TheNoobPolice

If you do want to change the FOV instead of the sens, you should bear in mind you are nearly always more limited by FOV options in games, especially if you like the upper end of them. But with a calculation you can work out the new FOV needed to match focal length on the new screen size instead of changing sens... You can do newFOV = 2 * (arctan( screenSizesRatio * tan( ( oldFOV * π / 180) / 2))) * 180 / π so if the oldFOV was 90 degrees on the 24 inch, and the screenSizesRatio is 27/24 = 1.125..... we then have: newFOV = 2 * (arctan( 1.125 * tan( 1.5708 / 2 ))) * 180 / π so newFOV = 96.73 degrees on 27 inch

I wouldn't ever use stretched as I don't buy into the idea that it is helpful, so it is entirely up to you. Maybe other R6S seige or CS:GO players have more insight for what is best with that setup. Your horizontal sens is (16/9) / (16/10) faster than your vertical at screen centre so you could scale your vertical sens * 1.111 or your horizontal * 0.9 to match them. To be honest 0% matching from native in the source game to stretching in the target game makes a mockery of "focal length matching" , since the only movements that can be matched are strictly along one axis only and a human basically never moves "along" an axis, but continually over a combination of both. Even when you think you are moving purely horizontally, you are not. People tend to think of mouse input just as x and y but it's better thought of as a 2d vector with a given distance in any 360 degree direction, and when you stretch you distort that vector. If you apply a different component multiplier as above in the traditional manner to compensate the opposing axis' distance difference, you further shift both the angle and diagonal distances in other ways than you are used to. So your best bet is a very rough approximation of "matching" for your particular setup.

In MW 2019, I don't think it was a true dual render (mostly because that is expensive) rather just a visual magnification function, and the area within the scope was given a focal length scaled sensitivity (in other words, slowed down by the difference in magnification, which is why the velocity at the edges of the scope didn't match up to the areas around it of course. So the tracking velocity would have been the same with and without the magnification which makes sense to me (regardless of whether the user scaled the "outer" ADS FOV by 0% or not). If they have done something different for this game I'd be rather surprised as it seemed like a good solution.

ok, but since your R6S is stretched, you still need to pick either a vertical or horizontal match, as in this instance they will be different

You would need to figure out what you want to do as your source and targets are most unusual. Your Overwatch Hipfire FOV is far more "zoomed in" than your R6S ADS is. Not an issue in itself, but you also have a stretched aspect ratio for R6S, but NOT for Overwatch which means you also have a different "focal length scaled" sensitivity when moving vertical vs horizontally, so you would either need to pick which one to use in the conversion method selection, or use one and then add the vertical hipfire modifier in R6S to balance the difference - but this will then change the angle of diagonal mouse inputs (I don't use any y/x ratios to change vertical sens now as don't like how it changes angle, rather use a bias function I added to Custom Curve to do so but that's a whole other discussion).. You then have the screen size change to factor in, and whether or not you are at all concerned about the R6S hipfire being matched to anything whatsoever, which you don't seem to be. So I don't think there is any advice I can give you now, because I fundamentally don't understand why you would set the games up like they are personally.

The reason is because you matched your R6S ADS to Overwatch hipfire by focal length, but your R6S Seige hipfire is a different FOV than Overwatch

I believe this is an example where the UI / graphics guys just make a visual representation for normie users that is going to be the easiest to somewhat understand. if they showed 16:10 vs 16:9 with a different width when they both say the same width number "16" it would look wrong to such a user, and the alternative of showing the resulting ratios of 1.6 vs 1.78 would probably be more confusing for them. I wouldn't worry too much about the menu UI representations of things.

Because you asked this: So I showed you what your hipfire sens settings would be if you wanted to keep your ADS "focal length scaled" from what you are used to on 24", and also then scale the hipfire by focal length from that new ADS sens. Since the way the sens variables are implemented in R6S is effectively a car crash of circular dependencies, you have to change different variables to get the same result. But really, what you are doing doesn't really make any sense to do that anyway, because I didn't realise your old hipfire sens on 24" wasn't matched by focal length anyway to your old 1.0x zoom, because you massively reduced the ADS sens to 38. In other words, you were previously using 76% of focal length scaling for your ADS: https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/?share=0dd5017571bb8a58de48b3acfc8b5e6e i.e So basically, all you need to do is set as per these values on your new monitor and to hell with the hipfire sens, cause you were never using anything other than an arbitrary value anyway and it doesn't seem like you really care about that.

Actually, there may be a difference even if you match the 360 distance for the final value, because for “Gradual” it depends at what point they also scale using the specific scope slider, and whether the relative monitor distance transition is a procedural loop, or if it is pre-calculated, stored in a variable, scaled by the specific scope’s slider, and then that returned value applied time-linearly over the ADS animation duration for any weapon, (or at the start of it or the end for instant / after) I assumed the former as that is how BF does it, but actually, if you allow the user to select the transition type, it makes sense to do the latter. In other words, I don’t think it’s clear whether the gradual, instant or after option includes the ADS scope multiplier value, or whether that applies only to the monitor distance multiplier, and the scope value is always a post or pre-scale. Since I would only ever use a scope multiplier of 1.0 it never occurred to me. It is not easy to test without seeing the code, as when you are fully zoomed in it is all the same. So I guess for this aspect, you are reduced to “set by what feels best”.

https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/?share=2a98fd582651a0b38942350c62ea8dab

It's a case of picking your poison, because if you match the focal length scaled sens of 27" ADS to 24" ADS, then your hipfire with 27" is no longer matched by focal length unless you change it. In other words, whilst actually playing the game; your sens will slow down more when you aim than it would do with a focal length match to hipfire. You could then choose to adjust your hipfire sensitivity so that it is also matched by focal length, but this then means your 360 / navigation movements (180 turns etc) are a different distance than before on 24". It's my experience this is often more problematic than just adapting to a different velocity at screen centre. Up to you though, you just have to choose what you want to be matched and what you want to change. You could also do what I did and what philheath is suggesting, and use a 24" unscaled resolution and just benefit from the pixel density and any other stat improvements on your new monitor without any sensitivity adaptations required. I would give it a try before dismissing it as I think it is a good solution especially for competitive shooters where you may have already built-up a good level of play on a given setup.

No, you shouldn't assume that. Games only have a monitor distance coefficient when there is this formula used: ADS Sens Multiplier = atan(tan((ZoomFOV*pi/180)/2) * Coefficient) / atan(tan((HipFOV*pi/180)/2) * Coefficient) The only games that do this are Battlefield and CoD to my knowledge, and both use the vertical FOV for this scaling. 0% is not really a coefficient (multiply anything by zero and you get zero) rather just the focal length scaling formula, although the result is practically identical to some small coefficient value like 0.001 i.e this vs this yields the same result to 6 decimal places, and there are indeed a lot of games that use focal length scaling. There are also other simplifications that end up with similar results to various coefficient values. Many games use simply a linear (ZoomFov*pi/180)/(HipFov*pi/180) which is the same as a coefficient of 1 unless you use different FOV measurements for each. For example, Doom Eternal does this but using the 16:9 horizontal FOV (therefore equivalent to 178% vertical coefficient), and CS:GO also does this but using the 4:3 based horizontal FOV. This is why CS:GO's sens scaling is said to be the same as BF USA / CoD Relative 133% default coefficient , even though it doesn't actually use the same formula or a coefficient at all. It just does ZoomFOV/HipFOV (see line 556) where the FOVs are the 4:3 based radians instead of vertical degrees. There are also countless others than either use fixed multipliers so don't scale at all from hipfire FOV changes, or other calculations based off e or pi or anything else you could think of. In any case, the best use for this type of scaling is really for ADS / zoom within a game from whatever your hipfire sens is. You are pretty much always better off using a hipfire sensitivity that works optimally for type of navigation movements you need to do in a given game. It would probably be a bit silly to insist on using the same hipfire sens in Quake as is optimal in CS:GO, given the completely different aiming movements required, and between similar games but where the FOV cannot be exactly matched then 360 distance still probably makes the most sense for hipfire so your navigation is familiar to what you are used to.

The reason for the difference is due to the definitions of sensitivity and which one someone favours to recommend matching. DPI Wizard is referring to the 3D sensitivity in the game world - the "game sensitivity". Changing monitor size does not change the distance per count. If 1 count from the mouse = 0.0066 degrees turned in-game (i.e OW yaw value) then changing your monitor size doesn't change that. What Drimzi explains in the thread is effectively the 2D sensitivity within screen space, from the 3D projection of the game onto your monitor. Here, at any given FOV, a change in screen size will result in a different "pixels worth" of distance travelled in 2D "on your screen" at the crosshair. Because we perceive sens visually as the 2D image displacement (there is a non-visual perception also, such as the learned movement required for "off-screen aiming" - 180 degree turns, 90 degree flicks etc), this could be thought of more mathematically correct as "the sensitivity" and this is what "focal length scaling" preserves and why the calculator's output produces different values for your new screen size. Although gamers are used to "360 distance" as sensitivity, this is not really correct and is really a misnomer. The sensitivity of any function is a unitless ratio of the output to the input. If my input is 2 and my output is 3 of "something", then such a transfer function has a sensitivity of 3/2 = 1.5. The way we express sensitivity as a distance, is by framing it against a physical constant such as a DPI value (real-world distance along a flat 2D plane) against a yaw value (virtual 3D-world angle change), but you could replace the latter with the image velocity at screen centre which would also take into account the screen size and FOV. I actually agree that using focal length as the constant for sensitivity measurement makes more sense than using virtual degrees per count since we all play games on 2D displays, but I doubt the current convention will ever change. Anyway, bottom line is that I think your initial hunch was most likely correct for you, and your path of least resistance as far as adapting to your change in screen size is to not make any changes to your settings.

You have not specified what conversion method you are using, but assuming you are using 0% or some other monitor distance (as there would be no difference on 360 distance) then because the target screen is larger there is a different perspective, and this is what the calculator is compensating for with any monitor distance. The physical distance to the edge of a 24" screen is only 89% of that of a 27" screen. You don't have to match this, you can totally ignore the factor by setting both screens to the same size in the calculator. You will find your sensitivity feels different in some way regardless of what you do. There is never "true 1:1" matching between different FOV's or screen sizes as an absolute statement, only a "pick what aspect of conversion want to be 1:1". I am not sure what you mean by saying "everyone knows 1:1 sens is 37.89%" as this cannot be true for all definitions of "matched sensitivity". When I moved to a larger screen temporarily, I made an unscaled resolution that was 24" for 1st person shooters (with black bars) and then just used the 27" for the desktop and 3rd person / controllers games. If you do want to use the full 27" size for everything, then my advice would be to just adapt to the new focal length, you may find your brain just figures this out for you and it feels "the same" very quickly without any changes. You could do the opposite, and match the new 27" ADS focal length / monitor distance to your 24" hipfire sensitivity, but then the hipfire on 27" is going to be more sensitive vs ADS than it used to be, by a factor of 27/24 = 1.125x

At no point did you say anyone explained it well. You literally just said this: Now you're just playing fast and loose with the terms. If you don't know enough about something to offer any attempt to explain it yourself whilst simultaneously criticising the quality of other's explanations...then you don't understand it. I think that'd be fairly clear to pretty much anyone. Considering I've never had a conversation with you before in my life to my knowledge, I'll ignore the creepy bit and just skip to the part about being civil. If you think someone just having a giggle about your obviously silly comment is not being "civil" then you're going to be in for a rough time. I will give you one tip though, best not to make your first contributions to any community of zero value besides criticising those who are in fact contributing to it. A better way would be to say "I really find these explanations difficult to understand and there's gaps in my knowledge, could someone try explaining it a little simpler for me?" Besides that I won't be saying anything else on the matter, as Brandolini's Law will no doubt become more and more in effect.

"I don't understand this, but you're explaining it wrong" Nothing like reviving a two-year-old thread just to say the explanations within said thread suck. Thought I'd seen it all but apparently not lol

Then it does not matter as there is no transition in which to apply a timing to

All the FOV calculations in Frostbite internally were vertical radians. So Kertz wasn't "incorrect". He probably forgot that in BF3/BF4 it was converted to 4:3 Horizontal degrees for the user interface. The UI didn't show Vertical FOV correctly until BF4 had it's post-DICE LA patches.

Well, yes, but inversely. it would be possible to do that exact same thing by reversing the formula if you were so inclined, but it’s the wrong way around for me

It is just the focal length / zoom ratio / 0% / visuomotor / pixel ratio formula. sens multiplier = tan(ZoomFOV/2)/tan(HipFOV/2) FOV’s in radians, either vertical or horizontal. doesn’t matter in this instance as long as they are both the same measurement.

There’s no “should” per se, but it sounds like you need to reduce both the limit and the power. Try 100 for both instead. The whole idea of this is the low zooms start from 0% though, so if the very smallest zooms feel too slow, it’s probably an indication you just prefer a regular fixed monitor distance.

The y would normally "feel" slower than x because we have less range of motion in our fingers up and down that our wrist left to right. This is why some people prefer to increase the y sensitivity. Besides that (and assuming you have factually measured a difference, because "seems to be faster" is not really convincing taking into account the above), if you know you did not adjust the axial DPI in your mouse software(s), the only thing that could occur is if there was a mouse filter installed that is performing some math on the input or causing some error in processing the (x, y) input packet. If you go to this registry key Computer\HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Class{4d36e96f-e325-11ce-bfc1-08002be10318} You can see any LowerFilters or UpperFilter keys for the mouse device class in the right hand pane. There is only usually the default "mouclass" under UpperFilters in a default windows install. If there are any LowerFilters especially, and you don't explicitly know you want them / installed them, then that would be something you should probably address as to why they are there.

Wow, that's definitely an oversight IMO

I don't own the remaster, but are these values for real? Max in-game sens at 400 DPI is a 239cm 360!?

Most likely just because that is what you are most used to. It's faster overall of course and because of what I mention above with the perception being slower away from the equator anyway that it might feel better to you? Who knows honestly, not like anyone can measure your feels and debug them. If you were playing a game where you had to track for lengthy engagements with extreme vertically when zoomed in a little though, you might have a different opinion.