seventhfrost

Name: Boundary Website: https://store.steampowered.com/app/1364020/Boundary/ Status: In Development / demo Release Date: "2022" Availability: demo during steam demo week space

hey, game's soft launched into early access on steam and there's a bunch more sensitivities than before, i think. the ones in the pic + the aim sensitivity multiplier for ADS the calc already has, wouldn't fit on screen. settings file changed its name slightly too edit: for the record, what the calc already has seems to still be accurate to me. been wrong before, though.

Name: DeadCore Website:https://store.steampowered.com/app/284460/DeadCore/ Release: 2014 Availability: $10 goes low on sales, and i'm in no rush.

Name: NEON STRUCT Website: https://store.steampowered.com/app/310740/NEON_STRUCT/ Released: May 20, 2015 Availability: purchase, but it's 90% off right now. like $2 sens bottoms out in a weird spot, and i'm not sure if there's a config file with access to it or anything

Just got the game and the Aiming sensitivity value seems locked for me ingame. Anyone know why this might be happening? Also are the calculations with or without the different scope FOV scaling settings?

AVA Dog Tag beta started up today. Not sure available keys are atm, unfortunately. Also, if you do go for it, the director has some weird stance about keeping acceleration on by default without an ingame option because that's how the original was. It's in the ini file, but it seems that'll be the only way so it'd have to be noted.

I think the relationships drimzi's formed/come upon between FOVs with diagonal 1:1 MM is worth looking into. I tried matching sensitivities with viewspeeds V1 and V2 quite a bit before coming to this thread and seeing new ideas. Between those two, the other trial solutions drimzi posed, and diagonal 1:1 match, the latter's transitions between different FOVs felt more "right" to me with than with any previous, did so basically immediately, and still did after going back and trying other solutions again. I think it got generally good reception from others too, so I'm interested in what you think about it, if you're planning on trying it out. I don't keep up with the math going into this beyond basic concepts and goals, so I can't attest to how sound anything is, or explain why 1:1 diagonal match feels so good to me. However, a lot of this has basically been trying out different ideas to see how the relationships they produce feel. Considering that, I wouldn't be surprised if diagonal match wasn't the "right" solution, however even an incorrect solution that grants insight is a step forward that can be important in finding better ones. To me, a mathematically-based solution is preferable, but only if it produces preferable results. If it's beat out by something that isn't as nice and transparent of a solution, figuring out why that happened and using that new understanding to craft more grounded solutions is the next step, right? That's my take on this, anyway. Of course, this only applies if other people are as into the way diagonal 1:1 monitor match feels between fovs as i am. If not, then it's not worth worrying about.

I was actually about to ask if you've tried the mcosu to shoot the beat comparison with this one yet, and how it felt if you did. I'm definitely going to try it out though.

So should I be trying this one out? 2D to 3D seems a lot more in line with older formulas, but I was pretty sold on the faster conversion from the most recent formula.

Was gone for a bit, but I've been trying out the formula you settled on and i don't have any complaints with it. It's fast but it makes sense to me, having tested it. And despite how fast it is, I seemed accurate enough right off the bat that I'd buy it. I am still interested in how viable people think using a ratio when going 2d to 3d might be, or if that might provide too little tangible benefit to be worth it over finding a preferred ingame sensitivity. Either way, I'm very happy this seems to have found a solution. Of course, thanks for all the hard work drimzi.

I had a feeling this was going on with my testing and when i tried to stop it, i started really thinking the faster ones made more sense. I'm glad the mcosu thing seemed to shed some insight, gotta try it myself soon. The thing about a 2:1 intrigues me, and i'd want to know how effective it might be versus just not matching at all and not worrying about it, but I'm not sure much can be done as far as telling how worthwhile that is (as opposed to just picking the ingame 360 you like and matching FOVs) without knowing the best 1:1 for sure. Gonna try this one out today. I'm at 300 dpi so the 360 is serviceable.

I've been using this experimental monitor match formula and I'm really digging it still. The sensitivities for it are certainly fast but they make sense. I have no complaints about it at high/low fovs personally, but I'm not too used to testing it outside of a smallish range of fovs. I'm pretty sold on it. Definitely took some time to adjust to how fast it was, but it fits the desktop better than the rest to me so far. Probably need more opinions though. Also for some reason CSGO doesn't like me trying to use high dpi with a low wps value. Ended up having to go back to 6 so I could try things out there.

Ah okay, that's pretty neat. I'll definitely try some of it out if/when there are links or if you find limits you think give it some edge over other solutions.

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.

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.