Can we incorporate Monitor Size into conversion calculations?

[potato psoas]

Hey @DPI Wizard I was wondering if you could reprogram the calculator to incorporate Monitor Size into the equation. I've mentioned similar ideas before in these forum posts:

But I was trying to wrap my head around it and I can definitely prove that your Monitor Size (and Sitting Distance) affect your sensitivity. It might seem ridiculous and a little pretentious to add Sitting Distance into the equation but I think it's really important as well. Of course, this only matters if you have to change to a different monitor or adjust your sitting distance.

 

Let me first explain how the FOV changes depending on Monitor Size. Assume two different sized monitors share the same in-game FOV (90 FOV). If we overlayed the visual representations so that they shared the same sitting distance then we would find that the overlayed section produces two different FOVs when referring to the same visual angle, as shown below:

But even though they share the same visual angle, if you compared the FOVs, the larger monitor would actually have a smaller converted FOV and the smaller monitor would actually have a larger converted FOV.

So it really is important to have monitor size incorporated into the formula, even if you don't change your sitting distance.

But if you do change your sitting distance...

Let's use the same monitor but we want to adjust the sitting distance. What happens is that the visual angle changes and therefore the perceived sensitivity, as shown below:

This concept is also very easy to test. If you move your eyes closer to the monitor, the sensitivity is perceived to be faster, but if you sit further from the monitor the sensitivity is perceived to be slower.

The best way to convert this is to scale the monitor distance proportionately as if it shared the same visual angle even though sitting distance has changed. See below:

The math for converting 2D edge-to-edge is simply as follows:

New sensitivity = Old Sensitivity * (Previous Sitting Distance / Current Sitting Distance)

 

I am going to figure out how to do 3D as well, but I should say it's not necessary - we can always use the 2D sensitivity as reference.

Edited July 5, 2018 by potato psoas

[DPI Wizard]

I'm currently rewriting a lot of code to allow for multi-calculations (i.e. calculate all aims instantly).

I'll look into this down the road

[potato psoas]

7 hours ago, DPI Wizard said:

I'm currently rewriting a lot of code to allow for multi-calculations (i.e. calculate all aims instantly).

I'll look into this down the road

Nice thankyou

[Drimzi]

I maintain the same input: output ratio for 2d when switching monitors, and just generate the 3d sensitivity based on resolution. So equal resolution screens with different physical sized panels will have different results. Larger screens result in lower CPI, which also impacts the cm/360, but the aiming ability is preserved. This calculators method of maintaining the horizontal distance has zero benefit in any circumstances. My 15.6" 1366x768 laptop was unbearably slow when converted with this calculator. Games were also slow despite being the exact same cm/360 and fov as my desktop. The sitting distance did not fix the perceived speed. I tried both at the same distance, and tried having both screens consume the same realworld fov (requiring different distances), which didn't help at all. All I had to do was account for the size of the screen, and it became right. The distance didn't even matter. Could have it right in my face or far away. So I don't think you need to use sitting distance in your calculations. It's really only the size of the screen that matters, let your brain adjust to the distance between you and the screen automatically without trying to compensate for it.

Edited July 6, 2018 by Drimzi

[potato psoas]

On 06/07/2018 at 11:27, Drimzi said:

I maintain the same input: output ratio for 2d when switching monitors, and just generate the 3d sensitivity based on resolution. So equal resolution screens with different physical sized panels will have different results. Larger screens result in lower CPI, which also impacts the cm/360, but the aiming ability is preserved. This calculators method of maintaining the horizontal distance has zero benefit in any circumstances. My 15.6" 1366x768 laptop was unbearably slow when converted with this calculator. Games were also slow despite being the exact same cm/360 and fov as my desktop. The sitting distance did not fix the perceived speed. I tried both at the same distance, and tried having both screens consume the same realworld fov (requiring different distances), which didn't help at all. All I had to do was account for the size of the screen, and it became right. The distance didn't even matter. Could have it right in my face or far away. So I don't think you need to use sitting distance in your calculations. It's really only the size of the screen that matters, let your brain adjust to the distance between you and the screen automatically without trying to compensate for it.

I did test it myself and it works fine. Of course, when you are closer the sensitivity feels slower and when you are further the sensitivity feels faster. Where you sit affects overall screen target size so it will feel like the sensitivity has changed but it really hasn't - it's just compensating for a change in visual angle. You can use it or not, but I think it should at least be a feature on the calculator.

[Drimzi]

The correct term for above is "control - display ratio", but yeh, I really don't think you should convert the speeds for seating distance. If something is further away, you can tell it is further away, you don't just see the size of the thing, you can tell that two equal sized thing at different distances are two different things, and you will scale all of your inputs proportionately with the distance. Converting a sensitivity result for some far away screen to a close screen will probably just throw you off, whereas not converting at all, the input and output will be behave as expected.

[potato psoas]

So I was thinking about sitting distance and I have another example for why it is relevant and an important part of perceived sensitivity.

So we can agree that the monitor size affects the sensitivity because for the same visual angle the monitors would show two different perceived FOVs. But this only applies if the sitting distance hasn't changed. However, let's imagine that we place the monitors at calculated sitting distances so that they share the same visual angle, like so:

Since they share the same visual angle, even though they are differently sized, you can use exactly the same sensitivity settings for each.

As you can see, sitting distance is definitely an important part of perceived sensitivity. Just as monitor size is.

[potato psoas]

And I remembered another example...

Let's assume we use the same monitor but change the sitting distance for different FOVs, like so:

If we match the visual angle with the in-game FOV according to a change in sitting distance then we can also use the same sensitivity. This is essentially the 360 Distance conversion, except the monitor moves according to the FOV. It's important to know this when understanding how to convert sensitivity. If the monitor stays at the same sitting distance then a change in FOV means the visual angle has zoomed in. And when it is zoomed in we can no longer use the same 360 distance because the perceived sensitivity has changed. The very reason why we monitor match.

[DNAMTE]

When you go to the cinemas... do you like to watch from 5 feet away with a 50' screen>? You need to keep things relative.... If i have a 27" 1440p 16:9 monitor or a 50 foot 1440p 16:9 cinema screen... if they are both using the same resolution / aspect ratio then i would want the EXACT same sensitivity. I would expect i am not sitting the same distance from each screen.

As a competent human being you should be able to position your head in front of your screen so that it fits in to your 'view space' perfectly. Sensitivity should not be based on SPATIAL AWARENESS, I'm sure one can understand your thumb is not larger than the empire state building even though you can block out the sun with your thumb...

The ONLY time the actual calculative sensitivity needs to be altered is if your monitor size / aspect ratio remains the same BUT the pixels per inch changes. For example a 27" 1080p 16:9 monitor vs a 27" 1440p 16:9 monitor, the latter has a higher density of pixels that will affect how the mouse moves across the desktop.

 

 

 

[MuntyYy]

1 hour ago, DNAMTE said:

if they are both using the same resolution / aspect ratio then i would want the EXACT same sensitivity. I would expect i am not sitting the same distance from each screen.

As a competent human being you should be able to position your head in front of your screen so that it fits in to your 'view space' perfectly. Sensitivity should not be based on SPATIAL AWARENESS, I'm sure one can understand your thumb is not larger than the empire state building even though you can block out the sun with your thumb...

You are correct, if one's sensitivity changes based on a 3 cm change in distance from hes/her monitor, then most surely something else its at fault. Keep your sensitivity constant, and practice, practice,. practice. You will need more than a couple of hours to master it. From a few months to actual years.

 

The ONLY time the actual calculative sensitivity needs to be altered is if your monitor size / aspect ratio remains the same BUT the pixels per inch changes. For example a 27" 1080p 16:9 monitor vs a 27" 1440p 16:9 monitor, the latter has a higher density of pixels that will affect how the mouse moves across the desktop.

That's irrelevant in a 3d world, if you keep the same aspect ratio. 

 

I, however have a personal question to you, @DNAMTE .

Which conversion method do you use or think should be the best for improving muscle memory ? I'm curious, as I played for almost 8 years with 00% mm across FOVs, then took a long break and since a year or so I''m on 100% mm. I am aware that is highly debatable and personal, but I just feel that 00% mm works better than 100% only in 2d - 3d ( duh ! ) conversions and IF the actual target is exactly or very close to 2x times further away from you whilst adsing with a 2x scope.

 

Have a productive day,
Munty

Edited July 19, 2018 by MuntyYy

[MuntyYy]

Also, I want to add one more thing, in relation to how far/close you stay from your monitor. When staying closer you become more aware of movement, your tracking and reactions should theoretically feel faster and more precise than if you would stay further back. I can't seem to find the article that explains it thoroughly , but I will keep you guys posted.

 

Edit: Not the site I'm looking for, but  a good read nonetheless.  

Edited July 19, 2018 by MuntyYy

[WhoCares?]

1 hour ago, MuntyYy said:

Also, I want to add one more thing, in relation to how far/close you stay from your monitor. When staying closer you become more aware of movement, your tracking and reactions should theoretically feel faster and more precise than if you would stay further back. I can't seem to find the article that explains it thoroughly , but I will keep you guys posted.

Yeah, I feel the same, (maybe ist just placebo), but I feel like I have more focus on the game.

But I am affright of my eyes will get hurt when sitting so close to my screen. Until now I dont need any glasses whatsoever and I want to keep it that way 

How close do you sit infront of your screen? (and whats the size of your monitor?)

[MuntyYy]

13 minutes ago, WhoCares? said:

How close do you sit infront of your screen? (and whats the size of your monitor?)

I can't really give an accurate answer, as I change my posture very often. And honestly it doesn't matter for me ( my overall accuracy and reaction time is pretty much the same ). I can stay up close ( 20-25 cm ) if needed, or at 60-70 I guess ? when I play casually. My screen is 21.5 inches - but this again, doesn't matter in my case, as I stay away from 00%

Edited July 19, 2018 by MuntyYy

[MuntyYy]

@WhoCares? A little word of advice, for you.

Be more concerned of your mouse sensor, how heavy it is, if it fits well in your hand also the LOD ( lift of distance ) is VERY important, especially if you play with a low sensitivity. Your grip could also influence the pace you play at and if you able to be/or not consistent for prolonged sessions of gaming.  

[WhoCares?]

4 minutes ago, MuntyYy said:

I can't really give an accurate answer, as I change my posture very often. And honestly it doesn't matter for me ( my overall accuracy and reaction time is pretty much the same ). I can stay up close ( 20-25 cm ) if needed, or at 60-70 I guess ? when I play casually. My screen is 21.5 inches.

I didnt ment accuracy in detail, just more focus on whats going on in the game.

My screen is 27inches and I am sitting arround 60cm far away.

[DNAMTE]

I still use view speed, V1 and V2 are so similar it doesn't make any difference IMO.
As per manufactures instructions, you should sit an arms length away from your monitor. There is a reason PC screens have not grown to the size of TV's, and don't pretend its because of refresh rates... My phone has a 4k screen, the pixels are almost impossible to see. Screens are relative to viewing distance.

Also Munty "That's irrelevant in a 3d world, if you keep the same aspect ratio."  correct, which is why i highlighted the word desktop in my response.

 

[WhoCares?]

1 minute ago, MuntyYy said:

@WhoCares? A little word of advice, for you.

Be more concerned of your mouse sensor, how heavy it is, if it fits well in your hand also the LOD ( lift of distance ) is VERY important, especially if you play with a low sensitivity. Your grip could also influence the pace you play at and if you able to be/or not consistent for prolonged sessions of gaming.  

I do...my collection of mice growed a lot over time 

[MuntyYy]

7 minutes ago, WhoCares? said:

I didnt ment accuracy in detail, just more focus on whats going on in the game.

My screen is 27inches and I am sitting arround 60cm far away.

If I really wanna impress and sweat like a piglet, then I put that monitor in my eyeballs. 20-25 cm. 60-70cm its a comfortable position your eyes and brains will thank you. 

Edited July 19, 2018 by MuntyYy

[MuntyYy]

2 minutes ago, DNAMTE said:

I still use view speed, V1 and V2 are so similar it doesn't make any difference IMO.

I see, well if that works for you...

3 minutes ago, DNAMTE said:

As per manufactures instructions, you should sit an arms length away from your monitor.

I totally agree.

3 minutes ago, DNAMTE said:

Also Munty "That's irrelevant in a 3d world, if you keep the same aspect ratio."  correct, which is why i highlighted the word desktop in my response.

Just wanted to make sure its clear for everyone.

Thank you for the answers.

[DNAMTE]

You also got to remember, this is a game, it's not real. FOV / distortion and lots of other factors will determine your best way to match zoom levels..

If you wanted to compare to reality, if you have ever shot a long rifle or anything with a scope... you will notice just how twitchy it is to aim through a 4x- 8x -12x scope.

Games tend to slow down your sensitivity when looking down a scope, the opposite of real life. 1cm of movement at the barrel can result in 10m down range. This is why 0% match never felt right, and never will feel right. On that note no sensitivity match will ever feel perfect, it can't because it's not the same.

 

[MuntyYy]

10 minutes ago, DNAMTE said:

You also got to remember, this is a game, it's not real

This 

11 minutes ago, DNAMTE said:

If you wanted to compare to reality, if you have ever shot a long rifle or anything with a scope... you will notice just how twitchy it is to aim through a 4x- 8x -12x scope.

Of course its twitchy, your arms wobble like you've got dem parkinsons, put that weapon on a bipod and the twitchy effect is almost gone. But then, IRL when you are squiring the target your arm moves in relation to your body, to your shoulder. What you see through the scope is not controlled by your eyes, therefore matching the real sensation to what you see in a game is unreasonable to ask/ want. 

 

17 minutes ago, DNAMTE said:

Games tend to slow down your sensitivity when looking down a scope, the opposite of real life.

Yes, but in real life, you ain't gonna 8X scope targets at 20-30 meters away. In a game you might. That's the reason 00% mm doesn't feel right. It would've feel and probably made sense to use, only if the targets were at the exact distance in relation to the scopes you use.

[MuntyYy]

1 hour ago, DNAMTE said:

FOV / distortion and lots of other factors will determine your best way to match zoom levels..

Distortion will always be present and no matter how much we try to come up with different formulas or projections to "bypass" it, won't work. We just need to embrace it, let our brains and eyes account for it and make real time adjustments in game. With a lot of practice and dedication anyone can do it no matter the conversion method ( v1,v2, 00, 56, 69.696969, 100 ).

To simplify what I've said, distortion is not a factor that decides how our brain perceives FOV change across the game engine, but rather is subconsciously  accounted for with practice. ( same goes for stretched resolutions and different aspect ratios  )  A pro might play 30 completely different fps games, yet with hours of dedication in each of them, he achieves the "impossible". How ? if there's distortion, different recoil patterns, different movements and FOVs, if he doesn't use 00% mm ( the nr.1 method used atm ) ?

Edited July 19, 2018 by MuntyYy

[potato psoas]

9 hours ago, DNAMTE said:

When you go to the cinemas... do you like to watch from 5 feet away with a 50' screen>? You need to keep things relative.... If i have a 27" 1440p 16:9 monitor or a 50 foot 1440p 16:9 cinema screen... if they are both using the same resolution / aspect ratio then i would want the EXACT same sensitivity. I would expect i am not sitting the same distance from each screen.

As a competent human being you should be able to position your head in front of your screen so that it fits in to your 'view space' perfectly. Sensitivity should not be based on SPATIAL AWARENESS, I'm sure one can understand your thumb is not larger than the empire state building even though you can block out the sun with your thumb...

Well that's true, but you've got to consider that people change monitor sizes (like, from 18" to 27") yet they will put them in exactly the same spot on their desk and use the exact same settings and wonder why their aim feels off. And even if you intuitively moved back for a cinema screen, you may not be at the exact distance where the visual angles for both the cinema and the monitor match. Your estimate could be wildly off.

And with what I was saying before - you don't have to take sitting distance into account if you don't want to, if you think you can intuitively know how far to sit. I know it's a bit pretentious and it still has problems, because it's impossible to keep your head locked at the same exact distance all the time. However, I still think it's a valid and important part of calculating perceived sensitivity.

6 hours ago, DNAMTE said:

You also got to remember, this is a game, it's not real. FOV / distortion and lots of other factors will determine your best way to match zoom levels..

If you wanted to compare to reality, if you have ever shot a long rifle or anything with a scope... you will notice just how twitchy it is to aim through a 4x- 8x -12x scope.

Games tend to slow down your sensitivity when looking down a scope, the opposite of real life. 1cm of movement at the barrel can result in 10m down range. This is why 0% match never felt right, and never will feel right. On that note no sensitivity match will ever feel perfect, it can't because it's not the same.

9 hours ago, DNAMTE said:

The ONLY time the actual calculative sensitivity needs to be altered is if your monitor size / aspect ratio remains the same BUT the pixels per inch changes. For example a 27" 1080p 16:9 monitor vs a 27" 1440p 16:9 monitor, the latter has a higher density of pixels that will affect how the mouse moves across the desktop.

This is also true, but there is of course a change in PPI when changing from a 18" 1080p monitor to a 27" 1080p monitor, which is what I mean. And it gets even more complicated if you have a change in sitting distance and a change in monitor size. These are situations where I think a calculator would really help.

[DNAMTE]

12 hours ago, potato psoas said:

Well that's true, but you've got to consider that people change monitor sizes (like, from 18" to 27") yet they will put them in exactly the same spot on their desk and use the exact same settings and wonder why their aim feels off. And even if you intuitively moved back for a cinema screen, you may not be at the exact distance where the visual angles for both the cinema and the monitor match. Your estimate could be wildly off.

And with what I was saying before - you don't have to take sitting distance into account if you don't want to, if you think you can intuitively know how far to sit. I know it's a bit pretentious and it still has problems, because it's impossible to keep your head locked at the same exact distance all the time. However, I still think it's a valid and important part of calculating perceived sensitivity.

This is also true, but there is of course a change in PPI when changing from a 18" 1080p monitor to a 27" 1080p monitor, which is what I mean. And it gets even more complicated if you have a change in sitting distance and a change in monitor size. These are situations where I think a calculator would really help.

I think you would be surprised just how 'smart' your brain really is. Ask anyone who takes prescription glasses, what it's like when they first put them on, or when they changed to a new prescription from an old prescription. Some will tell you everything looks distorted and 'wrong', ask them in a few hours. everything will be normal.

This happens because your eyes don't see, they just project information to your brain, your brain is what makes the image and allows you to 'see'. You might be aware of all the people who get a feeling of disconnect in reality after spending too much time in a VR headset, their brain has begun to 're wire' itself accordingly.

An 18" and a 27" are both reasonably sized to be positioned an arms length away without any dramas, a 50" might give you issues because parts of the screen will simply be too far in to your outer peripheral view and a 2" is going to give you issues without putting a magnifying glass in-front of it.

My point is, your brain is designed to work synergystically with your eyes and every other part of your body. Changing viewing distance by an inch will take you less than 5 seconds to adjust. I think sensitivity should be based on whats inside the little black box (monitor) and let your brain take care of your physical self, that's something it specialises in.

Ultimately your trying to squeeze 120 degrees virtual FOV in to what is? 30-40? degrees of actual viewspace from your eye. Something that your brain adapted to a long time ago. (and something that gives 'non gamers' a headache just trying to watch).

 

 

PS: heres something i found on google regarding the VR side effects https://forums.oculusvr.com/community/discussion/53287/i-feel-like-im-in-vr-when-im-not

[potato psoas]

21 minutes ago, DNAMTE said:

I think you would be surprised just how 'smart' your brain really is. Ask anyone who takes prescription glasses, what it's like when they first put them on, or when they changed to a new prescription from an old prescription. Some will tell you everything looks distorted and 'wrong', ask them in a few hours. everything will be normal.

This happens because your eyes don't see, they just project information to your brain, your brain is what makes the image and allows you to 'see'. You might be aware of all the people who get a feeling of disconnect in reality after spending too much time in a VR headset, their brain has begun to 're wire' itself accordingly.

An 18" and a 27" are both reasonably sized to be positioned an arms length away without any dramas, a 50" might give you issues because parts of the screen will simply be too far in to your outer peripheral view and a 2" is going to give you issues without putting a magnifying glass in-front of it.

My point is, your brain is designed to work synergystically with your eyes and every other part of your body. Changing viewing distance by an inch will take you less than 5 seconds to adjust. I think sensitivity should be based on whats inside the little black box (monitor) and let your brain take care of your physical self, that's something it specialises in.

Ultimately your trying to squeeze 120 degrees virtual FOV in to what is? 30-40? degrees of actual viewspace from your eye. Something that your brain adapted to a long time ago. (and something that gives 'non gamers' a headache just trying to watch).

 

 

PS: heres something i found on google regarding the VR side effects https://forums.oculusvr.com/community/discussion/53287/i-feel-like-im-in-vr-when-im-not

I know it sounds convincing, but there's really no proof. You'd have to explain the why and how it relates to sensitivity, otherwise all it is is just a hypothesis. I personally think the illusion of visual angle is enough of an explanation for how the brain perceives sensitivity for changes in zoom level. Just look back at my diagrams, with what I said about:

- two differently sized monitors sharing the same visual angle

- matching the in-game FOV to the same visual angle of your eyes

In both situations it's obvious that you can use the same sensitivity settings because they take advantage of this illusion, yet you don't follow the line of logic all the way when they take advantage of the illusion. Why?

I'm not saying I know everything either, I'm just making sure to stay objective. If there is any other objective explanation for a change in opinion then I'm always open to it. It's not a good idea to say "don't be so pedantic, the brain will adjust".