TheNoobPolice

Shadow of War? I know it's 3rd person view has a weird kind of smoothing, like a floaty thing going on, doesn't really feel like accel as such (but more like they want to prevent any mouse movement from being able to make"jittery" visuals even if you moved it really fast, probably for artistic reasons) but the bow / zoom sensitivity seems to work ok. It would be nice to able to match the zoom monitor distance for aiming with other games I ADS in.

It seems to use a fixed multiplier for ADS rather than a screen space system for the FOV change (of any monitor distance %), because as soon as you press the ADS button the sensitivity drops instantly to the new turn-rate even before you've fully zoomed in, which is something I really hate.

Ok thanks, Since the game uses 0% monitor distance based off the ADS setting of irons then, I imagine the higher zoom scopes are not too far off. It's certainly not massively noticeable, but I stick to irons to make sure the sens is "spot on". I suppose we should be thankful that the game at least uses a monitor distance for FOV changes and not some arbitrary random multiplier like some other games.

Obvious the game does not support multiple ADS settings per different FOVs. I notice that the irons, red dots and sniper scopes all use different FOVs. Just out of interest, which of these does the calculator use when matching to viewspeed or a specific monitor distance?

You can also use Frhed - it's totally free portable app that doesn't need an installer or any plugin stuff and is perfect for simple config edits. EDIT: By the way - thanks for getting this in the calculator so quickly, lightning fast!

It's almost like there is no such thing as FOV affecting muscle memory and effective sensitivity.

I wasn't suggesting you didn't. The reply and information might be useful to more people other than yourself viewing the thread, perhaps? I do disagree though that expecting a player to turn in hipfire, and then aiming once the target is in the centre of the screen is a "bright side" of using 0% monitor distance. This is not realistic and is not how people play first person shooters. We both know what the advantages of 0% monitor distance are, and it's not that.

Probably best just to link to the OCN reviews, since there''s alredy a huge breadth of knowledge there. http://www.overclock.net/f/375/mice

Thanks! I didn't realise the output was in inches, I always forget you guys aren't metric! Right, so I play BF1 on 3% in-game, 800 dpi, FOV 106.26 (4:3) that's a 20.6684 inch 360 - so a desktop distance equivalent according to your formula = 9.0876 inches I then used the formula based off that with the scaled ADS 1.25x scope 4:3 FOV of 93.67 to find a new 360 distance of 22.9763 for ADS. (Incidentally, the existing "viewspeed" would produce 23.6892 inch 360 at this FOV, so your new formula seems to be slightly faster and probably closer to 100% monitor distance? (at least in this example)) Only thing I can't work out is how to apply the resulting 360 distance to the 1.25x scope slider in order to test this in-game when transitioning between hipfire and ADS. Any ideas?

What settings in game did you use to test this?

Interesting - How did you test this? Can you give some examples of soldier sensitivity modifiers to try this out in BF1 using this formula? Example: If I currently play on a hipfire 4:3 FOV of 106.26 (which I do, i.e 90 VFOV) and I use the 1.25x ADS scaled zoom (i.e 93.67 4:3 FOV) using USA with a coefficient of 0%, what 1.25x zoom slider percentage would I need to use to arrive at the correct sensitivity as per your formula between hipfire and ADS?

No it wouldn't be more accurate. It would be less. If you don't use USA, you don't benefit from the proceedural change of sensitivity as you ADS, rather it dumps you right the way down to ADS sensitivity as soon as you press the ADS button but before you have completely zoomed in, so as you are turning to target (espeically with slower zoom sniper scopes) there would be a half second or so where the sensitivity is completely out of whack, even if you matched the viewspeed for each scope individually. Basically, for anyone interested in proper mouse sens for BF, they should always be using USA. It's just a better method for calculating turn-rate and FOV changes in a game, rather than using multiplers.

Just a point about this - sounds good in theory but people don't turn THEN aim, they turn AND aim simultaneously, and rightly so, otherwise you're taking too long to acquire a target and at higher levels get owned. One of the key overlooked advantages of a proceedural turn-rate adjustment like BF's USA, rather than a turn rate mutilpier (either static or configurable by a slider), is that it adjusts the turn rate during the FOV transition also. Meaning the turn-rate gradually slows as you are zooming in. When you run USA off, the game "switches" to the ADS turn-rate as soon as click the ADS button, which means there is a split second of turning as the FOV is transitioning where the sensitivity feels far too slow, even if you use the calcualtor on this site to otherwise match the ADS sensitivity to be the same.

That could work in matching to desktop but not with an FOV of 0 course! You could in theory start with 0.001 FOV (or less) and work it out back from that, but there is going to be a 0.1% margin of error compared to desktop, not really an issue because there is a small percentage of sensor drift on mice anyway, (although the pixart 3366/3360 sensor does a much better job than any preceeding it) It still doesn't really matter, since there is no objective improvement that can be made for every single game and FOV transtion, because it is literally impossible for two different FOV's to have the exact same sensitivity. I'm not even convinced there is an optimal monitor distance for every FOV transtiion. It depends what you are doing in the game, where you are looking at the screen, and how you're own brain percieves sensitivity which has not at all been studied with any degree of satisfacotry data. Anecdotally, I've known some players who loved the Medal of Honor Warfight model, which if I remember rightly seemed to match degrees turned of 1:1 regardless of FOV / zoom, which I thought was bonkers and couldn't even play that game cause of it, but whatever. If the guys want to work out a formula that they think works better then all good, but there will still be some types of games where the optimum is simply just 0% monitor distance.

Basically, there's nothing inherently wrong with the existing Monitor Matching to a specific percentage or Viewspeed (in practice, currently equivalent to 70-75% distance depending on FOV with the existing formula). Here's the best options for any user. For games in which "tracking" movement / targets with a longer time to kill is more important - use a distance close to 0% For "twitchy" games, in which the meta is about flicking or "snapping" to targets quickly, use the distance on the monitor where you find you are identifying new targets most often. For games with a bit of both such as BF1, anywhere from 25%-75% monitor distance (i.e BF1 coefficient of 44% -133%) will work best depending on the player, and their chosen playstyle / ADS FOV level. For less aim-critical games, (example, Dishonored 2) where you simply want a "sensation" of equal speed across the screen / FOV. It is perfect to use Viewspeed, since it is much more straight-forward to use with the calculator, especially for new users that don't want to have to think about where they match a distance on the screen. Nothing wrong with tweaking the Viewspeed formula to scale differently across FOV changes, but it's still going to be down to user preference and playstyle, and one calculation is never going to work perfectly for everyone.

I don't really see how what you guys are trying to achieve can exist. I say this because as we all know, If any distance on the monitor IS synchronised, then all other positions are, unavoidably, NOT synchronised as one FOV transitions to another. The only way around this would be to have some kind of magic mouse which knew where you were aiming to for a particular enemy and adjusted turn-rate for that position of the screen in real-time. In other words, an "impossible with current technology" variable speed turn-rate, which wouldn't work anyway because it would fly in the face of everything "consistent" gamers like about mouse movement. Having a formula which in-effect works to move the match position to a different part of the screen (depending on the starting and ending FOV) could be mathematically sound in theory, but will still always have points on the screen that are not synchronised, and if you happen to be aiming at one of those points in ADS, then the aim will feel always off compared to aiming at the same point in hipfire. As far as I can see, it's always going to be a case of "pick your poison".

I worked a lot on this for the testing when DICE dev Julian Manolov first implemented DarkEthereal's ideas during BF4 CTE. To cut a long story short, Having a coefficient of 0% (i.e viewspeed under "the centre of crosshair" match) makes "effective" sensitivity feel slower as zoom increases / FOV decreases with the different scopes in the game. This is a pretty objective phenomenon and every person who was testing it reported the same results. The idea of USA in the first place was to create a system which could remove the need for random turn-rate multipliers, which were never going to work for everyone because they didn't/don't take into account user base FOV selection, even if the different ADS FOV multipliers were reasonably and accurately modelled in the first place (which they weren't). A setting of matching 4:3 distance (i.e 133%) made the best compromise across ALL the zoom levels in BF4. which is why it is the default. It was not simply to "match CS:GO". There has been way too much emphasis put on that throw away remark from Dark. If you're not interested in matching ALL zoom levels as close as possible (for example, if you only ever rock iron sights) then having a closer to screen center coefficient might work out better, and of course, the less you change FOV with a low-zoom scope the less the coeffecient matters anyway. But as been already mentioned, it is literally impossible to match a sensitivity across ALL the screen space of a 3D game, due to the 3D/2D distortion factor. BF1 doesn't have as high zoom levels as BF4 with sniper scopes, and critically, there is no "blanking of the edges" outside the scopes. That is to say, your brain still gets viewspeed information from your peripheral view in BF1 with snipers (albeit blurry), whereas it doesn't in BF4. What you find when your peripheral view is blanked, off, and you can only see the "centre portion" of the FOV (which looks "flatter" and is the slower moving portion of the screen as you turn) is this creates a sensation of lowered "effective sensitivity". Which is one of the reasons why BF4 needed a slightly faster overall setting of 133% to be the default, cause we had to account for 20x zoom scopes with blanked out edges. When I play BF1, since I only use zoom levels up to 4x zoom, and no scope blanks peripheral, I play at a coefficient of 88.8888%. In other words, exactly the halfway point between the centre of my screen, and the horizontal edge on a 16:9 display. This is also exactly the centre of any "FOV curve" also, since the 3D/2D conversion bends the image of course. Aiming to anything outside that point is slightly slower, aiming to anything inside that point is slightly faster compared to hipfire FOV. One of the problems with this whole thing is the industry standard terms for defining what is "sensitivity" as far as muscle memory / aiming ability goes. There is a huge fixation in FPS gaming of matching 360 distances, but that is actually just "turn-rate" - an objective value, whereas "sensitivity" has to be subjective - the key is in the word - your SENSation of movement. Effective sensitivity - which is what matters when we're talking about aiming and muscle memory, is a combination of a turn rate across a monitor distance / FOV. I hear people all the time using this website or their tape measure to match 360 distances between games that don't even have the option to replicate the same FOV they use, and that is completely pointless, since a different FOV at the same turn-rate, changes effective sensitivity (i.e aiming muscle memory) which was the whole reason USA or aiming multipliers are needed in the first place.