MuntyYy

When FOV's are similar any conversion method will give the exact result. When the discrepancy between FOV's is noticeably high you should probably stop converting via 360 method.
I personally use a low sensitivity, therefore 100% mm brings more versatility and room to improve IMO even though 00% is the way to go.
You do you, what works for me might not work for everyone.

Let's go from 10" monitor to 20" monitor. Both have 1920x1080 pixels. First assumption will be to match the distance it takes to move the cursor from one side to the other side, AKA move 1920 pixels. This is what the calculator does. Let's extrapolate this idea to a 1" screen and a 1000" screen. If the distance it takes to move the mouse results in the cursor moving 1" in one case, and 1000" in the other, will it feel the same? Personally it wouldn't to me.
Instead of matching the quantity of pixels displaced, you want to match the distance displaced. Figure out how big a pixel is.
(rounded for simplicity)
10" monitor:  Every pixel is 0.0045"
20" monitor:  Every pixel is 0.0090"
If it takes 1" of mouse movement to move 1920 pixels on the 20" monitor, then 1" of mouse movement correlates to 17.4". This is a ratio of 1 : 17.4, or a gain of 17.4. It doesn't matter what units you measure, whether it is mm, cm, inches, kilometers, it doesn't matter. 1 unit of mouse movement correlates to x unit of cursor movement. This is what you convert, not the pixels displaced. It will become inconvenient to move the cursor from the start menu to the system tray if the screen was 1000" wide, but that has nothing to do with the sensitivity of the mouse. For convenience, you can change the sensitivity to reduce that distance, but that is just preference.
 
Let's take it to 3D. In the above explanation you can see that pixels don't matter. The monitor is acting like a window. You are keeping real-world distances. The same applies to 3D.
Imagine you are playing a game like CS:GO. You crop the aspect ratio from 16:9 to 4:3. Does the perceived sensitivity change? Is it like some kind of optical illusion where replacing some of the rendered game world with blackness changes the perception of sensitivity? It personally isn't to me.
What if instead of blackness, you just change to a 4:3 monitor. You effectively reduced the horizontal angle of view from 106.26 degrees to 90 degrees, but the perceived sensitivity did not change. If it feels the same, why would you scale the sensitivity by the change in angles, ie. 90/106.26, which is what 'monitor distance match' is doing. So at the moment, the angle of view (or FOV) is changing, but the cm/360° is not and it feels good. So maybe it is because the vertical angle of view is still 73.74, so that's why the sensitivity didn't change? Wrong. Since CS:GO enforces a specific angle of view, let's just place black paper on the monitor to 'crop' it, let's reduce the effective vertical angle of view to a low number, will the sensitivity appear to change? If you answer no, then you can see that the angle of view has no bearing on the sensitivity. The focal length remained constant, the angle of view changed, so the answer is the focal length.
Here is 90° (4:3) at 20" and at 10", overlayed

You can see that they are both different. They have identical angle of view, but the focal length is completely different.
 
If you convert from the 20" to the 10", then the 10" needs to reduce the angle of view to maintain the same focal length. 20" has 90° (4:3), 10" has 53.13° (4:3).

 
Here is 10" converted to 20". 10" has 90° (4:3). 20" has 126.87° (4:3).

 
The first scenario, where the game enforces 90° (4:3), the game sensitivity value doesn't change. However, the CPI did change, by a factor of 2 if you keep the same 2D sensitivity. This is because the 20" is twice the size of 10". The focal length has also changed by the same factor. So the change in CPI results in the change in cm/360°, even though the FOV is the same. If you didn't want your cm/360° to change, you would have to use a lower angle of view on the smaller monitor (the 2nd picture).
You can quickly test this for yourself by creating a custom half resolution, like 960x540, and then playing a game in windowed or fullscreen (with no scaling and override enabled). Compare no change in sensitivity, and double game sensitivity (or whatever sensitivity value is equivalent to half the cm/360°). See which one feels better.
Scaling the game sensitivity by the change in focal length is exactly what 0% monitor match does. The change in monitor size is also the same factor as the change in focal length. This suggests that 0% is the only way to convert game sensitivity/cpi, as it results in no change in 'sensitivity'. The relationship between the device and the display element remains constant. Any deviation from this will be personal preference.
Many will have personal preference that will override 0%. Like if the screen was incredibly wide such as 32:9, making the distance from one end to the other double than that of a 16:9, then they may prefer to scale their sensitivity by a factor or 2 in order to make the hand distance the same when going from the start menu to the taskbar, or closing browser tabs, etc. They distance matched, which requires a change of device/mouse sensitivity (also applies to 3D). Many may also prefer to amplify their sensitivity for aim down sights/scopes, so they don't have to scale their input proportionately with the change in zoom and image curvature. 0% usually feels too slow in this case because you are directly comparing two different focal lengths without the distance between you and the reference point changing to cancel out the perceived zoom, whilst simultaneously using the same hand movement before and after the zoom. The target size, distance between the target and the crosshair, the target movement speed, etc., all scale proportionately with the focal length, which means you also need to scale your input with the focal length to land the flick or track the movement speed (and then there's the difference in eccentricity/curvature that results in that snappy/sluggish feeling and different diagonal trajectories).
Due to these preferences to scale sensitivity instead of input, other methods like 'monitor distance match' can be useful. I think Viewspeed v2 is also useful, the feeling is is kind of comparable to zooming in and having the camera dolly in the opposite direction of the zoom. If you zoom in from one end of the spectrum to the other, whilst simultaneously moving the mouse in circles, it looks like the sensitivity is matched perfectly. But when it comes to actually using Viewspeed v2, it results in worse aim performance (personally) at the expense of it feeling more consistent in that exact specific moment, due to the no sudden feeling of slowdown or speed up whilst using identical mouse movement before/after the zoom.
 
As for focal length, I believe it is found by doing the following:
(SquarePixels/2) / tan(SquareDegrees * pi/360) = focal length in pixels?
It's the same as this graphical fov calculator: https://teacher.desmos.com/activitybuilder/custom/5a61dd34fafbd40a25416e02#preview/d123ef39-8694-4760-af7d-c18c936ce79d
Scale pixels by the physical dimension of a pixel, and you will see that the above cases have identical focal lengths despite very different angle of views.
10" 90 (4:3) has 720 pixels focal length, 720 * 0.0045 = 3.24"
20" 126.87 (4:3) has 360 pixels focal length, 360 * 0.0090 = 3.24".

I'm honestly not sure. If it's a question about how much of your vision the monitor takes up, the distance to your monitor should be considered as well.
But personally I don't feel the sensitivity being wrong if I move 50 cm back or forth, which has a lot more impact on the apparent size than a few inches of increased monitor size.
I'll add the function to the next release though (not with distance to the monitor, but with monitor size), but it's probably not suitable for everyone.

In my experience, it is just the size that matters (lol). The amount of space that the monitor occupies in your vision hardly matters, like you can't make a small screen feel like a large screen by moving it closer as the depth is different.

Use in all the games monitor distance - 00%

I would just like to mention that all percentages, besides 0%, is actually arbitrary. Even the 1:1 aspect ratio percentage of 56.25%. This concept can be taken a step further, instead of just aspect ratio independent, to monitor size independent.
Think of the monitor as the aperture for the camera, or simply a window to the game world. When thought of it this way, then dividing any angle, even if its the angle that's at the screen boundaries, is just as arbitrary as any other angle, as the screen boundary depends entirely on the size of the monitor. A 24" monitor displaying 90 degrees vertically, is the exact same as a 12" monitor displaying 53.13 degrees vertically, as they both have the same focal length (149.4 mm). It's just different apertures. The 15" monitor's frame could be placed on top of the 24" monitor's frame and it will blend in perfectly. You could play a game windowed on the 24" with half the resolution (and 53.13 vfov) to emulate the 12".

An example. Both cases have very different angles of view. If you just divide angles, which is what monitor distance match does, then you get very different results, and this isn't even including what length you use (Vertical? Horizontal? Diagonal? 1:1? 4:3? 16:9? 12"? 24"?).
Both the 24" and 12" examples should have the same sensitivity, except they won't if you use monitor distance match at any percentage other than 0% (whilst simultaneously using the appropriate CPI for each monitor). If you did 56.25%, you would distance match to 90 degrees on one, and 53.13 degrees on the other, simply because that's the angle at the monitor boundary for that specific focal length, and both will have very different sensitivities as a result. 0% is aperture independent, doesn't matter what the monitor size is, whether you use vertical, horizontal, diagonal, etc., you get the same result. Calculations need to take monitor size into account in order to convert the control-display gain for CPI (DPI Wizard already has this, displayed as 'base length'), and to convert 3D sensitivity based on focal length.
 
BTW using the above concept, you can play any FOV restricted game in a custom resolution with black bars to emulate a portion of a higher FOV. So Overwatch's 103 FOV can be converted to 106.26 (CSGO) by using a smaller resolution with black bars (1810x1018), where the extra vision that CSGO has is replaced with black borders. Both games can share the same cm/360° as they will have identical focal lengths, even though the angles are different. In this scenario, any conversion method that doesn't normalise the angles using the tangent function (anything other than 0%) will result in Overwatch having a different cm/360° compared to CSGO, which would be incorrect.
Tldr 0% is the correct way to convert, anything else is preference.

Try 0.015067 sensitivity, and then convert your mouse CPI to the new screen using http://www.admiralbumblebee.com/general/2017/12/08/Transfer-mouse-CPI-settings-to-a-different-resolution-device.html
 

Yea I completely agree with that. They just use what "feels good". Actually I can perform extremely well but only under the right conditions.
When I started playing CSGO I managed to find my sensitivity easily, I remember I didn't even know any advanced stuff or strategy about the game at the time, but still I managed to get global just cause my aiming was way better than the other people.
Reaction time is everything, and the "first shot" is the most important in my opinion and I agree with that as well. In games like Battlefield it's not even that important considering the enemies are often kinda bad honestly, in skilled games first shot is crucial.

If you played for years, then you should be sure. Stick with what you are good at and keep practicing. 100% can be best for me, 00% for the majority you can play better at 75, but who knows ? as long as you maintain the same settings across all fps you are good to go regardless of mm%.

Quake Champions (and Fortnite) updated with correct FOV scaling for hipfire and aims!

Snug as a Bug on a Drug!

I don't know, I don't own a G Pro I just found that picture from someone over at Overclock.net ^^
But from what I've heard some people really like the clicks on it although I've also seen others say they're too light so idk. As far as sensor implementation goes however, I don't think you really can go wrong with logitech, seems they have that area well under control. No idea about the mousefeet but if they're anything like the G403 you might want to order some hyperglides at the same time.

Hipfire and ADS is added for in-game and config file!

I believe it replaced the g403 on his general list, its not his personal favourite. Its his 'i guess this is number 1 but i dont like it as much as others might'. 
He lists the fk2 as his personal fav. 
 
http://www.rocketjumpninja.com/find-a-mouse/

http://www.rocketjumpninja.com/top-40/
 
I follow this guys recommendations pretty closely he's tried hundreds of mice and is an excellent quake player. Follow his size guides for you hand size. Probably the reason the FK is so loved is because 1. Safe Shape 2. Light weight (the lighter the mouse, the easier it is to aim within reason) 3. Fits all hand sizes depending on what you get. 
 
I meant the EC1-A is meant for large hands.

I personally didn't like the G403 shape, it also has crappy glide on standard feet. It might be an all rounder but it's not close to the best I've handled. I personally found the EC2 -A to be a far superior shape to the G403. I also much preferred the FK series to the EC series. Personally, i like the FK 1+ the most, you can hold it more traditionally and it has really good sides for grip. The FK2 is way too small IMO, certainly a fingertip grip.
Honestly the rival 310 needs a different material on the grips and its damn near perfect. When your hands are dry it grips amazingly well, but any moisture and it gets really slippery. If it had some 'comfort grooves' in the M1 + M2 buttons and a grippier material - #1 mouse easily IMO.
For the record the Rival 600 material does the opposite, you get a better grip once your hand warms up, however it is not as well designed on the right side as the rival 310 and you need to grip it harder. If your a high sens player it might not matter, but for me i need to pick up the mouse a lot and i really appreciate good geometry like the FK series and the Rival 310.
Right now id rate the FK1+ and the Rival 310 as the top two. It sways in favor to the FK simply because there's no issues with grip under any condition. 
 

Monitor match is always usable, I'm just saying that it is a bit misleading. It scales the sensitivity using the angle ratio, the angle used being a specific percentage of the horizontal angle. The amount you rotate per count obeys this, it works as intended. I'm just highlighting the fact that the monitor distance match rule, the main marketing point for this method (remember that people pay actual money for this conversion), is not always true. It's always true using a script to send counts vertically, but horizontally is only true when the pitch is somewhat neutral. Anywhere else on the screen and it's not really going to be a match. The main thing to take away from this is it may show that we don't perceive sensitivity using a distance on the screen.

nah you can convert either way if you want

Life is hard but I'm not dead yet. Just for proof:
https://www.geogebra.org/m/hgbtnmqb

Pink line is monitor match
X axis is monitor height (so x=1 is full height of your monitor)
Purple line shows the slope of the pink line
Hidden stuff is just to confirm that cslculations work out the same if taking into account the distance from the monitor

Have a play with the fova and fovb sliders. Values are currently at 14.8 (BF 4x scope) and 80 (my hipfire) but most insight is gained from very distant values. Try 120 hipfire and 4 for a high zoom. You can see how far it gets from 0%MM, and how quickly.

This is a fun one because it serves as proof of several previous assertions made ITT:
100%(vertical) MM is just division of the FOV angles
Correct sensitivity divider approaches zoom ratio as we approach centre of screen
Correct sensitivity divider approaches 1 (1 meaning same sensitivity for all zoom levels) as we approach 180degrees from centre, regardless of the configured FOV
0%MM becomes increasingly incorrect as the target moves away from the centre of screen
We can quantify an average error in monitor match **
Minimal error for any target at any point including off screen is 100% (vertical) MM aka just divide the FOVs
Different zoom FOVs should be monitor matched to different % in order to minimise the error at any point on screen

** This will be the indefinite integral of f(x) = atan(tan(fova/2)x)/atan(tan(fovb/2)x) with limits 0 and 1. The inverse of that function will provide us with the MOST correct monitor match percentage for the given FOVs. 

Yes, I tried throwing it at wolfram and exceeded computation time. Damn. If some lovely person would like to find that formula, we've got our minimum error formula.... Otherwise I'll re-learn more math and let you know when I'm done

I think you would be surprised just how 'smart' your brain really is. Ask anyone who takes prescription glasses, what it's like when they first put them on, or when they changed to a new prescription from an old prescription. Some will tell you everything looks distorted and 'wrong', ask them in a few hours. everything will be normal.
This happens because your eyes don't see, they just project information to your brain, your brain is what makes the image and allows you to 'see'. You might be aware of all the people who get a feeling of disconnect in reality after spending too much time in a VR headset, their brain has begun to 're wire' itself accordingly.
An 18" and a 27" are both reasonably sized to be positioned an arms length away without any dramas, a 50" might give you issues because parts of the screen will simply be too far in to your outer peripheral view and a 2" is going to give you issues without putting a magnifying glass in-front of it.
My point is, your brain is designed to work synergystically with your eyes and every other part of your body. Changing viewing distance by an inch will take you less than 5 seconds to adjust. I think sensitivity should be based on whats inside the little black box (monitor) and let your brain take care of your physical self, that's something it specialises in.
Ultimately your trying to squeeze 120 degrees virtual FOV in to what is? 30-40? degrees of actual viewspace from your eye. Something that your brain adapted to a long time ago. (and something that gives 'non gamers' a headache just trying to watch).
 
 
PS: heres something i found on google regarding the VR side effects https://forums.oculusvr.com/community/discussion/53287/i-feel-like-im-in-vr-when-im-not

When you go to the cinemas... do you like to watch from 5 feet away with a 50' screen>? You need to keep things relative.... If i have a 27" 1440p 16:9 monitor or a 50 foot 1440p 16:9 cinema screen... if they are both using the same resolution / aspect ratio then i would want the EXACT same sensitivity. I would expect i am not sitting the same distance from each screen.
As a competent human being you should be able to position your head in front of your screen so that it fits in to your 'view space' perfectly. Sensitivity should not be based on SPATIAL AWARENESS, I'm sure one can understand your thumb is not larger than the empire state building even though you can block out the sun with your thumb...
The ONLY time the actual calculative sensitivity needs to be altered is if your monitor size / aspect ratio remains the same BUT the pixels per inch changes. For example a 27" 1080p 16:9 monitor vs a 27" 1440p 16:9 monitor, the latter has a higher density of pixels that will affect how the mouse moves across the desktop.
 
 
 

While this site is probably not the place where you post the most sensitive personal information, I want to make everyone aware of the possibility to enable two factor authentication for their account.
This authentication will require you to enter a verification code from the Google Authenticator app only when you are accessing the site from a new device.
A device in this case means any browser you have not previously accessed the site via. You can see all your registered devices here.
In others words, the authenticator will not prompt you when you enable it even if you log out (because your device is already known). You will only be prompted when the browser you log in from is identified as unknown. It is designed to be as user friendly as possible, but if you use a browser like Tor it will prompt you every time you log in. You can test it in Incognito or a similar privacy mode.
If you have lost access to your authenticator you can recover account access through your registered email.
To enable two factor authentication:
Go to your Account Security Settings Re-authenticate through a third party integration (Google, Facebook, Microsoft or Twitter) or by entering your password Click "Enable" to turn on the Google Authenticator for your account Scan the QR code with the Google Authenticator app Verify the code  

I had this buried under another thread, but since people still want to use it, I've improved it and I'll put it in it's own thread here.
It doesn't follow drimzi's pattern any more, so old macros won't work but you only need to press 1 now, the config files create the loop on their own.
I've removed the need for brand specific keyboard macros, but they can still be used if you want, you only need to make it press 1 repeatedly, but I recommend using the script I've made called keypresser.py which does the same thing for all windows machines.
Also, make sure
zoom_mouse_sensitivity_ratio 1 is set before you start
Download + Instructions here: https://github.com/Skidushe/sens-fov-scalar
Recommended map: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1104441138
I made a tutorial video here, the audio is a bit loud at some points sorry:
 

You will have 10 more HFOV when going from 4:3 to 16:10. So, your sensitivity will feel slower ( at smaller degrees of movement ) if you keep it at 2.5. But a 360 turn will take the exact amount of distance on your pad.

You convert using different methods depending on what you want to achieve.
 
360 Distance
360 distance will convert the sensitivity without any FOV compensation. The amount you rotate per mouse count is constant, and so the distance to rotate 360 degrees (or any other amount, like 45, 90, 180) is also constant. Since the FOV determines how many degrees are squished onto your screen, how sensitive the mouse feels will depend solely on the FOV. This method would have the most extreme change in perceived sensitivity when the FOV is changed.
My opinion: It is useful for converting hipfire sensitivity if you prefer to keep 180 degree flicks, but I would never recommend to use this for zooming/aiming. You will need to master all aiming styles, as low FOV will require micro finger movement and high FOV will require arm movement.
 
Viewspeed
Viewspeed V2 converts the sensitivity using the Sine trigonometric function for FOV compensation. The intended outcome is to make the perceived camera speed constant for all FOV while using a constant mousing motion. Since the FOV determines how many degrees are squished onto your screen, higher FOVs naturally look faster as there is more information moving, and low FOVs naturally look slower, and Viewspeed attempts to equalise this.
My opinion: The perceived sensitivity may be a little too high for low FOVs and too low for high FOVs. I don't think the perceived camera speed should be kept constant, as it is natural for it to change with the FOV. It can improve visual comfort, but I don't think this benefits muscle memory.
 
Monitor Distance Match
Monitor Distance Match converts the sensitivity by comparing the horizontal angle values of the FOV, and lets the user define a percentage of the horizontal FOV to match to. Rather than matching the distance for a constant angle like 360 distance, it matches to a dynamic value instead, your FOV, which is an angle on your screen. The result is a screen-space distance match, where the distance to rotate to a point on the screen is constant, but the discrepancy to rotate to any other point will depend on the FOV. This method is the same as Battlefield's Uniform Soldier Aiming system, except you define the point using a multiplier of the vertical angle in Battlefield, and a percentage of the horizontal angle in Monitor Distance Match. The method of comparing the angle values is also commonly used by most games, so you can replicate most games using this method. Example, CSGO divides the horizontal 4:3 angles, so 75% (for 16:9) will copy this.
My opinion: Matching to the square (1:1) aspect ratio's angle is the best distance match. You can find the percentage of this using a calculator, e.g. 1080/1920 * 100 = 56.25%. The benefit for this method is that you can specify a max radius required to move your mouse to aim within your FOV, which can give the sense of comfort, let you use a very low sensitivity, and master one aiming style (such as wrist only, arm only, etc.), but I wouldn't recommend this method for muscle memory. I think the logic behind this method is also flawed, it holds up for camera pitch distance, but camera yaw distance depends entirely on the camera pitch, if you look up or down, the distance to reach a predetermined point will fail.
 
Zoom Match (0% Monitor Distance Match)
Zoom Match converts the sensitivity using the tangent trigonometric function for FOV compensation. The sensitivity scales proportionately with the zoom / focal length, so if the camera zooms in 2x, the sensitivity will also scale by 2x. Screen distances and camera speed are not preserved. This method will have the largest discrepancy in 360 distance when comparing high and low FOVs.
My opinion: This will be the best method for muscle memory, but can also be the least comfortable and requires a higher sensitivity in general. You need to master aiming with all aiming styles. High FOVs will require micro finger movement, and low FOVs will require arm movement.