Viewspeed v2

 

DNAMTE has come up with another solution for converting sensitivity to different field of views. This time it is independent of the aspect ratio, which is a flaw with viewspeed v1. The aim of this solution is to make the different field of views behave the same visually when moving the mouse, solving any perceptual issues such as feeling like it is slowing down or speeding up. This makes this method especially useful for zoom/ads sensitivities.

 

The sensitivity scaling is done using two ratios, the circle ratio and the chord ratio.

 

DNAMTE is unsure on how to do the math for it, so I will do it. In the picture above, he did 90 degrees and 45 degrees for the angle of view, and found a chord ratio of 2.41 and a circle ratio of 1.3.

circle ratio / chord ratio

The chord ratio can be found using:

tan(y * pi/360) / tan(x * pi/360)

Where the variables are the degrees. If we substitute x for 45, and y for 90, we end up with a ratio of 2.41 as shown in the image above.

Scaling the sensitivity by the chord ratio alone would be equal to scaling the sensitivity by the zoom amount.

 

The circle ratio can be found using:

cos(x * pi/360) / cos(y * pi/360)

If we substitute x for 45, and y for 90, we end up with a ratio of 1.3 as shown in the image above.

 

Put these two together, and you simply get the sin ratio.

(cos(x * pi/360) / cos(y * pi/360)) / (tan(y * pi/360) / tan(x * pi/360))
= sin(x * pi/360) / sin(y * pi/360)

 

When substituting the variables with the angles, you want to use the vertical / horizontal angle for the 1:1 aspect ratio.

 

With this additional option of converting sensitivities, you end up with the options of converting using the tan ratio (mm 0%), sin ratio (viewspeed v2), or matching a screen-space distance using monitor distance match.

 

Recommendations:

• Use tan ratio (0%) or 360 distance match for converting hipfire.
• Use tan ratio (0%) or sin ratio (viewspeed) for converting zoom/ads.

Edited September 7, 20187 yr by Drimzi

Amazing work, I'll start looking at it soon!

130% screen match distance for 120° to 110°

Could you post notes or something on how you came to this formula. At a glance it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Also for 50° to 25° the match distance is unsolvable (unless you include complex numbers).

Edited July 1, 20178 yr by Skwuruhl

Why is the old one wrong though? I thought it made sense, logically. I don't know if it's just me, but personally it's really too hard to feel if it's correct. What brought on this need to change it, it doesn't feel right anymore? And why is this one correct?

Also, Isn't it just a coincidence that monitor distance happens to always be between 60 and 70 percent?

Edited January 28, 20187 yr by Drimzi

Really good work! I wished I would have helped to work out this new formula, but my mathematical understanding isn't good enough :/ I followed the whole "Best USA coefficient for Battlefield 1" thread and tryed to understand everything, but at some point I got lost

I downloded your file and tested it incsgo and it really felt amazing! At every fov  

Edited July 2, 20178 yr by WhoCares?

Yeah, it feels exactly like my desktop DPI now, every FOV feels the same. I can really tell the difference when doing Fast Aiming mode in the CSGO aim training map.

 

Interesting thing is that all my sensitivities are much lower. Maybe I will have to up my desktop DPI so that it is fast enough in-game.

Edited July 2, 20178 yr by potato psoas

For a base fov of 103­° it's virtually 100% monitor distance match for all zoom amounts.

edit: https://www.desmos.com/calculator/yg4pgenb0y

Edited July 2, 20178 yr by Skwuruhl

On 7/1/2017 at 5:43 AM, Drimzi said:

 

Here is a formula that accepts actual hfov as the input. (d = resolution width / dpi, θ = actual hfov)

I always kind of thought it was just slightly off as well. This formula is for 6/11 WPS correct? So for 4/11 @ 400 dpi I just replace the default dpi (400) with 200?

Edited January 28, 20187 yr by Drimzi

It would be super interesting to see the difference with this new equation. When I use viewspeed for games like bf1 or rainbow six with a very slight zoom on RDS sights they always feel a bit wobbly and too fast. Wonder if that was just in my head or if this was due to the current equation being a bit off :/

GREAT JOB! tried differed FOV and they all felt the same for me. so the current Viewspeed gonna be updated anytime soon?

That would be amazing! my avatar can express how i felt when i tested it lol.

26 minutes ago, jabbothehut said:

It would be super interesting to see the difference with this new equation. When I use viewspeed for games like bf1 or rainbow six with a very slight zoom on RDS sights they always feel a bit wobbly and too fast. Wonder if that was just in my head or if this was due to the current equation being a bit off :/

I mean, the current equation feels alright even across sensitivities I'm pretty consistent with flicking and turning 160 for shots.
Whether it's a 1st person with completely different FoV, whether it's ADS or if it's 3rd person.
By any means if it can improve i don't see a problem with it, but I don't think it should feel too fast. It might just be due to the FoV lowering and everything just seems to move faster.

2 minutes ago, NoMaD.oW said:

I mean, the current equation feels alright even across sensitivities I'm pretty consistent with flicking and turning 160 for shots.
Whether it's a 1st person with completely different FoV, whether it's ADS or if it's 3rd person.
By any means if it can improve i don't see a problem with it, but I don't think it should feel too fast. It might just be due to the FoV lowering and everything just seems to move faster.

Maybe. I dunno tbh I don't think it'll change too much. Would just be nice to see what the new one does!

2 minutes ago, jabbothehut said:

Maybe. I dunno tbh I don't think it'll change too much. Would just be nice to see what the new one does!

For sure!
Anything helps, I'm sure it's pretty noticeable on extremely low FoV when you jump from 130 to 20 or something stupid because of x15 zoom.
generally never experienced that much fov zoom because I dislike it extremely and always try to consistently keep my zoom somewhere in the middle with games.

1 minute ago, NoMaD.oW said:

For sure!
Anything helps, I'm sure it's pretty noticeable on extremely low FoV when you jump from 130 to 20 or something stupid because of x15 zoom.
generally never experienced that much fov zoom because I dislike it extremely and always try to consistently keep my zoom somewhere in the middle with games.

We shall see!

I'm about to try it, but is d supposed to be in inches or centimeter?

 

Nvm, it's in cm.

Edited July 2, 20178 yr by Kilroy

Edited January 28, 20187 yr by Drimzi

55 minutes ago, NoMaD.oW said:

I mean, the current equation feels alright even across sensitivities I'm pretty consistent with flicking and turning 160 for shots.
Whether it's a 1st person with completely different FoV, whether it's ADS or if it's 3rd person.
By any means if it can improve i don't see a problem with it, but I don't think it should feel too fast. It might just be due to the FoV lowering and everything just seems to move faster.

Can confirm there is a big difference in "feel" over the previous viewspeed equations. For me, the new viewspeed equation puts me about 4% faster, but the difference in flicks/tracking etc is insane. I always felt like there was something off about the previous viewspeed equation, felt like my progress was so slow for muscle memory, but now it feels like im moving at an exponential rate. 

 

This was right when i switched over: http://plays.tv/video/59590c9946f051b8ea/new-viewspeed-formula-seemsgood

Edited July 2, 20178 yr by KandiVan

I've actually been thinking about this for a while now, I'm probably going to butcher this and make myself look like a dumb*** or something but essentially your FOV is just a section of a ball right? like when you play a game your camera is just inside a ball and your monitor is just a rectangle that fits inside that ball. probably not useful, you more than likely already know that lmao but yeah... any who how exactly do I use this I'd love to try it out? I'm a little slow and i'm struggling a little with switching between cs:go and overwatch aim with both 360 and viewspeed.

Edited July 2, 20178 yr by NoSafety

In the equation in the first post, replace d with the result of (resolution/mouse dpi), and replace theta with your game's actual fov. The formula'll give you the cm/360 or inch/360 you should be using at that fov, if this equation is to be trusted in doing what it's supposed to do. Go into the calculator and put in that result to get the sensitivity you should be using, in that game.

I just tested it out, and I think it feels better, but I don't know if that's just placebo. To be honest, we need a way to measure and quantify that perception of speed, to really put this to rest. If that even makes any sense.

Okay thank you I'm going to test it now and tell you what I think

edit: just tried it and it's weird I can't tell if it's placebo either but it's like my cross hair is magnetically attracted to the bots heads when I do a flick shot...

Edited July 3, 20178 yr by NoSafety

So what are you supposed to do with your result of the first equation in the OP? Because my result is 3.7388 in. or 9.49657 cm, which is way off from my preferred 30 cm/360 at 106.52 actual hFOV. My screen resolution is 1920x1080 and mouse is 1500 CPI.

I just want to know how to preserve the exact feeling of my preferred sensitivity at different FOVs.

Edited January 28, 20187 yr by Drimzi

Edited January 28, 20187 yr by Drimzi