That's a quote from a YT video and apparently the "correct way" to get different sensitivity values in a game. Is it even possible to do this in the calculator?

Here's the video with the time stamp: 

Before that he talks about how matching monitor distance is a flawed, starting at 21:08

Edited October 7, 20196 yr by Ephant

0% monitor distance match scales by the change in focal length.

Do you agree with his statement?

3 minutes ago, Ephant said:

Do you agree with his statement?

I didn't watch the video. If you are referring to monitor distance being flawed, and focal length being the "correct way", then yes. If the output image changes by x, then you change the rotation by x as well to preserve the sensitivity of the device.

If someone is using the monitor distance match framework for the sole intention of matching a distance, then yes it is flawed, as that is only going to happen between 2 exact points, under conditions that will pretty much never happen. It will only happen with 100% certainty if it is a vertical movement. For horizontal movement, the crosshair has to be at the equator. For diagonal movement, it will only be somewhat close if you have an extremely low fov, as aiming within your view is hardly going to affect the absolute pitch. You will still technically be near the equator. The higher the fov, the more the absolute pitch is going to change as your aim moves vertically within your view. At a high enough fov, flicking to the top of the screen may have you looking directly up, and at that point, the edge of your monitor is going to be unreachable with pure horizontal movement. I don't think anyone really understands or cares about that though, and instead use a monitor distance percentage that gives them a certain feel/speed that they are comfortable with, rather than matching a distance.

the videos author mentioned that flaw already but the one thing that likely confuses most users of this method is the lack of availability across multiple games( and the lack of per gun scaling ) csgo / siege and some other games just dont offer the proper methods to changee more than one scope reliable and the odds of any kind of developer actually reworking a whole system like this rather small whilst using 100%/75% horizontal ("uniformsoldier aim") might not be the best method it is certainly the one that has been used the most across games 

0% mm match might be mathematically the best way, but for the practice it isnt good may it works for high sens player idk.

 

If u already a low sens player and use 0% MM for ADS ur sensitivity is wayyyyyy to slow

People shouldn't be thinking of monitor distance as a type of match, rather it's a just a measurement for a sensitivity change.

No matter what system you use to attempt to maintain a perceived sensitivity of the game world at a different FOV, it will ALWAYS be equivalent to at least one monitor distance, therefore monitor distance itself can not be flawed. 

When people have a preference for 75% Mdh, for example,. its not because they want accurate flicks to a part of the screen; it;s nothing to do with that at all - it's the fact that the speed of the gameworld seems most consistent to them when calculating turn-rates across FOVs using that method.

It's almost impossible for anyone to deny, that if using focal length or 0%, that when ADS'ing with a high zoom scope it always feels much slower than hipfire, therefore, with the  exception of making slow tracking the most consistent, it doesn't have much value for sniping play styles.

This is why approx 75% feels the most consistent across multiple FOVs, but if you only use small FOV changes when aiming, it starts to have less value.

Edited October 7, 20196 yr by TheNoobPolice