WhoCares?

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.

Picked up a Steelseries Rival 600.

First impressions,  it feels great, the design is very good. I've been using the Rival 310 as my main for some time now, and it's been a great mouse, my favorite out of EVERYONE i have tried. My only concern with the Rival 310 is the rubber sides, the rubber is soft and does not give a SOLID grip and can feel too slick. The Rival 600 has a much thinner, firmer feeling material which at this stage seems better, i will update in due time if my opinion changes.
The scroll wheel also feels extremely good on the Rival 600, one of the best. All the buttons feel great and despite what others say, the left and right clicks are perfectly fine, much better in comparison to a Zowie EC or FK click.
One of the main changes i notice is the mouse feet. They are noisy when gliding, you would think that means they have more resistance, but they don't. In fact one of the stand out features of the Rival 310 was how nicely it glides, this glides even better.
I'll leave my thoughts here, let the honeymoon period settle and report back when I've found some issues? hopefully not.

0.022 is 1:1

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:
 

I recently pushed an update to the script I was going to create a post about but forgot, I've changed the file structure so rather than pressing 2 and 3 for each change, the scripts incorporate this so that you only need to keep pressing 1. I'll push my python script up to the same repository which does this so that you don't need any differences in keyboard macro software and everyone can use the same thing. I'll make a main post when I do this

Fixed!

Wow you are right. That's pretty funny. Tested 360 with a script with 1.0 zoom_sensitivity_ratio and it was spot on. Tried 0.01 and it wouldn't even move. At least it affects all fov equally.

Since Rainbow Six Siege lacks two sensitivity sliders for the different zoom levels I wrote a python script to somewhat get around that. The script calculates an XFactorAiming based on your FOV and desired vertical match distance that will very accurately line up with two corresponding ADS sensitivity values. This is so that you can somewhat quickly change your sensitivity in-game based on if you're using an ACOG or not in the current round.
Coefficient is vertical match distance where 100% is entered as 1.0
XFactorAiming value is set in Documents\My Games\Rainbow Six - Siege\<random shit>\GameSettings.ini under [INPUT]
As an example with my settings:
FOV=70.53 Coefficient=0 ACOG ADS Sensitivity: 57 Ironsight ADS Sensitivity: 94 XFactorAiming=0.015511 After setting XFactorAiming in my config all I need to do in-game is set 57 ADS sensitivity when using an ACOG and 94 when using anything else.
https://github.com/Skwuruhl/siegeads

Yeah, with the exception of clamping to 1:1 aspect ratio. The angular increment is equal to a pixel if you could evenly distribute the field of view. Obviously the game doesn't do this, but it still felt like a perfect conversion when seamlessly transitioning from 10 FOV to 150 FOV using a script in CSGO.
...
I'm not sure if the desktop can be considered as 0 FOV. For monitor match methods, the 2D distance is used as the arc length for 180 FOV.
Also in the formula for converting the sensitivity between games, you just specify the the desktop as a game with a sensitivity value of 1/resolution height * wps, with 1 fov and 1 yaw/pitch.

This diagram represents how rectilinear projection works - it shows a progression of FOVs. As the FOV decreases, the circles get bigger, the circumferences increase and the arc between the bounds of the monitor edges becomes flatter. Then as you approach 0 FOV, the circumference approaches infinity and the arc, and even the rest of the circle, becomes completely flat, until it is considered 2D. 0 FOV is both 2D and 3D.
And even though we can't define 2D in terms of cm/360, because the circumference of 0 FOV is infinitely long, its "sensitivity" can be defined another way... the chord length. If the FOVs all share the same chord length, then the length of the chord also determines the circumference for all the fields of view. It's in the diagram, so the proof is in the pudding. So whatever your 2D edge-to-edge sensitivity is, you can use trigonometry to convert it to a 3D sensitivity and vice-versa.
And from testing, this method yields the same results as 100% MM and the gear ratio method, but with the addition of not getting an error at 0 FOV. It's just another way to look at things, and only further solidifies the fact that 100% MM would be the only true method, if it weren't for distortion.

Fortnite removed the sensitivity from the config file, so it no longer works. You have to set it in-game unfortunately.

I'm sorry I've been sparse with the updates to this thread. This is largely because it's very time-consuming to make illustrations which are really needed to explain the progress I'm making. I'm old.... I've been doing it with pen and paper and such I might just get a camera and put pics of some of that here, rather than just nothing.

 
Theoretically, 0% is perfect. For the image, on the screen. But what we see, is not what is on the screen. What we see, is on the inside of our eye. This is why 0% feels 'slow'. It does not account for the last step in the game world being projected from the monitor to our eye. We do not have any formula which do so, and accordingly, 0% is the most correct theory we have as of right now.



As per the science nerdery posted above, we know that we do not measure distance between two points, in the real world or the game world, directly - as we would with say, a ruler, or by pixels on screen. We measure it by means of deriving the distance from the angle between two points.

This is a terrible thing to attempt to explain without pictures, but I'll try, because it offers us two interesting insights. Firstly, it offers some validity to 'monitor matching', and secondly, offers some hint as to why it is that we seem to prefer to monitor match at the kind of percentages which we do. If none of this makes any sense, I'll do some cruddy mspaint to explain it

Firstly, let's picture our monitor from above or from the side (it doesn't really matter, but I do it from the side because the games use VFOV) so we have a straight line. Now we need to measure our monitor and our seating position (assuming that your eyes are directly in line with the centre of the screen, which for the purpose of FPS games, they should be). We can use the following formula to find our actual FOV of the monitor. I sit 32.5cm from a 1440p 27" monitor (I can hear my mother telling me that's unhealthy), so mine looks like this:
widthpx = 2560
heightpx = 1440
diagcm = 27*2.54
viewdistance = 32.5  <-- ^--- Yep, centimetres because science. Also I'm Aussie You can use inches, just don't *2.54 in the line above.
heightcm = (diagcm/sqrt(widthpx^2+heightpx^2))*heightpx
actualfov = 2(arctan((heightcm/2)/viewdistance))
= 54.70173510519102597649

Unsurprisingly, valve know their stuff (see links above) and I have adjusted my workspace to bring my FOV close to the natural 55-60 degree FOV where our eyes and brain treat the image as important (beyond this is our peripheral vision where we do not see so much detail but mostly movement, again see links above)

So, now we can envision that there is a triangle formed between our eyes (well, our eye. We don't need to worry about stereo for this, so we just use the dominant eye) and the edges of the screen, and the angle from the eyes is as calculated above. Cool. But, let's imagine that angle is increased to say 80degrees (my hipfire FOV). In order for the triangle to meet the edges of the screen, our eyes should be much closer.... and if they are (ie, we move our head closer to the monitor), we see NO distortion. The distortion of the image is NOT caused by the projection. It is caused by the fact that our head doesn't move, to match the focal point of the projection.

Here, we start to uncover the real reason WHY we feel the need to change mouse sensitivity when zooming, at all. It's about the amount of angle our eyes need to move, to cover the same amount of angle in the game world. This is distinct from, the distance our eyes move, to cover the distance between two points. Our brain doesn't work that way. It thinks of all distances as angles, which makes sense really, since it's all a matter of feedback from our eyes telling our brain how much they rotated.

Now, if we take a few FOVs (in my testing I've been using actual, hipfire, 4x and 8x zoom) and measure out the distances to the focal points, we will have one very close to the monitor (hipfire), one where we sit(actual), one some distance behind where we sit (4x), and one very far behind us (8x). Guess what the ratios between those distances are? zoom ratio. Great And we already know, that Zoom Ratio/0% gives us perfect movement in the centre of the screen.

So, why does it fail? Let's say, that we see a target which is half-way to the edge of our monitor. Let us not make the mistakes of the past and think of this as pixels or cm or inches, it is an angle. Our brains all agree on this In my case (using the same formula above and dividing the screen by half again), that's angle= 2(arctan((heightcm/2/2)/viewdistance)) ~=29.00degrees from the centre of the screen.

So, now let's put this into effect using our hipfire, 4x and 8x zoom. Our eyes move 29degrees, how far do we need to rotate in game, to aim at this target? (yes, it can be simplified mathematically, but for the purpose of conversation...) We can calulate the focal distance from our screen, for a given FOV, using the following formula: 
opticallycorrectdistance=(heightcm/2)/(tan(fov/2))
So, I'll do that for my 3 example FOVs:
 
hipdistance=(heightcm/2)/(tan(80/2))
= 20.03463865597708287603
 
fourdistance=(heightcm/2)/(tan(14.8/2))
= 129.4379759752501060469
 
eightdistance=(heightcm/2)/(tan(7.45/2))
= 258.21347922131382533488



And now we can just use the same formula above, with these distances, to calculate how far that ~29 degrees of eye movement amounts to, in the game world:
 
actualfov = 2(arctan((heightcm/2/2)/hipdistance))
= 45.52095254923326167504
 
actualfov = 2(arctan((heightcm/2/2)/fourdistance))
= 7.43098865714869079575
 
actualfov = 2(arctan((heightcm/2/2)/eightdistance))
= 3.72894033006548981691


Ok that's well and good, but why is it important? This quick example, when we compare the results to those of 0%MM/zoom ratio,demonstrates that as our FOV decreases, the effect of the distortion on angular displacement decreases. So what? well, this tell us that the most important adjustment to our mouse sensitivity, is that made between the widest FOV - which is going to be hipfire - and our actual FOV of the screen from our eyes. As the FOV becomes smaller (higher zoom in game) the distortion is lower and lower and less and less meaningful.

So, since we can NEVER make a perfect adjustment of sensitivity for all parts of the screen, because the distortion is not constant across the screen; but we can make an adjustment which is perfect for one part of the screen (this is why there is a percentage in monitor matching and a coefficient in BF and a zoom sensitivity in OW etc)... Which part of the screen is most important? If we say, the centre, then we use zoom ratio. But almost all agree, that 0% feels 'slow', and we know that is because of the angles vs distance thing. If we are CSGO or BF1 defaults, we use 4/3 aka 75% because muh feels. If we're the average OW pro, we use 18%. Why does everyone disagree? Well, if you take the hipfire FOV of a player, and his actual FOV, and work out your ratio from there....suddenly it all begins to line up with what 'muh feels' has been telling us all along.

Sure, ANY variation from the optically correct distance from screen, for a given FOV, will introduce distortion; and that distortion will ensure that our mouse sensitivity will never be correct to any given point on the screen..... but the lower our FOV gets, the more zoomed in we get, the less of a difference it makes. The big difference, is that between our wide hipfire FOV, and our actual FOV of the screen.

Dear Members,
Almost a year after our initial launch we finally bring you version 2.0 of our 3daimtrainer.
A lot of you guys were very interested in this, asking questions and requesting new features.
So i'm very glad i can finally tell you version 2.0 Beta is live now!
We invested a lot of time creating a brand new and future proof framework but it was well worth it.
We can now push out updates more often and deliver community requests faster and easier.
This combined with a snappier and lag free experience we hope to fulfill the community expectations.
So spread the word!
https://www.3daimtrainer.com/
Version 2.0 Beta includes:
- A moving animated character with 4 weapons and synchronized movement speed / camera height for popular games like: Overwatch, PUBG, CSGO,...
- Inverted mouse movement and complete option menu with keybinding and crosshair options.
- Complete new level design 
- Multi-target spawn option for flick mode.
- Brand new track mode for tracking targets (still working on improvements)
-....
Before strapping this up i want to thank the mouse-sensitivity crew and specially Mr. DPI Wizard for supporting us.
Our small team really appreciate this!
 

Indeed.

Sure, 56.25% is just distance matched to the 1:1 aspect ratio, and yes, it can be misinterpreted as 1:1 movement instead of 1:1 aspect ratio, but that misinterpretation may not matter much if this theory is correct.
If you can measure the degrees per pixel by dividing the vfov by the screen height (not sure if it is this simple?), then it would mean 56.25% also results in an angle increment equal to 1 pixel. Since that happens at any fov, it makes all fovs have a consistent pixel/count ratio. If the angular increment is equal to 1 pixel, and a cursor increments by 1 pixel, then it wouldn't be too far fetched to say that it is also a 1:1 match in movement as well.
 
Here is 56.25% and 90 fov, it gives the same sensitivity used to demonstrate the 1 pixel per count rotation here.


 
If it is this simple to measure degrees per pixel, then this is how you would find the pixel/count:
(sensitivity * m_yaw) / (vfov / screen height)  
Example with two different fovs using 56.25% sensitivity in a unity game:
54 vFOV = (1 * 0.05) / (54 / 1080) = 1 81 vFOV = (1.5 * 0.05) / (81 / 1080) = 1 Example with two different fovs using 56.25% sensitivity in an id tech/source game:
54 vFOV = ( 2.2727272727272730 * 0.022) / (54 / 1080) = 1 81 vFOV = ( 3.4090909090909090 * 0.022) / (81 / 1080) = 1  
This formula can also be rearranged to find the correct sensitivity for a given fov if you supply the fov and m_yaw of the game, or to find the m_yaw of a game if given the sensitivity and fov, which is pretty handy.
Like this to find sensitivity:
Overwatch = ((360 arctan(9/16 tan((π 103)/360)))/π)/(1080 * 0.0066) = 9.89517... CSGO = ((360 arctan(3/4 tan((π 90)/360)))/π)/(1080 * 0.022) = 3.10353...  
Yes, I know the formulas will also work when using the widths, but 100% 4:3 / 16:9 monitor match fail to return the same value used by DPI Wizard. He said he used 90 FOV, only 56.25% gives that value for 90 FOV.
 
With 1:1 monitor match (or vertical monitor match, or 56.25%, or whatever you want to call it), you can also just measure the distance to rotate to the top or bottom of the screen and adjust your sensitivity until it matches. This can be perfected with a simple MouseMoveRelative(x,y) script in Logitech Gaming Software. Vertical monitor match works for any aspect ratio. This convenience means you don't have to depend on this websites calculator and can be more beneficial to most in the long run.
 
In conclusion, I think 56.25% can give a better match than 75%. Based on realworld tests, the stuff above is just a bonus. Plus the convenience alone is enough to switch. Finding the sensitivity is just as easy as the archaic 360 distance match.

Thanks so much! I'm going to read/watch up for sure.

I'm pretty well versed on this subject as I suffer from a disease which directly effects my ability to move, and which is directly effected by my movement. You're talking with a guy who literally tore both arms out of their sockets by using a computer. I'm sure that you'll never be in that situation, but as the guy at the wrong end of the scale, I've had to learn a few things along the way so that I can remain functional.

There is no short answer to this. Too low a sensitivity is not good for you (as mentioned above), but nor is too high. There are so many other factors at play, such as your playstyle, diet, exercise, and I cannot sufficiently stress the vast importance of posture. Even with my illness, I can easily play for hours on end without any stress...but ONLY if I do it right. I run a fairly low sens (about 42cm/360), to balance the stress between my wrists and my shoulders, because if it's too high then your wrist is doing all the work and that's bad, but if it's too low, then your shoulders are, and that's bad too. But if I get lazy and slump in my chair, it causes my shoulders to lean forward, which means that my upper arm is elevated higher, and I will get muscle spasms in the back of my shoulder, and it's GG for me. If I get lazy and lean back too far, the reverse happens, the front of my shoulder goes mental, and again, GG.

Your body is well designed for lots of movement, but most of it is only designed to move in a certain direction. A good example a physiotherapist once gave me, is in the hands. Take your outstretched hand, now move your index finger to touch the palm of your hand. Note how far it moves. Now, take your outstretched hand, and move your finger side-to-side to touch the fingers next to it. Note how far it moves now. Much less, right? That's because your fingers aren't meant to move far like that. If you're making your body move as it is designed to do, it'll do it very well, and a lot....but if you try to twist it in some direction it doesn't like to go, it's gonna hurt.

Like I say, you aren't likely to suffer from these kind of mistakes, to the degree which I do, but they still have the same negative effect, and as any sports instructor will tell you, if it's hurting, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG SO STOP.

It may just be that your general fitness is not so great, and that your muscles just aren't up to the task, but even if this is the case, punishing small areas of your body is not the right way to build muscle strength. Muscles need to balance each other out, you can do dumbbell curls all day and get mad biceps, but if you don't work your chest and triceps and back and neck and hips and legs, somewhere along that chain of muscles you're going to develop problems.

If you like, you can describe in more detail the arm pain your'e experiencing (what kind of pain, where exactly (be super-specific!), what movement makes it hurt more,etc) and I'll be able to take a pretty good guess as to why, and suggest some things you can do to mitigate it. If I were a gambling man, I'd take a bet with pretty good odds, that it's not your sensitivity, it's that you sit badly.

Excellent! Seems to default to 6 decimals, so I use that as the rounding limit.

I have roughly the same 360 distance as you and for me ist no problem
If you use viewspeed 2 to calculate your zoom-in sensitivity, ads with your weapon isn't that slow (since viewspeed v2 is faster then cod's default 0% monitor match)

I don't fully understand your question to be honest..
Do you mean that your sensitivity is too slow and you cant aim quick enough beause CoD is more chaotic and you have to do lage turns more often?
Or are you asking if your DPI is too low for your sensitivity and you will get some pixel-skips?
Or do you think that csgo and CoD are using the same sensitivity slider and 1.1 in csgo equals 1.1 in CoD ?

Even the person who made the shannon's law tool for overwatch is skeptical of if shannon's law applies to mice or not. Afaik general consensus is that while stupid high in-game sensitivity causes pixel skipping it has nothing to do with shannon's law.

The more you get into PC gaming the more you'll want things like a really big mousepad and a big enough desk to fit said mousepad. You usually start off with a 2cm 360 and end up playing on a ruler's length or more 360 (at 90 FOV), haha.
Reason being, because if you under or over aim with a high sensitivity, you can be off your target heaps but with a lower sensitivity you have more room for error. And since there is less room for error you are far more consistent from game to game. Of course this is relative to how big of a target you are aiming to. In most games the smallest targets you are going to shoot are like 10 pixels wide. So you want to make sure your sensitivity allows you to comfortably aim at small targets as well.
Speed doesn't matter if you can't aim. But you don't want to go too low as well otherwise by the time it takes you to move your crosshair to the enemy they will have already killed you. You have to find a balance between speed and aim. Unlike console controllers, you can actually use a low sensitivity because you can just compensate by moving your mouse faster.
You want to make sure you are pivoting from the elbow and not from the wrist. The benefit of using your elbow is that it gives you a greater arc of rotation with which to aim with - more space to paint the finest details of your masterpiece! And unlike wrist aiming you shouldn't develop carpal tunnel syndrome. You'll build pretty big arm muscles doing this as well. And the stronger your arm gets the faster you can move your mouse, and in turn, the lower the sensitivity you can use (if you even need to lower it any more).
So you can have your elbow on the table or you can have your elbow off the table or you can have it in the air. Now I wouldn't recommend having it in the air because gravity ways you down and it can feel uncomfortable after a while. Having your elbow on the table is much more comfortable. But you can also have your elbow off the table. You might get a sore forearm but when it comes to aim you are essentially decreasing your swinging arm. If you've ever played golf or pushed a shopping cart around you will know that controlling the extension of your arm is harder to when you're at the heel of the extension. You generate plenty of speed and power but it's just too hard to control. So what you can do is you "steer closer to the front of the shopping cart" or "move your hand down the golf club". You don't want to move all the way down though otherwise you won't generate any power. But moving a little bit forward can help tremendously with control. The same can be applied to your arm. By moving your elbow off the desk you give yourself more control.
You should know that because of this fact, the longer your arm is the harder it is to aim. What long-armed players can do instead is to lower their sensitivity since they can, on the otherhand, generate more power than short-armed players. But I still don't think lower sensitivity is enough to counteract the lack of control. So sucks to have long arms (I have long arms lol).
All in all though, it comes down to practice. While short-armed players have more potential, if long armed players put in more work then they get more results.