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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

Click the wolfram links, make sure the variables at the beginning match your fov, resolution height, dpi, and aspect ratio/fov type, and look at the number it gives you at the bottom. If there's no number, you might have to click the "show approximate form" button at the bottom, and if it's not there, below the formula there's a 'use decimal' button. Once you get a number, you'll have your 360 distance at that FOV, though. From that point, I just use the current calculator to find my 360 distance in siege's settings at my FOV by just tweaking numbers till it's right, but maybe there's a better way.

I tried Viewspeed - 1:1 Desktop, 1:1 Diagonal FOV and Viewspeed - 1:1 Diagonal Desktop, 1:1 Diagonal FOV out before going back to 100% Monitor Match - 1:1 Diagonal Desktop, 1:1 Diagonal FOV . I think the answer is somewhere around the monitor match, too. I adjusted to both viewspeed ones pretty quickly, but it felt like adjusting. the monitor match one kind of shares the awkwardness I feel at this DPI since I'm not used to it, I think. Going to retry the slower version of the monitor match formula soon. Didn't get much time with it before I had to sleep.

After trying out this, I'm really liking how this general formula scales between different FOVs. As for 2D to 3D, though, as things are, I can't really tell what matches better yet, it seems. I probably need more time at 325 DPI to be able to tell. I'm trying to think of ways I can build up a sense for the speed of a DPI the fastest. I was thinking of trying to track my cursor with my eyes somewhat loosely while doing something like aimbooster, or even in regular usage. Do you know of any ways to speed that up? As for diagonal FOV, I remember that one felt weirdly like it was matching at 90 FOV, but I don't think I liked how it scaled between FOVs, not sure. I can try it out for longer tomorrow to compare it if you need opinions, but I'm not sure how much mine can help with matching.