potato psoas

doubt it

Assuming you have developed enough dexterity, you should pick a sensitivity. But if you have only just started PC gaming then you should experiment a bit more so you can develop enough dexterity, otherwise you won't know what you are capable of and you'll be stuck with a sensitivity that doesn't suit you. My advice for picking the best sensitivity: I found the best way to pick the best sensitivity is to go to a website like http://www.aimbooster.com/, set the preset to Precision, change the target size to 1 and time per target to something like 2 seconds and just mess around with a bunch of DPI settings, starting with high DPI and going down in increments of 100. You are testing what is the maximum sensitivity you can use to be completely accurate for the smallest targets. Remember that with the Viewspeed method we can truly make our desktop sensitivity the same as our in-game sensitivity, which helps with muscle memory. As you mess around you will find that it is very difficult to not resort to locking in your grip on anything higher than 3200 DPI @ 3/11 WPS (for 1920). You need to avoid locking your grip otherwise you will have trouble tracking targets - which is very bad if you play games like Overwatch, Quake, Titanfall, BO3/IW, as targets bounce all over the place. You need your grip to be flexible and comfortable. To decide your best sensitivity, go down in increments of 100 DPI (use 3/11 WPS) and aim to get 100% accuracy. Eventually you will get to a DPI where your accuracy does not improve and you feel just as comfortable on higher DPIs. You want your DPI/sensitivity to be somewhere around here, and maybe a little bit higher (as you will probably improve on your dexterity). The other thing to consider when choosing a sensitivity is how well it will converts between different resolutions. Unless you have a mouse that can adjust itself in increments of 1 DPI then you should consider choosing a DPI that you can play on any mouse (increments of 100) and for a particular set of resolutions. Given the way the industry is going, I'd say multiples of 1920 work best and are the resolutions you should consider buying and using in the future. The lowest integer multiplier is 2, so the best multiples of 1920 are 3840(4K), 7680(8K), 15360(16K), 30720(32K),etc. Once you have found a comfortable DPI, you make sure that it converts well enough between different resolutions and WPS settings. 400DPI@6WPS converts smoothly as 800DPI@4WPS, 1600DPI@3WPS, 6400DPI@2WPS. It is useful to have many different WPS options to choose from as you never know what sensitivity range a game might use. E.g. I have to use 800DPI@4WPS for Planetside 2 because anything higher doesn't work. Keep in mind that the only important thing with resolutions is the horizontal value - it doesn't matter what vertical value you use. If you are like me and not very rich (can't afford too many monitors) then you should get a 16:10 monitor as they are better for browsing than 16:9 and also give you more vertical information in-game if the game uses a resolution base FOV type (like Overwatch)... and it's also close to the golden ratio. If you don't have a 1920x1200 monitor, you should get one. And if you wanted to play on 16:9 (for the extra FOV) then you can just use a custom resolution and you can play on 1920x1080 but with black bars on the top and bottom (which makes it look really cinematic). You can do it in reverse for 16:9 but black bars on the side doesn't look too good and extra vertical height really helps for browsing. The only problem with 1920 is that it doesn't convert well between 21:9. If some games support ultra widescreen, you can use a custom resolution to play on 21:9 and get EVEN MORE FOV. I have a 1680x1050 monitor that converts well between 16:10, 16:9 and 21:9. But who knows, the industry might stop using 21:9. I particularly don't like it very much as an aspect ratio. I prefer 24:9 as 24 is 1.5x 16, which is a much easier multiplier to convert between. 20:9 might work even better but it would be harder cause you NEED a mouse that has DPI increments of 50. I probably don't make any sense, but I tried to word it as best I could. Hope I helped.

Test ALL THE MICE!!!!

400 DPI is more predictable. But that has little to do with why the pros use it. It hasn't actually been that long since we've had mice good enough to set higher DPIs with, so 400 DPI is still the norm. It's just what everyone has always used and that's why they all still use it today. But arguments like higher DPI causes interpolation don't apply to new technology today. Don't just believe and repeat what the experts say... do your own research. It's important to live a critical life. Don't be stupid - don't be a sheep.

Can still play Singleplayer..

Would like the option to convert for ADS in Quake... merci

I third this.

Do you know what the FOV for the sniper is?

That sounds really good

Yeah I never came up with the match speed idea, so thank DNAMITE But if anyone still wants to use the match monitor distance idea then they should follow my advice Makes me think though, how back in the day people were converting sensitivities according to their cm/360, not considering FOV.... Since BF4 came out we had the debate about which monitor distance, but now we've just found out there is an even better method.

Hey I tried the gear method and I don't know what to say but I think it works. I tried it for a couple days and I've already beat all my records on all the games I play. It really feels exactly the same. I still don't fully understand how it works though. You'd think with the way gears and gear ratios work you'd just match at 100% monitor distance. E.g. Big to Small: Revolutions_gearA = Revolutions_gearB x (Circumferenceof_gearA / Circumferenceof_gearB) Small to Big: Revolutions_gearB = Revolutions_gearA / (Circumferenceof_gearB / Circumferenceof_gearA) Unless I'm mistaken, you aren't really converting between different gears since 0 FOV is not a gear (and if it were, it would look more like an infinitely flat line). As such, I still don't understand what's going on with the formula... can someone explain it to me? And how would the formula work if we wanted to convert between different FOVs and not 2D to 3D?

Is there an option in the config where you can change this scaling factor or is it unchangeable?

Okay I'm going to try converting all my FOVs using the method that DNAMTE and GLiSN/Drimzi are recommending... I'm just not sure with something. The calculation you recommend which is: ([2D edge to edge distance] - [percent increase from [arc length] to [chord length]]) x (360/HFOV) This seems to convert FROM 2D to 3D. What if I want to convert from 3D to 2D what is the formula?

Hey I found a great way to explain/visualise the 3D to 2D projection concept. Just go to: https://www.mathsisfun.com/data/grapher-equation.html​​ Then input this equation: x^2+(y+0)^2=1^2 You will notice that you get a unit circle, which represents a FOV of 180 since the y intercept and the x intercept are both 1. If you change the r and k values in the equation (of the form x^2+(y+k)^2=r^2), where k=sqrt(r^2-1), you will notice that the circle gets bigger but still maintains its interception with x=1. Try x^2+(y+2)^2=5. If you consider that your monitor is the line from x=0 to x=1, you can imagine how the parallax motion effect would determine the "speed" of the curve along the x axis as it is projected onto a 2D plane. http://i.imgur.com/BkdMHQn.png

I don't think anyone seems to understand exactly what the purpose of the monitor distance value is. Even though there is no such thing as the perfect monitor distance, we can attempt to calculate mathematically the monitor distance value that will maximise muscle memory at all points on the monitor by making sensitivities across all FOV ranges feel as similar as possible. We do this by finding the halfway point on the curve of a given FOV, taking note of the x value, then finding the halfway point for a whole bunch of FOVs (from 0 to your chosen max FOV) and then calculating the average of all these halfway points to give us our "perfect" monitor distance. We do it this way because the halfway point is an equal distance to the center AND the edge of the monitor, so therefore no matter what point on the screen we are aiming to, sensitivities across different FOVs will feel as close to each other as possible, ultimately maximising muscle memory. I should also point out that if you are interested in tracking better using a low monitor distance such as 0%, 1% or 5% will work, but it really doesn't benefit you in the long run. You really are hindering yourself from a wide range of manoeuvres in FPS gaming. You aren't always going to be looking down the barrel of a sniper scope and holding angles all the time. If you are like me you want to be able to overall flick to ANY point on the screen even if it means you are a little bit less consistent at the center of the screen. Same goes for a monitor distance of 100%.

Yes always assume math is talking about the actual FOV.

Yeah, but if 106.26 is your max FOV you should use 20%. Since 15%'s max FOV is 96.

Hey, here's a picture that might explain the maths behind what I'm talking about: http://i.imgur.com/LiDfxls.png Basically, the equation of a circle is (x-h)^2 + (y-k)^2 = r^2, so if we simplify the equation in terms of y we can integrate it and find the average value of the equation. But since this is only for a single FOV, we need to create a list of average values for a given range of FOVs and then find the average of all those averages and that will give us the Monitor distance we are looking for. I know this is messy and I should use a triple integral, but I don't know how to do them (can't be bothered to learn how... but creating a list of single integrals and then finding the average of them is precise enough). The given FOV range is something you would be able to change to your liking. Just check this spreadsheet out and you'll find that you can have a FOV range of 172, 150, 126 or 96 (I didn't include anything lower than 96 as most games have at least 90 FOV): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1INqG-_fvx2BrsknyrPuPiNkx5UBoMGi3ULs_oCQcaBs/pubhtml As you can see, the calculated monitor distances you can choose from are 30%, 25%, 20% or 15%. Since the mouse sensitivity calculator only goes up in increments of 5 and doesn't have decimals, you can only pick one of these 4 monitor distances. I personally chose 25%. I don't really intend to use anything higher than Quake Live's FOV of 130 so 150 FOV is more than enough for me. If I was using a 21:9 monitor and I wanted to go higher than I might consider using 30%. So depending on your circumstances, choose either 25% or 30%.

Hey I know you want a solid answer right now but I can't be bothered giving you one (at least not now). But just trust me, since I've integrated and found the average value of each FOV from 0 to 150 FOV (150FOV is more than enough) given the equation y=sqrt((1/sinθ)^2-x^2)-sqrt((1/sinθ)^2-1)... and the monitor distance I calculated that we should be using is 25%. I sent a message to GLiSN just now as we were actually discussing this and this is the monitor distance I mathematically decided on.

There's no point matching cm/360 unless you are using the same FOV. You need to convert via monitor distance otherwise the sensitivity will feel off even if the cm/360 is the same. As such don't bother changing the zoom sensitivity. Just pick the FOV you want to use for ADS, leave zoom sensitivity on default (1.0) and let the game figure out the ADS cm/360 you should be using. For the H1Z1 ads and scoped sensitivities just convert monitor distance same as you did for converting h1z1 to quake hipfire. I don't own h1z1 so I don't know if the game can automatically scale your sensitivities, but you can change them manually if you have to.

Tested BO1 and it only allows in_mouse 0 or 1...

deacceleration makes converting sensitivity in this game useless...

When calculating ads and scope, do I have to use my config fov or leave blank?

I also posted this in the Battlefield 4 Uniform Soldier Aiming topic... AMENDMENT TO MY FORMULA: I should have instead calculated the average value of the curve between the crosshairs and the edge of the screen just the same way as I found the average coefficient for the given FOV range. Now I should get the perfect, least discrepancy coefficient. That number is: 0.6339745962 or 63.3975% monitor distance The formula for calculating this coefficient is: (1/θ)integral[0,θ]integral[0,sin(θ)](sqrt(1-x))dxdy where θ is the range of your chosen FOV You can definitely see that it works here: http://www.wolframal... [//math:120//] Just so you know, you can use whatever FOV range you want. It's up to you. Actually, the lower the better since the curve is reduced. But I put 120 because it is still in the range of useful FOV. Whether or not you want to use it does not matter. If you can get a monitor big enough you may be able to use 120 FOV. You could theoretically go higher but peripheral vision probably doesn't matter much when calculating coefficients. To anyone saying to use 0% monitor distance - it's only good to use a lower coefficient if all you ever do is use low FOV, but even then 0% is far too inaccurate. The key principle of finding the perfect coefficient is to find a balance between turning speeds at all points on the monitor. If your coefficient is too low your turning speed will not be accurate at the edge of the monitor and if you coefficient is too high your turning speed will not be accurate at the crosshairs. You have to find a middle ground which will give you the least discrepancy for all points on the monitor. It's not perfect but it's theoretically way better than 0% for building muscle memory. You should pick the maximum FOV you want to use (forever) and then calculate the average coefficient you should use as per my formula.

EDIT: THIS FORMULA IS NOT CORRECT... I HAVE AMENDED IT IN A LATER POST I created a formula that would give you the best monitor distance with the least discrepancy across the whole range of useful FOVs. It is as follows: 1/120 . Integral [0 to 120] 1/(2.cos(x/2)) dx If any of you have a graphics calculator you can plug in the integral with the given limits (0 to 120) and it should give you: 62.88010774% monitor distance - interestingly enough this is close to the golden ratio. I also decided on 120 FOV because it is the range of our stereoscopic field of view (the field of view where both our eyes overlap, creating a sense of depth). The FOV that actually relates to the golden ratio is 117.9452156 (probably the actual limit of our stereoscopic field of view).