CaptaPraelium

ignoring the 2D-3D conversion (because I'm happy with my 3D cm/360) is this not the same as 100%MM?

I found that 100% was inconsistent, it felt too fast when making smaller movements near the centre of the screen (including tracking) but for long flick shots it was awesome (hit one that was invisible off the edge of the monitor. Shadowplay didn't record. Gutted). Kinda the opposite of 0%

I'm of the opinion that while it's optimal, our brain can compensate for it, and it's not needed. Pretty easy to test by simply sitting further from your monitor. But y'know. Muh feels. I don't always buy into them. To answer the question though, because as distance from the monitor increases, the angles to the screen are reduced in proportion with one another, while the angles from the projection to the screen, which are influenced by distortion, stay the same. Thus, the distortion at the eye changes as the eye's distance from the screen changes. I do however believe that the top post on this page deserves attention. A formula to calculate the VFOV at Actual HFOV would be very interesting. The perception of perspective which results from rectilinear's straight vertical lines and curved horizontal lines increasing with verticality, is real, both on paper and in everyone's feels (and on paper of how feels works), and afaik, has not been accounted for in any of our formula as yet.

It sure might explain some of muh feels, and least of all, the reason why we all use HFOV even thought practically none of the game engines do. I've also encountered another explanation for some muh feels. Incoming more 1337 mspaint skillz (These are gonna get more and more ghetto until I know of a better tool for the job lol) .... So, apparently the idea of rectilinear projection is that, if your FOV matches your angle to the projection, when looking at the centre of the image,you don't perceive the distortion: Accordingly, depending on an individual's FOV and distance from their monitor, they will have their own unique perception of the distortion. This explains why different people have different experiences of the same formula. So, this is all very nice because I'm managing to pin down the reasons for the biggest culprits of 'muh feels'... However, while I can do the math to make formula that account for all of this, it's going to take a long time. Any math wizards who'd like to step in to help would be my BFF

I came across this video today while searching for research into the perception of the projection. Sadly he reached the point of perception (aka muh feels) and said it was too complex to discuss hahaha (at 8:09). Regardless, as for the projection itself, this is a really excellent visualisation of it all.

The lines of longitude will always be straight in rectilinear projection, and the lines of longitude always arced. This is what gives the 'cylindrical' look. Edit: Good example, Follow the link to the wolfram site in my post. It has a greater vertical FOV than horizontal. It still looks like a 'cylinder'

I'm going to focus on 3D to 3D conversion, for the time being. These other issues are other issues, I'd rather not be distracted.

I did not question that it is possible, I pointed out that it is a separate issue and should be treated as such. I understood your post and I agree that treating it as 0FOV seems a logical way to handle it, and if a working 3D to 3D conversion is found, applying that to 0FOV may (should?) work. Obviously that would depend on the nature of the formula - we might get a division by zero or something and the formula could then be adjusted accordingly (example, BF's USA - details quoted above) for use in 2D conversion. Heck, it may just be a great way to test a formula at it's extremes (as has been said, the correct formula should work all the way from 0 to 180 degrees).... However, observation shows that it has not served well to conflate the two problems. I am not saying that the game world is not 'spherical' (it's not, it's an infinite space in 3 dimensions but I know what you mean by spherical, it's a good word so let's use it) but yes, because the sensitivity is a matter of degrees per count, the horizontal and vertical sensitivity should be the same....Which would not work if using the chord length. For example let's say we have a 'gear' ratio of 2, one gear is twice the circumference of the other. If we have calculated these gear sizes from HFOV and horizontal chord length, then we use the same formula but instead use VFOV and vertical chord, the ratio will no longer be 2.

sick mspaint skillz If anyone already knows (or is smart enough to figure out quickly) the way to find the 'Perspective VFOV' I would be very grateful!

FWIW with my complete lack of muh feels (because I am a recently converted console peasant) I had the same experience, it felt wrong and right.. Sometimes, most times, it would feel just fine at 0%. Then at other times, it felt like I was dragging the gun through mud. I recorded all of those moments and on later inspection I noticed a commonality between them - they were all when there was a significant vertical component, to the vector to, or position of, the target. I've also noticed that despite most games working in VFOV, we tend to do all our calculations, illustrations and demonstrations in HFOV. I was reproducing the effect in skwuruhl's post, that first image; in-game and despite all measurements of images telling me that is in fact 2x or 4x (or whatever x) zoom, it just doesn't look that way to my eyes. Like, it looks perfectly like 2x zoom but when I look at the hipfire image and try to imagine 2x zoom it just doesn't work that way when I do the math. MUH FEELS So I'm staring longingly at this image from wolfram (which it wont let me embed, lame) So let's use this one.... hoping that the answer will jump out at me and I'm thinking.... The horizontal distortion gives this kind of 'wrap around' effect, like I'm looking at it all projected on a cylinder wrapped around me, or the inside of a tube cut in half. But the vertical distortion doesn't feel that way. It just feels kinda sorta like perspective. Like this: Am I the only one that sees it that way? I mean I know it's not quite right, but when you look at that wolfram image, do you see a half-tube kind of shape? (and I mean kind of. It sure af doesn't look like a sphere to me) I ask this because in our efforts to be mathematically correct we seemingly always run into muh feels and if our brains see rectilinear projection otherwise than we've assumed, this would explain it.

I'm not so sure. Given that the vertical chord and horizontal chord ratio is always the same as our aspect ratio, but the horizontal and vertical arc ratios are not...... We know that 0% MM is = zoom ratio is = chord ratio, maybe this is why 0% feels odd. Has anyone tried using arc ratios?

I think you'd do really well to completely separate the issues of matching 2D to 3D, and 3D to 3D. In all of your excellent work on this subject, I've never seen 2D to 3D conversion introduce anything but trouble. Is not science. Don't get me wrong, like I said above, if "muh feels" tells us that it feels wrong, it might be actually wrong.... but it might also be lying to ourselves. If 0% feels wrong, and you're convinced that it *is* wrong (and not just a trick of the mind), then what will feel right, will be found by figuring out WHY it feels wrong.

Given that vertical and horizontal distortion differ, is it even possible to calculate the 'gear' size by means of using chord length? I mean... which chord, vertical or horizontal? The right formula will work equally well for VFOV or HFOV, and that's why when I approached this I started there.

Edit: Yeh that's what you're saying. I do wish there was a way to delete posts lol

Good point. I'm mostly concerned about what feels off because of psychological aspects (as in, it doesn't feel like what I expect it to, or what I'm accustomed to, etc) I've already come across one example of this, in the way the game transitions between sensitivities. Battlefield (and other games) by default will instantly change to the ADS sens, at the moment you press the ADS button. With USA switched on, it transitions sensitivity as the FOV transitions. Obviously this is a difference which can have a massive effect on the way it all feels. I'm going to have to develop a mouse macro, and a formula and measure videos, to avoid any 'human factor' in it.

Yeh this is why I'm trying to stick to purely angle-based theories and ignoring the screen projection stuff as much as possible. I mostly believe that "muh feels" is a bad way to do things. Then again, sometimes "muh feels" are actually telling you that something is wrong. I'm in a fortunate position of having lots of experience with math, programming and the mouse (being an IT professional for some decades) and with gaming (about 10k hours of battlefield alone), but since most of that was as a console peasant, I don't really have any 'muscle memory' to speak of, when it comes to mousing in the 3D realm. I feel that your approach - let the math get it right and let my brain get used to it - is the right way. As was said above, the guys who are making those insane flickshots in CSGO aren't doing it because of some magic formula, they're doing it because of insane amounts of practice. I was amused to see this video and the description stating that he was using the default sensitivity because that's how it came and he didn't change it.... So, for the next few days or so, I will try to force my brain to get used to 0% MM and see after that if I'm still getting a bad "feels" from it.....

Right, and that formula works for VFOV and HFOV equally well. This is interesting because every time I've seen zoom on a scope, it's been a straight division of VFOV, eg a 4x scope is half the VFOV of a 2x scope... The zoom is a lie! That formula is also supposedly the same as the one used for Battlefield's Uniform Soldier Aiming with coefficient 0. Courtesy of @TheNoobPolice via the BF forums: I guess that this tells us that if we want to ignore the effects of projection onto the screen, 0% monitor match is the way to go. Aptly named huh.... And that seems great for me, but now that I've got it behaving, I can see why you guys dislike it for flick shots. As drimzi said, he feels like it should scale up as FOV scales, and you've mentioned something right along my lines of thinking, of matching to a degree rather than a monitor distance... I appreciate you guys getting me on your wavelength here, I can do the math and all, but, wasn't really understanding what you were trying to do. I've got way too much time on my hands to help with this, and now I feel like I can get involved. Cheers

Not sure if doubleposting or not here, but I thought this was worth putting in a separate post since I'm very close to an answer here. Apologies if this is bad form. So, I was thinking about the relationship between the distortion and our FOV, and it has occurred to me.... At 0FOV, our ratio of VFOV to HFOV is 1:1 with our screen's aspect ratio. As we approach FOV 180, the ratio approaches our monitor's aspect ratio. Here's a paste from some scrap number mangling in a spreadsheet: (Please note HFOV is approximated because I couldn't get the formula to behave in libreoffice calc) HFOV/VFOV W/H SAR/PAR Projection Aspect Ratio Screen Aspect Ratio Projection Distortion Ratio VFOV HFOV PAR SAR PDR 110 137 1.24545454545455 1.77777777777778 1.42741281427413 55 85.57 1.55581818181818 1.77777777777778 1.14266422552037 27.5 47.02 1.70981818181818 1.77777777777778 1.03974667989981 13.75 24.2 1.76 1.77777777777778 1.01010101010101 180 180 1 1.77777777777778 1.77777777777778 135 153.77 1.13903703703704 1.77777777777778 1.5607725824283 90 121.28 1.34755555555556 1.77777777777778 1.31926121372032 45 72.73 1.61622222222222 1.77777777777778 1.09995875154682 Do you see what I see?

I think I figured it out, what I have to do is use the calculator to 'convert' from distance with my hipfire, to 360 distance for the same game with the desired zoom level, and manually enter the hipfire sensitivity from the 'from' game, into the 'to' game's Sensitivity 1 field. I'm doing this because I don't really care to match sensitivity to monitor space, and I think that there's an excessive focus to do so. I want my hand movement to control my soldier movement, regardless of how it may be (mis)represented on screen, so I am ignoring any kind of 2D/3D/distortion/pincushion/etc effects. I don't feel that my mind needs to consider all this distortion, I 'feel' the number of degrees I want to turn and just want to have my mouse move that many degrees (as opposed to moving that many *pixels*). It's all about counts per degree, for me at least. I feel that the 'answer' to finding a solution that works for me, is related to horizontal vs vertical FOV. For example: My hipfire is 79 VFOV aka 111.38 HFOV. 42cm 360. 1x scope is 55 VFOV aka 85.57 HFOV. 4x scope is 14.8 VFOV aka 26 HFOV. Obviously, if my cm/360 is the same at all zoom levels, then when I zoom in at 4x, my mouse will feel overly sensitive, so I need to reduce sensitivity according to zoom. So I should just simply divide my hip FOV by zoom FOV and multiply that by my base sensitivity. So, I do this for HFOV (because I usually think in terms of horizontal FOV) and it works out like so: 1x: 111.38/85.7*42 = 54.66cm/360 4x 111.38/26*42 = 179.92cm/360 Great. But now I do it for VFOV and: 1x: 79/55*42 = 60.32cm/360 4x: 79/14.8*42 = 224.18cm/360 That's a BIG difference. I haven't had time to think it through beyond this, but I'm sure that I'll find a formula that works for me in such a fashion. I just need to settle the discrepancy between HFOV and VFOV. Had a couple minutes to consider this and the issue is kinda obvious. What 'makes sense' is that, if I am zoomed in twice as much, I need half the sensitivity. but because the relationship between VFOV and HFOV is nonlinear, the definition of 2*zoom is not as simple as 2*VFOV or 2*HFOV. Of course this is why we see pincushion distortion, but it's not just a matter of an individual's perception, they literally aren't the same. So I guess the question I need to ask, is: How does one define "2x zoom"? It's not something we can measure by '2*angle' because of this nonlinear relationship (2* WHICH angle?), and if we use the screen area, then we have a nonlinear ratio of counts per degree which feels unnatural as zoom levels change.

Thanks man But what I really wonder is, how do we get a sensitivity into the game? Obviously we can work out our base (hipfire) sens as a cm/360 and punch it into the calculator, but what about other zoom levels? If I know my cm/360 or counts/degree or whatever the rate of turn might be, for a certain FOV, how do I convert that number, into a multiplier value for a specific zoom level? For example: As an experiment, I wanted to see how it feels if I ignore distortion altogether. So my hipfire is 42cm/360 at 79degrees FOV and I can use the calculator to find that is a base sensitivity of 0.004500. No problem there. Now, my 1x zoom is 55degrees and by simple division that gives me a 54.84cm/360 turn rate.... but how do I get that as a multiplier value for GstInput.SoldierZoomSensitivity1x00 in the config file?

Quite a few serious battlefield players are eyeballing this thread, if there's any way we can test or help with number crunching please let us know

Thanks mate I understood all that already, I was just wondering why you chose that FOV in particular. It seems it's just for historical reasons (as in, that's how it was done before). I was hoping that it was actually optimal but it turns out that it's not - although as you say, it is close. For rectilinear projection, x=tan λ y=tan λ /cos Φ So optimal FOV will be 90 (45 degrees either side of zero) and anything beyond this becomes hyperbolically more lossy. This is fine if we have a circular monitor but we don't.... And obviously there is a balance between taking a wider FOV which may contain lossy parts, and a more narrow FOV which avoids lossy projection but at the cost of losing (by not displaying) optimal projection around the edges of the monitor. I'm guessing that on this forum, there is a math nerd who knows how to find the volume of two intersecting objects, and if there is, they would be able to make a formula to find the actual optimal FOV given a particular aspect ratio. Edit while discussing this with a friend, he has pointed out that my source for the rectilinear projection formula (this PDF: http://www.tawbaware.com/ptassembler_mod_rect_projections.pdf) may be wrong, as he has found this more reliable source: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GnomonicProjection.html

I'm sure that's no coincidence. You didn't both just so happen to choose 106.26 by personal taste I'm sure. I sense magic What's so special about this number?

YES!!! Thanks Wizard! I just so happened to login right after you posted this, what a nice surprise

1x zoom is 55FOV, regardless of your hipfire FOV Unless you use the ADS FOV Scaling option set to ON Then 1x is whatever your hipfire FOV is. So, you're not entirely wrong or right...It depends which you have that option set to.