Viewspeed v2

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[KandiVan]

Just now, Drimzi said:

Yeah that's the one. Just pretend the input is called Windows/Desktop lol.

This feels much better than any iteration of viewspeed we've had so far. 

[CaptaPraelium]

ignoring the 2D-3D conversion (because I'm happy with my 3D cm/360) is this not the same as 100%MM?

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[Kilroy]

I think I'm skimming through this too fast, I missed this formula that is 100%MM except 2D-3D conversion. What is it, I'd like to try it because I've been using 100%MM and I feel like I'm so slippery on all my awp shots.

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[Kilroy]

Chord...length? 

So  (360/θ) (edge-to-edge distance*sin((πθ)/360))?

Oh nvm.

Edited July 28, 2017 by Kilroy

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[CaptaPraelium]

On 28/07/2017 at 10:58 AM, Drimzi said:

It's strangely the opposite for me, I have really consistent aim within the center of the screen but screen wide snaps, which have the same distance no matter what at 100%, I'm not very consistent with due to the distortion at different field of views.

So I decided that it was time I gave 100% MM another try, since last time it was a bit too rushed and 100% muh feels and not much analysis, and this thread deemed it worthy of more attention. I've played a couple dozen hours like this and I think I see what you mean about the inconsistency.

In general though, I have to say it feels far better than 0%. At first I found it way too fast, but when I changed back, it was actually kinda bad to use 0%. It was like everything slowed way down, when I zoomed in. I am of the opinion that 0% felt right because it was most like what I'd used in the past, but once i broke the old habit, I did not want to go back.

15 hours ago, Drimzi said:

The solution could also be diagonal degrees, with d being diagonal length /dpi.

I have some very rough drafts and they started out just like this, using a diagonal line because of the whole perspective thing (ie, vanishing points)

The reason for this is all about perception. It has been said, that matching for any distance on the monitor will always cause us to be unmatched for other distances on the monitor and this is true. However we're already kinda unmatched, no matter what we do. In reality, we should have the cm/360 the same no matter how we zoom in.... But our minds do not perceive it as such (and yes, I tried it and wow, 8x zoom. Twitchy XD. Not recommended if you value your game stats lol). It is becoming increasing apparent to me, that our mental perception of the image is paramount. The most basic element of this is that we anticipate reduced sensitivity with increased zoom, despite its departure from reality.... but it's obvious by now that there is much more to it than a simple division. A great example of this which we are now noticing, is the failure of simply dividing by zoom ratio (0%MM) or screen space (100%MM).
My next step in this, is to find the "right" diagonal line.  Before I go into this I should add that I'm no expert but I think if we are discussing vertical angles (VFOV) then the correct notation is λ for pitch and θ for horizontal/yaw/HFOV. But yeh, the thing with finding the right diagonal, is that we don't want to simply go from the centre to the corner of the screen. This is because, ***even at the same aspect ratio***, at different zoom levels, we have a different ratio of HFOV to VFOV. Eg:

VFOV	HFOV			Ratio
110	137.004338581236	1.24549398710215
55	85.5655901123628	1.55573800204296
27.5	47.0199550477653	1.70981654719146
13.75	24.1963085395324	1.75973153014781

And that's not even considering the difference between VFOV at the centre of the screen (our "actual VFOV), and VFOV at the edge of the screen - which is what actually determines the angles which create the perception of perspective and vanishing points. I'm pretty sure we're going to want a curved diagonal, and it will be curved according to the white lines from that image I so masterfully edited in mspaint Either that, or the diagonal will not be drawn from the centre, but from the angle above centre which matches the FOV at the edge of the screen.... Either of those might capture this perspective effect in a number we can use in our formula.... 

Edited July 30, 2017 by CaptaPraelium

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[DNAMTE]

On ‎28‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 6:22 AM, CaptaPraelium said:

It sure might explain some of muh feels, and least of all, the reason why we all use HFOV even thought practically none of the game engines do.

I've also encountered another explanation for some muh feels. Incoming more 1337 mspaint skillz (These are gonna get more and more ghetto until I know of a better tool for the job lol)

.... So, apparently the idea of rectilinear projection is that, if your FOV matches your angle to the projection, when looking at the centre of the image,you don't perceive the distortion:



Accordingly, depending on an individual's FOV and distance from their monitor, they will have their own unique perception of the distortion. This explains why different people have different experiences of the same formula.

So, this is all very nice because I'm managing to pin down the reasons for the biggest culprits of 'muh feels'... However, while I can do the math to make formula that account for all of this, it's going to take a long time. Any math wizards who'd like to step in to help would be my BFF

I have a solution for this, I've not put it together in to a formula but I can work out any FOV. IMO this is a required variable that needs to be accounted for.
As FOV increases so does the difference of perceived velocity from edge to centre. The actual angle does not matter so much, its merely recognising that the physical FOV (eye to monitor) remains fixed regardless off virtual FOV. Accounting for this fact will help compensate for the increasing distortion on screen.

Like Drimzi says though... I've been doing this when I'm bored... slow progress... Here is a screenshot of one example, feel free to make a formula

 

 

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[DiaAgl]

18 hours ago, Drimzi said:

edit: Well diagonal fov is a no go. It scales much faster as the fov decreases.

yep, i felt it's sightly faster than 2D or desktop when i alt+tab out of CS with sensitivity of 2.893719, DPI 400, WPS 6/11, 1920x1080 res.

honestly it felt best and 1:1 with desktop when i was on sensitivity between 2.734729 and 2.697585, DPI 400, WPS 6/11,  1920x1080 res and using your methods.

i think the sweet spot might be somewhere between or close to these two values...

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[Bryjoe]

So, wait. This viewspeed is supposed to be more accurate than the current implementation? I was wondering if it's worth using viewspeed on something like Battlefield 1 vehicles. The vehicles have a locked FOV, but I was wondering if it would be better for do 360 distance since it's not really the same as infantry. Also, 3rd person view puts another wrench in it as that probably changes the FOV entirely.

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[iBerggman]

The formula seems to give me a lower sensitivity than it did before, new 2D to 3D conversion method I take it? 

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi