A better way to calculate Sens between games and zoom levels.

[NukeON]

Hi, I'm trying this, (auto), but the conversion should be done once we take the hipfire from one game to another, for example, from battlefield to pubg, I get the hipfire, and then I make hipfire from pubg for the sights, or I keep doing it from the battlefield (USA)?

 

Edited May 31, 2018 by NukeON

[Alcatraz]

Am 15.5.2018 um 22:54 schrieb DPI Wizard:

Fixed now.

Any plans on adding 2D to 3D support and vice versa for the "Match At: Auto" method?

Unless it's not possible? I wouldn't know since my understanding is limited.

[DPI Wizard]

1 minute ago, Alcatraz said:

Any plans on adding 2D to 3D support and vice versa for the "Match At: Auto" method?

Unless it's not possible? I wouldn't know since my understanding is limited.

It should be the same as 100%. Haven't added it yet, but I will do it in the next update.

This auto method has some quirks though, especially in that you absolutely need to use the same baseline for your conversions.

For all the other methods It doesn't matter what you use as a baseline as long as they all stem from the same conversion method.

I.e. with Monitor Match 75% you can convert A -> B and A -> C with the same result as B -> C (disregarding rounding limitations).

This will not work with the auto mode as B -> C will yield a slightly different result than A -> C (more different the higher the FOV difference).

[Alcatraz]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb DPI Wizard:

It should be the same as 100%. Haven't added it yet, but I will do it in the next update.

This auto method has some quirks though, especially in that you absolutely need to use the same baseline for your conversions.

For all the other methods It doesn't matter what you use as a baseline as long as they all stem from the same conversion method.

I.e. with Monitor Match 75% you can convert A -> B and A -> C with the same result as B -> C (disregarding rounding limitations).

This will not work with the auto mode as B -> C will yield a slightly different result than A -> C (more different the higher the FOV difference).

Interesting. So the rounding limitations have more of an impact in the auto method due to the different nature of the formula?

Also I always assumed that if one constantly uses different baselines for the calculations, the discrepancies would eventually add up and create bigger differences (A > B > ... > X > Y vs A > Y) so I've always been using the same baseline for the most "clean" results.

Edited June 9, 2018 by Alcatraz

[Divye]

Sorry a bit late to the party, but i dont see the auto option in my calculator.. Am I Missing something?

[DPI Wizard]

52 minutes ago, Divye said:

Sorry a bit late to the party, but i dont see the auto option in my calculator.. Am I Missing something?

It's a bit of a hidden feature, type "auto" into the monitor distance percentage field

[Divye]

3 minutes ago, DPI Wizard said:

It's a bit of a hidden feature, type "auto" into the monitor distance percentage field

Thankyou!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Springfield1903]

On 2/11/2022 at 7:11 AM, DPI Wizard said:

It's a bit of a hidden feature, type "auto" into the monitor distance percentage field

Hey excuse me,, is this feature still a thing?I tried typing auto but it basically registers it as a 0 monitor distance 

[Springfield1903]

Just now, Springfield1903 said:

Hey excuse me,, is this feature still a thing?I tried typing auto but it basically registers it as a 0 monitor distance 

nvm it worked 

[JimmyJimmyBTM]

I use (tan(new fov ÷ 2) ÷ tan(old fov ÷ 2)) × -1 + 1 = multiplier x old 360cm = new 360cm

example (horizontal fov)
old fov: 115
new fov: 106
old 360: 18 cm

(tan(106 ÷ 2) ÷ tan(115 ÷ 2)) × -1 + 1 =  1.30745902778 x 18 = 23.5342625 cm

So in this example your main fov is 115 with a sensetivity that gives you 18 cm for a 360, when using a fov of 106 that could be zoomed in or a different game you will need to slow down your 360 to 23.53 cm for the same feel. This works for me but it's a hassle so I just use the calculator with 0% coeffecient/monitor distance because it seems to do the same thing as I manually did.

edit: this is faster I guess
((tan(new fov ÷ 2) ÷ tan(old fov ÷ 2)) × -1 + 1) x old 360cm = new
 

or ((tan(new fov ÷ 2) ÷ tan(old fov ÷ 2)) -1 + 1) old 360cm
idk if you can leave out the x because that's how I learned it in school but that's way too long ago lmao

 

Edited February 18, 2022 by JimmyJimmyBTM
wasn't finished