potato psoas

Just keep in mind that 75% and 100% are arbitrary percentages, dependent on perceived monitor size/aspect ratio, that 56.26% is only 100% vertical for 16:9 monitors, and that Viewspeed is also pretty arbitrary and doesn't follow the gear ratio principle. Wait for the next release of the calculator. It will hopefully explain things a bit better than they are now.

That Desmos link is awesome, you can visualize all the variables

Do you have a link to the Zowie monitor? And yeah sure, but you should know that my hand is a bit broken atm.

My current monitor is 22", 16:10. I want a really big one, so I can sit further away from it, for the sake of my eyesight. But I want one with GSYNC, 144hz, low response times and probably blur reduction as well, so basically one of the few monitors on the list. Yet there are none that are big enough to act as a TV lol, and even worse, they are still bigger than my current one. In the end I'm probably going to get the Acer Predator XB241H. I might just end up keeping my settings the same and put up with the slightly faster perceived sensitivity.

Another workaround if it really is a problem that your sens is too low for low FOV is you could use a smaller sized monitor or sit further away from your current monitor to decrease perceived sensitivity and then increase your settings to match your old perceived sensitivity. If you can do that it might give you that little extra boost at low FOV without having to mess with your muscle memory. I actually have the same problem atm. While I want a bigger monitor I also want to maintain the sensitivity I'm using atm, yet if I do that, I'm only exacerbating the low FOV difficulties I've been having because I'll have to decrease my settings to match my old perceived sensitivity. And I'm not budging on this sensitivity for muscle memory's sake either - it's because it is low enough to give me control to shoot the smallest perceivable targets. Helps with getting consistent headshots... I guess it's a problem we'll always have. A pick your poison kind of thing. If we pick a low sens, best thing we can do is get a bigger mousepad and just develop our arm speed. It's actually a truly athletic thing. I used to use a medium sens before I played some games with Drimzi. I always thought he had the biggest biceps. Now I've gotten used to it and can say I can make flicks just as fast as those with high sensitivities, no thanks to playing osu! of course. I do also wish they made bigger monitors (TVs).

Well it's not like other percentages have that much of a muscle memory advantage over 0%. They have more of a tighter overall match but you will still not maintain perfect muscle memory at all points on the monitor for all FOVs. No matter what percentage you use, you are going to have to develop muscle memory for all points on the screen for all FOVs through practice regardless. But I don't think any of that matters. I have a much better reason why 0% is better: when you are moving your crosshair towards a target you are not exactly predicting how much you have to move and flicking in one moment - you are constantly making micro-adjustments as you approach the target... and guess what, as you approach a target, 0% is going to become more in control and higher match percentages are going to become less in control. Actually shooting the enemy will always feel awkward at higher percentages. Then combine the fact that you are going to have to develop muscle memory anyway and you'll soon realize that it's actually easier to build muscle memory with 0% monitor match since you can rely on making micro-adjustments until you develop enough muscle memory to make those fast flicks. Since you are constantly making micro-adjustments, this is a good reason to get a higher refresh rate monitor so you can more quickly predict and respond to changes in perceived sensitivity.

lol you complain about a low desktop sens yet you use 80cm/360 XD

The difference between 2D and 3D is that one has a cursor and the other has a crosshair. If we are talking about converting the sensitivities, the only time they will be matched is at the center of the monitor and only if you use 0%MM. This is because the distance from the monitor is not the same for all points on the monitor. Therefore we can conclude that you will actually perceive slower sensitivities as your cursor approaches the edge of the monitor. This is unlike the 3D world where the camera position is dependent on mouse movement. Personally, I do match desktop and game by converting from a chosen DPI. It doesn't exactly translate, as I mentioned above, but you can maintain enough muscle memory for it to feel very similar. It's not like a change in FOV doesn't force you to use different muscle memory either. But keep in mind, this works best with 0%MM. Higher monitor matches will complicate the translation even more.

Yeah it could be that higher FOV exacerbates difficulties you might have with precision aiming. You may just prefer it because now your sensitivity at the crosshair is much slower. Since targets are smaller at higher FOV, your aim needs to be capable of shooting such small targets. To be honest though, this is a really bad way to decide which conversion method to use. You pick the conversion method you think will give you the best advantage and then convert, not the other way around.

yeah, probably even moreso since I use such a low sensitivity - I'm able to turn around quicker at higher FOV

Well I don't own Quake Champions but I own Quake Live and I have played at 130 FOV.

There are other options but doubt you'd want to use them: have a secondary sensitivity, using a DPI adjustment on your mouse, for quickly checking spots; or use acceleration

Yeah, when you zoom in, targets end up moving faster so it may seem like you should use a faster coefficient but it won't help you in the long run. You just need to move your arm faster to match the changed speed. Targets move slower at higher FOV and faster at lower FOV. This very process is the reason why I use 0%MM/coefficient. DPIWizard made a video demonstrating just how in sync your sensitivity can be while tracking, with 0%. You don't even need to worry about the FOV, you naturally adjust to target speed. If this is a problem you have I would definitely recommend using it. The ADS may feel slower, but it's only slower relative to a higher FOV. 0% actually converts sensitivity much higher than other methods. Try playing on 130 FOV with 0% and you'll see how fast it is... and yet you still have that precision and tracking advantage which is so nice.

The thing is, the higher the coefficient value, the faster the zoom will feel in relation to a higher matched FOV, so that's why 177% feels faster than 133% when zooming. But of course a FOV is going to feel too slow if it is too low. This one situation should not determine which coefficient you use - if it's too slow then you probably should avoid using the weapon in that particular situation because you really don't need its extra magnification. Use it only if your target is far away enough. Instead, you should pick a coefficient based on its advantages: 0%MM has better precision at the crosshair, 100%MM (177%) has better overall muscle memory (but worse precision at the crosshair), and everything else leans more towards precision or more towards better overall muscle memory. Though, keep in mind you can go above 100%MM... At this point, what you define as "100%" becomes arbitrary and dependent on your monitor size/sitting distance. We've actually been discussing this in another forum. It's probably a better idea to think in angles rather than distance on the screen due to the concept of perceived size, i.e. you want to match your sensitivity to a point on your monitor of the same visual angle instead of the same percentage of monitor distance.

They should just remove legacy and rename relative to sensitivity scaling or something. No need to have legacy if you can set it to 0% anyway.

I had a deathadder and the rubber grips fell off and started getting sticky. I ended up using duct tape to replace the grips. But personally I hate mice that angle inwards at the sides from the top. Your hand will slip no matter what grip you have. Would rather have a straight edge or even have it angle outwards like my CORSAIR M65.

The closest to the median of the three is probably most accurate you are going to get

wait, wait... what is this??

Just choose "In-game" rather than "Config File" for the Location option in the calculator.

nah you can convert either way if you want

I don't even think we need to worry about distortion anyway. If we practice enough, we will eventually develop muscle memory for every FOV that we use. It's the price we pay for wanting to zoom in. Also, I already tried to find the "most optimal method", but I abandoned that idea, because if you aren't maintaining the same match point then you are no longer abiding by the gear ratio principle - the entire concept behind how we sync sensitivity. I'm all for changing monitor match to angle match too. That's what I've been talking about in my forum post with regard to getting screen distance and sitting distance added to the calculator, since they definitely affect perceived sensitivity. I made some diagrams, demonstrating that if you match the physical monitor distance to the same visual angle, then you can use exactly the same sensitivity. Or another way to look at it is if different in-game FOVs were matched with their real life visual angle then we wouldn't need to convert sensitivity either. Only problem is that we can't move the monitor backwards and forwards. Not that we'd want to though - we are zooming in for a reason. Sitting distance affects perceived size and it's the very reason why we have to convert sensitivity in the first place.

damn even better, I like it

I think they did. Calculator GAME INFO will need updating. And for some reason the game seems a lot more laggy now. Usually I get like 500FPS but now I'm struggling to get 75FPS. What have they done...

I know it sounds convincing, but there's really no proof. You'd have to explain the why and how it relates to sensitivity, otherwise all it is is just a hypothesis. I personally think the illusion of visual angle is enough of an explanation for how the brain perceives sensitivity for changes in zoom level. Just look back at my diagrams, with what I said about: - two differently sized monitors sharing the same visual angle - matching the in-game FOV to the same visual angle of your eyes In both situations it's obvious that you can use the same sensitivity settings because they take advantage of this illusion, yet you don't follow the line of logic all the way when they take advantage of the illusion. Why? I'm not saying I know everything either, I'm just making sure to stay objective. If there is any other objective explanation for a change in opinion then I'm always open to it. It's not a good idea to say "don't be so pedantic, the brain will adjust".