potato psoas

The actual optimal solution is 100%MM or the Gear Ratio method. But because of distortion, it doesn't feel correct at the crosshair.
Muscle memory is both distance and speed. But really your muscle memory is about moving your mouse and expecting to move to a certain point on the monitor. But because of distortion, you are never going to maintain muscle memory across all points on the monitor when changing your FOV. The best thing you can do is choose the method that you think will benefit you the most, and do some experimenting.
0% is matched at the crosshair so it's good for tracking and making adjustments, but it isn't as good with flicks closer to the edge of the monitor.
100% is matched at the edge of the monitor so flicks are easier closer to the edge. And as Drimzi mentions below, the sensitivity is more uniform across the entire FOV range.
Every other monitor match percentage is a combination of 0% and 100%.
Viewspeed hangs around 75%MM. I don't really know why you say it's the optimal solution... FYI, the description of "Viewspeed" actually applies to the Gear Ratio Method, which is 100%MM. And I agree, 100%MM makes the most sense and would be the optimal, perfect solution if it weren't for distortion.

The actual optimal solution is 100%MM or the Gear Ratio method. But because of distortion, it doesn't feel correct at the crosshair.
Muscle memory is both distance and speed. But really your muscle memory is about moving your mouse and expecting to move to a certain point on the monitor. But because of distortion, you are never going to maintain muscle memory across all points on the monitor when changing your FOV. The best thing you can do is choose the method that you think will benefit you the most, and do some experimenting.
0% is matched at the crosshair so it's good for tracking and making adjustments, but it isn't as good with flicks closer to the edge of the monitor.
100% is matched at the edge of the monitor so flicks are easier closer to the edge. And as Drimzi mentions below, the sensitivity is more uniform across the entire FOV range.
Every other monitor match percentage is a combination of 0% and 100%.
Viewspeed hangs around 75%MM. I don't really know why you say it's the optimal solution... FYI, the description of "Viewspeed" actually applies to the Gear Ratio Method, which is 100%MM. And I agree, 100%MM makes the most sense and would be the optimal, perfect solution if it weren't for distortion.

The desktop is essentially 0 FOV. The arc of the gameworld, as it is projected onto your screen, is completely flat. So yes, you can convert between desktop and 3D. However, the difference between the two is that you are comparing a cursor to a crosshair. The cursor can be anywhere on the screen whereas the crosshair remains at the center. And if you know anything about perceived sensitivity, you would know that the distance your eyes are from the monitor affect the sensitivity you perceive for different points on the monitor. Here is a diagram explaining that:

Since the center of the monitor (A) is closer to your eyes it is perceived to be faster, and as your approach the edge of the monitor (B) the sensitivity is perceived to be slower. Keep in mind that the monitor could be infinitely long, so (B) could also be infinitely far away and be perceived to be infinitely slower. The Hypotenuse is always longer than the Adjacent (or Opposite) sides.
A simple way you can test the perceived sensitivity principle is to stick your face real close to the monitor and observe how fast the cursor or crosshair feels, then move yourself back from your monitor and observe how slow it feels. Obviously, keep in mind this doesn't mean sitting further away from your monitor makes you more accurate, since the relative size of targets will change accordingly. The only reason I would prefer sitting back from the monitor is for the sake of your eye health and to increase the amount of monitor space in your eye's useful field of view. If you want to move further back but targets are too small then you could also get a bigger monitor. Bigger is better if you have the money.

Is there another forum we have migrated to? I notice Drimzi edited all his posts so not sure if he has started another forum with a better idea or if he just gave up trying to find a solution.
Either way I'd like to reflect on some of the things we've talked about in this forum...
 
When solving any problem there are two ways to go about things:
The first way is to start with a set of assumptions and logically define a method. (induction) The second way is to gather data about various methods and identify patterns in the data to help us define a method. (deduction) These two methods of science work interchangeably to come to a conclusion about things.
One of the problems with our discussion has been that we are too heavily defining the solution based on method number 2. It's been useful for collectively defining the basic skeleton of our conversion method (we can all agree that the correct solution lies somewhere between 0% and 100% monitor match, keeping in mind, for many games that use Hdeg 4:3, monitor match is dependent on aspect ratio). But we've gotten to a point where asking for a consensus about which formula is best isn't going to work anymore. At this point it may very well be personal preference, but I'd like to try addressing some of our assumptions as this might help clarify what we are looking at.
What do we know about aim so far:
FOV is added and cropped depending on your aspect ratio, so cm/360 should theoretically remain the same no matter what aspect ratio you use. 0% MM and converting based on the VFOV are aspect-ratio dependent methods (if the game uses rectilinear projection). 2D can be represented as 0 FOV. At 0 FOV the circumferential rotation is equally distributed so it is best to use 100% MM at 0 FOV. At 180 FOV the distortion is completely squished in the middle, so theoretically it is best to use 0% MM at 180 FOV. As we approach 0 FOV all the common methods converge so it doesn't really matter which method we use past 30 FOV as they will all feel exactly the same. It matters more how the methods feel at higher FOVs because this is where the results differ the most, and as such, we should be testing our "feels" at higher FOV rather than 90 FOV and especially not 30 FOV. So knowing this, we need to address some questions to define the assumptions we have about what makes aim consistent and allows us to develop muscle memory:
How does our brain perceive "sensitivity"? Is it retaining the same cm/360, screen distance matching, synchronizing FOVs using the gear ratio, maintaining Viewspeed, maintaining speed at the crosshair, or something else? How do we compensate for distortion? And how does it relate to different projection methods? Does it matter if our formula can never be perfect? How good is the brain at adapting? I don't think these are all separate questions, they all need to be addressed at the same time. I know the correct formula is so hard to prove without testing, but I really think we need the ideas to make sense first and foremost. It should get to a point where we don't even need to test with our mouse to know it's the correct method.
I also think something we need to remember is that if it weren't for the fact that most games use rectilinear projection then we would have a different set of problems. I think nothing will be as perfect as we want it to be. There is no such thing as a perfect conversion method. It is dependent on the projection method. We don't live in a perfect world - we have to make do with the cards life has given us. We have to "pick our poison". But this doesn't mean we can't try our best and pick the "best poison"...
 
So we need to make sure we address the assumptions before we continue on our discussions. One of the biggest things we should finalize is: How does our brain perceive "sensitivity"?
One of the concepts we've been using to convert sensitivity has been to maintain "sensitivity". So I thought I might give my opinion on some of the methods:
cm/360 Method:
This one is probably the easiest to disprove because you really can tell by feel that this is incorrect but like I said, we should prove by idea and not by feel. So I'll explain the reason behind this: as we approach 0 FOV the sensitivity should slow down, and as we approach 180 FOV the sensitivity should speed up. But if your sensitivity stays the same, lower FOVs will feel too fast and higher FOVs will feel too slow. You can represent FOV with circles going around the edges of your monitor, as shown in this diagram: (the bigger the circle the lower the FOV and the greater the cm/360)

Gear Ratio Method:
This one makes the most sense in theory, having all your FOVs synched together like the gears on a pulley, and from testing it has been found to yield exactly the same results as 100% MM, which I stated before would be the perfect method if the distortion was corrected and every point on the monitor was equally distributed. So this method actually would be perfect if it weren't for distortion. But since we are compensating for rectilinear distortion, the problem with this method and 100% MM is that it is far too slow at the center of the screen for higher FOVs. The same degree of rotation from the middle of the screen and from the edge of the screen translate to movement that is too slow at the center of the monitor in comparison to the edge of the monitor as you can see in this diagram:

0%MM Method:
The 0% MM method suffers from the same problems as 100% MM but just in reverse order - too fast at the edges. It might actually be worse than 100% MM because at least 100% MM has a limit to how slow it can become as it approaches 180 FOV, whereas with 0% MM, the sensitivity also approaches 0cm/360. And if you were to convert your 2D sensitivity to 90 FOV using 0% MM then the lower FOVs would feel far too slow. The plus sides to this method is that it is aspect-ratio independent and the center of the crosshair feels the same - which is important when you want to maintain your consistency to micro-adjust. However, I personally think, apart from the fact that it is aspect-ratio independent, if you are going to choose a method that works best for aiming at the crosshair then you should use 20%, or something similar. This is because, when you are reacting to movement, the target is already off the center of your crosshair.
My method:
One of my main assumptions with developing this method has been the idea that we do not only aim at certain areas of the screen. A lot of the time we are snapping to various targets outside of our crosshairs. This is especially true in games like osu! and aim training where you are moving around the entire monitor. A big part of aim is not just to make micro-adjustments at the crosshair/cursor, but to utilize your muscle memory and snap to multiple targets in quick succession on the entire monitor. There's no point in using 0% MM if you keep under/overshooting your targets.
So what did I do? I created a simple formula to find the "middle ground" monitor match percentage, the point on the monitor where the distribution of distortion is equally split into two sections. What this does is it equalizes the entire screen so that the crosshair is not too slow and the edge of the monitor is not too fast - it is equally incorrect. It's still not perfect, but I think this is the best all round "poison". It minimizes the flaws of each method and allows you to use both playstyles. And in play testing I found that the center of crosshair was fine - it did not feel significantly different going from 90 FOV to 2D, and yet the rest of the screen didn't feel too fast like with 0% MM.
Keep in mind that you can use either HFOV or VFOV with this method. But using VFOV would make it aspect-ratio independent of course.
Aspect-ratio independence:
Hear me out on this - I really don't think your method needs to be aspect-ratio independent. As I said before one of the assumptions I made was that I wanted to use the entire screen. It's not like you are going to jump back and forth between 4:3 and 21:9 aspect ratios all the time. The aspect ratio you use isn't going to change. If you really wanted to work around this, you could just get a 1:1 aspect ratio monitor. But I don't think there is a point, because as I said - you have that extra screen space because you are going to use it... aren't you?
Just because 0% MM is the only truly aspect-ratio independent method doesn't mean it's the best method.
Other methods:
One of the assumptions that was made by Drimzi was that we perceive things in terms of 3D. I have to disagree - our eyes perceive in 2D. We live in a 3D world but what we are actually seeing are 2D images with our eyes. So when it comes to muscle memory, you are expecting to move a certain distance on the monitor based on how much you move the mouse.
But one of the interesting things, as I mentioned earlier, was that the method that matches based on 3D rotation - gear ratio method - would actually be correct if the gameworld projection was undistorted. So I think, 3D and 2D work together, but it's just the distortion that prevents this. I really don't think there's another way to reckon perceived sensitivity in light of the distortion but if anyone has any ideas, then I'm all ears.
Conclusion:
 
I mean, if game developers corrected the distortion then we wouldn't even be having this discussion because the obvious answer would be to use 100% MM. We really should tell developers to program their games properly. Ditch the rectilinear projection method and come up with something entirely new that has no distortion. Unlike correcting pictures from actual camera lenses, I think this should be very easy to do.
I'm open to being wrong about the things I've said, but I really think we should take a more inductive approach to this problem. It's clear to me now that it's a pick your poison kind of thing. But I believe there is a best poison. It's not exactly a preference, but I'm seriously okay with people using whatever the heck method they want to use. I'm more concerned about changing the way we make games.

0% is matched at the crosshair, so your muscle memory at the center of the screen will be consistent across the FOV range. But as your monitor match percentage increases, the crosshair becomes less and less consistent across the FOV range, and therefore, your accuracy at the crosshair will suffer.
Keep in mind that 75%, 100% and 56.25% are all arbitrary. They completely depend on the physical dimensions of your monitor. E.g. Take two monitors with exactly the same height and stretch one horizontally as if it had a different aspect ratio. If you were to match 100% on one of the monitors it would not translate to be the same percentage on the other monitor. See below.

The same principle applies to the vertical length of the monitor. Using the vertical does not make monitor matching independent. For games that crop/add the vertical length of the monitor according to your aspect ratio, you will once again have problems with arbitrary values like 75%, 100% and 56.25%. See below.

As Drimzi also mentioned above, the only percentage that is truly independent of aspect ratio, or more accurately, monitor dimensions is 0%. Once again, another reason to use 0% monitor match.

Since 0% match is matched directly at the center of the screen, you will maintain muscle memory at the crosshair. This has a lot of benefits with regards to precision and tracking.
On the other hand, since 100% match is matched at the edge of the screen, you will maintain muscle memory the closer your target is to the edge. This can make your sensitivity feel much more consistent across the entire monitor rather than just at the center.
Every other percentage either leans more towards being matched at the center or matched at the edge.
My personal opinion? You are still going to have to learn muscle memory for every FOV no matter what match percentage you use, so I don't really believe 100% has any advantage in that regard. You will have to develop different muscle memory across the FOV range no matter. So then, which one is better? Is it better to match at the crosshair or match at the edge? Here is my answer: as you move your mouse towards a target, you are effectively moving it closer to the crosshair and further from the edge. With 0% you feel more in control as the target approaches your crosshair and less in control with 100% as it moves away from the edge of the monitor. So therefore, 0% is the logical choice for the sake of your accuracy. Your muscle memory does not transfer very well at the crosshair with 100% and you will often miss a lot of shots and not be able to give the killing blow even though you probably acquired the targets much easier.

Since 0% match is matched directly at the center of the screen, you will maintain muscle memory at the crosshair. This has a lot of benefits with regards to precision and tracking.
On the other hand, since 100% match is matched at the edge of the screen, you will maintain muscle memory the closer your target is to the edge. This can make your sensitivity feel much more consistent across the entire monitor rather than just at the center.
Every other percentage either leans more towards being matched at the center or matched at the edge.
My personal opinion? You are still going to have to learn muscle memory for every FOV no matter what match percentage you use, so I don't really believe 100% has any advantage in that regard. You will have to develop different muscle memory across the FOV range no matter. So then, which one is better? Is it better to match at the crosshair or match at the edge? Here is my answer: as you move your mouse towards a target, you are effectively moving it closer to the crosshair and further from the edge. With 0% you feel more in control as the target approaches your crosshair and less in control with 100% as it moves away from the edge of the monitor. So therefore, 0% is the logical choice for the sake of your accuracy. Your muscle memory does not transfer very well at the crosshair with 100% and you will often miss a lot of shots and not be able to give the killing blow even though you probably acquired the targets much easier.

Added rounding options to DPI calculations for Windows now! 50, 1 and 0.01

A new version was just published that contains two new features:
1. Focal length
This is a function available in the Aspect Ratio box of the output game. What this does is calculate the correct resolution you need to set (with black bars) to keep the same focal length based on your FOV. This is useful for games that does not support FOV change.
2. Monitor size conversion
When you enter a different monitor size and/or aspect ratio the calculator will now account for this based on your setup.
360 distance will be the same, as it doesn't change based on monitor size or aspect ratio. Monitor Distance Horizontal and Viewspeed Horizontal will take into account the horizontal size of the monitor. Monitor Distance Vertical and Viewspeed Vertical will take into account the vertical size of the monitor. This means that if you go from a 24" to a 27" 16:9 monitor, both horizontal and vertical will give you the same result.
However if you go from a 27" 16:9 to a 35" 21:9 the vertical sensitivity will stay about the same, while horizontal will account for the extra width.
 
Please report back if any of these features are acting weird!

I feel exactly the same way. I think I've decided it's easier to progress with a lower sensitivity, whereas I am simply limited by a high sensitivity. I don't wish to have a tense aim posture because it starts to hurt after a while. Though I wouldn't go too low or you a) start to have problems with mousepad space and b) find it difficult to move your arm fast enough to react to enemies.
It also depends on the game - target speed, target size, and the FOV you set the game to all cater to different sensitivity ranges. App. E.g. Call of Duty prefers higher sensitivity (>~20cm/360); Overwatch prefers mid sensitivity (~30cm/360); CS:GO prefers a lower sensitivity (<~40cm/360).

It's not really that high for COD or Battlefield but compared to other players it's high for CS. Most CS players are greater than 30cm/360. You can always use a different sensitivity for different games. There's honestly no harm in doing that. It all depends on the game. However, your current setting would be a good sweet spot for all types of games.

Bottom line, it's better to have High DPI and Low Sens, especially with mouse these days.
Here's a good thread about this:
 

Here is my modded G pro wireless
You may ask why I did this...well I had a biking-injury and was stupide enough to not properly let it heal off. Now I have permantent capal-tunnel in my right hand pinky. In every day usage I doesn't me hinder at all and I don't even notice it, but when playing multiple days in a row with longer gaming session, it starts to hurt.  
I can only use mice that are extremly wide, or with a wrist for my pinky. Sadly the G pro wireless is offers of this, so I had to mod it !
Sure..its not super competitive now since it is un-balanced and a tiny bit heavyer, but at last I can use it
It's a great mod! Not the best execution I have done there, but it is doing ist Job
 
The right part was stolen from and old CM MM520 with a cracked cable.

The Sensitivity Rating (A comparator for perceived sensitivity)
The Sensitivity Rating is a best-effort value used for measuring and comparing the perceived sensitivity.
For 2D, the sensitivity rating is called 'Control-Display Gain' (CD Gain).
For 3D, the sensitivity rating doesn't really have a term. 'Curvature Focal Length Product' (CFLP) has been suggested to me.
 
The 360° distance (cm/360°, cm/rev) is not a measurement of sensitivity. It is just the distance to rotate one revolution. It can't be used for comparison reasons and you can't just preserve the 360° distance and expect the mouse to feel the same. An identical 360° distance at a low and high magnification will result in a higher sensitivity rating for the low magnification and a lower sensitivity rating for the high magnification. The 360° distance is only useful to imagine and preserve the general mousepad utilisation and mouse swipes used for navigation.
 
If you want to know what your sensitivity rating is, you can use this calculator. Ignore the whole graph thing. Just look to the results in the left column. Fill in the variables. Look for the CD Gain value for 2D and 3D. The default values have a 4.45 sensitivity rating.
 
 
Measuring 2D Sensitivity (Control-Display Gain)
2D sensitivity is measured as the ratio between mouse and cursor velocity (or displacement).
To calculate the 2D sensitivity, you need to know the following:
Mouse CPI (the number of counts reported by the mouse after an inch of displacement) Windows Pointer Speed (the number of counts required to increment a pixel) Monitor Size and Resolution (to find the distance of a pixel)  

 
Visualisation:
Mouse moves 1 unit, cursor moves 1 unit. There is a 1:1 ratio, or a 1 Sensitivity Rating.
Mouse moves 1 unit, cursor moves 3 units. There is a 1:3 ratio, or a 3 Sensitivity Rating.

 
 
Measuring 3D Sensitivity (Curvature Focal Length Product)
3D sensitivity is measured as the ratio between the virtual projection circumference and the physical sensitivity circumference (cm/360°).
To calculate the virtual projection circumference, you need to know the following:
Game field of view (to calculate the focal length in pixels, which is the radius for the virtual projection. 2pi * radius = circumference) Monitor Size (to know the size of a pixel, and convert the focal length to a physical measurement) To calculate the physical sensitivity circumference, you need to know the following:
Mouse CPI (the number of counts reported by the mouse after an inch of displacement) Rotation Increment (the degrees rotated per count)  
Visualisation:
Virtual projection circumference, focal length, and field of view.

 
Visualisation:
The ratio between the virtual projection and physical sensitivity in a spherical form, and how the ratio should be preserved when changing field of view (achieved with MDV 0%).
If the virtual projection and physical sensitivity have the same circumference (they are the same size sphere), then it will be a 1:1 ratio, or a 1 Sensitivity Rating.
If the virtual projection has a 3x larger circumference than the physical sensitivity, then it will be a 1:3 ratio, or a 3 Sensitivity Rating.

 
 
Why MDV/MDH 0% is the correct conversion
0% preserves the sensitivity rating. It scales the physical sensitivity circumference by the change in the virtual projection circumference (2pi * focal length).
When you change the field of view, what happens is the game zooms in or out to fit the desired angle of view into the monitor space. It accomplishes this zoom by changing the radius (focal length).
When the field of view changes, there are many observable properties in the image that change:
Scale (the size of objects relative to the monitor) Velocity (the speed that objects move relative to the monitor) Curvature (the amount of virtual projection curvature relative to the monitor) These properties don't scale by the change in field of view itself, but rather the change in focal length. It makes sense that the physical sensitivity will also change by the same factor.
The change in field of view itself has no impact on your perceived sensitivity. You can obstruct some of the field of view with black cardboard, cropping the visible field of view from a 16:9 aspect ratio to a 4:3 aspect ratio and the sensitivity will feel the same.
Sidenote: The term '0%' is only used in this post because that is the option in the mouse-sensitivity.com calculator that scales by the change in focal length. The idea of '0% Monitor Distance' is the completely wrong framework (2D). It results in the correct answer, but it implies that the sensitivity is only correct under the crosshair, and incorrect everywhere else. It also implies that scaling by the change in field of view itself results in the sensitivity being correct for different points on the screen. This is false. Distance is not sensitivity, 2D distance is meaningless, and 2D distance is only observable in the rarest most cherry picked case. Hopefully in the future, the method will be separated from the 2D framework.
 
 
Why 0% can still feel 'wrong' or uncomfortable
General navigation is the most obvious. Different games have different field of view restrictions. If you convert 0% for hipfire, you will end up with a different physical sensitivity circumference for each game. This results in different mousepad utilisation and mouse swipes for general navigation. Low field of view games can become a chore, with big swipes just to look around.
In this case, preserving the 360° distance instead can be more optimal for performance. It will be perceived sensitivity that will change with the focal length rather than the physical sensitivity.
 
For aiming however, the difference in feeling that you get is due to the image curvature rather than the sensitivity itself. The higher the field of view, the more curved the image will be, and vice versa. Here is an extremely low fov, where only a tiny portion of the virtual projection sphere being projected onto the screen, which results in a very flat image.

Even if you convert the sensitivity properly, you are aiming on a different curvature. Preserving the sensitivity is not enough to preserve aim performance, you still have to learn how to aim at different curvatures.
 
 
Why Monitor Distance Matching isn't helpful
Monitor Distance Match is matching a 2D screen space distance. You don't perceive rotational distance as a 2D distance. You don't move the camera's position in 3D space, you rotate it. It's only observable as a match in 2D screen-space distance if you do pure scripted vertical (pitch) movement. Pure scripted horizontal (yaw) movement can work too your pitch must be ~0. If you look up or down, yaw will follow follow an ellipse, making you spin like a ballerina. That horizontal point on the monitor that you were matched to is now impossible to reach. The scaling curve has no correlation with how the sensitivity feels. Change the field of view and sensitivity in real-time and the sensitivity will feel like it is fluctuating.  
 
Mouse-Sensitivity.com & Cross-Monitor Conversions
Just be aware that the mouse-sensitivity.com calculator doesn't support cross monitor conversions for perceived sensitivity. 0% will only scale the relative change in focal length, it doesn't scale by the focal length itself. You can't use mouse-sensitivity.com to convert other people's sensitivity if the monitor size is different.
 
Here is a picture of two different monitors (one is half the size of the other one) using the same field of view. The calculator doesn't know that these are different things. It just looks at the field of view number and thinks its the same. It will give you the wrong result. You will actually need two different cm/360° here, contrary to what the calculator says.

 
Here, the small monitor has reduced the fov to match the focal length of the large monitor.

Here, the large monitor has increased the fov to match the focal length of the small monitor.

This is an old thread full of misconceptions and bad ideas. 0% will always be the only way to convert the sensitivity. Anything else is generating a new sensitivity that preserves a characteristic of the old sensitivity.
 
You got two viable options for consistency:
Convert 0% from a single source to everything. One universal sensitivity. Low fov and high fov games will have different mousing for navigation. Maintain a constant hipfire cm/360° for consistent navigation and convert 0% to ads/scopes (anything that changes the fov) to maintain the same sensitivity relative to the hipfire. You end up having a different sensitivity for each game, but it is muscle memory associated per game.

PUBG has changed config file syntax quite a few times, so it's not a bad idea to just delete the config file and set everything up from scratch, although it might be a bit of work.
If you don't do this there might quite a bit of unusable junk in the file.

What GPU you got?

So just a reminder that FOV and sensitivity can be set via registry. The conversions are a bit complicated but I've figured them out.
Again 0% is 5760 counts and 100% is 480 counts. The config is located in Computer\HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\SKS\TheForest
The complicated part is converting your desired sensitivity to the format used in the config (little-endian double).
So for example say you want 1.5% (0.015) sensitivity in-game. First you need to convert this to it's double binary representation, in this case
00111111 10001110 10111000 01010001 11101011 10000101 00011110 10111000 Then you need to convert this to hex
3F8EB851EB851EB8 But this is big endian so you need to swap it to little endian. Split each pair of numbers and then reverse the order
3F 8E B8 51 EB 85 1E B8 to
B8 1E 85 EB 51 B8 8E 3F This is finally what you input in MouseSensitivity_numbers and MouseSensitivityY_numbers. FOV is done the same way. Negative sensitivity values get defaulted back to 0 and don't work unfortunately.
If you use python scripts on this website then this could help:
import struct input = 0.015 def double_to_hex(f): return hex(struct.unpack('<Q', struct.pack('>d', f))[0]) output = double_to_hex(input)[2:].zfill(16) x = 2 for i in range(0,16): output = output[:x] + ' ' + output[x:] x += 3 print(output.upper()) For anyone wanting to do sensitivity themselves in the meantime use this equation:
(5760/desiredCountsPer360-1)/11 to calculate an input value for the python script. Then type the output into the registry fields (be sure to get the x and y fields). If you're doing FOV you just put the desired vertical FOV in the input variable.

Little review on the cooler master MP510:
For me, this is the best mousepad I have used so far!
Start and stopping speed from accelerating/decelerating the mouse are the same (As rocket jump ninja already said in his Video. He was absolutly right)
The Mousepad is quit fast, nearly as fast as my Zowie GTFX.  Together it makes for maintaining max speed while still be able to decelerating quickly and mircoadjust without stutters.
At first the Surface feels very strange and rough to the skin, but you get used to it really fast. 
On top of it, my hand when getting sweaty doesnt stick to the surface at all. And for people who  like to drink infront of their PC...it's water proofed as well 😂
I only wish that the L size would be a bit bigger.
I highly recommend this Mousepad!!😊 (especially for people like me who have no chance of ordering one of the ARTISAN mousepad in our country^^)
 

Congratulations cchhqq!

WTF, thank you so much!! First time win a lottery since wining $2 prize at the store near my elementary school.

Winner winner chicken dinner!

Yes, distortion is more evident at higher FOV, which is why you should not set your FOV too high. 0% ends up becoming too sensitive and 100% feels too slow at the crosshair ruining accurate muscle memory.

I was watching this video and saw the part where it says that the lower the FOV, the smaller the difference between the monitor distance and the FOV.
Correct me if I'm wrong (as this is why I'm making this post to clear my confusion), doesn't that mean having a lower FOV would result in less discrepancy between different monitor match percentages? From what I interpret from the video, if I monitor match at 0% and play at a really high FOV, that would make the difference in monitor distance and FOV bigger, therefore resulting in more discrepancy at higher monitor match percentages; however if I play at a really low FOV, there would be less difference between the monitor distance and the FOV, therefore resulting in less discrepancy and resulting in better muscle memory for other monitor match percentages compared to a higher FOV.
Thanks for any responses to clear my confusion

Win Call of Duty: Black Ops 4 Deluxe Edition!
Most people who wants this game probably already have it, but I've got a spare copy so this is your chance to win it!
The rules are:
Guess any whole number between and including 0 and 1000000 (zero and one million). Regular members can guess one number, premium members can guess two numbers. The guess closest to the randomly generated number will win. The number will be generated by random.org using these settings. You can't guess any previously guessed numbers, and your first post is the only valid entry. If two numbers are equal distance from the winning number, the earliest posted one wins. You will need a Battle.net account and a Call of Duty account linked to redeem the code. The winner will be picked January 2nd 2019 at 18:00:00 UTC, submissions must be done before this timestamp to be eligible. The random.org page will be reloaded every second and the number to appear on this timestamp will decide the winner!