massivelivefun

That kind of response might as well be conjecture. Thanks for making me "understand" the topic more, geez.

I swear by vertical viewspeed for ads though Is there any reason why I should use monitor distance over vert. viewspeed? I'm compelled to hear an argument against viewspeed and for monitor distance cause i lowkey thought that viewspeed v2, aka vert viewspeed, was supposed to be the holy grail or something along the lines. EDIT: I understand that all of this is preference, I'm still curious otherwise as to one from the other.

Perhaps the terminology that the calculator uses could be changed to accurately reflect each viewspeed method?

Does viewspeed v1 still have to take the aspect ratio into account? Or has this been adjusted?

Um. With the new changes to the calculator why has viewspeed v2 been regulated to viewspeed vertical?

Okay I understand, literally changing the hipfire fov is making the objects smaller if the fov is wider. However, the scopes are the same regardless. Okay.

So I just saw this video and there is some pretty good evidence that the hipfire fov messes with the "zoom" (fov) for the scopes. Does the calculator reflect this evidence? I think the calculator just has each of the scope's fov locked at their default fov values. The author of the video does say that each scope's fov is normalized, but I wouldn't understand the implications of this... Just thought that I'd show this to you @DPI Wizard. Idk if this was discuss before in this thread.

So I'm using the new viewspeed alpha calculator with perfectly matched FOV. Is Aim Hero really off from CSGO by 0.000001 or is it fucked up by the smallest bit? Shouldn't they basically be the same configuration sensitivity? I understand that there is 0% discrepancy with the first conversion. EDIT: CSGO 0.599999 to Aim Hero gets 0.6 btw, so it works back and forth.

Thank you for the responses. So the only problem left with your viewspeed formula is to handle stretched resolutions?

Okay, so I did this; a basic example of 4:3 csgo hipfire: 2.4 @ 400dpi, 1.2 @ 800, & 0.6 @ 1600, et cetera: a=3/4; x=90; θ=2 arctan(a tan((π x)/360)); (C csc(θ/2))/sqrt(2)=43.2955 cm; http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=a%3D3%2F4;+x%3D90;+θ%3D2+arctan(a+tan((π+x)%2F360));+(C+csc(θ%2F2))%2Fsqrt(2)%3D43.2955; And C solved to 36.7374 cm. I then try to match hipfire viewspeed to the first awp zoom with my C I found: a=3/4; x=40; θ=2 arctan(a tan((π x)/360)); (36.7374 csc(θ/2))/sqrt(2); http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=a%3D3%2F4;+x%3D40;+θ%3D2+arctan(a+tan((π+x)%2F360));+(36.7374+csc(θ%2F2))%2Fsqrt(2); Which got me 98.6445 cm. However the alpha calculator shows 98.6446 cm, which probably means that the calculator just rounds up at the ten thousandths place. Just to check, I put my C back into the formula that handles hipfire, a=3/4; x=90; θ=2 arctan(a tan((π x)/360)); (36.7374 csc(θ/2))/sqrt(2); http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=a%3D3%2F4;+x%3D90;+θ%3D2+arctan(a+tan((π+x)%2F360));+(36.7374+ csc(θ%2F2))%2Fsqrt(2) I get 43.2954 cm, but it should be 43.2955. Just more minor discrepancies I suppose. For the sake of redundancy I'll try your other way you recommended with the random dpi: a=3/4; x=90; h=1080; m=130.611; C=(sqrt(2) π h)/m; θ=2 arctan(a tan((π x)/360)); (C csc(θ/2))/sqrt(2); http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=a%3D3%2F4;+x%3D90;+h%3D1080;+m%3D130.611;+C%3D(sqrt(2)+π+h)%2Fm;+θ%3D2+arctan(a+tan((π+x)%2F360));+(C+csc(θ%2F2))%2Fsqrt(2) The above got me approximately 43.2955 cm. Then I isolated h, m, c to see if I get the same C from earlier, 36.7374 cm. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=h%3D1080;+m%3D130.611;+C%3D(sqrt(2)+π+h)%2Fm; I got approximately 36.7374 as my C. From this exercise I have a few questions: 1. Does variable 'a' have to equal '3/4' when said game uses strict horizontal 4:3 fov handling? 2. Otherwise does 'a' have to 'match' the screen's aspect ratio when using the other formulas? 3. Can I use the same 'C' in other games, or will I have to check for 'C' for every game?

How do I go about using the formula with wolfram alpha? I'm trying to compare values to the calculator's alpha to results that I get on wolfram. @Drimzi Could you check if I re-purposed the formula correctly so that I can use a specific 360, or is that not possible anymore? a=3/4; h=1440; m=400; C=(sqrt(2) π h)/m; C=43.2955 x=90; θ=2 arctan(a tan((π x)/360)); [no a variable] (C csc(θ/2))/sqrt(2); http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=x%3D90;+d%3D43.2955;+θ%3D2+arctan(tan((π+x)%2F360));+(d+csc(θ%2F2))%2Fsqrt(2);

@DPI Wizard So like do ALL guns in Destiny 2 have the same ads sensitivity "speed"? I noticed when playing that most of the guns have varying zooms. However, it seems that fov doesn't effect sensitivity. Some insight into this question would be cool.

You should check out this thread bro.

Um, DPI Wizard, is something wrong with the calculator? I rock 0.02 @ 800dpi for hipfire, which is (was) a 10.125 inch 360. I wrote it down on a txt file and everything. Coming back to the calculator, now it's reading as a 10.126 inch. Grant it, it's not the end of the world, but is this intentional? What has changed?

Bryjoe, just go onto page seven and look at my posts. What you are asking for is what Drimzi walked me through. I have examples of how to use them, with one mistake within the walk through being the following: Make sure that you use the right formula for the game that you are using, i.e. csgo uses 4:3 horizontal res, so use the 4:3 horizontal res formula.

Thank you, for this tidbit ^^^. This is extremely important and I think you should add this to your master post of this thread as soon as possible. I just have one more question though. How would you go about matching the viewspeed between two games that use different fov handling? For instance, Csgo is 4:3 based while battlefield is vertical degrees based. Is it impossible to match them together? Or is it that when your formulas convert to 4:3 hfov it is meant to tackle this problem entirely?

Honestly though, why 40 for the config fov for awps? Where did you get that number from? Just curious, is all. And a followup question, I know that csgo uses 4:3 base, but like isn't it more convenient just to look up the res base of a game's fov through the calculator? Especially when some fovs are hard to figure out in the config format, i.e. your "40" for awps.

Okay, so for instance, here is an example of csgo hipfire sens at 3 @ 400 (13.6364 inch / 34.6364 cm 360): h=1080; m=400; r=(h×16/9)/m; d=34.6364; x=106.26; θ=2 atan(tan((π (2 atan(3/4 tan((π x)/360))×180/π))/360)); π r d ( csc(θ/2)/sqrt(2); = 34.6365 cm http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=x%3D106.26;+θ%3D2+atan(tan((π+(2+atan(3%2F4+tan((π+x)%2F360))×180%2Fπ))%2F360));+34.6364+csc(θ%2F2)%2Fsqrt(2) The resultant almost returns the same distance, but wolfram alpha's approximations created discrepancies unfortunately. Probably safe to assume that the result is just 34.6364, especially when the range to get this 360 in the calculator is from 2.999981 to 3.000003. 3 being closer to the range's ceiling explains the round up. Then to match the hipfire sens to the first awp zoom, we need to only change x to the horizontal fov of the first zoom and keep the rest, which is this: d=34.6364; x=51.77; θ=2 atan(tan((π (2 atan(3/4 tan((π x)/360))×180/π))/360)); 34.6364 csc(θ/2)/sqrt(2); = 71.6144 cm http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=x%3D51.77;+θ%3D2+atan(tan((π+(2+atan(3%2F4+tan((π+x)%2F360))×180%2Fπ))%2F360));+34.6364+csc(θ%2F2)%2Fsqrt(2) Afterwards we use the calculator to find the in-game sensitivity from the distance for both of the distances above. Is this the correct approach? EDIT: Holy fuck this feels mint af. You guys are geniuses, like goddamn this is insane.

Um, I've just begun to read the whole thread, but I just wanted to throw this question out there: - Can a user have a distinct 360 measurement for their sensitivity, and then still implement this iteration of viewspeed to "pass" on their muscle memory to other games? I.E. If a user is hypothetically insane with a exact 20.00 inch 360 on csgo, or whatever, can they still maintain the aforementioned 360 using this formula, and then "pass" on their muscle memory to other games. The inputs for this formula look like they are just dependent on cpi, fov, and vertical pixel screen space. I understand that the aim of this Viewspeed formula is that muscle memory is at the forefront. That, no matter what fov the game may be at you should be hitting nasty flicks. However, if this formula basically gives a predetermined distance based on three distinct things, then it sounds like certain distances may never be outputted by this formula at all. That, and if an individual wishes to use this formula they may have to readjust their muscle memory.

The overwrite happens on exit of the game. I haven't tried making the file read only. EDIT: Well the file read only definitely works, kinda of a crude solution if you ask me...

I'm getting the same problem here. I had to put 46.0 to get a last converted sens that's close to my wanted number. Do we need both?

DPI Wizard, Ubisoft recently updated the sights and how far the camera is from most gun apertures. Are the conversions on the calculator still accurate?

Damn, those responses. Bless the Skwuruhl.

Does MouseYawSensitivity & MousePitchSensitivity assume that it's always a whole number like how it is in the in-game options? Or can decimal numbers be used for this command in the config file like MouseSensitivityMultiplierUnit?

Um... Can you make a hip fire (simple) and regular hip fire for csgo? Similar to what you did with rainbow six siege. For instance, hip fire (simple) is just what you have for csgo, aka assumes you have m_yaw @ 0.022 and hip fire which lets you edit the m_yaw variable. Earlier you mentioned the simple source sensitivity calculation in this thread so that we could figure it out ourselves. I have had a hard time trying to find this formula on the internet. Could we see this source formula?