I want to know the concrete calculation formula of viewspeed.

[a_nok]

In this image.

[DPI Wizard]

Check here 

(It might be "Hidden", if so click "Reveal hidden contents")

[Skidushe]

If you want the link to the viewspeed v2 thread which has the maths it's here. But if you want the practicalities, the link DPI Wizard posted will show that.

[a_nok]

44 minutes ago, Skidushe said:

If you want the link to the viewspeed v2 thread which has the maths it's here. But if you want the practicalities, the link DPI Wizard posted will show that.

Sorry.  Is viewspeed v2 the current viewspeed?

[Skidushe]

Just now, a_nok said:

Sorry.  Is viewspeed v2 the current viewspeed?

the names changed

viewspeed v1 -> viewspeed - horizontal

viewspeed v2 -> viewspeed - vertical

[DPI Wizard]

1 minute ago, a_nok said:

Sorry.  Is viewspeed v2 the current viewspeed?

Viewspeed v1 is horizontal, viewspeed v2 is vertical.

[a_nok]

8 minutes ago, Skidushe said:

the names changed

viewspeed v1 -> viewspeed - horizontal

viewspeed v2 -> viewspeed - vertical

 

8 minutes ago, DPI Wizard said:

Viewspeed v1 is horizontal, viewspeed v2 is vertical.

Thank you! !

I did not see this page at all. ..

I think from now on. (I apologize for my poor English.

[a_nok]

How was this formula led?

circle ratio / chord ratio

 

 

Edited October 26, 2018 by a_nok

[Skidushe]

20 hours ago, a_nok said:

How was this formula led?

circle ratio / chord ratio

 

 

I don't know exactly why that was chosen, but I can hazard a guess...

The aim of viewspeed is to unify the feeling of moving through different FOV's so the difference isn't jarring going from one FOV to another even if it's detrimental to muscle memory.

To explain this, I'll compare it to 0% monitor distance match, the best we have for muscle memory. When converting to low FOV it 'feels' slow, even if aim is good, so viewspeed aims to make this faster. Similarly, converting to a larger FOV with 0% monitor distance match makes it 'feel' too fast, so viewspeed aims to make this slower.

Because we're talking about how it feels to us, we're going to base the measurements on out window into the game world, here that's the flat monitor sat in front of us.

So what properties can we look at? 

In the left image we have the chord lengths created from each FOV, we have the Radii from each FOV to the screen, and we have the different arc lengths created from each FOV, and in the right hand image we have the each arc length created from each FOV.

Now my guess here is that they just found a pair of these where the ratio between them feels right and achieves the goals set about above.

I've made a geogebra calculator for viewspeed here if you want to play around with it:

https://ggbm.at/mgw8cke4

[a_nok]

22 hours ago, Skidushe said:

I don't know exactly why that was chosen, but I can hazard a guess...

 

Quote

Now my guess here is that they just found a pair of these where the ratio between them feels right and achieves the goals set about above.

Is not it an arbitrary?

Edited October 28, 2018 by a_nok

[Skidushe]

3 hours ago, a_nok said:

 

Is not it an arbitrary?

I wouldn't go to say arbitrary as it is based on reason and aims to achieve the goals I listed earlier and while I don't know if this is a factor, does come down to quite a neat formula. Why that specific ratio is chosen I don't know more then the guesses above but it is based off reason. Something like a monitor match percentage you choose that's not 0% you can say is arbitrary, but I don't think this is.

That's not to say it's the best for building muscle memory, as it's arguably the worst.

Edited October 28, 2018 by Skidushe

[a_nok]

 

・R_1 * sin θ_1 = R_2 * sin θ_2

・R_2 * cos θ_2 = R_3 * cos θ_3

・θ_1 = θ_3 < θ_2 , R_1 > R_2 > R_3

Based on this assumption, the following formula was found.

・R_2 / R_3 =(R_2 / R_1) * (tan θ_2 / tan θ_1)

=(sin θ_1 / sin θ_2) * (tan θ_2 / tan θ_1)

・R_2 / R_1 =(R_2 / R_3) * (cot θ_2 / cot θ_3)

=(cos θ_3 / cos θ_2) * (cot θ_2 / cot θ_3)

=(cos θ_3 / cos θ_2) / (tan θ_2 / tan θ_3)

 

circle ratio / chord ratio= R_2 / R_1 

 

I do not know well that viewspeed is combined at this ratio...

Edited October 31, 2018 by a_nok

[Skidushe]

On 10/29/2018 at 6:02 AM, a_nok said:

 

・R_1 * sin θ_1 = R_2 * sin θ_2

・R_2 * cos θ_2 = R_3 * cos θ_3

・θ_1 = θ_3 < θ_2 , R_1 > R_2 > R_3

Based on this assumption, the following formula was found.

・R_2 / R_3 =(R_2 / R_1) * (tan θ_2 / tan θ_1)

=(sin θ_1 / sin θ_2) * (tan θ_2 / tan θ_1)

・R_2 / R_1 =(R_2 / R_3) * (cot θ_2 / cot θ_3)

=(cos θ_3 / cos θ_2) * (cot θ_2 / cot θ_3)

=(cos θ_3 / cos θ_2) / (tan θ_2 / tan θ_3)

 

circle ratio / chord ratio= R_2 / R_1 

 

I do not know well that viewspeed is combined at this ratio...

I don't know what you mean. I tried to follow your logic but gave up. What is R? I assumed radius, but then there's 3? What do you mean combined? 

Are you looking for a mathematical work-through of how the formula was founded?

Edited October 31, 2018 by Skidushe

[a_nok]

3 hours ago, Skidushe said:

I don't know what you mean. I tried to follow your logic but gave up. What is R? I assumed radius, but then there's 3? What do you mean combined? 

Are you looking for a mathematical work-through of how the formula was founded?

I made an expression based on the diagram you indicated.
I thought that R cos θ was matched in the first figure and R sin θ in the second figure. R is radius.

As a result of considering what the ratio(circle ratio / chord ratio) means, it was found to be equal to the circle ratio of the second figure