How to convert zoom/ADS sensitivity?

[Toake]

Hey everyone

I'm having some trouble converting my zoom sensitivity from Overwatch to the scoped sensitivity in Fortnite. Would someone mind giving me a quick rundown on how to do it properly? Apologies if the answer is right in my face, I just got premium and can't seem to figure it out. Thanks for the time. 

DPI: 1550

Overwatch hipfire/normal sens: 2.52

Overwatch zoom (ana/widowmaker) sens: 46

Fortnite hipfire/normal sens: .03

 

[Drimzi]

• Use Overwatch 2.52 as the input.
• Convert 0% to widowmaker/ana.
• Find the difference between 0% and your preference sensitivity. 46/38 = 1.2x multiplier.
• Convert using 0% to any other game, and multiply the result by your preference if it doesn't feel right (which will likely be ads/zoom cases), which is a 1.2x increase.

Alternatively, find the monitor distance match that corresponds to 46, and use that for all conversions.

Edited September 13, 2018 by Drimzi

[Skwuruhl]

You can also have wolfram solve for the screen distance based on your sensitivity. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=arctan(x*tan(51°%2F2))%2Farctan(x*tan(103°%2F2))+%3D+0.46

In this case 78.48%. (idk if the calculator supports decimals but 78% should be close enough.)

Edited February 22, 2018 by Skwuruhl

[FUNNYKILLQc]

.

Edited July 21, 2019 by FUNNYKILLQc

[Nameless]

What is best for muscles memory when it come to convert to ads? monitor distance or 360?

[fortunate reee]

On 21/07/2019 at 07:21, Nameless said:

What is best for muscles memory when it come to convert to ads? monitor distance or 360?

0%monitor distance vertical if i rememebr correctly

 

If you want something added to this main post, you can add a comment and I'll consider adding it. It doesn't just need to be about these methods, anything of value to general people in one place is the idea.

My aim is to make this as non-technical as possible and so I'll try keep the language as consistent as possible, but there is some language you'll need to know and understand in some form.

Key Language

  Reveal hidden contents

How to use the calculator

  Reveal hidden contents

Why there isn't one perfect conversion for 3D games:

When playing a 3D game the information is displayed through a 2D monitor. We encounter the same problem map drawers had many years ago, there's many solutions that go about it in many different ways but all have their benefits and drawbacks. Gnomonic projection is what 3D shooter games use and is what we're all used to and it works by taking points on the sphere through to a camera and where it intersects a plane which is the monitor, we colour the pixel that colour as you can see if you click on the images, look at the car in the CS:GO images. 

This creates distortion at the edges of the image as rays that get closer to the max FOV of 180° get put really far away on the plane so angles on your screen are not preserved for different FOVs (i.e. halfway between your screen and the edge on a 90° FOV isn't 45° in game) what this means is that when you have two different FOVs there will not be two respective sensitivities that match everywhere. This has lead to many methods of converting sensitivities that all have their pros and cons as there is no perfect conversion. The lists of pros and cons below should help you decide.

Conversion Methods:

360° distance:

This is the method most people think of when wanting to convert sensitivity, and is the one people usually try do themselves with some paper measuring the distance and then turning 360° in game and matching sens so the distance is right. This website can do this for you much more accurately but there are some caveats. 

This method matches angles around you in 3D space. So for example every 360° swipe will be the same, and every 180° behind you onto a target will be the same. This is good for general spacial awareness if you know someone's behind you etc.. but it's good for not much else. Plus if you know someone's behind you the other methods as you will see will put you in the right ball park anyway (unless the FOV is very different) and then you can aim more accurately with those other methods as you will see.

This method will only really work if the FOV is exactly the same across the games (but every conversion method would give you the same value anyway) or you're into general spacial awareness,  I give that as a pro of the method but not the sole reason to use it.

Monitor distance:

This method matches your sensitivity perfectly for a specific point(s) on your monitor. You can imagine a ring around your crosshair where it matches but this isn't strictly true. Why is this better than 360 distance? Well when you aim at something, your mind doesn't calculate the angle between you and your target and then aim that much angle, instead we're more bound by how much distance there is on the screen between our crosshair and them. This means you may not be accurate turning around 180° but you'll be more accurate for the targets on your screen around where you've set your perfectly matched 'ring' up. This is good as you'll be better aiming at targets on your screen over different FOV's and also, due to using it matching distance on your monitor, we can use it to convert hipfire sensitivity to ADS sensitivity. Anyone who's tried to use 360 distance on a scope will see what I mean, and why 360° distance is bad for muscle memory aiming at targets near your crosshair.

What about the different percentages??

The percentage is the ratio of the distance from your crosshair to the point on your screen you want to match on and the edge of your monitor. In simpler terms, it's the point from the centre to the edge you want to match. 50% is in the middle of your crosshair and the edge of your monitor, 100% would be matching at the edge of the monitor and 0% would be matching on the crosshair.

This is shown best on the image below, taken from this video which is a very good watch if you want more understanding. 

What's the difference between vertical and horizontal monitor match??

The image above shows the horizontal monitor distance match, going from the centre to the left and right edges of the monitor. Vertical monitor distance match is as if you rotated the scale 90° and fit it on the monitor, so instead of going to the centre to left and right edges it went from the centre to the top and bottom of the monitor.

There's both options as the vertical match is aspect ratio independent (doesn't matter how wide your monitor is compared to how high it is) and therefore easier to talk about as if you have a 4:3 monitor and matched horizontally to the left/right edges of the monitor that would be 100% monitor match, but if you were to talk about the same distance (when converting) to someone with a 16:9 monitor it would be 75% horizontal monitor match. But if you were talking about 100% vertical monitor match it would be the same for both 4:3 and 16:9 monitors. So if you talk to someone about it on the forum you will need to say which you're using, and if horizontal you'll need to give the aspect ratio of your monitor.

Keep in mind there's nothing fundamentally different between them they will both give you the same values if you use the same converted mm% e.g.

100% vertical mm -> horizontal mm (16:9 monitor) 100%*(9/16) = 56.25% So 100% vertical monitor distance match will give you the same sensitivity values as 56.25% horizontal monitor distance match on a 16:9 monitor

30% horizontal mm -> vertical mm (4:3 monitor) 30%*(4/3) = 56.25% So 30% horizontal monitor distance match will give you the same sensitivity values as 40% vertical monitor distance match on a 4:3 monitor

What's the best percentage monitor distance match??

This has been of much debate on this site, and I guess will continue to be as people have different opinions and so I'll try give you it as unbiased as possible.

The best % to hold up mathematically is 0% and from experience myself and should probably be under it's own name you may hear it called zoom ratio but I'll keep it with this section for sake of simplicity. This is the best I've tried after I've gotten used to it. Every other % match is essentially just arbitrary change in sensitivity that may happen to be close to preference, and if you chose it it's down to personal preference, for example 100% 4:3 horizontal monitor distance match (75% 16:9 horizontal monitor distance match) is what CS:GO use for their scoped sensitivity conversions so if you've gotten used to this and you're some pro legendary AWPer, this might be the way to go for you when converting in other games.

One thing to bare in mind when using anything other than 0% everything around the crosshair not on your mm% is essentially not matching at all and you're mind is interpolating the sensitivity, so muscle memory will take longer to build but with 0% you're muscle memory is at the crosshair, so things like micro adjustments when making a big flick (which is what happens in every flick, you're not perfect), and controlling recoil back onto someones head is perfectly matched across all FOV's and this is the massive advantage of low % matches.

The video below will show you what I mean by only certain points match, and that everything other than those points is too fast or too slow as your mind has to guess:

• This video shows 1-100% monitor match with the relative feel of speed

The only real advantage of larger % matches is when making large flicks out of your view onto a specific point, and the speed feels 'right' but with 0% your flicks will feel slow at first but after a while they'll be really accurate no matter where they are on screen as it's just constant really quick micro adjustments.

Here's some examples showing a low mm % vs a high mm%.

You can see when aiming at the target with the high mm%, the accurate point is further away from the target, so the sensitivities in the middle will be made up by your mind as it has no reference to an accurate sensitivity you converted from.  Your mind would learn these made up sensitivities over time with the larger mm%, but in my mind I'd rather have muscle memory for everywhere on the screen through these small adjustments with a low mm %.

With a low mm% you can see here there's been 4 'micro adjustments' which can make it's way onto the target with multiples of your perfect accuracy. You can imagine this tending down to smaller and smaller intervals as you approach 0%

  Reveal hidden contents

Math for nerds:

  Reveal hidden contents

Here's a link to a geogebra page where you can hopefully better understand the maths and what's going on, with thanks to capta:

https://www.geogebra.org/m/adAFrUq3

View speed:

Viewspeed tries to unify the perceived camera speed across different FOVs while using a constant mouse motion. Since the FOV determines how many degrees are squished onto your screen, higher FOVs naturally look faster as there is more information moving, and low FOVs naturally look slower, and Viewspeed attempts to equalise this. And it does 'feel' right when you use it. But feeling the same in this case doesn't translate to best aim or muscle memory building. It suffers from the same problems as high monitor distance match percentages, aiming close to your crosshair is too fast for varying FOV's

Because viewspeed uses a sine wave (continually varying), when you calculate sensitivities over different FOV ranges, you get a varying equivalent monitor distance match percentages across FOV's. It lies around 60-80% for 16:9 horizontal match.

It's useful If you want to keep the mouse input relatively the same when you change FOV on the fly. It scales based on the chord length. This is the method that you would want to use instead of Monitor Distance Match, if you wanted the 'window to the game world' to influence the sensitivity. Your mouse input will not scale proportionately with the zoom. Instead, you wouldn't scale it at all. The result will be completely wrong for Hipfire, but when comparing sensitivity relatively before and after a change in FOV, it becomes useful. Subconsciously, you would want to scale your mouse input according to the change in image, so you would probably scale your mouse input to some degree, how half-assed of an attempt at doing so, depends on the person. This makes Viewspeed feel too fast. Drimzi made a solution to this in another post, where you specify how much you need to scale your input by, proportionately with the change in image (zoom), or none at all (viewspeed). Which makes a kind of slider between viewspeed and 0% monitor distance match bare in mind this is completely arbitrary.

Maths behind viewspeed - vertical here

I made a geogebra demo, which hopefully makes the maths more clear here: https://ggbm.at/mgw8cke4 Which came from this thread which hopefully has some more insight as to where it came from.

What's the difference between vertical and horizontal view speed??

In the same way vertical and horizontal monitor distance matching varies by the top/bottom edges of the monitor and left/right edges respectfully viewspeed does something similar too. @Drimziis the expert on this forum on this topic it seems, so I'll quote him:

• Viewspeed - Vertical : An aperture (monitor) dependent conversion, scaling the sensitivity by the change in Vertical Chord Length.
• Viewspeed - Horizontal: An aperture (monitor) dependent conversion, scaling the sensitivity by the change in Horizontal Arc Length, as well as the difference between Horizontal Arc and Chord Lengths.

The Viewspeed methods don't just change the measurement axis. They are both completely different methods. Viewspeed - Vertical should be using 1:1 measurements rather than Vertical. Horizontal is an older idea that was similar to Monitor Distance Match - Horizontal, but scaled by the difference in Horizontal Arc and Chord lengths.

tldr: So what's the best conversion?

0% monitor distance match (- vertical) unless you're really good and/or are more comfortable another method, even then it's worth trying 0% and seeing how it goes imo. This is the best method for building muscle memory fundamentally, but might not work well practically for really low sens players.

Edited July 24, 2019 by fortunate reee

[Nameless]

1 minute ago, fortunate reee said:

0%monitor distance vertical if i rememebr correctly

well, it doesn't feel that way! I converted my ads from 110 fov ads to 106 fov ads in apex and decided to go for 360 instead because 0% monitor distance conversion felt like a all new sens and a slower sens than what i'm used to. 

[fortunate reee]

2 minutes ago, Nameless said:

well, it doesn't feel that way! I converted my ads from 110 fov ads to 106 fov ads in apex and decided to go for 360 instead because 0% monitor distance conversion felt like a all new sens and a slower sens than what i'm used to. 

used to be a 360 guy myself monitor distance is something to get used to but once you do it is actually pretty good (not perfect , there is no perfect yet)

you could try hipfire 360 and ads /scope 0 vertical monitor distance 

 

personally i prefer having all 3 set to monitor distance (it only really works as long as all of your games work with it)

Edited July 24, 2019 by fortunate reee

[Nameless]

40 minutes ago, fortunate reee said:

used to be a 360 guy myself monitor distance is something to get used to but once you do it is actually pretty good (not perfect , there is no perfect yet)

you could try hipfire 360 and ads /scope 0 vertical monitor distance 

 

personally i prefer having all 3 set to monitor distance (it only really works as long as all of your games work with it)

Can't do in apex since there is only one sens for ads and scope! But id c how monitor distance can be accurate since muscles memory don't remember the monitor distance but the 360 distance more like. Which mean you only like monitor distance because its slower then more accurate but its not the same sens since muscles memory remember how much distance you ave to move your mouse to aim at a certain degree portion of 360 but d don't take in consideration the monitor distance.

Edited July 24, 2019 by Nameless

[fortunate reee]

apex uses 0%vertical monitordistance scaling as their means of scaling so having 1.0 as ads value actually fits it perfect (to all scopes) that is the reason so many tend to struggle with the game  since they are used to 360 distance ads or 75% scaling from csgo if this one doesnt work for you try this one 

[Nameless]

8 minutes ago, fortunate reee said:

apex uses 0%vertical monitordistance scaling as their means of scaling so having 1.0 as ads value actually fits it perfect (to all scopes) that is the reason so many tend to struggle with the game  since they are used to 360 distance ads or 75% scaling from csgo if this one doesnt work for you try this one 

So judging by what you are saying. Do i actually need to make the conversion? This is what settings i converted:

fov 110 in game

hipfire 3 in game

multiplier 1

To

fov 1.49304 config (106 in game)

hipfire 3 in game

multiplier: 0.987157 config (0.9 in game) This is 360 ads conversion result

Edited July 24, 2019 by Nameless

[fortunate reee]

i got no idea what game you are coming, this is just the better choice of conversion in general , in a sense of consitency at least you might stumble across a game that does not do well with 360 distance calculations and or will feel weird and thus throw your aim off a bit(had this going from r6(360 distance) to apex and getting a value of 2 whatever for( all w  ads )<- btw this is the setting you should use when callculating apex

[Nameless]

1 minute ago, fortunate reee said:

i got no idea what game you are coming, this is just the better choice of conversion in general , in a sense of consitency at least you might stumble across a game that does not do well with 360 distance calculations and or will feel weird and thus throw your aim off a bit(had this going from r6(360 distance) to apex and getting a value of 2 whatever for( all w  ads )<- btw this is the setting you should use when callculating apex

I just started to play Apex on pc 2 month ago. I'm familiar with muscles memory because i played cs for 7 years 20 years ago. Since i tend to try different fov at apex i wanted to keep my settings that i used at the beginning in apex which are as mention above 110f, 3h, 1m. Yesterday i went from 110f to 106f and that's y the ads conversion. So its not about converting from another g for the moment. Its just about not messing with my muscles memory when i decide to try a new fov at apex.

[fortunate reee]

ok in that case i can highly recommend this one it actually is pretty neat 

[Nameless]

4 minutes ago, fortunate reee said:

ok in that case i can highly recommend this one it actually is pretty neat 

This is the result that i was using since yesterday night for ads conversion from 110 fov to 106 fov

[Nameless]

Just now, Nameless said:

This is the result that i was using since yesterday night for ads conversion from 110 fov to 106 fov

 

[Nameless]

This is the new result with your conversion suggestion:

 

Edited July 24, 2019 by Nameless

[fortunate reee]

id highly reecommend you not using ads 360 and go all out monito distance

 

[Nameless]

Just now, fortunate reee said:

id highly reecommend you not using ads 360 and go all out monito distance

 

And what about hipfire?

[fortunate reee]

[Nameless]

Now that i ave played a few g using your suggest settings i think i get it. Since the fov is different if you keep 360 distance your sens is also different when it come to aim since the amount of pixels your hand traversal to get from your crosshair to the target is different even if the 360 distance is the same. The same apply to hipfire. And that's y monitor distance is better for conversion even if you then trade off your movements muscle memory to preserve your aiming muscle memory or something like that.

Edited July 24, 2019 by Nameless

[fortunate reee]

23 hours ago, Nameless said:

Now that i ave played a few g using your suggest settings i think i get it. Since the fov is different if you keep 360 distance your sens is also different when it come to aim since the amount of pixels your hand traversal to get from your crosshair to the target is different even if the 360 distance is the same. The same apply to hipfire. And that's y monitor distance is better for conversion even if you then trade off your movements muscle memory to preserve your aiming muscle memory or something like that.

that is pretty close to my understanding of sensetivity instead of memorizing points on  your mousepad you move your hand/ mouse to you make your brain do its thing (might make 180 flicking a bit more difficult but it improves tracking by a long shot )

i used to be one of the most 360turn master race users then i swapped and i was able to experiment with fov / aspect ratios without loosing my abilities to go back 

[Nameless]

4 hours ago, fortunate reee said:

that is pretty close to my understanding of sensetivity instead of memorizing points on  your mousepad you move your hand/ mouse to you make your brain do its thing (might make 180 flicking a bit more difficult but it improves tracking by a long shot )

i used to be one of the most 360turn master race users then i swapped and i was able to experiment with fov / aspect ratios without loosing my abilities to go back 

Ya i think you are right. 0% is the only option for muscle memory. It take some use to the difference in distance but it aim far better. i think i never did better at apex than since i converted for 0% instead of 360. I think the reason why a lot of cs players struggle with apex conversion is because they are going for a 360 conversion instead of a 0%. Since almost everybody tend to use a higher fov at apex, they choose 360 because in 0% it give them a higher sens than what they are use to because of the difference of the fov but its the way to go like you said to preserve muscle mem. Even if it mean getting use to a faster 360 sens.

[Quackerjack]

why u would use vertical 0%. It makes more sense if u use horizontal

[Nameless]

1 hour ago, Quackerjack said:

why u would use vertical 0%. It makes more sense if u use horizontal

Well, i used vertical 0% because Fortunate suggest me to use Vertical  but i doubled checked using the Horizontal method and i get the exact same result anyway.

Edited July 26, 2019 by Nameless