OW ->>> Fornite

[Ch3wy]

I'm  not sure which of the converts to use i.e 360 distance/monitor distance to get the best OW to Fornite BR settings. I get these settings in the picture attached. Does anyone have any feedback if this is the best conversion or if I should alter some settings. 

 

Thanks for taking the time to read/reply. 

[potato psoas]

There's two ways to decide for yourself what to use:

1. Start learning about the different methods and why we have them.

You can start here with this video:

Then you might be interested in reading our discussions on sensitivity conversion in these forums:

Sorry we have not made any formal explanations yet. We should probably get them done sometime. But part of the reason why nothing has been made apart from the monitor match video is because we are undecided as a group what we want to use as the default conversion method. There may not even be a perfect method because of distortion on the monitor.

 

2. You can try them all and experiment to see which one you like best.

Here is a list of all the common methods:

cm/360 - if you watched the video you would know how wrong this method is. You only want to use this method when converting between the same FOV since cm/360 is determined by FOV.

0% monitor match - this method makes your crosshair feel the same. It is also the method used in Call of Duty games.

100% monitor match - this method converts based on the gear ratio principle, and "in theory" should sync the speed of your crosshair/cursor like gears and pulley.

100% vertical monitor match - this method is the same as 100% monitor match except we use the vertical length of the monitor as if it were the horizontal. This is because the horizontal is not aspect-ratio independent, which means it gives you different results for different aspect ratios - which should not happen because FOV is simply added or cropped, not stretched to suit the aspect ratio in some games. As such, you can calculate your 100% vertical monitor match by dividing your aspect ratio like so e.g.: if your display's aspect ratio is 16:9 then your monitor match percentage is 9/16 = .5625 or 56.25%

75% monitor match - this is the method used by CS:GO and Battlefield. It's kind of arbitrary and it is similar to Viewspeed v1.

Viewspeed v1 - this method is kind of a misnomer. The true definition of Viewspeed goes to 100% monitor match, as was discussed in the first forum post I linked. As such I wouldn't recommend this method as it is just an arbitrary formula.

Viewspeed v2 - this method is similar to Viewspeed v1 expect it uses the vertical length of the monitor, to make it aspect-ratio independent.

 

It helps to know what's going on behind each method, but I understand it is very hard to wrap your head around, so if you can't be bothered to learn, just experiment or stick with the method most people use (we should create a poll) since that seems logical I guess.

Edited April 13, 2018 by potato psoas

[Aseri]

Is there a way we can find a good tradeoff that works similar to the gear ratio but lowers it slightly to deal with a significant amount of distortion? I know someone tried to average over a wide range of FOVs but I think it was a bit arbitrary.

[Drimzi]

All methods are 'gear ratios', comparatively. 100% is the ratio between the 16:9 angle, 75% is the ratio for the 4:3 angle, 56.25% is the ratio for the 1:1 angle, 0% is the ratio for the focal length, etc.

 

I tested Fortnite the other day and 1 targeting felt terrible. Even though the FOV doesn't change, the camera position does, and this isn't accounted for (it feels like it has to be). Since every weapon had a different amount of "zoom", I just set targeting to 0.75, and then multiplied the hipfire sensitivity by 1/0.75, so that targeting has the intended cm/360, and the third person hipfire has the faster cm/360. For scope, I converted 0% and then multiplied it by 0.75, for a ratio of 0.65. Everything felt pretty good, much better than 1 targeting and 0.8676 scope.

[Arramis]

Hi, this information has been very helpful and after reading that first thread where everyone 'discovered' DNAMTE's method it felt like i was watching history unfold. I am now very glad to be supporting this site, you're all freaking geniuses. However the videos to get started still explain monitor distance, but it seemed like the consensus at the end of that thread was that the DNAMTE method, which was incorporated as view-speed v1 and v2, was the best way to go about sens calculations? everyone seemed to be saying it was amazing when they tried it etc etc

Did some new information come to light after this that changed everyone's minds again? i have been using the monitor distance method for the last few weeks or so and after reading this thread felt like i was completely wasting muscle memory. However the post above by @potato psoas says everyone is still undecided.

So, to viewspeed or not to viewspeed?

[potato psoas]

4 minutes ago, Arramis said:

Hi, this information has been very helpful and after reading that first thread where everyone 'discovered' DNAMTE's method it felt like i was watching history unfold. I am now very glad to be supporting this site, you're all freaking geniuses. However the videos to get started still explain monitor distance, but it seemed like the consensus at the end of that thread was that the DNAMTE method, which was incorporated as view-speed v1 and v2, was the best way to go about sens calculations? everyone seemed to be saying it was amazing when they tried it etc etc

Did some new information come to light after this that changed everyone's minds again? i have been using the monitor distance method for the last few weeks or so and after reading this thread felt like i was completely wasting muscle memory. However the post above by @potato psoas says everyone is still undecided.

So, to viewspeed or not to viewspeed?

Have a look at this thread:

That's the latest forum where we actually took a good look at how sensitivity is really perceived. And then I guess we've just been discussing in a whole bunch of other random forums. It really is a mess. Not very helpful to new users. I don't know what DPIWizard will do about it but he did say he was going to make a new version of the calculator. He'll probably make some new videos and explanations as well.

Still not sure what everyone else's position on the best method is, but personally I believe it's 0% monitor match and I am certain I won't change my mind anymore. Unless Capta Praelium is still working on his method, but I think it won't work because I tried something similar and disregarded it as it didn't follow the gear ratio principle. @Skwuruhl has been saying it's 0% for a long time.

Monitor matching is essentially the gear ratio so you could still mathematically be okay to use higher percentage monitor matches, but they are just not as good as 0%. And there is definitely not a perfect percentage as they are all arbitrary and affected by distortion. Same goes for Viewspeed. Viewspeed was another great idea but there wasn't really any proper logical reasoning behind why it would sync sensitivity. But if it works for you, keep on using it. Muscle memory you have developed over the years can play a big part in what you feel is wrong or right.

[Arramis]

Thanks for the link ill check it out when i have a little more time. 

If you wouldn't mind, how does setting your mm to 0% even  work?  Why is it that better than setting your mm % to a specific flick distance?

its also kind of frustrating, the innate subjectivity in trying out each method. It makes it almost impossible to find which is the 'best', because there's like a million layers of bias preventing  accurate assessment of that by humans. I think i was really hoping the maths (that are way beyond me) would all point one way.

Edited August 29, 2018 by Arramis

[potato psoas]

Well let me ask why it's better to set your MM to a specific flick distance? That's the thing - they are all arbitrary. There is no objective way to prove that one flick point is better than another. It is all subjective preference, as you said. However, what we do know is that if one point on the monitor is matched then the rest of the screen will be unmatched. Therefore we can make some conclusions about the advantages and disadvantages of different percentages.

 

Let's say you match at the crosshair (0%). We should expect to have very good tracking, micro-adjustments, and feel much more in control of our aim as we turn and approach a target. But the consequence of matching at the center means that muscle memory will get much worse as we deviate from the crosshair. This is why extremely high FOVs are much too fast to control and extremely low FOVs feel too slow in comparison (as you approach 180 FOV the cm/360 becomes 0). However, this is more of a problem of distortion than a reason to not use 0%. All percentages have problems at the extreme FOV range but they are not reasons to prefer one percentage over another.

Now since the higher percentages are arbitrary, I am not going to assume any particular percentage. But we do know, in comparison to 0%, that we should have much greater overall muscle memory. This is because the sensitivity doesn't start at 0cm/360 at 180 FOV (infinitely fast). It's a much more evenly distributed range of sensitivities. These are some old crappy charts I created but it shows how the cm/360 for different methods eventually converge as they approach 0 FOV:

You can even test this in the calculator.

So in contrast to 0%, the higher the percentage, the less matched the crosshair becomes. This is very important to consider because that means that as we approach our target from our match point we are going to be increasingly less in control.

You must realize that we do not complete flicks in one single movement. We are constantly making adjustments as we approach our target. This is why it is more important to have the crosshair matched because we want to make sure we are in control when we are on top of the target, because there is no point in acquiring the target only to find we cannot stay on top of it due to our muscle memory being whack.

One interesting phenomena that happens when you test all this out is that at higher FOVs it feels like you have more control with a higher percentage. However, this is not the case. You must make sure to differentiate between matching points on the monitor and the sensitivity simply being slower. A decrease in sensitivity may feel like you are in more control but you are not doing yourself any favours when it comes to muscle memory. Just consider how low FOV would be perceived - a higher percentage will feel much too fast at the crosshair. You are going about it the wrong way.

It's very important that we make this distinction. We must choose the percentage according to its advantage, not because it feels better at [X] FOV. Ignore distortion. Distortion will be there for every FOV.

 

So if we compare the advantages of using 0% to a higher percentage, you will realize that there really is no reason to use anything other than 0%. Especially because it isn't arbitrary. It translates the same no matter what setup you are using. It's not like having better overall muscle memory helps much. It's still not perfect. You are going to have to learn slightly different muscle memory for every different FOV no matter what percentage you use. You could alleviate this problem by using the same FOV in every game you play but then what would be the point in converting sensitivity?

0% is the point on the monitor where the 2D world and the 3D world touch. It is the tangent to the curve, the true idea of "viewspeed".

[Skwuruhl]

6 hours ago, Arramis said:

how does setting your mm to 0% even  work

It scales your sensitivity directly by the zoom ratio. So say you zoom in by a factor of 2 (that's to say objects on your screen appear 2x larger), your sensitivity would also then be scaled by a factor of 2.

A couple examples in Overwatch

https://imgur.com/a/A0NQG

https://imgur.com/a/szjlq

Edited August 29, 2018 by Skwuruhl