Perceived sensitivity

[Drimzi]

5 hours ago, potato psoas said:

I don't think you need a script to change the direction of the bindings. You just need to program the creator.py to make it so the second last execs change the direction. And then you can just have a toggle set to constantly repeat keypress 1 (or any key actually - would need to edit that in Python).

...And I did do that, and I have the FOVs scaling now, but I'm finding that the sensitivity goes erratic every so often.  Does this happen to anyone else, or is it smooth changing for you?

It only does that if the script and csgo config have different number of fov increments.

[potato psoas]

Just now, Drimzi said:

It only does that if the script and csgo config have different number of fov increments.

But I'm not using a script, I'm just using a macro to auto press 1 constantly. I tried the macro with both LGS and CUE and I got the same problem.

[Skidushe]

8 hours ago, potato psoas said:

But I'm not using a script, I'm just using a macro to auto press 1 constantly. I tried the macro with both LGS and CUE and I got the same problem.

Mine's completely smooth throughout all the transition, you don't have some other scripts activating on other button presses do you?

 

[Drimzi]

Here is an updated Logitech Lua script, just put in the max and min fov and the duration will automatically be set to a value that results in a smooth transition. It will only be the extremely high FOVs where it will look stuttery since the zoom ratio increases dramatically every increment.

Change the duration multiplier to slow it down.

 

drimzi-fov-changer.lua

Edited April 13, 2018 by Drimzi

[Skidushe]

I'm gonna make some code changes tomorrow to put all the code in one, I've also made a python script that does the button pushing, and everyone can use python it's not keyboard software dependent

[Quackerjack]

for me mm 0% feels right. But i convert from ADS to Hipfire

[potato psoas]

I was thinking about the gear ratio method and how 100%MM and vertical 100%MM follow the same principle, and yet they use different monitor match percentages... and then it clicked - the point on the screen you match IS the "'edge of the monitor". Therefore, using vertical 100%MM is just as arbitrary as every other percentage, even if it is aspect-ratio independent.

Every monitor match percentage is "synced", as per the gear ratio concept, it just changes the size of the window you look through.

Edited April 18, 2018 by potato psoas

[CaptaPraelium]

On 13/04/2018 at 11:11 AM, potato psoas said:

I was thinking about the gear ratio method and how 100%MM and vertical 100%MM follow the same principle, and yet they use different monitor match percentages... and then it clicked - the point on the screen you match IS the "'edge of the monitor". Therefore, using vertical 100%MM is just as arbitrary as every other percentage, even if it is aspect-ratio independent.

Every monitor match percentage is "synced", it just changes the size of the window you look through.

This is what I've been getting at. We choose to match based on some percentage of the monitor space... Uhm.... Why exactly? What's so special about the boundaries of the display? Not only are they determined by the monitor dimensions, but also change depending on the game context (eg, is my spaceship rolled sideways?)

Matching to 100% horizontal is no different to matching some space above your monitor where you can't see. What random space? Well, that depends on which monitor you bought. I don't have much time for horizontal matching, at this point.

Vertical matching at 100% does have a redeeming feature above other monitor match percentages, and that is that it matches at the point where the angle to the target is the same angle as the FOV, and that FOV is actually an input in calculating the image displayed, so it has some mathematical relevance. Setting the target in the geogebra demo, to the top edge of the screen, shows us that we get the same zoom ratio, as the direct division of the FOVs - and at this point I can't exclude the possibility that this simple solution is actually the correct formula.

[Drimzi]

Vertical matching is the only static monitor distance match method (other than 0%) that in my opinion is *correct*, since mouse pitch is always a consistent movement. Horizontal movement will only match the designated percentage if it was scripted. Any percentage outside the vertical boundary is off the monitor, which defies the logic of 'monitor distance match'.

Basically if you want to convert properly, use 0%. If you want to match a screen distance, use vertical monitor match. If you want to match the feel before/after the zoom, use viewspeed v2. This implies that 0% is used for hipfire conversions, viewspeed v2 is useful for ads/zoom sensitivity, and vertical monitor match is a rough balance.

Edited September 13, 2018 by Drimzi

[MuntyYy]

This is solely my opinion.

I've been playing call of duty, cs, quake ( and different other shooters ) for quite a while now, I have tried a wide variety of sensitivities as well, compromising movement for accuracy ( 104 cm/ 360 was the highest i had ) or the other way around, accuracy for movement ( 26 cm ). I can't say yet, that I'm settled with the current one, but from my "experience" having a low sensitivity ( 50+ cm ) with a low monitor match ( e.g 00, 20, 40% ) whilst ADS'ing won't be of any help. Sure, you can be the God of scoping and long range one taps, but when it comes to ADS'ing in a low to medium ranged scenario and jumping from enemy to enemy will prove almost impossible. The solution here, if your are comfortable with a low sensitivity is to mm to at least 69.340 ( v1 ) which is a good compromise ( 100% will feel better for some ).
Now, with a relative higher sensitivity ( between 35-50 ) based on my tests I would go with anything bellow 75% mm, the reasoning is - extreme low FOV's will feel too sensitive at times and having that crucial millimetric aim again, will be very difficult to achieve and be consistent at.

To wrap it up, the matching in our FOV's should be proportional with our sensitivity as that's pretty much the only way we can become better and improve our muscle memory. But event that is highly debatable.

On 15.04.2018 at 10:01 AM, CaptaPraelium said:

Matching to 100% horizontal is no different to matching some space above your monitor where you can't see. What random space? Well, that depends on which monitor you bought.

<This
Unfortunately I  need to be that guy that disagrees but with reasoning.
100% horizontal, across all FOV's will greatly improve your muscle memory as you are already accustomed with the furthest point on your monitor that you can see/ deduct, making the other distances ( till that point ) easier to snap at.
On the other hand, I see no point of matching it at above 100% ( e.g 133% ) not only you increase the sensitivity of the AD's by a big chunk but also have a point matched too far away back, making 100, 75, 50, 25 % ( distance from the crosshair )  feel inconsistent and hard to determine.
Having a 21 inch monitor or a 40, wont affect the mm consistency, just the amount of cm your crosshair moves on screen. For example, take 60 cm/360, at 106.26 HFOV/2 you will move your mouse 9 cm regardless of the monitor size.
 

[potato psoas]

Another reason I think 100% vertical monitor matching is a bad idea is: what if the game maintains the same HFOV for different aspect ratios, like Overwatch - instead of the HFOV adding or cropping, the VFOV does... But if you vertically monitor matched then you would get different matched points even though the FOV is being cropped from/added to the vertical, as you can see in this diagram:

This just proves to me that vertical monitor match is based on a bad assumption.

Edited April 18, 2018 by potato psoas

[potato psoas]

1 hour ago, Drimzi said:

Vertical monitor matching fails the CS:GO zooming test for me. Viewspeed v2 feels pretty much flawless for that, but I still prefer vertical monitor matching. I'm trying to give Viewspeed v2 another shot though due to the CS:GO test but it just doesn't feel right when actually using low and high fovs on their own (without the constant zooming).

Like I said before, no matter what percentage you use, it is going to be "synced" as shown by the gear ratio concept. All it does is change the window you look through. Here, I made a diagram:

Imagine that monitor matching flattens the arc so that it requires the same distance as the 2D plane to get to that point on the monitor. At 100% MM the edge is actually the edge of the monitor, but as you approach 0% MM the "viewing window" gets smaller. But they are all still 100% monitor matched to that point on the monitor. And we know that 100% monitor match is the gear ratio method, so it is theoretically synced no matter what percentage you use.

But this is not the case with Viewspeed. It doesn't maintain the same monitor match percentage. And if you have a formula that changes monitor match then your sensitivity is not theoretically synced, as per the gear ratio principle.

This is another reason why I have abandoned the scaling monitor match method. No point on the monitor is truly synced, and the consistency for muscle memory's sake is lacking.

[iBerggman]

10 minutes ago, Drimzi said:

Vertical monitor matching fails the CS:GO zooming test for me. Viewspeed v2 feels pretty much flawless for that, but I still prefer vertical monitor matching. I'm trying to give Viewspeed v2 another shot though due to the CS:GO test.

Good to know others have mixed feelings between those two as well. Viewspeed V2 is for me, as i stated a while ago, quite clearly the winner when it comes to comparing the "viewspeed" in csgo with the script but in the end it just doesn't seem to work as well in game as 56,25%/1:1 does. Something about 1:1 just feels more intuitive. I've spent the last week or so trying to get used to Viewspeed V2 again but it just feels like it restricts or hinders me more than 1:1 does, 1:1 actually made the tpp in pubg feel nice. (Yes, I'm one of the weird ones that enjoy tpp ^^) It could be that I'm biased because I used 1:1 for a while already before, but then again, before that I have used 0%, 75% and finally Viewspeed when that came around, for way longer than I used 1:1 so I'm not quite sure what to think.

I also tried blind testing a range of different percentages for the fun of it and the ones I noted felt intuitive always seemed to center around 60% or so, +- a couple % depending on what kind of map I was testing on. I even tried to see how I would score on some of the test maps using the different percentages and saw the same results there, probably shouldn't be used to actually try to determine which one is better but I found it interesting that they matched. I tried some values around 60% in games as well and they feel good, really good to be honest but I think I'll go back to 56,25%/1:1 as that has the reasoning backing it which sixty-something doesn't and the difference is pretty small anyway.

It might be worth noting that in this case when I say a percentage "feels good" I'm referring to how natural it feels for me while in game as opposed to comparing the "viewspeed" of the different fovs.

[Drimzi]

Edited September 13, 2018 by Drimzi

[espe89]

always felt 100% MM is the best

[Bryjoe]

1 hour ago, Drimzi said:

In regards to 'feels', it feels like 0% is the precursor to viewspeed V2, which is the precursor to 1:1 monitor match.

The flaws of 0% feel fixed when switching to viewspeed v2, with low fovs not slowing to a crawl or high fovs spinning out.

Zooming in and out and speed seems preserved, but then analysing each fov on its own and it becomes clear that all of the fovs feel different, due to their arc difference I'm assuming. The low fovs with the smaller arc feel too fast, and only low fovs feel similar to the desktop (0 fov). High fovs are just too slow in comparison.

This flaw feels fixed with 1:1 monitor match, which you get when multiplying viewspeed V2 by the ratio between chord and arc (viewspeed v1 idea).

They are precursors in math too. Even though viewspeed is just sin ratio, the non simplified formula used the tan ratio (0%). cos * tan is just sin after all. Monitor match is just fov ratio, but the non simplified formula uses sin ratio and chord/arc ratio.

I spent all of yesterday afternoon training flicks on 1:1 monitor match and everything felt the same again with no occasional 'odd' feeling. Desktop felt natural coming from any fov too.

So even though 1:1 monitor match failed the zooming script test, I'm still sticking with it because it just feels the best and I don't really have any complaints with it in real world use. For those sticking with 0%, are you forcing yourself to use it due to 'math', or does it really feel natural to you?

I feel 0% is really ill-suited for matching hipfire FOVs, especially with a large gap between the FOVS of the two games you're talking about. The actual 360 distance is usually larger at 0% compared to Viewspeed V2 and I think this is the reason hipfire feels bad. The obvious solution is to just match FOVS, but if you don't want to, Viewspeed V2 or 75% does seem to scale better and feel better for that purpose.

With a zoomed scope, however, especially zoomed sniper scopes, I feel 0% gives me slightly better tracking than 75%. I don't really think there is anything inherently wrong with using any match% besides 100%, as that is literally matching a point that is the furthest away from the center of your crosshair. 

The goal of this site is to be consistent between games, to do this you need a sensitivity that works for every game, so it can't be too slow, nor too fast. It's been known for a long time that you had to slow down your sensitivity when zooming. 75% is so widely adopted by so many good players it would be crazy to condemn it, but at the same time from a practical perspective, lower match% makes a lot of sense as well. 

http://csgopedia.com/csgo-pro-setups/ Most players still use 75%, you do see more than you would expect using under 1 or closer to 0%.

[potato psoas]

9 hours ago, Drimzi said:

For those sticking with 0%, are you forcing yourself to use it due to 'math', or does it really feel natural to you?

0% isn't just based on the math, the reason why it's a good idea is because it is matched at the crosshair. You give your mouse a little wiggle and it feels natural - a great feeling when you wish to feel precise... and if you over/under shoot you can just make an adjustment. It's very easy to do with 0%. On the other hand you won't develop muscle memory at the crosshair if you use 75% or vertical 100%. And there's nothing special about them - they are arbitrary. The only truly aspect-ratio independent percentage is 0%.

But if you think these arbitrary percentages feel good to use then go ahead since there is no perfect method. Just don't try and go solely by feel because that won't work - it will never be perfect. You will still miss shots and forever keep on changing your settings because you're not satisfied.

Edited April 18, 2018 by potato psoas

[Drimzi]

Edited September 13, 2018 by Drimzi

[Drimzi]

Edited September 13, 2018 by Drimzi

[MuntyYy]

2 hours ago, Drimzi said:

These are just my thoughts atm, I could just be talking shit. Grain of salt lol.

I don't think 0% matches velocity. That must be what viewspeed accomplishes. I reckon the issue is that every fov has a different size, different curvature, represented on a screen that doesn't change size and stays flat. If velocity is equal for all fovs, but the distances change, and the screens not accommodating this, then the perceived sensitivity is thrown off. Low fovs are fast, high fovs are slow, with desktop at 0 fov being the fastest. To fix this, your movement needs to follow the shortest path possible, follow the geodesic, rather than follow the curvature of the fov. This is what happens when you apply the arc correction, which results in monitor match. Velocity is changed for every fov to accomodate the different lengths, and the perceived sensitivity becomes constant.

The biggest question I have is if the perceived sensitivity is different for everybody, and whether or not different methods are correct for different people. This is why I am asking whether 0% actually FEELS perfect for you, can you play at any FOV and use existing muscle memory or does it feel like learning a completely new sensitivity?

If #potato psoas comes from the COD franchise, playing for years on end I think its fair to assume, for him 0% feels better. 

[MuntyYy]

What's the point of having an "universal" monitor matching, if your sensitivity is twice as lower/ higher than the majority of people ? 
Will 20cm/ 360 feel the same on 0% mm compared to 60cm/ 360 ? How about 75% ? Or 71.6923% ?
Shouldn't we , instead of finding the "perfect" mm, search for a proportional scaling compared to your sensitivity ?
 

[potato psoas]

26 minutes ago, Drimzi said:

These are just my thoughts atm, I could just be talking shit. Grain of salt lol.

I don't think 0% matches velocity. That must be what viewspeed accomplishes. I reckon the issue is that every fov has a different size, different curvature, represented on a screen that doesn't change size and stays flat. If velocity is equal for all fovs, but the distances change, and the screens not accommodating this, then the perceived sensitivity is thrown off. Low fovs are fast, high fovs are slow, with desktop at 0 fov being the fastest. To fix this, your movement needs to follow the shortest path possible, follow the geodesic, rather than follow the curvature of the fov. This is what happens when you apply the arc correction, which results in monitor match. Velocity is changed for every fov to accomodate the different lengths, and the perceived sensitivity becomes constant.

The biggest question I have is if the perceived sensitivity is different for everybody, and whether or not different methods are correct for different people. This is why I am asking whether 0% actually FEELS perfect for you, can you play at any FOV and use existing muscle memory or does it feel like learning a completely new sensitivity?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by following the shortest path and the geodesic. From what I understand about it, it shouldn't have any effect on choosing a conversion method. That would have more to do with actually moving your mouse to follow that path... which is actually really interesting. I never thought of that before. It's hard to wrap your head around what the shortest path would look like though.

But if you're asking what feels perfect then I would have to say nothing feels perfect because of distortion. If there weren't any distortion then I would use 100% monitor match but there is so what can you do.

15 minutes ago, MuntyYy said:

If #potato psoas comes from the COD franchise, playing for years on end I think its fair to assume, for him 0% feels better. 

That depends on if I've used the same sensitivity this whole time - and I haven't. I haven't really stuck with a sensitivity, so I've never developed proper muscle memory. I have muscle memory for a range of sensitivities. I can adapt to anything really.

When I was doing testing a while back, I was aware that 0% didn't feel right and I thought other methods were better, but I learnt about the strengths and weaknesses of each method and changed my mind. I realized that with a bit of practice 0% doesn't feel weird at all. It feels really consistent where it matters most - accuracy.

6 minutes ago, MuntyYy said:

What's the point of having an "universal" monitor matching, if your sensitivity is twice as lower/ higher than the majority of people ? 
Will 20cm/ 360 feel the same on 0% mm compared to 60cm/ 360 ? How about 75% ? Or 71.6923% ?
Shouldn't we , instead of finding the "perfect" mm, search for a proportional scaling compared to your sensitivity ?

On 4/16/2018 at 19:02, MuntyYy said:

I've been playing call of duty, cs, quake ( and different other shooters ) for quite a while now, I have tried a wide variety of sensitivities as well, compromising movement for accuracy ( 104 cm/ 360 was the highest i had ) or the other way around, accuracy for movement ( 26 cm ). I can't say yet, that I'm settled with the current one, but from my "experience" having a low sensitivity ( 50+ cm ) with a low monitor match ( e.g 00, 20, 40% ) whilst ADS'ing won't be of any help. Sure, you can be the God of scoping and long range one taps, but when it comes to ADS'ing in a low to medium ranged scenario and jumping from enemy to enemy will prove almost impossible. The solution here, if your are comfortable with a low sensitivity is to mm to at least 69.340 ( v1 ) which is a good compromise ( 100% will feel better for some ).

Now, with a relative higher sensitivity ( between 35-50 ) based on my tests I would go with anything bellow 75% mm, the reasoning is - extreme low FOV's will feel too sensitive at times and having that crucial millimetric aim again, will be very difficult to achieve and be consistent at.

It shouldn't matter what sensitivity you use. Why would we even want to do that? Pick the method you like and then convert using it, not the other way around.

[miaoliang]

i think the best sensitivity is the sensitivity fully using the length of your mousepad

for example

you have a 48cm zowie g-sr mouse pad,

and the minimum fov game you play is pubg which is 80 fov in tpp hipfire

you should your pubg sens 48cm/360

that would be 51.503047/400dpi in game

and then find a X% monitor matching to find the consistent sens for higher fov game,90 fov csgo edpi 800+,103 fov overwatch edpi 4000+,120 fov r6 20cm/360

which is very similar to the pro sens

but considering the weapon in pubg has recoil,i think 0%mm is not good for controlling  auto mode akm

i think 56.25%mm(Vertical 100%),100%mm is better for game weapon has recoil,0%mm would be better for game weapon dont having recoil

that is why in call of duty,overwatch,people always use 0%mm for ads and zoom sens,and r6,bf1,csgo using 56.25%,75%,100%mm

english is not my first language,forgive me

 

[MuntyYy]

19 minutes ago, miaoliang said:

i think the best sensitivity is the sensitivity fully using the length of your mousepad

for example

you have a 48cm zowie g-sr mouse pad,

and the minimum fov game you play is pubg which is 80 fov in tpp hipfire

you should your pubg sens 48cm/360

that would be 51.503047/400dpi in game

and then find a X% monitor matching to find the consistent sens for higher fov game,90 fov csgo edpi 800+,103 fov overwatch edpi 4000+,120 fov r6 20cm/360

which is very similar to the pro sens

but considering the weapon in pubg has recoil,i think 0%mm is not good for controlling  auto mode akm

i think 56.25%mm(Vertical 100%),100%mm is better for game weapon has recoil,0%mm would be better for game weapon dont having recoil

that is why in call of duty,overwatch,people always use 0%mm for ads and zoom sens,and r6,bf1,csgo using 56.25%,75%,100%mm

english is not my first language,forgive me

 

I have a 90 cm mouse pad
With 0% mm its easier to control the recoil as you can micro adjust the shiet out of it. 0% Proves harder when it comes about tracking the target at low to mid range whilst ads-ing, it will be easier, however if you use a higher sensitivity ( my  opinion )

[Bryjoe]

0% feels bad if you are matching hipfires with different FOVS. The central aiming should feel fine but the movement will be so different it doesn't work well. 75%/Viewspeed works perfectly fine, and I think it's better for matching vastly different hipfire FOVs due to a lesser difference between 360 Distances. 

I think the simple fact many people overlook here is that if you use 0% for 500 hours it will feel natural to you. Same with 75%. The argument is 0% should be more accurate near your crosshair, so therefore is objectively better. I think even that point is up for debate, in a game with a fast pace (or even in BF1 where they sprint like Usain Bolt) it's probably a little easier to move your mouse on a fast moving target with 75%, as it simply requires less 360/distance compared to 0% relatively speaking.