Viewspeed v2

[seventhfrost]

2 minutes ago, Bryjoe said:

I was looking at some of these comments and it finally makes more sense to me. I still don't really understand how to utilize this formula if you don't care about desktop, all you want to do is match one game to another. Essentially, the downfall of monitor match is aspect ratio related and it is also flawed when you get to the extremes of FOV at either end.

This one seems to be the consensus best one correct: 100% Monitor Match - 1:1 Diagonal Desktop, 1:1 Diagonal FOV ?

Seems so, and I think the 1:1 Diagonal FOV is the important part when converting between FOVs, and personally I like it more than what I got with anything on the current calculator. It's really nice for getting hipfire/ads to feel the same. But personally, I'm pretty interested in the idea of finding a viewspeed-based solution to give you 360 distances that feel the same based on speeds, not distances.

Until it's in the calculator, I think the only way to convert between games if you're not concerned with matching to your desktop is to find a dpi value that gives you close to your 360 at the fov you like, then change the fov to get 360 distances for any other fovs you want, using actual vFOVs from games. Then you'd use the calculator to find the settings that get you that 360 in that game. 

If I wasn't interested in the desktop part, I'd probably wait till something's in the calculator, though.

[Bryjoe]

1 minute ago, seventhfrost said:

Seems so, and I think the 1:1 Diagonal FOV is the important part when converting between FOVs, and personally I like it more than what I got with anything on the current calculator. It's really nice for getting hipfire/ads to feel the same. But personally, I'm pretty interested in the idea of finding a viewspeed-based solution to give you 360 distances that feel the same based on speeds, not distances.

Until it's in the calculator, I think the only way to convert between games if you're not concerned with matching to your desktop is to find a dpi value that gives you close to your 360 at the fov you like, then change the fov to get 360 distances for any other fovs you want, using actual vFOVs from games. Then you'd use the calculator to find the settings that get you that 360 in that game. 

If I wasn't interested in the desktop part, I'd probably wait till something's in the calculator, though.

Yep, the thing is Viewspeed V2 already feels/felt good for me when switching between hipfire and ADS. I am interested in how this feels different and why it is better. Given that I only like to base my sensitivity on CSGO, I guess I will just wait. For now, I am just using monitor distance 75% as at 16:9 it feels almost the same as viewspeed v2 anyways. In the highest FOV game I play, Quake Champions, the sensitivity is virtually the same.

I am excited to see what comes of this "Viewspeed V3" they are working on.

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[Cocyx Skeleton]

Hmm, not a fan personally -- far too fast. I prefer the method of matching the windows mouse cursor speed to the view speed.

[potato psoas]

On 12/20/2017 at 06:38, Bryjoe said:

I was looking at some of these comments and it finally makes more sense to me. I still don't really understand how to utilize this formula if you don't care about desktop, all you want to do is match one game to another. Essentially, the downfall of monitor match is aspect ratio related and it is also flawed when you get to the extremes of FOV at either end.

This one seems to be the consensus best one correct: 100% Monitor Match - 1:1 Diagonal Desktop, 1:1 Diagonal FOV ?

Monitor matching actually isn't flawed at lower FOVs. The closer you get to 0 FOV (2D) the more equal the distribution of circumferential rotation. And if this is the case, the better it is to use 100% monitor match. Although, you can use any monitor match at this point because they all converge anyway. What is true is the more squished the distribution the harder it is to match 2D distance to rotational distance. And since we perceive things in 2D, not 3D, you will never be able to perfectly match your 360 distance to 2D. But you can get close, to find a middle ground. And that "middle ground" scales from 0% at 180 FOV to 100% at 0 FOV. You can't just use one monitor match - it has to scale according to the distribution.

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[seventhfrost]

9 hours ago, Drimzi said:

So here is a less sluggish version...

Experimental Monitor Match - 1:1 Diagonal Desktop, 1:1 Diagonal FOV

I'm a big fan of this one, at least at 90 vFOV.

Viewspeed v2 - 1:1 Desktop, 1:1 Diagonal FOV was my second favorite after Monitor Match - 1:1 Diagonal Desktop, 1:1 Diagonal FOV out of that one roundup, but felt either a tad too fast or slow. I couldn't tell at the time, but this one is a bit slower and I like it more. I'm pretty sure I like this one more than the regular monitor match. It may still feel the slightest bit too fast? I'm not sure, might also just be me needing to adjust.

My only gripe is that it seems the scaling between FOVs has changed in a way I'm not too fond of. Feels slightly faster at lower FOVs to me. But if it's more accurate/better feeling to others, then I'll just adjust to it.

[seventhfrost]

Also, on the note of using osu! and shoot the beat! comparisons to try and gauge 2D to 3D, someone posted elsewhere on the forum about a McOsu mod that moves the map around, keeping the cursor in the center, but on a 2D plane. Is this worth considering as a better alternative to stock osu for comparing to shoot the beat? It seems like it might provide a clearer picture.

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[seventhfrost]

26 minutes ago, Drimzi said:

I haven't tried it in a FPS game, but the scaling behaviour should be the exact same, as in the ratio between all FOVs should be the exact same. This could be a sign that the scaling is still not 100% correct though.

I thought it should be, and in that case, I wouldn't worry about it. It might really be me imagining it while I'm trying to get used to this faster sensitivity, then.

 

26 minutes ago, Drimzi said:

McOsu is still 2D and uses the exact same sensitivity as osu!/desktop. Providing you aren't pixel skipping, every registered movement will be an increment of 1 pixel, applied either to the cursor or to the playfield itself.

shoot the beat! is pure rotation. Notes have variable rectilinear distortion depending on the FOV, which gives you the visual cues needed to judge how far you need to move the mouse, to rotate to a point, rather than actually move from point A to point B.

Alright, I know McOsu is still 2D, I just wasn't sure if the shift from moving your cursor across the screen to having it stay in the center would provide a better/more easily digestable comparison.

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[seventhfrost]

1 hour ago, Drimzi said:

I did about 3000 kills in CSGO workshop map "Yprac Arena", with the FOV script zooming in to 30 FOV and out to 120 FOV, and another script zooming in to 10 FOV and out to 100 FOV. It felt pretty spot on for me, and desktop afterwards felt completely natural. It could just be an adjustment period needed, but let me know how it feels later on if you decide to keep on using it.

I've actually already decided I prefer this one over basically all the others so far. I do like it more than any others so far.

I'm going to be running it in real games tomorrow and I'm going to try and figure out what's up with my CSGO install so I can get on some aimprac/dm with it. Are the scripts for FOV you use the ones you posted a few days ago? If not, a pastebin for them would be much appreciated.

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[seventhfrost]

34 minutes ago, Drimzi said:

Yeah, but I'll post some pastebins.

Logitech FOV Scaling Script: https://pastebin.com/QqgsKhyq

CSGO FOV Scaling Script: https://pastebin.com/SHE2qb1x

CSGO Individual FOV Profiles: https://pastebin.com/L569FTau

CSGO No Recoil: https://pastebin.com/SLWzdHES

Generate CSGO FOV sensitivities in Wolfram: https://pastebin.com/CALZhdtr

 

Thanks! but I don't have a logitech mouse, so I can't take advantage of that script. I might make a macro for myself, see how steelseries' macro software is. The sensitivities that last link gives are for use with that somehow, right? I think the other "every fov" links spit out the FOV the sens went with. Also is the individual profiles link supposed to have more than just 40 in it? I'd probably want to test those first before making a macro.

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[sammymanny]

for me viewspeed 1 and 2 felt off on scopes in pubg (converting from csgo sensitivity). 

in first person hipfire and scoping (red dot)  feels ok when i use viewspeed2 to convert from CSGO,  but the 4x and higher feel a bit weird when aiming. with aiming i dont mean shooting, since the games are totally different of course. 

after reading this topic, i see there is a different formula for converting 2d to 3d, is this also usable for converting fov to fov sensitivity? and how would i do that? 

 

 

[seventhfrost]

3 hours ago, sammymanny said:

for me viewspeed 1 and 2 felt off on scopes in pubg (converting from csgo sensitivity). 

in first person hipfire and scoping (red dot)  feels ok when i use viewspeed2 to convert from CSGO,  but the 4x and higher feel a bit weird when aiming. with aiming i dont mean shooting, since the games are totally different of course. 

after reading this topic, i see there is a different formula for converting 2d to 3d, is this also usable for converting fov to fov sensitivity? and how would i do that? 

Easy 3D to 3D probably won't come until something's on the calculator, but I believe you can substitute out different DPI values until you find one that gives you the 360 you use in CSGO, then change the info for the aspect ratio and hfov in pubg while keeping that same DPI value. This should give you the 360s you need to match in pubg at the fovs of all the different sights. Then you just use the regular calculator and try out values with each sight until you match its 360.

Both Drimzi and I like the scaling with these new formulas much better, so hopefully the sights will feel better/more consistent.

Edited December 22, 2017 by seventhfrost

[potato psoas]

On 12/21/2017 at 18:29, Drimzi said:

I wouldn't go so far as to say we perceive distances in 2D. I definitely change my physical movements depending on 3D vs 2D. Like in shoot the beat!, I feel like I am rotating the stationery camera, rather than moving the camera, and thus I move differently due to the different perception.

Also, this is probably the most 1:1 I've ever had between osu! and shoot the beat!.

Well you can't actually perceive things in 3D. When we aim for a target the distance we expect to move is dictated by the distance between the crosshair and the target on the monitor, which is a 2D image. And so we want to match our expected 2D distance to our 3D sensitivity.

The only other ways to look at it are to use the gear ratio method where we sync the "speed" between FOVs. But we know that doesn't work because it feels too slow.

And the other way is using the same 360 distance for every FOV. But we know that doesn't work either because higher FOVs will feel too slow and lower FOVs will feel too fast.

And the reason why they feel off is because we are expecting to move a certain distance as it is dictated on our monitor.

[Bryjoe]

2 hours ago, potato psoas said:

Well you can't actually perceive things in 3D. When we aim for a target the distance we expect to move is dictated by the distance between the crosshair and the target on the monitor, which is a 2D image. And so we want to match our expected 2D distance to our 3D sensitivity.

The only other ways to look at it are to use the gear ratio method where we sync the "speed" between FOVs. But we know that doesn't work because it feels too slow.

And the other way is using the same 360 distance for every FOV. But we know that doesn't work either because higher FOVs will feel too slow and lower FOVs will feel too fast.

And the reason why they feel off is because we are expecting to move a certain distance as it is dictated on our monitor.

But plain old monitor distance match seems to have worked just fine for many years. To me AWP zoom 1 and 2 feel perfectly natural, maybe I am just super used to that? When I match PUBG scopes to Viewspeed V2, they feel fine too, I don't have this jarring like "WTF moment" when I get into new games if I matched them based on Viewspeed V2 or monitor distance 75% from game to game. 

Now, what I've also noticed is that games with a locked match of 0% or whatever usually feel fine to me after a short while of practicing. As long as lower FOVS are appreciably slower and higher FOVS are appreciably faster, I think you can get used to any match or viewspeed method. 

That being said, I am very interested in trying out this (I guess we can call it) dynamic monitor match that is based on FOV. I just will have to wait for a calculator implementation as I only like game to game conversions.

[potato psoas]

20 minutes ago, Bryjoe said:

But plain old monitor distance match seems to have worked just fine for many years. To me AWP zoom 1 and 2 feel perfectly natural, maybe I am just super used to that? When I match PUBG scopes to Viewspeed V2, they feel fine too, I don't have this jarring like "WTF moment" when I get into new games if I matched them based on Viewspeed V2 or monitor distance 75% from game to game. 

Now, what I've also noticed is that games with a locked match of 0% or whatever usually feel fine to me after a short while of practicing. As long as lower FOVS are appreciably slower and higher FOVS are appreciably faster, I think you can get used to any match or viewspeed method. 

That being said, I am very interested in trying out this (I guess we can call it) dynamic monitor match that is based on FOV. I just will have to wait for a calculator implementation as I only like game to game conversions.

You shouldn't have to get used to it though. That's the whole reason why we are trying to find a solution to this, so that we can seamlessly move from game to game, fov to fov without stressing about our aim being off.

Using 0% is the worst of the 3 ideas. You can easily tell how different hipfire and ads feels. 100% is better but it's too slow the higher the FOV. 75% is much better, probably because your common FOV range is in the lower half... but it can be better still... And yeah the best way to do that is to scale it based on FOV.

[seventhfrost]

3 minutes ago, potato psoas said:

You shouldn't have to get used to it though. That's the whole reason why we are trying to find a solution to this, so that we can seamlessly move from game to game, fov to fov without stressing about our aim being off.

I think he means people adapt to whatever relationship between FOVs their method of matching brings forth. If you're used to some imperfect solution, the relationship really might not feel right at first, even when switching to a perfect solution.

[potato psoas]

1 minute ago, seventhfrost said:

I think he means people adapt to whatever relationship between FOVs their method of matching brings forth. If you're used to some imperfect solution, the relationship really might not feel right at first, even when switching to a perfect solution.

Well I have to say that there is no perfect solution to this problem because of distortion. But we can find a solution that is close enough.

Yeah you could probably adapt to any method, but it really makes it harder for you and reduces the limit of your potential. For example, say you are using 0% and you stick with the same resolution. If you gave it enough time you could get good at every sensitivity for every FOV. But each time you had a new game you'd have to get good at that particular sensitivity and you'd be back at square one. I know some people are good at any sensitivity they use just because they have good dexterity, but they could be so much better if they could utilise their muscle memory.

[sammymanny]

27 minutes ago, potato psoas said:

You shouldn't have to get used to it though. That's the whole reason why we are trying to find a solution to this, so that we can seamlessly move from game to game, fov to fov without stressing about our aim being off.

Using 0% is the worst of the 3 ideas. You can easily tell how different hipfire and ads feels. 100% is better but it's too slow the higher the FOV. 75% is much better, probably because your common FOV range is in the lower half... but it can be better still... And yeah the best way to do that is to scale it based on FOV.

100% monitor match definitely feels wrong, as the scoping becomes way faster on higher zoomlevels. Viewspeed feels for me ok for hipfire and ads in pubg (ads is 70fov), but the 4x and higher felt always a bit on the slow side. i calculated new sensitivities via the formula, and now the scoped ones are a bit faster than viewspeed2, trying them out now

[seventhfrost]

1 minute ago, potato psoas said:

Well I have to say that there is no perfect solution to this problem because of distortion. But we can find a solution that is close enough.

Yeah you could probably adapt to any method, but it really makes it harder for you and reduces the limit of your potential. For example, say you are using 0% and you stick with the same resolution. If you gave it enough time you could get good at every sensitivity for every FOV. But each time you had a new game you'd have to get good at that particular sensitivity and you'd be back at square one. I know some people are good at any sensitivity they use just because they have good dexterity, but they could be so much better if they could utilise their muscle memory.

Yeah, I agree on both points. I just wanted to clarify, since the mentality that the best solution should feel best most immediately is likely to just lead people to assume ones closer to what they're used to are better.

That aside, is there any way to try out the method you've been working on where the monitor match % changes with the FOV in whatever game? I saw you posted something on using it in csgo, but I'm interested in trying it in siege and maybe pubg along with this newest formula from Drimzi.

[potato psoas]

Just now, sammymanny said:

100% monitor match definitely feels wrong, as the scoping becomes way faster on higher zoomlevels. Viewspeed feels for me ok for hipfire and ads in pubg (ads is 70fov), but the 4x and higher felt always a bit on the slow side. i calculated new sensitivities via the formula, and now the scoped ones are a bit faster than viewspeed2, trying them out now

Yes 100% is wrong but compared to 0% it is far better. Which was what I was trying to say.

With what you say about 100% monitor match being too fast at higher zoom, that's only because the higher FOVs (at the center) are too slow to begin with. (you do most of your aiming at the center) But as you approach 0 FOV it's actually better to use 100% because it maintains consistency with the 2D image. But it doesn't really matter what you use at lower FOVs because all monitor match percentages converge at about 30 FOV anyway.