What's your preferred conversion method?

[DPI Wizard]

Let's see what your preferred conversion method is for the different aims.

If your answer is another percentage than one listed, please specify.

I joined ADS and scope into one poll as most people probably prefer these to be the same, but do tell if you want them different.

[MuntyYy]

Good thread !

[potato psoas]

I would instead put all monitor match percentages other than 0% in their own group because they are arbitrary and do not convert the same from setup to setup. Your 100% will be different from my 100%. If you took two monitors and placed them at exactly the same central position then you would have different angles representing 100% for each monitor:

The same problem applies to Viewspeed because Viewspeed calculations are dependent on perceived monitor size, let alone the horizontal or vertical axis.

The only conversion method that is independent of every factor is 0% because 0% will always remain as the center of the monitor no matter what aspect ratio you use, what size monitor you have or how far away from the monitor you sit.

Edited September 17, 2018 by potato psoas

[DPI Wizard]

26 minutes ago, potato psoas said:

I would instead put all monitor match percentages other than 0% in their own group because they are arbitrary and do not convert the same from setup to setup. Your 100% will be different from my 100%. If you took two monitors and placed them at exactly the same central position then you would have different angles representing 100% for each monitor:

True, but they all achieve the same goal unless you are converting between different aspect ratios. Also note that Monitor Distance Vertical 100% will in most cases be the same regardless of the monitor AR (some games do change vertical FOV depending on AR though).

[potato psoas]

29 minutes ago, DPI Wizard said:

True, but they all achieve the same goal unless you are converting between different aspect ratios. Also note that Monitor Distance Vertical 100% will in most cases be the same regardless of the monitor AR (some games do change vertical FOV depending on AR though).

Well they would achieve the same goal, as long as we took the visual angle into account, which I know you are working on. But what I'm trying to say is that there's nothing special about "75%" or "100%", in particular, because they are arbitrary. DICE ended up choosing 75% as their default percentage for BF4 because it was 100% in 4:3 and it "felt" good, probably due to muscle memory developed from playing games that converted like this for so long. But now we know that they didn't really know what they were doing.

[cchhqq]

17 hours ago, potato psoas said:

I would instead put all monitor match percentages other than 0% in their own group because they are arbitrary and do not convert the same from setup to setup. Your 100% will be different from my 100%. If you took two monitors and placed them at exactly the same central position then you would have different angles representing 100% for each monitor:

The same problem applies to Viewspeed because Viewspeed calculations are dependent on perceived monitor size, let alone the horizontal or vertical axis.

The only conversion method that is independent of every factor is 0% because 0% will always remain as the center of the monitor no matter what aspect ratio you use, what size monitor you have or how far away from the monitor you sit.

Does this also applied to 2d to 3d conversion? I heard that desktop is 0 fov, so I guess still 0% best?

[potato psoas]

1 minute ago, cchhqq said:

Does this also applied to 2d to 3d conversion? I heard that desktop is 0 fov, so I guess still 0% best?

Yeah 0% is effectively 0 FOV. It is the limit of the projection, the tangent to the curve.

And yeah, 0% converts from 3D to 2D, but only at the center of the screen - which is exactly where 0% matches sensitivity. This is because you are comparing a cursor to a crosshair. The cursor can be anywhere on the screen and therefore is perceived as a different sensitivity depending on where it is on the screen. You can test this out by moving your head back and forth. If you put your eyes close to the monitor, your cursor looks like it moves faster and if you lean back in your chair the cursor looks like it moves slower.

[cchhqq]

1 minute ago, potato psoas said:

Yeah 0% is effectively 0 FOV. It is the limit of the projection, the tangent to the curve.

And yeah, 0% converts from 3D to 2D, but only at the center of the screen - which is exactly where 0% matches sensitivity. This is because you are comparing a cursor to a crosshair. The cursor can be anywhere on the screen and therefore is perceived as a different sensitivity depending on where it is on the screen. You can test this out by moving your head back and forth. If you put your eyes close to the monitor, your cursor looks like it moves faster and if you lean back in your chair the cursor looks like it moves slower.

but my cursor will not like always at the center, does this mean that even using 0% to transfer 2d sense also is not so meaningful. Since my cursor will have different sens in 2d.

[MuntyYy]

58 minutes ago, cchhqq said:

but my cursor will not like always at the center, does this mean that even using 0% to transfer 2d sense also is not so meaningful. Since my cursor will have different sens in 2d.

Its pretty useless, if you ask me to convert your 3d sensitivity to 2d.. Use something in between 400- 800 dpi. If you have more than 30cm/ 360 you will end up with a desktop cpi lower than 200.. which is nuts.

Edited September 18, 2018 by MuntyYy

[potato psoas]

26 minutes ago, cchhqq said:

but my cursor will not like always at the center, does this mean that even using 0% to transfer 2d sense also is not so meaningful. Since my cursor will have different sens in 2d.

It helps a little bit to have your sensitivity relatively similar, but it will not transfer over to 3D perfectly. But I don't think that's any reason to not have it converted. Heck if you curved the monitor so that all points were equally distant from your eyes then it would be perfect. It's pretty close and worth doing. And damn it makes things easy if you convert from desktop using 0%. I personally convert from Windows/Desktop to every other game I play. What makes it easy is, if you are using 0%, instead of changing the in-game sensitivity setting when you wish to change your effective sensitivity, you can just change your DPI because the in-game setting won't be affected, as you can see below:

Edited September 18, 2018 by potato psoas

[MuntyYy]

If you just increase your dpi and lower the wps, it can be pretty accurate...wps 3 - dpi 1390 less than a mm for me. But other problems would arrive with it - such as mouse smoothing, I stand corrected though. 

Edited September 18, 2018 by MuntyYy

[Quackerjack]

for me the only good method is monitor distance 75%, what i use for scopes.

After a long time testing i found out that every game needs their own sensitivity setting cause there is so much different

[Skwuruhl]

Reminder that viewspeed is 

which makes literally 0 mathematical sense

[massivelivefun]

I swear by vertical viewspeed for ads though

Is there any reason why I should use monitor distance over vert. viewspeed?

I'm compelled to hear an argument against viewspeed and for monitor distance cause i lowkey thought that viewspeed v2, aka vert viewspeed, was supposed to be the holy grail or something along the lines.

EDIT: I understand that all of this is preference, I'm still curious otherwise as to one from the other.

Edited September 21, 2018 by massivelivefun

[MuntyYy]

On 9/19/2018 at 8:47 AM, Skwuruhl said:

viewspeed

 

On 9/19/2018 at 8:47 AM, Skwuruhl said:

makes literally 0 mathematical sense

That's your reason

 

[massivelivefun]

On 9/18/2018 at 10:47 PM, Skwuruhl said:

Reminder that viewspeed is 

which makes literally 0 mathematical sense

3 hours ago, MuntyYy said:

That's your reason

That kind of response might as well be conjecture. Thanks for making me "understand" the topic more, geez.

[iBerggman]

50 minutes ago, massivelivefun said:

That kind of response might as well be conjecture. Thanks for making me "understand" the topic more, geez.

There's this thread that's being written with the aim of functioning as a guide to learning the differences between the conversion methods so I'd suggest you check that out if you haven't already. There's a long list of reference links to old threads as well so you could probably spend the whole weekend studying how the viewspeed formula was made and other things like that if you really wanted to ^^