Viewspeed v2

[DNAMTE]

When I first joined this website, before we had a choice to change the percentage monitor match... I assumed it was perfect, therefore it felt perfect. In fact as soon as DPI wiz made the suggestion that the value match was up to user discretion (0 - 100%) it opened a can of worms for me.

Point being, placebo and the old sugar pills can do miraculous things. View speed was a big hit and the majority of players seem satisfied with it, aided by the fact that it sits within a general range that has been chosen by large game developers such as CSGO and Battlefield 1, add to its credibility. I personally use it and find it matches FOV quite nicely, various snap testing and dot games all tell me that it works, good enough.

Its every time you miss that flick shot and look for something to blame, new sensitivity, better FOV... It must be something OTHER then my aim skill.... An endless hunt that I have fallen victim to personally, searching for the perfect match. Maybe there is no perfect match, perhaps its the fact that perfect is by ones own definition, that is, whatever you use, will, over time become your norm, natural and BEST.

I've been testing out various formulas and correlations with Drimzi and often what he thinks matches up, doesn't for me. But I've been playing with viewspeed for so long now, anything other then that feels unnatural.

I have a several correlative formulas that land within the ballpark for our current sensitivity matching, but, none truly make logical sense to me as of yet. Just because a formula gives an acceptable answer does not mean its logical or correct.

I think we have to realise that 180' FOV and 20' FOV will never feel the same. CSGO pros don't get their god like flick shots because of 75% MM, they get them because they practice that FOV with that sensitivity on the daily.

 

I would like to see a correlative explanation that makes logical sense in the matching of FOV sensitivity for any formula. The reality is any match that falls within a certain percentage will feel ok, it's truly hard to notice a difference when the FOV varies so greatly. Larger the FOV the greater the difference in perceived speed due to distortion.

 

PS: Sometimes actual or theoretical does not line up with how we interpret or perceive something. I say this because when I played COD (at or close to 0% monitor match) I found it a terrible system, in fact I used Iron sight or ELO sight ALWAYS, unifying the different weapons for me. Perhaps 0% does match the movement under the crosshair, however, given the fact that we have a mix of radial AND zoom ratios that do not correlate (3d projection, 2d plane). A one sided approach is nor logical or perceptually accurate IMO.

 

 

 

[octiceps]

So what formula should I use to convert my cm/360 in one game to another game that has a different FOV? It's so confusing. :\

[NoSafety]

I'm curious. may sound like a stupid question but is vertical cursor speed ever put into the equation? both 360 distance and monitor distance match are calculated for horizontals right? and actually come to think of it, isn't view speed too? is it even possible to do?

Edit:another thought... If I convert from 103 hfov to a 106.26 hfov shouldn't the 360 degree distance be longer on the wider fov? I understand why it's not using the current formula but I don't know... in my head that kind of makes sense... having a hard time getting the whole concept of it , I just want my aim to be exactly the same game to game like everyone else lol

Edit: this is the picture i've got in my head , is this what viewspeed does? (Green line would be your cross hair)

Edited July 3, 2017 by NoSafety

[iBerggman]

Am I doing this correctly for 1000DPI and 3 pointer speed (1000 x 0.25 = 250dpi) ? 

d = 2560/250, θ = 106.52, (d π)/(cos((π θ)/720) (1 - cos((π θ)/360) + sin((π θ)/360)))

= 29.9105

Thought I'd check before I invest too much time into it 

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[DNAMTE]

Given that we know Zoom Factor is literally the Chord ratio between two FOV, and Zoom factor = 0% Monitor Match. A correlative connection from a 2D plane.

The radial Plane, the other factor in projecting 3D to 2D, then, must be the circle ratio. Chord Ratio / Circle Ratio = 100% Monitor Match.

Essentially this accounts for the radial difference and the zoom factor in its entirety. One could safely assume that the optimum correlation between 2D and 3D planes most definitely lies within 0% - 100% monitor match. The sweet spot most likely has more to do with distortion and visual perception then a stand alone formula.

 

[jabbothehut]

Just out of interest. Where did you find that the current viewspeed formula started to become inconsistent/problematic?

[DNAMTE]

1 minute ago, jabbothehut said:

Just out of interest. Where did you find that the current viewspeed formula started to become inconsistent/problematic?

I still use it. I think extreme FOV will never feel the same. it's like looking through some binoculars IRL, everything is the same but its still different.

[jabbothehut]

6 minutes ago, DNAMTE said:

I still use it. I think extreme FOV will never feel the same. it's like looking through some binoculars IRL, everything is the same but its still different.

Guessing you mean extreme FOV as in going from 73.74 hipfire in BF1 to like 20 or something for the 10x scopes?

 

[comradek]

11 hours ago, iBerggman said:

Am I doing this correctly for 1000DPI and 3 pointer speed (1000 x 0.25 = 250dpi) ? 

d = 2560/250, θ = 106.52, (d π)/(cos((π θ)/720) (1 - cos((π θ)/360) + sin((π θ)/360)))

= 29.9105

Thought I'd check before I invest too much time into it 

Since iBerggman is using 3 pointer speed, should they change the DPI to 250 in the calculator? If not, why?

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[KandiVan]

7

1 hour ago, DNAMTE said:

I still use it. I think extreme FOV will never feel the same. it's like looking through some binoculars IRL, everything is the same but its still different.

 

23 minutes ago, Drimzi said:

I think it's scaling way too aggressively after trying it in other games. The sensitivity is too high for lower FOVs and at extremely high FOVs. I've created a new formula that is less aggressive. From 106.26 FOV, it is faster than 100% monitor match until 73.74 FOV, then it gets down to about 25% at 1 FOV.

(2880 π) / (θ r sin((π θ)/360) + θ r cos((π θ)/360))

θ = actual hfov

r = radius, half of desktop length

 

God damnit dude why cant anything ever be simple, if im alternating between 82.86 actual hfov and 71.80 actual hfov which formula should i be using? Ive got a lan in like 3 weeks and i need to make a decision lol

 

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[KandiVan]

4 minutes ago, Drimzi said:

Use what you have been using all this time, change after the lan.

I think this formula is amazing now, but I'm the only one who has tested it.

Can you link me a wolfram of the new formula youve been working on? Ill give it a go. I didnt overly like the old viewspeed formula, i missed a lot of headshots with it. 

[DNAMTE]

47 minutes ago, KandiVan said:

Can you link me a wolfram of the new formula youve been working on? Ill give it a go. I didnt overly like the old viewspeed formula, i missed a lot of headshots with it. 

BTW that change in FOV is so small you will barely notice a difference between methods. 

IMO any value under 0% or over 100% is not sound logic 

[jabbothehut]

12 minutes ago, DNAMTE said:

BTW that change in FOV is so small you will barely notice a difference between methods. 

IMO any value under 0% or over 100% is not sound logic 

What range of FOV's is the current formula viable in would you say?

[DNAMTE]

7 hours ago, jabbothehut said:

What range of FOV's is the current formula viable in would you say?

ALL formulas have the same issue. Naturally as you increase FOV, you increase distortion, the more unnatural it becomes.

The closer the FOV in comparison, the less comparable distortion, the more natural conversion will feel.  Personally 106° @ 16:9 (90° @ 4:3) is my max preference. 

As monitors and resolutions widen, so will my preference. 

As FOV decreases, distortion decreases, radial perception across your monitor becomes more uniform. 

Edited July 4, 2017 by DNAMTE

[jabbothehut]

29 minutes ago, DNAMTE said:

ALL formulas have the same issue. Naturally as you increase FOV, you increase distortion, the more unnatural it becomes.

The closer the FOV in comparison, the less comparable distortion, the more natural conversion will feel.  Personally 106° @ 16:9 (90° @ 4:3) is my max preference. 

As monitors and resolutions widen, so will my preference. 

As FOV decreases, distortion decreases, radial perception across your monitor becomes more uniform. 

Coolbeans. So for anything under 90 (4:3) the current viewspeed formula should do the job then?

[KandiVan]

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

 

Here is a formula that accepts 4:3 hfov as the input. (d = resolution width / dpi, F = 4:3 based hfov) *You may have to click 'Approximate Form' to get the result.*

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

 

These two formulas are giving me much higher sensitivities now, is this intended? Went from like 24 inches/360 to 16 inches/360

 

EDIT: They are much higher if i put 200 DPI to account for 4/11 windows mouse sensitivity @ 400 dpi vs 400 dpi @ 6/11 windows mouse sensitivity (as the original formula accounted for). If i leave it at 400 DPI then it is much lower IE: 34 inches/360 vs 25 inches/360

Edited July 5, 2017 by KandiVan

[DNAMTE]

10 hours ago, jabbothehut said:

Coolbeans. So for anything under 90 (4:3) the current viewspeed formula should do the job then?

The current view speed can certainly do the job. 

 

[KandiVan]

12 hours ago, KandiVan said:

 

These two formulas are giving me much higher sensitivities now, is this intended? Went from like 24 inches/360 to 16 inches/360

 

EDIT: They are much higher if i put 200 DPI to account for 4/11 windows mouse sensitivity @ 400 dpi vs 400 dpi @ 6/11 windows mouse sensitivity (as the original formula accounted for). If i leave it at 400 DPI then it is much lower IE: 34 inches/360 vs 25 inches/360

Tried the lower values yesterday, using 400 DPI in the calculation, felt pretty good but its a pretty large difference from the previous viewspeed calculation. Is this intended? What WPS is this calculation set for?

 

Im using 4/11 WPS @ 400 dpi, did I do the calculation correct?

Edited July 5, 2017 by KandiVan

[iBerggman]

16 hours ago, KandiVan said:

 

These two formulas are giving me much higher sensitivities now, is this intended? Went from like 24 inches/360 to 16 inches/360

 

EDIT: They are much higher if i put 200 DPI to account for 4/11 windows mouse sensitivity @ 400 dpi vs 400 dpi @ 6/11 windows mouse sensitivity (as the original formula accounted for). If i leave it at 400 DPI then it is much lower IE: 34 inches/360 vs 25 inches/360

Same for me, I might be missing something but using the same 250 dpi and 106.52 the new formula gives me a result of 11.8537 whereas the old one was 29.9105. Should I also change something else in addition to r and θ?

[KandiVan]

1 minute ago, iBerggman said:

Same for me, I might be missing something but using the same 250 dpi and 106.52 the new formula gives me a result of 11.8537 whereas the old one was 29.9105. Should I also change something else in addition to r and θ?

The only thing I could think of is drimzi has adjusted the formula for 4/11 instead of 6/11 like the first time. But even then, its still dropped off quite a bit, it actually feels ok if you use the normal DPI (actually quite good), but I just dont want to get used to it until we have confirmation.

[jabbothehut]

12 hours ago, DNAMTE said:

The current view speed can certainly do the job. 

 

Cool thanks man!

[KandiVan]

The current formula doesnt make sense to me. Because as you increase your DPI the resultant cm/360 you get from the formula increases. Thats the opposite of what should happen.

Edited July 6, 2017 by KandiVan