why 0% match is best for tracking and 100% match best for flick?

[DPI Wizard]

1 minute ago, Snook_ said:

Cool was just interested why you suggested MDV instead of MDH

All games that supports Monitor Distance 0% (BF1/BFV, Apex Legends, MW 2019 etc) uses the vertical axis, i.e. MDV. It's also more consistent if you go from e.g. 16:9 to 21:9, as MDV will not change (it will keep the 16:9 portion of 21:9 the same), while MDH will change and essentially stretch the scaling to fit the increased width.

[Skwuruhl]

On 6/16/2021 at 5:20 AM, DPI Wizard said:

As mentioned above they are essentially the same, but only when the aspect ratio is the same. If you convert from say 16:9 to 21:9 they will be different.

I'm not sure what you mean by this? MD 0% is aspect ratio independent. Largely because it doesn't even actually use monitor distance math at all. MD 0% is based on the ratio of virtual focal lengths between two FOVs, i.e. zoom ratio. The aspect ratio of an image doesn't affect the focal length in anyway.

Edit for math:

Angle of view can be expressed via the equation

Where d is film size (i.e. your monitor) and f is focal length. If you solve for focal length you get

d is constant if you're calculating for the same screen and orientation of film (e.g. vertical, horizontal, diagonal, etc.), so only angle of view matters. Zoom ratio is the ratio of the lowest and highest focal length, so the equation becomes

or

If we plug in CSGO fov into this we get a zoom ratio of

Ok so great, but what if we don't have a constant screen or orientation? Well if we had kept separate d variables instead of simplifying them out

Plugging in values for Overwatch

Or going between 103 hor 16:9 and 21:9

Edited June 19, 2021 by Skwuruhl
math

[DPI Wizard]

12 hours ago, Skwuruhl said:

MD 0% is based on the ratio of virtual focal lengths between two FOVs, i.e. zoom ratio.

Exactly, and when you change aspect ratio you will also change the FOV relation on one of the axis depending on the FOV type of the game.

Say you convert from Overwatch to CSGO. If both are 16:9 you will get same for horizontal and vertical ratio (slight discrepancy due to rounding in this example):

• MDV 0%: tan(70.5328 degrees/2)/tan(73.739795 degrees/2) = 0.94288
• MDH 0%: tan(103 degrees/2)/tan(106.260205 degrees/2) = 0.9428792

However if Overwatch is 16:9 and CSGO is 43:18 you will get:

• MDV 0%: tan(70.5328 degrees/2)/tan(73.739795 degrees/2) = 0.94288  - Same as above, the vertical FOV of both games is the same.
• MDH 0%: tan(103 degrees/2)/tan(121.664773 degrees/2) = 0.7016776 - Different since the horizontal FOV changes for CSGO.

These examples are obviously not taking monitor size into account, if you plug in 35" for the 43:18 monitor you will get about the same result as when the aspect ratio is the same (since a 16:9 27" is almost the same physical vertical height as a 35" 43:18):

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/?share=445224945c215352e02f8cc1a784fa3d

[Skwuruhl]

On 6/19/2021 at 5:37 AM, DPI Wizard said:

Exactly, and when you change aspect ratio you will also change the FOV relation on one of the axis depending on the FOV type of the game.

Say you convert from Overwatch to CSGO. If both are 16:9 you will get same for horizontal and vertical ratio (slight discrepancy due to rounding in this example):

• MDV 0%: tan(70.5328 degrees/2)/tan(73.739795 degrees/2) = 0.94288
• MDH 0%: tan(103 degrees/2)/tan(106.260205 degrees/2) = 0.9428792

However if Overwatch is 16:9 and CSGO is 43:18 you will get:

• MDV 0%: tan(70.5328 degrees/2)/tan(73.739795 degrees/2) = 0.94288  - Same as above, the vertical FOV of both games is the same.
• MDH 0%: tan(103 degrees/2)/tan(121.664773 degrees/2) = 0.7016776 - Different since the horizontal FOV changes for CSGO.

These examples are obviously not taking monitor size into account, if you plug in 35" for the 43:18 monitor you will get about the same result as when the aspect ratio is the same (since a 16:9 27" is almost the same physical vertical height as a 35" 43:18):

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/?share=445224945c215352e02f8cc1a784fa3d

You aren't using sensor size in your equations.

Overwatch's focal length:

CS:GO's focal length:

Zoom ratio of 0.6667:0.7071=0.9429

Even if you use a 43:18 aspect ratio in CS:GO the focal length stays the same:

The FOV you are using to measure doesn't matter as long as you account for sensor size in your math, the focal length for CS:GO is constant regardless of aspect ratio.

[DPI Wizard]

7 hours ago, Skwuruhl said:

You aren't using sensor size in your equations.

Correct, as mentioned last the monitor size /aspect ratio is not used unless you enter a different one.

Same with for instance MDH 100%, it matches the movement to the edge of the FOV regardless of monitor size / aspect ratio unless you enter a different one.

The reason for this is amongst others that some want MDH 100% to always be the edge of what you can see.

[Skwuruhl]

11 hours ago, DPI Wizard said:

Correct, as mentioned last the monitor size /aspect ratio is not used unless you enter a different one.

Same with for instance MDH 100%, it matches the movement to the edge of the FOV regardless of monitor size / aspect ratio unless you enter a different one.

The reason for this is amongst others that some want MDH 100% to always be the edge of what you can see.

Ignoring aspect ratio during conversions is simply bad math. 100% horizontal on a 16:9 monitor is only 75% horizontal for a 64:27 monitor. The 100% is relative to your monitor.

Never mind that I've found monitor distance to be mathematically dubious. The most sound way of doing sensitivity conversions is doing so by zoom ratio or focal lengths. If you desire higher or lower zoom sensitivity than that add a constant ADS multiplier, or 'scale'.

[DPI Wizard]

15 hours ago, Skwuruhl said:

100% horizontal on a 16:9 monitor is only 75% horizontal for a 64:27 monitor. The 100% is relative to your monitor.

But someone that goes from say 16:10 to 16:9 might want to convert 100% of 16:10 to 100% of 16:9. People are different and have different preferences, so the best way to go about it is to have a tool that supports "everything". 

What I plan to do is to rename the "Native" option under "Aspect Ratio" to "Ignore", and add a new "Native" option that does take aspect ratio into account for all conversions 

 

[Snook_]

On 6/18/2018 at 12:47 PM, Drimzi said:

If you match at 0%, you will judge the necessary mouse distances properly, since the distances scale proportionately with the fov, whereas any other method is going to be counter intuitive for this, despite the whole concept being to match a a perceived speed or match a screen distance.

Instead, these alternative methods give the illusion of better, more consistent aim because they maintain the area on your mouse pad that you use to aim within your field of view. This lets you become very proficient in a single aiming style/method (such as wrist aiming) with specific swiping distances as you don't have to scale your input with the fov.

It also lets you get away with low sensitivity at high fovs (people reduce sensitivity for instant results instead of just improving their mechanical skill) due to the same reason, not having to scale your input.

Since 0% does not match a distance, it instead matches the velocity, and since other methods are not 0%, they have to result in different speeds in order to accomplish what they were made to do. Matching the velocity has to result in different perceived speeds and different required mouse movement as every fov is unique. The amount of information and distortion scales with the fov. The very essence of increasing the fov is increasing the number of degrees that you can see. So naturally, if you pan the camera, there is going to be a lot more activity on your screen and it is going to look faster than a lower, flatter, more zoomed in fov. So it makes sense that the correct conversion is going to be something where the distance and view speed is not matched. If you do match the view speed instead, then you are slowing the velocity of the camera down for high fovs and increasing the velocity for low fovs in order to make them look the same. The biggest issue with this is that low fovs will feel too sensitive as the required mouse distances are far shorter than assumed. Only 0% will have the correct distance scaling.

The reason why you can judge distances properly with 0% is because the distance scales with the zoom. If you zoom in 2x, the target will be 2x further away on your screen, and will require 2x more mouse movement to flick to compared to before the zoom. If you make this a fair comparison and scale the distance between you and the target to counteract the zoom, then the mouse distances will be the same. This will also benefit tracking, since the perceived movement speed, size, and distance of the movement will scale with the zoom, and so will the sensitivity. So if the distance between you and the target scales with the zoom also, then a target will move the same speed across your screen, and require the exact same mouse movement.

As for the question about 'match at' percentages and matching a distance in general, the best distance match IMO is the inverse of your aspect ratio, multiplied by 100. E.g. 9/16 * 100 = 56.25. It will match the distance to the radius of the 1:1 aspect ratio. Higher percentages, like 75% are close to matching viewspeed, which suffers from the sensitive low FOV issue. Besides, all distance match methods are arbitrary, and you will get drastically different results depending on what fov measurement you use. 0% is the only method that has the same result regardless of the measurement used.

Matching the view speed, screen distance, or 360 distance, is only going to be detrimental to aim performance in the long run. You will have to compromise and develop unique muscle memory for a wide range of fov and hope that your brain can fill in the blanks for fovs in between. These methods will only improve comfort and may give better results, but only in the short term (due to being only proficient in one aiming style, or having a low sensitivity for a high fov, or not having enough mouse pad space in general). They only seem correct because when you zoom in/out, the distance between you and the reference point is remaining static, you don't teleport forward/back to counteract the zoom.

For long term, you need to get used to 0%. Ignore the deceptive issues with view speed and the variance in mouse movement. You won't really have to develop muscle memory for every fov, as you will figure out the distances automatically as they scale with the zoom, but the different distances will require you to master your aim with all the styles, such as micro, finger, wrist, and arm (from elbow and shoulder) movement, and you will probably have to use a higher sensitivity in general.

 

And yes, for anyone wondering, I have switched over to 0%.

So how’s this 2018 post holding up for you now? Be good to get an update!!

[Marcel the Virginian]

On 6/18/2018 at 1:48 PM, DPI Wizard said:

I've made a quick video demonstrating what Monitor Match 0% does with tracking:

The apparent size of the fast moving targets are the same for all the different aims, and they move the same distance on the screen. Using the same script on all the aims you can see that the tracking is exactly the same.

Hi. Is there a place I can download this mouse movement script? I'd like to do some of my own testing.
Thanks

[DPI Wizard]

4 minutes ago, Marcel the Virginian said:

Hi. Is there a place I can download this mouse movement script? I'd like to do some of my own testing.
Thanks

The specific movement and speed of the script is tailored to the exact distance and speed of the target, so it will only work in that exact scenario with that exact sensitivity.

In other words, not usable as a base to do testing. Also, to get this right you have to have a target that moves consistently and not move at all yourself between changing the scopes.

[Marcel the Virginian]

15 hours ago, DPI Wizard said:

The specific movement and speed of the script is tailored to the exact distance and speed of the target, so it will only work in that exact scenario with that exact sensitivity.

In other words, not usable as a base to do testing. Also, to get this right you have to have a target that moves consistently and not move at all yourself between changing the scopes.

Hi Wizard!
To clarify, I wasn't looking for that exact script. I was looking for a way to move my mouse for a exact amount for sens testing. Specifically to the edge of my screen. Before, I had been using my actual mouse and a ruler, which, yeah... is sub-optimal.

Between your reply and now, I found a virtual mouse app called Move Mouse on the Windows Store. It's free, and does nearly everything I need it to do. It's been very helpful.

I haven't figured out how to trigger the mouse move with a key (RN it's click a button in the app, which runs the move after a short delay, then I Alt-Tab into the game I'm testing in time for the move to execute). The app does have a Power Shell script option, so maybe I can figure out how to do it there.

So problem (mostly) solved

Move Mouse link for anyone interested:

https://apps.microsoft.com/detail/9nq4ql59xlbf?hl=en-us&gl=US

Edited Monday at 04:09 PM by Marcel the Virginian
spelling correction

[DPI Wizard]

1 minute ago, Marcel the Virginian said:

I was looking for a way to move my mouse for a exact amount for sens testing.

Try this, it's designed to do this in games: https://github.com/KovaaK/SensitivityMatcher/releases 

 

[Marcel the Virginian]

43 minutes ago, DPI Wizard said:

Try this, it's designed to do this in games: https://github.com/KovaaK/SensitivityMatcher/releases 

 

OK, thank you! I'll have to give that a try.

[TheNoobPolice]

44 minutes ago, Marcel the Virginian said:

Hi Wizard!
To clarify, I wasn't looking for that exact script. I was looking for a way to move my mouse for a exact amount for sens testing. Specifically to the edge of my screen. Before, I had been using my actual mouse and a ruler, which, yeah... is sub-optimal.

Between your reply and now, I found a virtual mouse app called Move Mouse on the Windows Store. It's free, and does nearly everything I need it to do. It's been very helpful.

I haven't figured out how to trigger the mouse move with a key (RN it's click a button in the app, which runs the move after a short delay, then I Alt-Tab into the game I'm testing in time for the move to execute). The app does have a Power Shell script option, so maybe I can figure out how to do it there.

So problem (mostly) solved

Move Mouse link for anyone interested:

https://apps.microsoft.com/detail/9nq4ql59xlbf?hl=en-us&gl=US

Just a word of caution, if you start messing about with scripting mouse movement there are an increasing number of modern FPS games that will find it suspicious behaviour.

DPI Wizard can factor this risk into a business model, but it likely could be more devastating to yourself if a ban were to occur in a favourite multiplayer game.

I wouldn't even recommend using Kovaak's sens matcher anymore in some games.

[Marcel the Virginian]

5 minutes ago, TheNoobPolice said:

Just a word of caution, if you start messing about with scripting mouse movement there are an increasing number of modern FPS games that will find it suspicious behaviour.

DPI Wizard can factor this risk into a business model, but it likely could be more devastating to yourself if a ban were to occur in a favourite multiplayer game.

I wouldn't even recommend using Kovaak's sens matcher anymore in some games.

I'll keep that in mind. I wouldn't have guessed, but it makes sense. Thanks for the heads up.