CaptaPraelium

Just a suggestion: Constantly editing the same post gives no history and disallows people to follow the conversation and your logic. Maybe best to just leave it in place and make a new post.

Having some troubles with the alpha calculator. Getting fun messages like Sensitivity 1: Too high sensitivity or too low new DPI Sensitivity 2: GstInput.UniformSoldierAimingCoefficient Multiplier 1: GstInput.SoldierZoomSensitivityAll Multiplier 2: GstInput.SoldierZoomSensitivity3x00 360° rotation: Recommended new min DPI: 38700 DPI Heh 38700 DPI

BF1 had more problems by far than any BF before it. BF4 was famous for it's poor launch because it had a few major problems which effected a few large groups (eg netcode/hitreg was broken). BF1 on the other hand, spread those problems out, more problems spread among smaller groups (eg keybindings not working, plane-specific bugs, issues with only some GPUs, etc etc etc). This way, they gave the false impression that it wasn't a terribly buggy launch, because rather than having 10000 people complaining about one bug, you had 100 people each complaining about 100 bugs. I don't know how you can miss the major issues with BF1 right now. To use the most obvious example, try like....looking at your screen. The lighting has been broken for months and will never be fixed, because it had to be broken on every platform so that the game would even run on PS4pro, and fixing it is too big of a job.... And you're right, this is really about EA and not DICE. Dice know what the problem is and they know how to fix it. If EA would give them the resources they need, it could be fixed. But, supply and demand rules - and that's why I'm encouraging gamers to seriously consider their continued support for the actions of the companies involved. Edit: I really don't want to get into an indepth political discussion here though, I feel it would detract from the nature of this forum. I've said my piece. If you think that EA/DICE are doing the right thing, please continue to support them.

Which is exactly why it should never have gotten this far. Clearly, as has been the case increasingly over the past few years, EA/DICE don't really care about the PC players. ...but we can hardly blame them if we are encouraging their behaviour with our wallets....

Guys just don't buy this game please. It's pretty obvious that PC gaming is an afterthought to the devs when the MOUSE doesn't work. Unbelievable. We as gamers cannot support this kind of behaviour.

Hi guys, in my conversations encouraging people to try this out, I've had a few "so how do I do this, anyway?" type requests. I thought I might put together a short tutorial document, but before I get too far into it I should ask - what will the formula be called? Viewspeed? New viewspeed? Something else?

I'm using the NPP Hex editor plugin for other projects here, works fine. You were fast on this one, Wizard! looking forward to trying it today

All of the above Some examples: an ELEVEN second flight time tank shot on a bomber. From A on Empire's Edge to beyond F. Hitting 8 planes in a row on Monte Grappa Being shot in the back with an automatico at 6m range, do a 180 and quickscope him in the face. An off-screen dragscope headshot on a full-speed running horse through smoke. At least 5 20-kill streaks as infantry. Shot out 3 aircrew (A pilot and two gunners) Jumpshots and a nice 180 jumpshot quickscope at 96 metres (yes I was trickshotting in BF1) I'm OK at this game but that was a really good night by my standards.

Thankyou Sir Man, this is just great. I'm really pumped.

OK so my new mouse sensitivity 'clicked' tonight, and holy mackeroli. Man, I hit some absolutely insane shots. Depending on playstyle, my stats basically improved by about 150% in either score per minute or KD ratio or kills per minute. It's like I'm me-and-a-half. Definitely putting my stamp of approval on your formula Drimzi. I'm done testing. This is the beez kneez. Well done and thank you.

Hmm, but would it not be more important, for there to be no discrepancy between hipfire and any zoom level in the same game, than to have no discrepancy between the desktop and hipfire but some discrepancy between hipfire and some zoom levels? The discrepancy has to lie somewhere, it strikes me that it would be best to have zero within each game, so it's always consistent when playing that game, than to be inconsistent within the game but more consistent between games.... ... Actually, I feel like I'm answering my own question here, and that answer is, it depends on what's more important between those two, consistency within the game or across games. Thanks man

I have noticed a behaviour. As an example let's say I use my desktop as the base for conversion. Then I get my hipfire viewspeed for the game, then other zoom levels for the game. All OK so far. Now for the problem.... as the 'convert from' base for the conversion, I switch from using the desktop as above, to the hipfire sensitivity I got for the game. When I do this, the values I get for the other zoom levels, is different. It's very very close, but not the same. I suspected this was a rounding error or something, it's that close. I'll paste that example: CALCULATIONS Windows / Desktop DPI: 800 Distance: 16.256 cm to move mouse cursor across screen Base length: 40.6257 cm Battlefield 1 (Config file - ADS FOV OFF) - Hipfire Sensitivity 1: GstInput.MouseSensitivity 0.006160 360° rotation: 44.689 cm Base length: 40.624 cm Discrepancy: -0.0042% (-0.0017 cm) Config FOV: GstRender.FieldOfViewVertical 80 Actual VFOV: 80 degrees Actual HFOV: 112.33 degrees CALCULATIONS Windows / Desktop DPI: 800 Distance: 16.256 cm to move mouse cursor across screen Base length: 40.6257 cm Battlefield 1 (Config file - ADS FOV OFF) - 4.00X Zoom Sensitivity Sensitivity 1: GstInput.MouseSensitivity 0.006160 Sensitivity 2: GstInput.UniformSoldierAimingCoefficient 0 Multiplier 1: GstInput.SoldierZoomSensitivityAll 1 Multiplier 2: GstInput.SoldierZoomSensitivity4x00 1.294481 360° rotation: 223.0411 cm Base length: 40.6257 cm Discrepancy: 0% (0 cm) Config FOV: GstRender.FieldOfViewVertical 80 Actual VFOV: 14.8 degrees Actual HFOV: 26 degrees CALCULATIONS Battlefield 1 (Config file - ADS FOV OFF) - Hipfire Sensitivity 1: GstInput.MouseSensitivity 0.006160 360° rotation: 44.689 cm Base length: 40.624 cm Config FOV: GstRender.FieldOfViewVertical 80 Actual VFOV: 80 degrees Actual HFOV: 112.33 degrees Battlefield 1 (Config file - ADS FOV OFF) - 4.00X Zoom Sensitivity Sensitivity 1: GstInput.MouseSensitivity 0.006160 Sensitivity 2: GstInput.UniformSoldierAimingCoefficient 0 Multiplier 1: GstInput.SoldierZoomSensitivityAll 1 Multiplier 2: GstInput.SoldierZoomSensitivity4x00 1.294535 360° rotation: 223.0318 cm Base length: 40.624 cm Discrepancy: 0% (0 cm) Config FOV: GstRender.FieldOfViewVertical 80 Actual VFOV: 14.8 degrees Actual HFOV: 26 degrees In fact, now, I suspect this is in fact a result of the discrepancy between the desktop-to-hipfire conversion. It strikes me that the 'correct' usage of the calculator, would be to do the desktop-to-hipfire conversion, and then do all other zoom levels in that game based on that hipfire, so that any discrepancy is consistent between zoom levels within the game, rather than being consistent with the desktop which we are not using during gameplay I guess this is a matter of perception. Which discrepancy is best, 'this one' or 'that one'? Any thoughts?

Sorry to make you fiddle with it mate. Heavy tanks look good now - FYI I previously had 1.51... GstInput.VehicleSensitivityTank 1.491966 Cavalry is still giving me the error though Battlefield 1 (Vehicles - File) - Cavalry (USA ON) Sensitivity 1: Calculated sensitivity too low Reduce either sensitivity 1 or new DPI Multiplier 1: - 360° rotation: Recommended new max DPI: 600 DPI Base length: cm Discrepancy: % ( cm) Config FOV: GstRender.FieldOfViewVertical 80 Actual VFOV: 80 degrees Actual HFOV: 112.33 degrees

Sorry Wizard, I think there may still be a small issue... The vehicles sensitivity seems correct now, but for the Heavy tank/Cavalry I get a very low number and cavalry actually gives me the "sensitivity too low" error. Battlefield 1 (Vehicles - File) - Light tanks / Heavy tanks Sensitivity 1: GstInput.MouseSensitivityVehicle 0.185639 <<<<<--------------- LOOKS GOOD NOW THX Multiplier 1: GstInput.VehicleSensitivityTank 0.133261 <<<<<--------------- TOO SMALL 360° rotation: 67.9704 cm Base length: 40.624 cm Discrepancy: 0% (0 cm) Config FOV: GstRender.FieldOfViewVertical 80 Actual VFOV: 50 degrees Actual HFOV: 79.32 degrees

HYPE thanks Wizard You can't really match mouse sens for a plane since it has a ton of acceleration, but I could find out the FOV if Wizard doesn't already know which he probably does

"close enough" won't really be good enough here since I'm testing, and the differences are often several decimal places deep. but I'll sure try the *10 trick, thanks for that tip

No it does not, but if you turn your mouse sideways guess what?

I'm saying I think there is a problem with the calculator. It's definitely NOT a trick of the mind, it's MASSSSSSIIIIIVVVEEE drop in sensitivity. The values I get are near half the old ones.

I think I may have found an issue with this. Something's not right with the BF1 vehicles. The tanks are SOOOO slow. It's like I set my mouse to 20 DPI.

Hi Wizard Just a little thought/suggestion.... When I am converting a game to another, I go through and enter all the correct values in all the boxes for hipfire, then I might go onto another aim type like a 4x scope or whatever. When I change the aim type from "hipfire" to "4x Scope" (or whatever), the FOV I have entered (In the 'convert to:' section at the bottom) is reset to the default value. It would be cool if it stayed how I've entered it Also, I was thinking it would be REALLY helpful to have a 'batch' calculation. With games like Battlefield or PUBG, it can take a pretty long time to do the calculations manually for every aim type. It would be amazing to have a feature where I can have it spit out all the relevant values for the game, rather than just the one. Hope that these would be easy for you to do (especially the first one!) and are beneficial to others.

OK, I thought he meant apothem as in distance from eye to monitor... but TBH I prefer to exclude the monitor from this as much as possible and the 'apothem' chosen so far meets that requirement... What ever name we give it I've been testing the living daylights out of this and I have to say it's pretty amazing. I've had to buy a new mouse and so that's meant a DPI change at the desktop (still using the same mouse for gaming), so I'm going to take things a step further and desktop-match. This means a change in hipfire sens (cm/360) from 42 to 44cm which could be a hindrance so it will be interesting to see if desktop-matching helps develop new 'muscle memory' quickly. All in all, I have to say this new formula is by far and away the most natural-feeling I've encountered since joining the master race. Edit: The only thing I feel I should add at this point, is that I feel this formula deserves to be added to the calculator and the original viewspeed left in place. Old viewspeed still has purpose (as has been said above, it's the same or similar to many games) and the new one is unique enough to have it's own name.

Ahh I understand your approach now. Using the apothem ratio (combined with the zoom ratio) should take care of perspective nicely! One can easily see how the character seems to 'jump' closer when we zoom in/ADS. Apothem is a good simple way to deal with that. I've been really unwell but I'm dying to try this, especially now that I understand the new formula. I'll be trying a new game (PUBG) tomorrow night so that's an excellent opportunity. I'll feed you back what i find but I already have good feelings about this. The new formula is the alpha page right? Just to save me some time doing it manually.....

So basically, your theory is that projection distortion has no effect on our perception of the game world and our anticipated changes in sens with changes in fov? Edit: by distortion I am referring to the differential distortion between the two axes

Did you try a diagonal other than the usual one from centre to corner of screen? Remember that won't work because of the whole perspective/distortion thing.

So I decided that it was time I gave 100% MM another try, since last time it was a bit too rushed and 100% muh feels and not much analysis, and this thread deemed it worthy of more attention. I've played a couple dozen hours like this and I think I see what you mean about the inconsistency. In general though, I have to say it feels far better than 0%. At first I found it way too fast, but when I changed back, it was actually kinda bad to use 0%. It was like everything slowed way down, when I zoomed in. I am of the opinion that 0% felt right because it was most like what I'd used in the past, but once i broke the old habit, I did not want to go back. I have some very rough drafts and they started out just like this, using a diagonal line because of the whole perspective thing (ie, vanishing points) The reason for this is all about perception. It has been said, that matching for any distance on the monitor will always cause us to be unmatched for other distances on the monitor and this is true. However we're already kinda unmatched, no matter what we do. In reality, we should have the cm/360 the same no matter how we zoom in.... But our minds do not perceive it as such (and yes, I tried it and wow, 8x zoom. Twitchy XD. Not recommended if you value your game stats lol). It is becoming increasing apparent to me, that our mental perception of the image is paramount. The most basic element of this is that we anticipate reduced sensitivity with increased zoom, despite its departure from reality.... but it's obvious by now that there is much more to it than a simple division. A great example of this which we are now noticing, is the failure of simply dividing by zoom ratio (0%MM) or screen space (100%MM). My next step in this, is to find the "right" diagonal line. Before I go into this I should add that I'm no expert but I think if we are discussing vertical angles (VFOV) then the correct notation is λ for pitch and θ for horizontal/yaw/HFOV. But yeh, the thing with finding the right diagonal, is that we don't want to simply go from the centre to the corner of the screen. This is because, ***even at the same aspect ratio***, at different zoom levels, we have a different ratio of HFOV to VFOV. Eg: VFOV HFOV Ratio 110 137.004338581236 1.24549398710215 55 85.5655901123628 1.55573800204296 27.5 47.0199550477653 1.70981654719146 13.75 24.1963085395324 1.75973153014781 And that's not even considering the difference between VFOV at the centre of the screen (our "actual VFOV), and VFOV at the edge of the screen - which is what actually determines the angles which create the perception of perspective and vanishing points. I'm pretty sure we're going to want a curved diagonal, and it will be curved according to the white lines from that image I so masterfully edited in mspaint Either that, or the diagonal will not be drawn from the centre, but from the angle above centre which matches the FOV at the edge of the screen.... Either of those might capture this perspective effect in a number we can use in our formula....