this?

[potato psoas]

On 3/30/2018 at 03:01, Skidushe said:

Viewspeed in my head seems like the 'optimal' solution, however, in ads, is muscle memory more trained to distance or speed? For a real life example, if you push a brake pedal in a car, your muscle memory tells you how much pressure to apply much better than how far to push it, muscles are better at 'remembering' tension, is there an equivalence in this?

The actual optimal solution is 100%MM or the Gear Ratio method. But because of distortion, it doesn't feel correct at the crosshair.

Muscle memory is both distance and speed. But really your muscle memory is about moving your mouse and expecting to move to a certain point on the monitor. But because of distortion, you are never going to maintain muscle memory across all points on the monitor when changing your FOV. The best thing you can do is choose the method that you think will benefit you the most, and do some experimenting.

0% is matched at the crosshair so it's good for tracking and making adjustments, but it isn't as good with flicks closer to the edge of the monitor.

100% is matched at the edge of the monitor so flicks are easier closer to the edge. And as Drimzi mentions below, the sensitivity is more uniform across the entire FOV range.

Every other monitor match percentage is a combination of 0% and 100%.

Viewspeed hangs around 75%MM. I don't really know why you say it's the optimal solution... FYI, the description of "Viewspeed" actually applies to the Gear Ratio Method, which is 100%MM. And I agree, 100%MM makes the most sense and would be the optimal, perfect solution if it weren't for distortion.

Edited April 6, 2018 by potato psoas

[Drimzi]

Ignore the following. 0% is the only conversion that results in the same sensitivity. Anything else just generates a new sensitivity to match one of the irrelevant characteristic of the previous sensitivity, which would be used for comfort reasons.

 

Should I use viewspeed or monitor distance for muscle memory?

 

You have to experiment as no one really knows how sensitivity is perceived or what the optimal solution is. It is still being worked on. From the current options, Monitor match is a fixed distance match, Viewspeed is a variation with dynamic distance. You can match velocity with 0%, or distance with a higher %.

 

The monitor match method will define a fixed distance from the crosshair where all mouse movements at all FOVs will rotate to that point using the same physical mouse distance. The calculator uses a percentage of the horizontal measurements, so 100% *in this calculator* isn't optimal since it is screen dependent. 100% for 4:3, 16:9, 21:9, etc will all produce drastically different results.

 

0% will scale the sensitivity by the difference in zoom, or focal length, essentially matching the velocity. If you zoom in 8x, you are going to need to scale your physical mouse distance by the same ratio. Changing your mouse distance will throw off the feeling of a perceived uniform sensitivity. Zooming out requires smaller movement, combined with smaller targets and more distortion, the perceived sensitivity will feel too fast. Zooming in will require larger hand movement to navigate, and targets will be larger, faster, and any movement will put them off-screen, and thus the sensitivity will feel too slow.

Higher percentages aim to solve this issue by keeping the distances more consistent at all FOVs. If the hand distance is more consistent, it will *feel* more correct.

At the other extreme, if you don't scale the sensitivity at all and keep the same circumference, it will feel progressively worse the as the ratio between the two FOVs in question are increased.

 

Since the calculator is screen dependent, it becomes confusing and hard to suggest settings. The best starting point for monitor match % is to use the 100% screen *independent* value, which you can find by doing: height / width * 100. For 16:9, this will be 56.25% in the calculator. From here you can try 133%, the same as CS:GO and Battlefield Uniform Soldier Aim. The equivalent screen dependent % can be found by doing: (height * 4/3) / width * 100. For 16:9, this will be 75% in the calculator.

 

The issue is that nobody knows what the optimal percentage is, as the flaws of each percentage overlap, which suggests that a fixed distance is not the solution as it can't make all FOV feel uniform. The 100% screen independent value, which is the Gear Ratio mentioned above, feels like the best fixed distance to me, but higher FOVs seem to be a little too slow. A different % can't fix this because that feeling of slow just shifts to another FOV region.

 

The Viewspeed ideas were attempts to define a dynamic distance rather than a fixed distance to solve this problem. Viewspeed v1 uses screen dependent measurements so it is pretty useless in the calculator, however if the math is changed to use screen independent diagonal measurements, it results in almost the same thing as monitor matching with the 100% screen independent value, except high FOVs scale a little faster. Viewspeed v2 is similar, but is like matching with the 133% screen independent value instead, with the high FOVs scaling a little slower.

 

To truly test what method is best for your muscle memory, you will need to test all of the FOV yourself, as every solution has flaws.

 

Edited January 31, 2019 by Drimzi

[Skidushe]

I know I posted this a while back when I didn't know anything and now I do, but thanks for the insight, still learnt a little more

[AshenOne]

Is view speed superior to 360 distance for muscle memory and consistency between games? 

[MuntyYy]

11 minutes ago, AshenOne said:

Is view speed superior to 360 distance for muscle memory and consistency between games? 

If the games you are playing have a similar FOV , convert your hipfire sensitivity using 360 distance 

[AshenOne]

Thank you! 

I was just reading up on this more and it looks like the real goal of viewspeed is to match 2D mouse movement to 3D mouse aiming. I think in most cases this is not what I am looking for.

[tuphac]

9 hours ago, AshenOne said:

Thank you! 

I was just reading up on this more and it looks like the real goal of viewspeed is to match 2D mouse movement to 3D mouse aiming. I think in most cases this is not what I am looking for.

I have had great success in the past using 0%, 25% and 56.25 % monitor distance match between different games for the sole purpose of improving my aim at one game which is overwatch.  

unfortunately, as Drimzi have said, they each have different flaws.  Now I use Viewspeed1 for converting my sens from overwatch to other games with the purpose of improving my aim in overwatch like i mention and it works best. Dont even try viewspeed2 if u want to improve your aim when it comes to conversion method. viewspeed2 is ok and better than 100% match but you wont see an instant transfer of your aim from one game to the other unlike viewspeed1.  

 

I still use 0% for zoom and ADS because it's a play style choice, Like 0% is great for aquiring your target first before zooming in.

 

so the answer to your question is that Viewspeed1 is not just for 2d to 3d. It is in my opinion the most viable choice to improve your aim, like you play a different game to practice aim like csgo and have that training transfer to a game like overwatch. Viewspeed1 all the way baby!

Edited April 20, 2018 by tuphac

[MuntyYy]

1 hour ago, tuphac said:

I have had great success in the past using 0%, 25% and 56.25 % monitor distance match between different games for the sole purpose of improving my aim at one game which is overwatch.  

unfortunately, as Drimzi have said, they each have different flaws.  Now I use Viewspeed1 for converting my sens from overwatch to other games with the purpose of improving my aim in overwatch like i mention and it works best. Dont even try viewspeed2 if u want to improve your aim when it comes to conversion method. viewspeed2 is ok and better than 100% match but you wont see an instant transfer of your aim from one game to the other unlike viewspeed1.  

 

I still use 0% for zoom and ADS because it's a play style choice, Like 0% is great for aquiring your target first before zooming in.

 

so the answer to your question is that Viewspeed1 is not just for 2d to 3d. It is in my opinion the most viable choice to improve your aim, like you play a different game to practice aim like csgo and have that training transfer to a game like overwatch. Viewspeed1 all the way baby!

What you said, doesn't make much sense.
Your hipfire sensitivity, for the sake of argument its 10 in overwatch ( 34.6364 cm/ 360 ) converting that to a game with a similar FOV ( either by viewspeed v1, v2, mm 10000% ) will give your the same amount of 360 distance. You then said whilst adsing you use 0% mm ( that's where you should have viewspeed 1 - hence you "prefer" it over the other methods ).
Also 0% mm its same as all the other values in hipfire, thus your assumption of  "acquiring your target first before zooming in" - its false.

[MuntyYy]

55 minutes ago, MuntyYy said:

the other values

Monitor match percentages**

[jabbothehut]

On 4/6/2018 at 4:21 AM, Drimzi said:

Should I use viewspeed or monitor distance for muscle memory?

 

You have to experiment as no one really knows how sensitivity is perceived or what the optimal solution is. It is still being worked on. From the current options, Monitor match is a fixed distance match, Viewspeed is a variation with dynamic distance. You can match velocity with 0%, or distance with a higher %.

 

The monitor match method will define a fixed distance from the crosshair where all mouse movements at all FOVs will rotate to that point using the same physical mouse distance. The calculator uses a percentage of the horizontal measurements, so 100% *in this calculator* isn't optimal since it is screen dependent. 100% for 4:3, 16:9, 21:9, etc will all produce drastically different results.

 

0% will scale the sensitivity by the difference in zoom, or focal length, essentially matching the velocity. If you zoom in 8x, you are going to need to scale your physical mouse distance by the same ratio. Changing your mouse distance will throw off the feeling of a perceived uniform sensitivity. Zooming out requires smaller movement, combined with smaller targets and more distortion, the perceived sensitivity will feel too fast. Zooming in will require larger hand movement to navigate, and targets will be larger, faster, and any movement will put them off-screen, and thus the sensitivity will feel too slow.

Higher percentages aim to solve this issue by keeping the distances more consistent at all FOVs. If the hand distance is more consistent, it will *feel* more correct.

At the other extreme, if you don't scale the sensitivity at all and keep the same circumference, it will feel progressively worse the as the ratio between the two FOVs in question are increased.

 

Since the calculator is screen dependent, it becomes confusing and hard to suggest settings. The best starting point for monitor match % is to use the 100% screen *independent* value, which you can find by doing: height / width * 100. For 16:9, this will be 56.25% in the calculator. From here you can try 133%, the same as CS:GO and Battlefield Uniform Soldier Aim. The equivalent screen dependent % can be found by doing: (height * 4/3) / width * 100. For 16:9, this will be 75% in the calculator.

 

The issue is that nobody knows what the optimal percentage is, as the flaws of each percentage overlap, which suggests that a fixed distance is not the solution as it can't make all FOV feel uniform. The 100% screen independent value, which is the Gear Ratio mentioned above, feels like the best fixed distance to me, but higher FOVs seem to be a little too slow. A different % can't fix this because that feeling of slow just shifts to another FOV region.

 

The Viewspeed ideas were attempts to define a dynamic distance rather than a fixed distance to solve this problem. Viewspeed v1 uses screen dependent measurements so it is pretty useless in the calculator, however if the math is changed to use screen independent diagonal measurements, it results in almost the same thing as monitor matching with the 100% screen independent value, except high FOVs scale a little faster. Viewspeed v2 is similar, but is like matching with the 133% screen independent value instead, with the high FOVs scaling a little slower.

 

To truly test what method is best for your muscle memory, you will need to test all of the FOV yourself, as every solution has flaws.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "the calculator is screen dependent". 56.25% feels fucking insanely good but I don't understand why it is different to the calculator's 100% value if they're both supposed to be 100%. I 80% get what you mean but am still a bit confused. Hope this makes sense.

[Drimzi]

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%

 

Edited April 20, 2018 by Drimzi

[jabbothehut]

Gotcha! Thanks for the answer m8ie!

[tuphac]

10 hours ago, MuntyYy said:

What you said, doesn't make much sense.
Your hipfire sensitivity, for the sake of argument its 10 in overwatch ( 34.6364 cm/ 360 ) converting that to a game with a similar FOV ( either by viewspeed v1, v2, mm 10000% ) will give your the same amount of 360 distance. You then said whilst adsing you use 0% mm ( that's where you should have viewspeed 1 - hence you "prefer" it over the other methods ).
Also 0% mm its same as all the other values in hipfire, thus your assumption of  "acquiring your target first before zooming in" - its false.

the difference between 103 FOV and 106 FOV is HUGE!!!!!  Unless the FOV is exactly identical, you brain will experience some sort of lag. Dont believe me? You shouldn't to be honest. what works for me through trial and  error probably wont work for you. 

 

as to why I use 0% for zoom in overwatch and not 75% or viewspeed? The answer is discrepancy.   You cannot get perfect conversion with overwatch's limited ingame sensitvity.  You need a console or config file to get 0 discrepancy if using any method other than 0%. Thats why i use overwatch as my base for conversion to other games instead of other game to overwatch.

Edited April 20, 2018 by tuphac

[MuntyYy]

29 minutes ago, tuphac said:

the difference between 103 FOV and 106 FOV is HUGE!!!!

The difference between 106 and 103 FOV is quite minimal, 1cm -2 at most, if the game has a wider range of sensitivity increments.
 

[jabbothehut]

26 minutes ago, MuntyYy said:

The difference between 106 and 103 FOV is quite minimal, 1cm -2 at most, if the game has a wider range of sensitivity increments.
 

When you get to that stage when you know a sensitivity by heart it will make a difference since your brain is forced to make conscious calculations again to relearn.

[Drimzi]

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.

Edited September 13, 2018 by Drimzi

[tuphac]

On 4/20/2018 at 3:56 PM, Drimzi said:

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.

Im really paranoid about discrepancy for some reason, as soon as I lower the FOV from 103 to 102 while maintaining the same sens, my aim goes to shit. and people say discrepancy is so minor its placebo effect.  

 

the reason why I use 0% zoom is strictly base on play style. Overwatch ADS fov is quite high compare to other game where the fov for zoom in like

18 horizontal compare to overwatch 51.  Not to mention these other games ADS black out your field of view with black bars and only see through the circle of the scope lense. this type of ADS would work better with 75% like CS GO where you can just tap a button to scope and and stay scope in to flick, versus overwatch where your scope in allow u to see the whole 51 FOV without black bars.    It's a matter of playstyle. 75% is better for flick shot with limited field of view like CS GO.

Edited April 22, 2018 by tuphac

[gbtg]

On 4/20/2018 at 11:47 AM, Drimzi said:

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%

 

hey, i still do not quite understand what you are saying and i am actually really sorry to bother you with this since i feel really stupid.

currently i use VS2 to convert my sensitivity to the different scopes of PUBG, i got a 16:9 monitor and now i would like to try your method. so do i use 'monitor distance' and 'match at' 56.25%? how will that compare to VS2? will it feel slower or faster when the FOVs get lower?

thanks!

edit: and about discrepancy.. using VS2 converting my hipfire FPP sens to the 4x scope (90 hfov to 20 hfov) i get a discrepancy of 0.002cm. this is low enough to not affect me?

Edited April 22, 2018 by gbtg

[Drimzi]

Edited September 13, 2018 by Drimzi

[jabbothehut]

does viewspeed work dynamically in the calculator or is it screen dependent again like mm matching?

@Drimzi

 

Edited April 22, 2018 by jabbothehut

[Drimzi]

It is screen dependent, but not aspect ratio dependent.

Edited September 13, 2018 by Drimzi

[gbtg]

6 minutes ago, Drimzi said:

Viewspeed v2 is independent. It uses the 1:1 fov value. Viewspeed v1 uses horizontal fov value, so it will give different results for different aspect ratios.

which one do you recommend?

[Drimzi]

0% monitor match. Scaling by focal length.

Edited September 13, 2018 by Drimzi

[jabbothehut]

4 hours ago, Drimzi said:

Viewspeed v2 is independent. It uses the 1:1 fov value. Viewspeed v1 uses horizontal fov value, so it will give different results for different aspect ratios.

You're the best. Thanks a lot!