@DPI Wizard i cant save the value "auto" in the calculator for future calculations. It always reverts back to 75 on loading. Please fix it

12 hours ago, xano91 said:

@DPI Wizard i cant save the value "auto" in the calculator for future calculations. It always reverts back to 75 on loading. Please fix it

Fixed now.

Thanks my bro!That helps  me a lot.My English not well . I just tried to balanced (aim hero) to (pubg),and tried to use your way. So 112.33/80*100%=140.41%

 

Is it possible to think Aim hero 's option has a little error value?

and another question how i choose the fov type,the hdeg res,vdeg?

 

Edited May 16, 20187 yr by oy007

This method is literally 75%. You cannot perceive the extremely minor differences between this and 75% monitor match. Lots of people think 75% "feels" best, there is no real reason for that except that it's what you're used to. IMO, a reason people also like it is it's less jarring if you're using different FOVs compared to 0%, the 360 distance difference tends to be less.

There is literally no reason other than your long-term experience with this matching percentage that it "feels" better. By all means, use what feels best, but there is no "best". The only semi-sound argument is for 0% given the practicality of it being most accurate in the center of your screen where your crosshair usually rests. Also from a ratio perspective, it tends to be closer than other match percentages when you lower the FOV.

That being said, 0% is not some magical value either, plenty of people are incredible players matching using 75%. Actually, most pros/streamers that play multiple games don't even attempt to match up their sensitivities and just go by feel alone. Overwatch pro players tend to use close to a 0% MM with Widowmaker, CSGO pros tend to use 75%,.

TL;DR This method isn't the best and there is no best, what you are used to and play well with is best. For most PC gamers that grew up on Counterstrike and more recently the Battlefield franchise, this is 75% monitor match.

Edited May 16, 20187 yr by Bryjoe

I can most definitely feel the difference between exact % and 75% as I've stated before, ive tried all of the common values and methods on this forum and none of them ever felt right. Except this. And I've applied it to all of my different games and zoom sensitivities, ADS etc. And it still holds up. So yeah, my bias will be that this is what I'm used to.

But the whole point was to convert sens between games and ADS, so I do really believe that this method will translate better between games for most people better than say 0 or 75%.
Since it should still feel the same regardless of game. If your Zoom sens i 0% then thats fine, but your hipfire sens between games will be vastly different when using 0% and it will feel different.

And as you said, most pros go on feel alone. This is just how I found a way to actually calculate that feel. It wont work for everyone I guess but it is easily the best one I've found so far for me so I wanted to share it. People are already saying its working for them too so yay for shared knowledge.

8 hours ago, Derpturtle said:

I can most definitely feel the difference between exact % and 75% as I've stated before, ive tried all of the common values and methods on this forum and none of them ever felt right. Except this. And I've applied it to all of my different games and zoom sensitivities, ADS etc. And it still holds up. So yeah, my bias will be that this is what I'm used to.

But the whole point was to convert sens between games and ADS, so I do really believe that this method will translate better between games for most people better than say 0 or 75%.
Since it should still feel the same regardless of game. If your Zoom sens i 0% then thats fine, but your hipfire sens between games will be vastly different when using 0% and it will feel different.

And as you said, most pros go on feel alone. This is just how I found a way to actually calculate that feel. It wont work for everyone I guess but it is easily the best one I've found so far for me so I wanted to share it. People are already saying its working for them too so yay for shared knowledge.

 

You can tell the difference between -.000369 and -.000324? No, I'm sorry, but you cannot.

Let's do another one with Pubg:

 

 

cm/360 is 58.1245 with your method and 58.1639 we are talking about fractions of centimeters here, you can't tell the difference trust me.

4 minutes ago, Bryjoe said:

You can tell the difference between -.000369 and -.000324? No, I'm sorry, but you cannot.

The difference is really only prevalent when you convert between scopes and hipfire, not from hipfire to hipfire.

zoom sens 1 vs 0.79, or about 73 inches vs 92 is a huge difference.

Oh, I see now! Hmm, I do kinda wanna try it now. Wait a second though, wouldn't .79 on CSGO be close to a 0% match? I just did overwatch and the widowmaker match is 40 so that's basically a 50% match. How would that not be jarring to have a dynamic and always changing match %?

and i can confirm that this method is better than 75% for all, especially lower fovs. even before this method you knew that when going lower in fov you need to down your % monitor distance because of feel. and this method just does it with math. and the feel is really the best.

vor 2 Minuten schrieb Bryjoe:

Oh, I see now! Hmm, I do kinda wanna try it now. Wait a second though, wouldn't .79 on CSGO be close to a 0% match? I just did overwatch and the widowmaker match is 40 so that's basically a 50% match. How would that not be jarring to have a dynamic and always changing match %?

you need to change it to zoom level 1 in the calculator. dpi wizard just used zoom level 2 to demonstrate the difference. when you pick zoom level 1, you get 0.9 and this was even before calculating the best for me.

12 minutes ago, xano91 said:

you need to change it to zoom level 1 in the calculator. dpi wizard just used zoom level 2 to demonstrate the difference. when you pick zoom level 1, you get 0.9 and this was even before calculating the best for me.

Ok, but how would this work with battlefield and it's Universal Soldier Aim? USA is essentially a match %, no?

vor 13 Minuten schrieb Bryjoe:

Ok, but how would this work with battlefield and it's Universal Soldier Aim? USA is essentially a match %, no?

https://forums.battlefield.com/en-us/discussion/72159/psa-universal-soldier-aiming-you-might-be-using-it-wrong

 

at the end of his post, he states that you need to experiment with the coefficent for your needs. so even they say that its not perfect on all zoom/fov levels. and this method here seems to perfect all fovs, at least for me. try it.

2 minutes ago, xano91 said:

https://forums.battlefield.com/en-us/discussion/72159/psa-universal-soldier-aiming-you-might-be-using-it-wrong

 

at the end of his post, he states that you need to experiment with the coefficent for your needs. so even they say that its not perfect on all zoom/fov levels. and this method here seems to perfect all fovs, at least for me. try it.

I just calculated the USA coefficient using this method and compared it to the 8x scope using this method without the coefficient and got a very similar value, so I think it works ok. I will give it a shot, I suppose.

We need some more math explanation I think.

Edited May 17, 20187 yr by Bryjoe

Bryjoe - for battlefield on a 16:9 aspect ratio the coefficient is 1.7778 in the config file. 177% in game is basically the same but if you want to be super picky, change it in the config file.
For a 4:3 the coefficient would be 133, default. Battlefield measures their FOV based on 4:3 monitors for some reason, 90FOV in your settings (74 in config) isnt actually 90, its 106.52.
This is also assuming you're using ADS scaling ON. If you use ADS scaling off, you'll have to play with the setting and change the coefficient number until all the other zoom sens factors say 1 (Default). You never want your close range zoom or any other metric to be anything other than 100%(Default) and only change the coefficient to match.

Also. Perhaps it's placebo but I honestly CAN feel the difference between those tiny tiny changes. The way I check is by just aiming down sight at a really small object and strafe back and forth, run around then try to flick ADS to it etc. And I record these as well to compare accuracy for myself and I can tell you that I do notice difference both in video and feel. Another way I check is by trying our senses in Aimhero on steam and I get different results, ever so slightly. I've been playing FPS for over 16 years so I think it's ingrained in my muscle memory. But I mean. It doesn't matter does it I just honestly think you should try this method.

Edited May 18, 20187 yr by Derpturtle

13 hours ago, Derpturtle said:

Bryjoe - for battlefield on a 16:9 aspect ratio the coefficient is 1.7778 in the config file. 177% in game is basically the same but if you want to be super picky, change it in the config file.
For a 4:3 the coefficient would be 133, default. Battlefield measures their FOV based on 4:3 monitors for some reason, 90FOV in your settings (74 in config) isnt actually 90, its 106.52.
This is also assuming you're using ADS scaling ON. If you use ADS scaling off, you'll have to play with the setting and change the coefficient number until all the other zoom sens factors say 1 (Default). You never want your close range zoom or any other metric to be anything other than 100%(Default) and only change the coefficient to match.

Also. Perhaps it's placebo but I honestly CAN feel the difference between those tiny tiny changes. The way I check is by just aiming down sight at a really small object and strafe back and forth, run around then try to flick ADS to it etc. And I record these as well to compare accuracy for myself and I can tell you that I do notice difference both in video and feel. Another way I check is by trying our senses in Aimhero on steam and I get different results, ever so slightly. I've been playing FPS for over 16 years so I think it's ingrained in my muscle memory. But I mean. It doesn't matter does it I just honestly think you should try this method.

133% is literally 75% monitor match, though. I assume 177% would correspond to 100% monitor match. This method is more of a dynamic scaling. The USA coefficient I get using "auto" scaling is 0.615978

This is somewhere between 0% MM and 50% IIRC.

i have to admit that this method might still not be perfect, especially in lower fovs. need to test more.

THIS IS AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!! Going from high fov to low fov, this method is unequal when it comes to naturalness. its perfect. It doesnt work when going from low fov to high though. like overwatch fov of 103 to other game at 130 fov. I think this is because we are using lets say 103 as the base to calculate our percentage from. 103 being 100% and going pass 103 will not work .for that i like viewspeed1 if going from low to high. 

 

Thank you alot my dude!

Edited May 19, 20187 yr by tuphac

I think there's a lot of placebo here.

The truth is that it's impossible to match the feeling of two different FOV's. Perfect does not, and cannot, exist here. Any point on the screen that is matched between two FOV's, means that all other points on the screen are, as defined by the laws of physics, NOT matched. Anyone's opinion when they test is always coloured by the movements they happen to make on screen when they test each one, i.e which points of the screen they happen to aim to, and which points of the screen they are thinking of in their brain at that exact moment when they move the mouse.

So basically, you should pick a monitor distance that synchronises that point on the screen in which you aim to the most (approximately of course) and it will likely give you the best results for the games that you play.

it is possible to match the feeling because everything is RELATIVE as my Art teach use to say.  

Placebo is how our brain works.   A grey box will appear to have color if place next another box with color and some complementary background.  The grey box remain the same but will look and feel different relative to whats next to it.

 

Edited May 19, 20187 yr by tuphac

On 5/19/2018 at 1:35 PM, TheNoobPolice said:

I think there's a lot of placebo here.

The truth is that it's impossible to match the feeling of two different FOV's. Perfect does not, and cannot, exist here. Any point on the screen that is matched between two FOV's, means that all other points on the screen are, as defined by the laws of physics, NOT matched. Anyone's opinion when they test is always coloured by the movements they happen to make on screen when they test each one, i.e which points of the screen they happen to aim to, and which points of the screen they are thinking of in their brain at that exact moment when they move the mouse.

So basically, you should pick a monitor distance that synchronises that point on the screen in which you aim to the most (approximately of course) and it will likely give you the best results for the games that you play.

Yep, I'm back to 0% as that is the closest to "1:1" ratio on games like Overwatch. The reality is you shouldn't be using different FOVS if you want consistent aim.

2 hours ago, Bryjoe said:

The reality is you shouldn't be using different FOVS if you want consistent aim.

Absolutely.

On 5/20/2018 at 3:05 AM, TheNoobPolice said:

I think there's a lot of placebo here.

The truth is that it's impossible to match the feeling of two different FOV's. Perfect does not, and cannot, exist here. Any point on the screen that is matched between two FOV's, means that all other points on the screen are, as defined by the laws of physics, NOT matched. Anyone's opinion when they test is always coloured by the movements they happen to make on screen when they test each one, i.e which points of the screen they happen to aim to, and which points of the screen they are thinking of in their brain at that exact moment when they move the mouse.

So basically, you should pick a monitor distance that synchronises that point on the screen in which you aim to the most (approximately of course) and it will likely give you the best results for the games that you play.

so.. 33.3% then as you'll never flick consistently past that in most games eh?

51 minutes ago, Snook_ said:

so.. 33.3% then as you'll never flick consistently past that in most games eh?

Yes, you should match based on where you flick most accurately. 0% has the closest to a 1:1 ratio between your hipfire sensitivity and your aim down sights. If you regularly do extremely large flicks, it wouldn't be the best for you though. Nothing is "correct". To have the best an most consistent aim you should be: matching FOV as close as you can in EVERY game that you play. Then, using the same monitor distance for zoom sensitivities in every game you play. For 3rd person games, it's best (in my opinion) to match your hipfire 360cm you typically use as it's impossible to get a perfect feel with the inconsistent FOV in those games.

Eventually, maybe, people will realise that there's no golden match. The reality is simply as FOV increases, distortion increases. Put simply the edges of the screen will move faster in comparison to the centre as we rotate. 

If everybody sat the same distance from the same width monitor and focused primarily on the same areas when playing then I have no doubt we could come up with a best fit golden formula. Unfortunately everybody uses peripheral vision differently, some people maintain focus on their crosshair and look with their gun as it were, others actively move focus across the screen out of sync with the crosshair. 

Essentially when tracking or 'snapping' to a target your brain is constantly trying to predict and react to the targets movement. An ongoing calculation of time, acceleration & distance to nail the next headshot. Given then that all the variables to this formula are as individual as we are as a race, then you cannot expect any less variance in the 'perfect' formula.

Accept the fact that as FOV increases so does the variance of rotational acceleration across the screen, forcing more variables in to your head.