A way to fix cm/360 for wrist players, also, a way to get scary good cm/360 as a wrist player.

[Chrometastic]

1 hour ago, heckminth said:

I can concur, my tracking feels really shaky right now. Not enough motor units are going off. The solution is to train at maximum effort (the greatest force) causing muscle recruitment to increase. I need to begin training slow motor units (tracking) at low speeds, then gradually higher speeds, before moving on to small flicks and finally large flicks. Here's my source: https://youtu.be/daLgIAZ3K0U

correct! reason is this:  https://maximizedhealth.net/burst-training-introduction-to-burst-training/



 

[Xehokoo]

I always knew I wasn't normal x) I tried with your indication heckminth and I understand so it was way more easier.

And after all strangely as it is I found my highest sensitivity that I found some years ago, but it's still way more low compared to all sensitivity I see here 

[heckminth]

5 hours ago, Xehokoo said:

I always knew I wasn't normal x) I tried with your indication heckminth and I understand so it was way more easier.

And after all strangely as it is I found my highest sensitivity that I found some years ago, but it's still way more low compared to all sensitivity I see here 

Someone might be able to help if you mentioned what measurements you took and what cm/360 you ended up with. There could be a problem with your measurements or with your calculations, alternatively, your hands could just be very large, no one else would know what's happening with your calculations until you lay them out. I also kept getting very low sensitivities until I realised that we're supposed to take the arclength (not the circumference) of the circle as sensitivity in cm/360 because we're trying to squeeze a full 360 into one leftmost flick (which is your most limited range of wrist motion). If you prefer, you can try to squeeze only 270 degrees into the same motion by multiplying your arclength by 1-(270/360)+1, if my Maths is correct.

[fortunate reee]

12 hours ago, heckminth said:

Not enough motor units are going off. The solution is to train at maximum effort (the greatest force) causing muscle recruitment to increase

this is nowhere close to how the human body or motor control works unless we are memeing this ridicoulous post then never mind

much muscle units for maximum muscle memory ooga booga

[heckminth]

1 hour ago, fortunate reee said:

this is nowhere close to how the human body or motor control works unless we are memeing this ridicoulous post then never mind

much muscle units for maximum muscle memory ooga booga

You need to research this. Go watch at least a half hour of the presentation that I linked. What I stated is, in fact, how the human body works. Muscle recruitment can be increased through high effort training. There are people born with medical conditions who have extremely high muscle recruitment and so are able to perform feats requiring inhuman levels of strength that would otherwise be impossible given their overall muscle mass. Most trained athletes only recruit a maximum of 50% of their muscle fibers in any activity, the average person is capable of recruiting only 20-30% of their muscle fibers. Increasing muscle recruitment increases grip strength which allows you to lift much heavier loads. This is why adrenaline makes you stronger. You're not instantly gaining more muscle, you're just using more of the muscles you have at once. Adrenaline makes your blood vessels contract and causes your heart and lungs to work faster, so they direct more blood to your heart and muscles, resulting in a temporary boost in strength which can typically last for up to an hour. Permanent increases in maximum strength are either the result of an increase in muscle mass or an increase in the maximum percentage of motor units that can be recruited at once. It's called the mind-body connection. The stronger the individual muscle, the more controlled the individual contraction. If your wrist is very strong, your aim will be controlled. If you use your arm and shoulder, you will need a lot more strength in all of those muscles to keep the overall motion just as controlled. It takes more coordination to move more muscles than it does to move just a few. That's the principle that the OP was talking about.

You call this method ridiculous because it flies in the face of what you currently believe to be the correct methodology, in other words, you have a bias to ridicule it. And that's fine, you can ridicule all you want, but at least base your ridicule on evidence. There are indeed a lot of pseudoscientific claims made about aiming, but the claims that the OP is making are backed by actual physiology. These so-called "ridiculous" sensitivities are practical for some people. Why do Quake players have a reputation for really great aim if most of them use high sensitivities and high sensitivities are supposed to be bad? I have provided empirical evidence that aiming with a really high sensitivity works for me, just watch the clips I sent where I am on 11cm/360 (or roughly 4.3inches/360). I am not suggesting that a high sensitivity will work for you or for everyone, I am just stating the fact that it has worked for me and that it can work for other people. It's different to what you would expect, but it's not wrong.

Edited June 24, 2022 by heckminth

[fortunate reee]

20 hours ago, heckminth said:

You need to research this. Go watch at least a half hour of the presentation that I linked. What I stated is, in fact, how the human body works. Muscle recruitment can be increased through high effort training. There are people born with medical conditions who have extremely high muscle recruitment and so are able to perform feats requiring inhuman levels of strength that would otherwise be impossible given their overall muscle mass. Most trained athletes only recruit a maximum of 50% of their muscle fibers in any activity, the average person is capable of recruiting only 20-30% of their muscle fibers. Increasing muscle recruitment increases grip strength which allows you to lift much heavier loads. This is why adrenaline makes you stronger. You're not instantly gaining more muscle, you're just using more of the muscles you have at once. Adrenaline makes your blood vessels contract and causes your heart and lungs to work faster, so they direct more blood to your heart and muscles, resulting in a temporary boost in strength which can typically last for up to an hour. Permanent increases in maximum strength are either the result of an increase in muscle mass or an increase in the maximum percentage of motor units that can be recruited at once. It's called the mind-body connection. The stronger the individual muscle, the more controlled the individual contraction. If your wrist is very strong, your aim will be controlled. If you use your arm and shoulder, you will need a lot more strength in all of those muscles to keep the overall motion just as controlled. It takes more coordination to move more muscles than it does to move just a few. That's the principle that the OP was talking about.

You call this method ridiculous because it flies in the face of what you currently believe to be the correct methodology, in other words, you have a bias to ridicule it. And that's fine, you can ridicule all you want, but at least base your ridicule on evidence. There are indeed a lot of pseudoscientific claims made about aiming, but the claims that the OP is making are backed by actual physiology. These so-called "ridiculous" sensitivities are practical for some people. Why do Quake players have a reputation for really great aim if most of them use high sensitivities and high sensitivities are supposed to be bad? I have provided empirical evidence that aiming with a really high sensitivity works for me, just watch the clips I sent where I am on 11cm/360 (or roughly 4.3inches/360). I am not suggesting that a high sensitivity will work for you or for everyone, I am just stating the fact that it has worked for me and that it can work for other people. It's different to what you would expect, but it's not wrong.

aim or rather mouse control has, as far as studies woudl go, very little to do with muscle mass or muscle gain/decrease which is funny because for years that appeared to be the status quo in gaming with teh whole muscle memory pseudo science everyone at one point fell for. what you are achieving with that extremely high sens is alot of effort that can be used without question since humans are very much adaptable but that level of fine motor control needed to use that for extended periods of time is better used

somethign factual we do know about aim is that they can be honed through training and expanding or rather mixing up your range of motion which will also apply to your concept of a good distance to use so that is somethign i am sure we can agree on. I would however suggest taking a look at this paper on sens ranges and to be more specific their recommendations in terms of sens selection.

btw you should really not bring up quake( a rather tracking intensive arena shooter) while generalising fps games in general since that kind of game is known to be on the upper spectrum of the sens range which isnt really a great when trying to bring forth a universally applicable method is it?

this whole thread has this distinctive taste of Latam bro science to it, which i am not very font of.

tldr:

its great that your are trying to help others what you are suggesting simply doesnt match with any studies or papers that actually apply to gaming / fps games which i consider to be missleading given that with something like accel you are in fact able to use higher sense caps giving you advantages that youd achieve by using high sens without actually giving up the perceived stability and more importantly comfort / precision of low sens.

just because somethign "works" for you doesnt mean that you wouldnt be able to perform better doing selecting a more stable approach to sens

-------------------------------------------------------

"Our results show that reconsolidation provides a crucial mechanism for the strengthening of an existing motor skill. Increased sensorimotor variability after skill retrieval promotes additional learning changes that are absent following the simple continuation of practice." source

Edited June 25, 2022 by fortunate reee

[heckminth]

12 hours ago, fortunate reee said:

just because somethign "works" for you doesnt mean that you wouldnt be able to perform better doing selecting a more stable approach to sens

I should have specified that this doesn't only "work" for me, it's what works best for me out of everything I have tried. I have used a wide range of sensitivities and tried many different acceleration curves over several months, and nothing gives me as much accuracy and comfort as this style of aiming. I took measurements of my girlfriend's hand and calculated her ideal sensitivity, within just 10 minutes on it she has gone from silver aim to what I would say is reasonable for a master guardian player. I know that's just one anecdotal example, so it's really not my main point, but I also don't find it likely that this high sensitivity is inherently, scientifically worse than a more "normal" sensitivity, given how considerable of an improvement it has made for my girlfriend. She sucks at games, but her shaky aim has gone away and so now her gameplay is much better, I have experienced the same. I play a lot of Valorant and CSGO, which are more reliant on flicks than tracking. As you rightly pointed out, Quake is better suited to tracking aim. On this high sensitivity, I no longer "flick" in Valorant or CSGO, instead, I smoothly snap to targets by "tracking" to them in a way that is more accurate and consistent than flicking because I don't have to mouse lift. My mouse never leaves the surface of the mousepad and my wrist never gets tired, I'm basically always tracking. The speed then comes from the sensitivity and lack of overshoot/undershoot or shakiness. All I have to focus on is the control from my wrist, which at first requires a lot of effort, but then feels effortless after practicing for a couple hours. Most of the work I had to put in went into staying calm rather than tensing up my wrist and being precise rather than fast. It's not how fast you move, it's how you move fast. Slow is smooth, smooth is fast. Low sensitivities limit range of motion, so they can never be totally smooth, you will have to lift your mouse and reposition, which can be a bad habit. The typical range of sensitivities that people use is influenced by beliefs about aim that may or may not be myths. Studies that recommend a certain range of sensitivities are going to be performed mostly with people who are not aiming with a technique conducive to high sensitivities because such techniques are rare and only typically used in games like Quake. If they select professional gamers for the study, then the data is biased because gamers already have their preconceived notions about sensitivity. If they select non-gamers for the study, then the data is still useless in proving anything about high sensitivities because they have no proper instruction in how to aim. You use muscles in your wrist to control your wrist. If those muscles are stronger, then your wrist will be more stable. How is that pseudoscience? Explain in detail, don't just dismiss and say, "science." Here's n0thing, a professional CSGO player, talking about how people typically combine wrist aim and arm aim:

On lower sensitivities, the range of motion of your wrist covers a small cone of your FOV. With this method, the motion of your wrist covers the entire sphere. So, if you can learn to be precise on a high sensitivity, isn't it more advantageous to have your "comfortable range" be everywhere within the sphere as opposed to just one part of the sphere? Because then you don't have to train arm aim and wrist aim, you can just train wrist aim, which, as n0thing says, is more controlled.

Edited June 26, 2022 by heckminth

[fortunate reee]

17 hours ago, heckminth said:

don't just dismiss and say, "science."

of course i will do so given that science actually shows evidence in favor of what i stated, contrary to anything you have linked as of yet.

i like that video of simple since his final take on the whole thing is that that you should ideally mix up wrist and arm aim which does not match with the stuff you were talking about at all since you are cherry picking aspects of his explanation which could be interpreted to match your ideas while being dismissive of everythign else he talks about (from aproximately 1:35 onwards) given that he strongly proposes usign a well rounded mix of the given points of contact mixing both the precision of fingertip aim as well as wrist and arm movements in order to reap the benefits of granualar movement control and ease of targeting as well as teh fine control of fingertip/ wrist movements which is somethign i 100% agree with.

btw i like that your answer to scientific research and evidence is "here is a pro player that doesnt not match my idea but ill cherry pick some of it"  another great thing to remember here is that while he is a great cs player and by the nature of having played multiple thousand hrs of fps games also a very talented fps player in general this doesnt give him more credibility than scientific papers backed up by proper research with a foundation in empiric evidence.

17 hours ago, heckminth said:

just 10 minutes on it she has gone from silver aim to what I would say is reasonable for a master guardian player

this is the perfect example for the kind of  "trust me bro" stuff that makes me very much sceptical of anything.

if you want to be taken serious write it down collect data of you trainign with it and show your progress using something like kovaak`s then post about it in a neutral fashion not exagerating the effects and applicability for the broader userbase, ideally not missleading others and we are good. (i am not asking you to change its great when there are new concepts to try out and id gladly try and give feedback myself given that this would be the process of finding new concepts in regards to sens and aim but the way this whole post has been brought up is either a giant troll or simply emotionally tainted broscience.  

--------------------------

short addendum:

given that the studies provided are supposed to show the affect and range of sens applicaable to most users having non "gamers" in there would be just as important as having "gamers". its less about who uses the sense sice they cycled through subjects giving them eacha  range of senses to use based on the games used for the tests. its a well thought out study given what it tries to show.

and this is about as much effort i am willing to offer you in order to help you understand what my issue is with this whole thread

Edited June 26, 2022 by fortunate reee

[heckminth]

11 hours ago, fortunate reee said:

[...] his final take on the whole thing is that that you should ideally mix up wrist and arm aim which does not match with the stuff you were talking about at all since you are cherry picking aspects of his explanation which could be interpreted to match your ideas while being dismissive of everythign else he talks about (from aproximately 1:35 onwards) given that he strongly proposes usign a well rounded mix of the given points of contact mixing both the precision of fingertip aim as well as wrist and arm movements in order to reap the benefits of granualar movement control and ease of targeting as well as teh fine control of fingertip/ wrist movements which is somethign i 100% agree with.

btw i like that your answer to scientific research and evidence is "here is a pro player that doesnt not match my idea but ill cherry pick some of it"  another great thing to remember here is that while he is a great cs player and by the nature of having played multiple thousand hrs of fps games also a very talented fps player in general this doesnt give him more credibility than scientific papers backed up by proper research with a foundation in empiric evidence.

n0thing's explanation is good because he bases it on his experience as a professional player. He is a good example of what I am talking about when I say that professionals have their own preconceived notions about sensitivity. His conclusion that players should utilise both arm, wrist, and fingers together to aim only makes sense if he's talking about the ranges of sensitivity that are low enough for that, which of course he is. If he was forced to use higher sensitivities, closer to what I now use, then his conclusion on what the right way to aim is would be different, for instance, arm aiming would be pretty useless. Similarly, if he used lower sensitivities than he is currently used to, then he would be less reliant on his wrist and fingers and much more reliant on his arm. Again, I am not saying that one is inherently better than the other, I am just saying that it should be taken seriously and investigated. The whole argument comes down to one point: is wrist aim more controlled than arm aim? According to n0thing (and most other professional players), it is. Just because his conclusion about techniques is different doesn't mean that his underlying points are any different to mine. I didn't cherry pick anything, there are many videos of professional players saying the exact same things about aim, but their conclusions only work for "normal" ranges of sensitivity, they aren't thinking about sensitivities of 10cm/360 and over, and that's my point. We have no good reasons to assume that the observed trend between aiming ability and sensitivity for low sensitivities continues at "extreme" sensitivities. Since the researchers that devised this study made their methods public, I will perform my own version of the study with a sample of 2 (me and my girlfriend) to attempt to show you some amount of tangible evidence that could substantiate or invalidate the points that I have been making.

11 hours ago, fortunate reee said:

this is the perfect example for the kind of  "trust me bro" stuff that makes me very much sceptical of anything.

if you want to be taken serious write it down collect data of you trainign with it and show your progress using something like kovaak`s then post about it in a neutral fashion not exagerating the effects and applicability for the broader userbase, ideally not missleading others and we are good. (i am not asking you to change its great when there are new concepts to try out and id gladly try and give feedback myself given that this would be the process of finding new concepts in regards to sens and aim but the way this whole post has been brought up is either a giant troll or simply emotionally tainted broscience. 

Like I warned in my previous post, the anecdote of my girlfriend's recent experience with this method is not my main point because I realise it's not a very strong form of evidence. I have not been able to record any data yet, because I only just started using this sensitivity myself and I've never really been one to aim train a lot. That being said, it would be nice if you could stop dismissing every point I make as "broscience" because I'm not using pseudoscientific reasoning and I am not trying to mislead anyone. This is not my method, I just tried it out, was surprised, and wanted to share my personal experience so that others would give it a go and see for themselves. How is that "broscience"? Whatever hypothesis I come up with to make sense of this method is certainly not going to be a completely accurate explanation of what's happening. That being said, I have to hypothesise something before I can understand what's happening and test it scientifically, I am contending that a sensitivity based on the arclength created by my wrist is ideal for never having to reposition the mouse. That statement shouldn't require any empirical data to grasp (although it would require empirical data to prove). If you want to focus on tracking aim, which is a more controlled form of aim than flicking (and that should also be uncontroversial), then this method is the only one that I can think of to completely replace flicking with tracking. If you were to use the arclength created by your entire arm (hand included) as your cm/360, then that sensitivity would be low enough that you would probably flick to targets with your wrist and track with your arm, as n0thing concluded. You contend that there is scientific consensus on this issue and that I am being pseudoscientific, then you cite data that is clearly only looking at ranges of sensitivity that are much lower than the range that I have been talking about.

Edited June 26, 2022 by heckminth

[fortunate reee]

1 hour ago, fortunate reee said:

given that the studies provided are supposed to show the affect and range of sens applicaable to most users having non "gamers" in there would be just as important as having "gamers". its less about who uses the sense sice they cycled through subjects giving them eacha  range of senses to use based on the games used for the tests. its a well thought out study given what it tries to show.

and this is about as much effort i am willing to offer you in order to help you understand what my issue is with this whole thread

.

[heckminth]

34 minutes ago, heckminth said:

You contend that there is scientific consensus on this issue and that I am being pseudoscientific, then you cite data that is clearly only looking at certain ranges of sensitivity that are much lower than the ranges I have been talking about.

.

20 minutes ago, fortunate reee said:

given that the studies provided are supposed to show the affect and range of sens applicaable to most users having non "gamers" in there would be just as important as having "gamers". its less about who uses the sense sice they cycled through subjects giving them eacha range of senses to use based on the games used for the tests. its a well thought out study given what it tries to show.

The study you cite does not prove anything about the range of sensitivities that I am talking about besides the fact that it's uncommon and that people don't just stumble onto using it. Professional players tend to use lower sensitivities but almost all of them started out with much higher sensitivities. The trend is that, as your aim improves, because your muscles get stronger, your sensitivity decreases to compensate. The sensitivity I now use is clearly much higher than what most professional players even start with. I use 25600 CPI to make this sensitivity feel usable, it would not be usable on 400 CPI. They used 3200 CPI for this study and they ensured, "pixel-level rotations in all tested sensitivity conditions," which means they used sensitivities very far outside the range of sensitivities that I am talking about.

[Chrometastic]

Wow, this talk blew up!  The purpose of this post was to focus on basing a gamer's aiming experience based on their kinesiology, and mental physiology... Further debunking what ANY pro player thinks is good...  

If you can overall reduce your actions to a quantum minimum, you can be an efficient gamer. 

https://nba.uth.tmc.edu/neuroscience/m/s3/chapter01.html
 

Edited June 27, 2022 by Chrometastic

[heckminth]

On 6/27/2022 at 4:48 PM, Chrometastic said:

Wow, this talk blew up!  The purpose of this post was to focus on basing a gamer's aiming experience based on their kinesiology, and mental physiology... Further debunking what ANY pro player thinks is good...  

If you can overall reduce your actions to a quantum minimum, you can be an efficient gamer. 

https://nba.uth.tmc.edu/neuroscience/m/s3/chapter01.html
 

Here's what I took away from this:

The innervation ratios of muscles in the hand and wrist are substantially lower than those in the arm and shoulder, so they are used for fine control, such as when aiming with a mouse. Furthermore, many muscles in the hand operate across multiple joints, such as the main finger extensor, which generates torque about every joint in the hand, as well as the wrist and elbow. This torque is counteracted by other muscles, so even the simplest seeming motion requires highly complex muscle coordination. Larger motions require more coordination, which further complicates the motion that motor neurons have to generate. Joint stability improves when you utilise isometric contractions as opposed to isotropic contractions. Larger isotropic contractions are a necessary consequence of arm aim. If you keep your forearm stationary and activate it at the same time, then the stability of your elbow and wrist will increase. It's not necessarily better to use purely wrist aim, but there are ways to benefit from it, just like there are ways to benefit from other aiming styles. It's a matter of understanding and training. Super interesting! Thanks for sharing.

Edited June 28, 2022 by heckminth

[heckminth]

[Chrometastic]

23 hours ago, heckminth said:

YEP! You are getting on to what I am talking about, but in visual form. Brilliant!

Fun fact, if you are a arm player, you will find that you cap out when you move the arm to the right, and if you are, you will require to move your whole mousepad in the middle of each limit point, making your mouse and mousepad angled, and towards you.

Otherwise, if you are an arm player, you have to do the same calulations, but your limit will be how much you can move your arm to the right, using elbow as pivot point. 

If you are a wrist player, you follow the guide and use the limit point of moving to the left, using base of wrist as pivot point, like the image describes. 

But yeah, you now get my point!

 

[ClanZes]

I have another opinion on this. I believe that aiming with the mouse is similar to drawing, something similar to a digital drawing with a graphics tablet. Looking at the general average sensitivity of professional gamers finding a value close to the general size of wide mousepads (40 - 48cm), slightly higher sensitivities reaching 50cm+ can be explained by the dpi deviation. So I thought of something that has worked for me in a lot of games and I've managed to maintain consistency, I used the MouseTester software and simply tracked the mouse from end to end when points were generated and converted it to a sensitivity (https://www.mouse-sensitivity .com/?share=e8678384c65dbc25506e5149f86b5d73).

Edited July 13, 2022 by ClanZes

[Matsuho]

On 03/07/2022 at 20:35, Chrometastic said:

YEP! You are getting on to what I am talking about, but in visual form. Brilliant!

Fun fact, if you are a arm player, you will find that you cap out when you move the arm to the right, and if you are, you will require to move your whole mousepad in the middle of each limit point, making your mouse and mousepad angled, and towards you.

Otherwise, if you are an arm player, you have to do the same calulations, but your limit will be how much you can move your arm to the right, using elbow as pivot point. 

If you are a wrist player, you follow the guide and use the limit point of moving to the left, using base of wrist as pivot point, like the image describes. 

But yeah, you now get my point!

 

In your way we only take the left swivel as the chord lenght because we can't swivel as far on the right side but wouldn't it be more accurate to take as measurement the max swivel to the left (draw a point) then going to the far right (draw another point) draw a line between those points and using it as chord length?

[Chrometastic]

18 hours ago, Matsuho said:

In your way we only take the left swivel as the chord lenght because we can't swivel as far on the right side but wouldn't it be more accurate to take as measurement the max swivel to the left (draw a point) then going to the far right (draw another point) draw a line between those points and using it as chord length?

The concept of this method goes as this: 
Your wrists', swivel at the base of the wrist left and right. 
swiveling the wrist to the left is radial deviation.
swiveling the wrist to the right is ulnar deviation.

The wrist's degrees of ulnar and radial deviation is: 
19 degrees of radial deviation, 33 degrees of ulnar deviation

You want to be neutral as possible, as its going to be the spot you can use as a point of reference, as it's easier to learn, and it will become the foundation of your calculations. 
If you used ulnar deviation, as your basis for doing your aiming arc, mirroring it, you will have issues when you go past the 19 degrees of radial deviation. 

You solve this, with optimising your 360 with radial deviation.
When you do this method, from neutral position, as listed in the photo.
You will take from the tip of the finger, and move it to the limit of radial deviation. 
This will be your 180 deg of 360 sens, and mirroring it will complete the 360 deg. 

Since everyone's hand size is different, the arc length from neutral to radial deviation will be different.  
The distance that you are looking for is the distance from the green dot on the protractor, to the blue dot. 
This requires everyone's cm/360 to be completely unique! 

This method, makes everyone's method of aiming inherently flawed, since 99% of most sens will not fit within your limits of kinesiology. 
This method uses kinesiology, or basic science of wrist joint movement to maximize what you can move. 

Note: I do however realize that the sensor is not located at the tip of the finger with most mouses, but listed below. 
You can make it slightly more accurate if you know the distance of the sensor to base of wrist and calculate the arc length of limit of radial deviation. 
but the way you hold your mouse can alter this entirely, but there's too many variables, but the variable you can isolate is 19 degrees of radial deviation. 

[Matsuho]

On 17/07/2022 at 13:23, Chrometastic said:

The concept of this method goes as this: 
Your wrists', swivel at the base of the wrist left and right. 
swiveling the wrist to the left is radial deviation.
swiveling the wrist to the right is ulnar deviation.

The wrist's degrees of ulnar and radial deviation is: 
19 degrees of radial deviation, 33 degrees of ulnar deviation

You want to be neutral as possible, as its going to be the spot you can use as a point of reference, as it's easier to learn, and it will become the foundation of your calculations. 
If you used ulnar deviation, as your basis for doing your aiming arc, mirroring it, you will have issues when you go past the 19 degrees of radial deviation. 

You solve this, with optimising your 360 with radial deviation.
When you do this method, from neutral position, as listed in the photo.
You will take from the tip of the finger, and move it to the limit of radial deviation. 
This will be your 180 deg of 360 sens, and mirroring it will complete the 360 deg. 

Since everyone's hand size is different, the arc length from neutral to radial deviation will be different.  
The distance that you are looking for is the distance from the green dot on the protractor, to the blue dot. 
This requires everyone's cm/360 to be completely unique! 

This method, makes everyone's method of aiming inherently flawed, since 99% of most sens will not fit within your limits of kinesiology. 
This method uses kinesiology, or basic science of wrist joint movement to maximize what you can move. 

Note: I do however realize that the sensor is not located at the tip of the finger with most mouses, but listed below. 
You can make it slightly more accurate if you know the distance of the sensor to base of wrist and calculate the arc length of limit of radial deviation. 
but the way you hold your mouse can alter this entirely, but there's too many variables, but the variable you can isolate is 19 degrees of radial deviation. 

I see it's a little bit more clear now, I know you might be busy but if you could make a serie of tutos in video to show people how to take the measurement (for wrist, hybrid and arm aiming) since it's a bit of complicated math and kinesiology for people who rely more on visuals informations (for example i'm not too bad in math but english is not my mother's tongue so I struggle sometimes) you made it pretty clear tho but tutos would still be nice to be sure we didn't ****'d it up somewhere in the process.

[makojunki]

what mouse, mouse feet, and pad are u using for this?

[Chrometastic]

10 hours ago, makojunki said:

what mouse, mouse feet, and pad are u using for this?

Mouse: G502 Lightspeed, 
Mousepad: Logitech Powerplay mousepad. ( I use hard shell "PTFE plastic")
Pads: PTFE plastic mousefeet (OEM)

I coat the mousepad and mousefeet with PTFE spray, lasts a month before reuse. 
I use Isopropyl alchehol to clean the mousepad and mousefeet, qtip for the sensor, and a small needle to clean the dust around the pads. 
 

[makojunki]

ok thanks. i was fairly sure it wasnt gonna be a QcK and lightweight mouse

[ClanZes]

Em 16/07/2022 em 23:23, Chrometastic disse:

The concept of this method goes as this: 
Your wrists', swivel at the base of the wrist left and right. 
swiveling the wrist to the left is radial deviation.
swiveling the wrist to the right is ulnar deviation.

The wrist's degrees of ulnar and radial deviation is: 
19 degrees of radial deviation, 33 degrees of ulnar deviation

You want to be neutral as possible, as its going to be the spot you can use as a point of reference, as it's easier to learn, and it will become the foundation of your calculations. 
If you used ulnar deviation, as your basis for doing your aiming arc, mirroring it, you will have issues when you go past the 19 degrees of radial deviation. 

You solve this, with optimising your 360 with radial deviation.
When you do this method, from neutral position, as listed in the photo.
You will take from the tip of the finger, and move it to the limit of radial deviation. 
This will be your 180 deg of 360 sens, and mirroring it will complete the 360 deg. 

Since everyone's hand size is different, the arc length from neutral to radial deviation will be different.  
The distance that you are looking for is the distance from the green dot on the protractor, to the blue dot. 
This requires everyone's cm/360 to be completely unique! 

This method, makes everyone's method of aiming inherently flawed, since 99% of most sens will not fit within your limits of kinesiology. 
This method uses kinesiology, or basic science of wrist joint movement to maximize what you can move. 

Note: I do however realize that the sensor is not located at the tip of the finger with most mouses, but listed below. 
You can make it slightly more accurate if you know the distance of the sensor to base of wrist and calculate the arc length of limit of radial deviation. 
but the way you hold your mouse can alter this entirely, but there's too many variables, but the variable you can isolate is 19 degrees of radial deviation. 

 

147323000403200315.pdf ptj0837.pdf

[Chrometastic]

25 minutes ago, ClanZes said:

im glad people are taking further research on this matter

147323000403200315.pdf 78.93 kB · 5 downloads ptj0837.pdf 1.38 MB · 3 downloads

 

[ClanZes]

14 horas atrás, Chrometastic disse:

 

I had already tried something similar to what you are trying to do. But I ended up giving up, I couldn't make it work but I had the files saved I hope it helps you. It's like I said before, I'm using the horizontal measurement of my monitor (24 inch - 20.92 inch hor) or the horizontal measurement of my pad (only when I use a small one below 32 cm). That way at least I've noticed a better average between the games

Edited August 12, 2022 by ClanZes
language