why 0% match is best for tracking and 100% match best for flick?

[cchhqq]

is there any reason behind this idea?

[potato psoas]

Since 0% match is matched directly at the center of the screen, you will maintain muscle memory at the crosshair. This has a lot of benefits with regards to precision and tracking.

On the other hand, since 100% match is matched at the edge of the screen, you will maintain muscle memory the closer your target is to the edge. This can make your sensitivity feel much more consistent across the entire monitor rather than just at the center.

Every other percentage either leans more towards being matched at the center or matched at the edge.

My personal opinion? You are still going to have to learn muscle memory for every FOV no matter what match percentage you use, so I don't really believe 100% has any advantage in that regard. You will have to develop different muscle memory across the FOV range no matter. So then, which one is better? Is it better to match at the crosshair or match at the edge? Here is my answer: as you move your mouse towards a target, you are effectively moving it closer to the crosshair and further from the edge. With 0% you feel more in control as the target approaches your crosshair and less in control with 100% as it moves away from the edge of the monitor. So therefore, 0% is the logical choice for the sake of your accuracy. Your muscle memory does not transfer very well at the crosshair with 100% and you will often miss a lot of shots and not be able to give the killing blow even though you probably acquired the targets much easier.

[cchhqq]

5 hours ago, potato psoas said:

Since 0% match is matched directly at the center of the screen, you will maintain muscle memory at the crosshair. This has a lot of benefits with regards to precision and tracking.

On the other hand, since 100% match is matched at the edge of the screen, you will maintain muscle memory the closer your target is to the edge. This can make your sensitivity feel much more consistent across the entire monitor rather than just at the center.

Every other percentage either leans more towards being matched at the center or matched at the edge.

My personal opinion? You are still going to have to learn muscle memory for every FOV no matter what match percentage you use, so I don't really believe 100% has any advantage in that regard. You will have to develop different muscle memory across the FOV range no matter. So then, which one is better? Is it better to match at the crosshair or match at the edge? Here is my answer: as you move your mouse towards a target, you are effectively moving it closer to the crosshair and further from the edge. With 0% you feel more in control as the target approaches your crosshair and less in control with 100% as it moves away from the edge of the monitor. So therefore, 0% is the logical choice for the sake of your accuracy. Your muscle memory does not transfer very well at the crosshair with 100% and you will often miss a lot of shots and not be able to give the killing blow even though you probably acquired the targets much easier.

Thank you for ur explaination.

Does this mean that 0% is also better for accuracy than other monitor distance match except 100%? like 75% or 56.25?

and if 56.25% is for 16:9. is 42.18% for 21:9 same with 56.25% for 16:9?

How about 0% or 75% for different display aspect ratio  Are they the same?

[Drimzi]

If you match at 0%, you will judge the necessary mouse distances properly, since the distances scale proportionately with the fov, whereas any other method is going to be counter intuitive for this, despite the whole concept being to match a a perceived speed or match a screen distance.

Instead, these alternative methods give the illusion of better, more consistent aim because they maintain the area on your mouse pad that you use to aim within your field of view. This lets you become very proficient in a single aiming style/method (such as wrist aiming) with specific swiping distances as you don't have to scale your input with the fov.

It also lets you get away with low sensitivity at high fovs (people reduce sensitivity for instant results instead of just improving their mechanical skill) due to the same reason, not having to scale your input.

Since 0% does not match a distance, it instead matches the velocity, and since other methods are not 0%, they have to result in different speeds in order to accomplish what they were made to do. Matching the velocity has to result in different perceived speeds and different required mouse movement as every fov is unique. The amount of information and distortion scales with the fov. The very essence of increasing the fov is increasing the number of degrees that you can see. So naturally, if you pan the camera, there is going to be a lot more activity on your screen and it is going to look faster than a lower, flatter, more zoomed in fov. So it makes sense that the correct conversion is going to be something where the distance and view speed is not matched. If you do match the view speed instead, then you are slowing the velocity of the camera down for high fovs and increasing the velocity for low fovs in order to make them look the same. The biggest issue with this is that low fovs will feel too sensitive as the required mouse distances are far shorter than assumed. Only 0% will have the correct distance scaling.

The reason why you can judge distances properly with 0% is because the distance scales with the zoom. If you zoom in 2x, the target will be 2x further away on your screen, and will require 2x more mouse movement to flick to compared to before the zoom. If you make this a fair comparison and scale the distance between you and the target to counteract the zoom, then the mouse distances will be the same. This will also benefit tracking, since the perceived movement speed, size, and distance of the movement will scale with the zoom, and so will the sensitivity. So if the distance between you and the target scales with the zoom also, then a target will move the same speed across your screen, and require the exact same mouse movement.

As for the question about 'match at' percentages and matching a distance in general, the best distance match IMO is the inverse of your aspect ratio, multiplied by 100. E.g. 9/16 * 100 = 56.25. It will match the distance to the radius of the 1:1 aspect ratio. Higher percentages, like 75% are close to matching viewspeed, which suffers from the sensitive low FOV issue. Besides, all distance match methods are arbitrary, and you will get drastically different results depending on what fov measurement you use. 0% is the only method that has the same result regardless of the measurement used.

Matching the view speed, screen distance, or 360 distance, is only going to be detrimental to aim performance in the long run. You will have to compromise and develop unique muscle memory for a wide range of fov and hope that your brain can fill in the blanks for fovs in between. These methods will only improve comfort and may give better results, but only in the short term (due to being only proficient in one aiming style, or having a low sensitivity for a high fov, or not having enough mouse pad space in general). They only seem correct because when you zoom in/out, the distance between you and the reference point is remaining static, you don't teleport forward/back to counteract the zoom.

For long term, you need to get used to 0%. Ignore the deceptive issues with view speed and the variance in mouse movement. You won't really have to develop muscle memory for every fov, as you will figure out the distances automatically as they scale with the zoom, but the different distances will require you to master your aim with all the styles, such as micro, finger, wrist, and arm (from elbow and shoulder) movement, and you will probably have to use a higher sensitivity in general.

 

And yes, for anyone wondering, I have switched over to 0%.

Edited June 18, 2018 by Drimzi

[MuntyYy]

3 hours ago, Drimzi said:

And yes, for anyone wondering, I have switched over to 0%.

Just want to ask one question,
How much cm per 360 you do in a 1st zoom of AWP in CS:GO ?

Edited June 18, 2018 by MuntyYy

[potato psoas]

13 hours ago, cchhqq said:

Thank you for ur explaination.

Does this mean that 0% is also better for accuracy than other monitor distance match except 100%? like 75% or 56.25?

and if 56.25% is for 16:9. is 42.18% for 21:9 same with 56.25% for 16:9?

How about 0% or 75% for different display aspect ratio  Are they the same?

0% is matched at the crosshair, so your muscle memory at the center of the screen will be consistent across the FOV range. But as your monitor match percentage increases, the crosshair becomes less and less consistent across the FOV range, and therefore, your accuracy at the crosshair will suffer.

Keep in mind that 75%, 100% and 56.25% are all arbitrary. They completely depend on the physical dimensions of your monitor. E.g. Take two monitors with exactly the same height and stretch one horizontally as if it had a different aspect ratio. If you were to match 100% on one of the monitors it would not translate to be the same percentage on the other monitor. See below.

The same principle applies to the vertical length of the monitor. Using the vertical does not make monitor matching independent. For games that crop/add the vertical length of the monitor according to your aspect ratio, you will once again have problems with arbitrary values like 75%, 100% and 56.25%. See below.

As Drimzi also mentioned above, the only percentage that is truly independent of aspect ratio, or more accurately, monitor dimensions is 0%. Once again, another reason to use 0% monitor match.

Edited June 18, 2018 by potato psoas

[cchhqq]

2 minutes ago, potato psoas said:

0% is matched at the crosshair, so your muscle memory at the center of the screen will be consistent across the FOV range. But as your monitor match percentage increases, the crosshair becomes less and less consistent across the FOV range, and therefore, your accuracy at the crosshair will suffer.

Keep in mind that 75%, 100% and 56.25% are all arbitrary. They completely depend on the physical dimensions of your monitor. E.g. Take two monitors with exactly the same height and stretch one horizontally as if it had a different aspect ratio. If you were to match 100% on one of the monitors it would not translate to be the same percentage on the other monitor. See below.

The same principle applies to the vertical length of the monitor. Using the vertical does not make monitor matching independent. For games that crop/add the vertical length of the monitor according to your aspect ratio, you will once again have problems with arbitrary values like 75%, 100% and 56.25%. See below.

As Drimzi also mentioned above, the only percentage that is truly independent of aspect ratio, or more accurately, monitor dimensions is 0%. Once again, another reason to use 0% monitor match.

You two make me really wanna try 0% now. Especially when drimizi says that others are detrimental to aim in long run. I started to think that that may be a little reason why I feel like that my aim in overwatch and pubg feel much worse than my aim in csgo and battlefield.

[MuntyYy]

40 minutes ago, potato psoas said:

Keep in mind that 75%, 100% and 56.25% are all arbitrary. They completely depend on the physical dimensions of your monitor. E.g. Take two monitors with exactly the same height and stretch one horizontally as if it had a different aspect ratio. If you were to match 100% on one of the monitors it would not translate to be the same percentage on the other monitor

This statement doesn't stand for 100% mm. Indeed, you would move more or less degrees with different aspect ratios, but the movement will be exactly the same from the crosshair to the edge of the screen. If that's not improving your muscle memory then what it is ?

Take for instance, this example, using an aspect ratio of 32:9 ( super wide; I know its a bit extreme, but it will prove more than I stated above ).

It takes the same amount of movement to reach the edge ( from the crosshair ) that is 9 cm. Of course, the 360 degree distance got quite reduced due to the fact that your FOV is much larger, but your distance to the very edge remains unchanged.
Now with a 00% monitor match, in the same scenario - the following occurs

Look at the 360 degree movement. That's one of the biggest disadvantages when it comes to 00% ( which is a known fact ). One might say, "no one uses such extreme aspect ratio", yet the most versatile method is in fact the 100% monitor match.


The examples I used, are my personal preference as it's easier to get used to 100% mm with a lower sensitivity, which is again, solely based on my tastes and feel as I don't condone anyone to follow my biased judgment. I'm just questioning stuff.

So m y question for y'all, is .. Which monitor distance will likely maintain and improve your aim ?  I'm not talking about "the long run" for the simple fact that If you played a game for a given amount of time, and become used and develop a certain skill for it then you can make it work with any method.

Edited June 18, 2018 by MuntyYy

[DPI Wizard]

I've made a quick video demonstrating what Monitor Match 0% does with tracking:

The apparent size of the fast moving targets are the same for all the different aims, and they move the same distance on the screen. Using the same script on all the aims you can see that the tracking is exactly the same.

[Drimzi]

@potato psoas You are comparing percentages of different values. It is not the percentage that remains the same, it is the resulting angle. You are matching to an angle, so as long as you adjust the percentages accordingly, then the result is independent of the aspect ratio. This does mean that if you match far out on the horizontal spectrum of a wide monitor, the match point could be outside of the screen space on a traditional monitor. This is why something like what Battlefield does with a coefficient instead is better and more intuitive, because if you type in x degrees and 1 coefficient, then it is clear that you will be matched to x degrees.

 

2 hours ago, DPI Wizard said:

I've made a quick video demonstrating what Monitor Match 0% does with tracking:

The apparent size of the fast moving targets are the same for all the different aims, and they move the same distance on the screen. Using the same script on all the aims you can see that the tracking is exactly the same.

 

Just a note for anyone that tries this. You have to scale your position by the zoom amount for this to work. So if you zoom in 2x, then you need to walk backwards until you are now 2x further away from the target. So if someone attempts this from the same location, the magnitude of your mouse movements will instead scale by the zoom amount, as in you zoom 2x, you have to move the mouse 2x further.

 

[MuntyYy]

32 minutes ago, Drimzi said:

Just a note for anyone that tries this. You have to scale your position by the zoom amount for this to work. So if you zoom in 2x, then you need to walk backwards until you are now 2x further away from the target. So if someone attempts this from the same location, the magnitude of your mouse movements will instead scale by the zoom amount, as in you zoom 2x, you have to move the mouse 2x further.

So if the zoom has 16x magnification you will need to move your mouse 16 times further as you would do without the magnification since you are 16 times further away from your target. 

[DPI Wizard]

1 minute ago, MuntyYy said:

So if the zoom has 16x magnification you will need to move your mouse 16 times further as you would do without the magnification since you are 16 times further away from your target. 

Technically yes, but don't put too much into the naming of the scopes. They can vary depending on settings and what the devs do with the scope.

Pay instead attention to the actual FOV's of the scopes in the calculator and compare them to the hipfire FOV.

[Drimzi]

^

A scope could say 16x, but the devs could have coded it as FOV/16 (e.g. 90/16 = 5.625 FOV), which will be incorrect and the result would depend on what measurement they use (vertical, horizontal, 4:3, etc). The correct result would be (360 arctan(1/16 tan((π 90)/360)))/π =  7.153. Or the devs could use the correct math, but they calculate it from the default FOV and not the actual FOV set by the user.

[MuntyYy]

2 minutes ago, DPI Wizard said:

Pay instead attention to the actual FOV's of the scopes in the calculator and compare them to the hipfire FOV.

Indeed. I wanted to match my ADS sensitivity to its field of view, regardless of how narrow or wide it is ever since I know myself playing games. And then I discovered the 100% mm with 2 months of practice passing by, I can say I'm pleased with the results. Not only that I can play any game regardless of its FOV but also, by doing that I'm getting more consistent. Hip fire FOV its the same as ADs FOV in this instance, therefore I came up with a  "solution" to diminish somehow the wobble effect and inaccuracy near crosshair and started playing with different sensitivities. By going through that process, I was able to come up with this random number 0.1693958215697346 cm / degree. It works wonders for me; having 9 cm for half the shown FOV.  

[MuntyYy]

Just now, Drimzi said:

A scope could say 16x, but the devs could have coded it as FOV/16 (e.g. 90/16 = 5.625 FOV), which will be incorrect and the result would depend on what measurement they use (vertical, horizontal, 4:3, etc). The correct result would be (360 arctan(1/16 tan((π 90)/360)))/π =  7.153. Or the devs could use the correct math, but they calculate it from the default FOV and not the actual FOV set by the user.

I'm aware of that, a good example is Call of Duty 4 and its 4.8X scope zoom magnification. Thank you for your explanation though.

[potato psoas]

35 minutes ago, Drimzi said:

@potato psoas You are comparing percentages of different values. It is not the percentage that remains the same, it is the resulting angle. You are matching to an angle, so as long as you adjust the percentages accordingly, then the result is independent of the aspect ratio. This does mean that if you match far out on the horizontal spectrum of a wide monitor, the match point could be outside of the screen space on a traditional monitor. This is why something like what Battlefield does with a coefficient instead is better and more intuitive, because if you type in x degrees and 1 coefficient, then it is clear that you will be matched to x degrees.

I was trying to point out that the percentages themselves are arbitrary. There is nothing special about "56.25%", "75%" or "100%" as it differs depending on monitor dimension. Even monitors with the same aspect ratio will differ if they are different sized. And then combine this fact with the fact that we all sit at different distances from our monitors, so it can get very complicated. There is definitely nothing special about these arbitrary values. 0% on the other hand, is independent and remains relative even if sitting distance changes.

Does Battlefield have an option to put in x degrees now?

3 hours ago, DPI Wizard said:

I've made a quick video demonstrating what Monitor Match 0% does with tracking:

The apparent size of the fast moving targets are the same for all the different aims, and they move the same distance on the screen. Using the same script on all the aims you can see that the tracking is exactly the same.

Thanks, this is interesting to see in action. Makes me think... depending on your FOV, the speed of your target changes as well. When you zoom in, they move faster, so you have to move your arm faster (depending on your conversion method). So when you ADS you have to predict how fast the enemy will move and then adjust immediately.

[cchhqq]

On 6/18/2018 at 11:17 AM, Drimzi said:

If you match at 0%, you will judge the necessary mouse distances properly, since the distances scale proportionately with the fov, whereas any other method is going to be counter intuitive for this, despite the whole concept being to match a a perceived speed or match a screen distance.

Instead, these alternative methods give the illusion of better, more consistent aim because they maintain the area on your mouse pad that you use to aim within your field of view. This lets you become very proficient in a single aiming style/method (such as wrist aiming) with specific swiping distances as you don't have to scale your input with the fov.

It also lets you get away with low sensitivity at high fovs (people reduce sensitivity for instant results instead of just improving their mechanical skill) due to the same reason, not having to scale your input.

Since 0% does not match a distance, it instead matches the velocity, and since other methods are not 0%, they have to result in different speeds in order to accomplish what they were made to do. Matching the velocity has to result in different perceived speeds and different required mouse movement as every fov is unique. The amount of information and distortion scales with the fov. The very essence of increasing the fov is increasing the number of degrees that you can see. So naturally, if you pan the camera, there is going to be a lot more activity on your screen and it is going to look faster than a lower, flatter, more zoomed in fov. So it makes sense that the correct conversion is going to be something where the distance and view speed is not matched. If you do match the view speed instead, then you are slowing the velocity of the camera down for high fovs and increasing the velocity for low fovs in order to make them look the same. The biggest issue with this is that low fovs will feel too sensitive as the required mouse distances are far shorter than assumed. Only 0% will have the correct distance scaling.

The reason why you can judge distances properly with 0% is because the distance scales with the zoom. If you zoom in 2x, the target will be 2x further away on your screen, and will require 2x more mouse movement to flick to compared to before the zoom. If you make this a fair comparison and scale the distance between you and the target to counteract the zoom, then the mouse distances will be the same. This will also benefit tracking, since the perceived movement speed, size, and distance of the movement will scale with the zoom, and so will the sensitivity. So if the distance between you and the target scales with the zoom also, then a target will move the same speed across your screen, and require the exact same mouse movement.

As for the question about 'match at' percentages and matching a distance in general, the best distance match IMO is the inverse of your aspect ratio, multiplied by 100. E.g. 9/16 * 100 = 56.25. It will match the distance to the radius of the 1:1 aspect ratio. Higher percentages, like 75% are close to matching viewspeed, which suffers from the sensitive low FOV issue. Besides, all distance match methods are arbitrary, and you will get drastically different results depending on what fov measurement you use. 0% is the only method that has the same result regardless of the measurement used.

Matching the view speed, screen distance, or 360 distance, is only going to be detrimental to aim performance in the long run. You will have to compromise and develop unique muscle memory for a wide range of fov and hope that your brain can fill in the blanks for fovs in between. These methods will only improve comfort and may give better results, but only in the short term (due to being only proficient in one aiming style, or having a low sensitivity for a high fov, or not having enough mouse pad space in general). They only seem correct because when you zoom in/out, the distance between you and the reference point is remaining static, you don't teleport forward/back to counteract the zoom.

For long term, you need to get used to 0%. Ignore the deceptive issues with view speed and the variance in mouse movement. You won't really have to develop muscle memory for every fov, as you will figure out the distances automatically as they scale with the zoom, but the different distances will require you to master your aim with all the styles, such as micro, finger, wrist, and arm (from elbow and shoulder) movement, and you will probably have to use a higher sensitivity in general.

 

And yes, for anyone wondering, I have switched over to 0%.

sir, Is what you said here also apply to transfer from desktop to 3d games? or because there is no fov in desktop, so it does not matter?  Is using 0% transfer desktop also better than others in long term?

Edited June 20, 2018 by cchhqq

[Bryjoe]

The one caveat I would say is for 3rd person and games where you can't change the FOV. I prefer plain 360 distance matching on those games. I don't think the advantages of 0% are nearly as apparent in hipfire. And familiarity with turn distance and movement is very important in hipfire modes. 3rd person "aimed" modes and when you scope I obviously would like 0%.

Edited June 20, 2018 by Bryjoe

[potato psoas]

16 hours ago, cchhqq said:

sir, Is what you said here also apply to transfer from desktop to 3d games? or because there is no fov in desktop, so it does not matter?

The desktop is essentially 0 FOV. The arc of the gameworld, as it is projected onto your screen, is completely flat. So yes, you can convert between desktop and 3D. However, the difference between the two is that you are comparing a cursor to a crosshair. The cursor can be anywhere on the screen whereas the crosshair remains at the center. And if you know anything about perceived sensitivity, you would know that the distance your eyes are from the monitor affect the sensitivity you perceive for different points on the monitor. Here is a diagram explaining that:

Since the center of the monitor (A) is closer to your eyes it is perceived to be faster, and as your approach the edge of the monitor (B) the sensitivity is perceived to be slower. Keep in mind that the monitor could be infinitely long, so (B) could also be infinitely far away and be perceived to be infinitely slower. The Hypotenuse is always longer than the Adjacent (or Opposite) sides.

A simple way you can test the perceived sensitivity principle is to stick your face real close to the monitor and observe how fast the cursor or crosshair feels, then move yourself back from your monitor and observe how slow it feels. Obviously, keep in mind this doesn't mean sitting further away from your monitor makes you more accurate, since the relative size of targets will change accordingly. The only reason I would prefer sitting back from the monitor is for the sake of your eye health and to increase the amount of monitor space in your eye's useful field of view. If you want to move further back but targets are too small then you could also get a bigger monitor. Bigger is better if you have the money.

[cchhqq]

4 hours ago, potato psoas said:

The desktop is essentially 0 FOV. The arc of the gameworld, as it is projected onto your screen, is completely flat. So yes, you can convert between desktop and 3D. However, the difference between the two is that you are comparing a cursor to a crosshair. The cursor can be anywhere on the screen whereas the crosshair remains at the center. And if you know anything about perceived sensitivity, you would know that the distance your eyes are from the monitor affect the sensitivity you perceive for different points on the monitor. Here is a diagram explaining that:

Since the center of the monitor (A) is closer to your eyes it is perceived to be faster, and as your approach the edge of the monitor (B) the sensitivity is perceived to be slower. Keep in mind that the monitor could be infinitely long, so (B) could also be infinitely far away and be perceived to be infinitely slower. The Hypotenuse is always longer than the Adjacent (or Opposite) sides.

A simple way you can test the perceived sensitivity principle is to stick your face real close to the monitor and observe how fast the cursor or crosshair feels, then move yourself back from your monitor and observe how slow it feels. Obviously, keep in mind this doesn't mean sitting further away from your monitor makes you more accurate, since the relative size of targets will change accordingly. The only reason I would prefer sitting back from the monitor is for the sake of your eye health and to increase the amount of monitor space in your eye's useful field of view. If you want to move further back but targets are too small then you could also get a bigger monitor. Bigger is better if you have the money.

I leanred this point from your previous posts. I think this may be the reason why smaller the montoe distance match give higher sensitivity in calculator.  but how does this affection from distance to percieved speed influence conversion from 2d to 3d? Do you mean that we only can match the sensitivity between 2d and 3d at certain monitor distance? Like if you match 75%, the sensitivty in 3d game when you flick to a enemy at the edge of your 75% monitor will be the same with the speed you move your cursor at 75% of your monitor ondesktop.

but if this is true, seems like 0% is the optimal way to convert from 2d to 3d since crosssair will always at center. And since the target does not only appear on the edge of 75% monitor or edge of 100% monitor . So matching at  75% or 100% seems not very meaningful.  Using 0% to gain better tracking performance seems better.

Is this right?

Edited June 20, 2018 by cchhqq

[potato psoas]

48 minutes ago, cchhqq said:

I leanred this point from your previous posts. I think this may be the reason why smaller the montoe distance match give higher sensitivity in calculator.  but how does this affection from distance to percieved speed influence conversion from 2d to 3d? Do you mean that we only can match the sensitivity between 2d and 3d at certain monitor distance? Like if you match 75%, the sensitivty in 3d game when you flick to a enemy at the edge of your 75% monitor will be the same with the speed you move your cursor at 75% of your monitor ondesktop.

but if this is true, seems like 0% is the optimal way to convert from 2d to 3d since crosssair will always at center. And since the target does not only appear on the edge of 75% monitor or edge of 100% monitor . So matching at  75% or 100% seems not very meaningful.  Using 0% to gain better tracking performance seems better.

Is this right?

I actually never thought about that. I guess that's another small reason to use 0%. Only other idea I have is that if you buy a curved monitor you could get rid of the problem, but it would be a bit of a hassle and probably not worth it.

[Drimzi]

Curved monitors are bad, the game doesn't know the curvature of the screen, and the projection is correct only if the monitor is flat.

Edited June 21, 2018 by Drimzi

[potato psoas]

46 minutes ago, Drimzi said:

Curved monitors are bad, the game doesn't know the curvature of the screen, and the projection is correct only if the monitor is flat.

yeah, that's why I think they are a hassle

[cchhqq]

1 hour ago, Drimzi said:

Curved monitors are bad, the game doesn't know the curvature of the screen, and the projection is correct only if the monitor is flat.

so what do you recommand to convert desktop sensitivity now?

[Drimzi]

3 minutes ago, cchhqq said:

so what do you recommand to convert desktop sensitivity now?

0%. It will match the velocity of the cursor perfectly. The resulting game sensitivity will result in a rotational increment equal to the number of degrees inside of a pixel in the exact center of the screen. So every rotational increment will move the same amount as a cursor, which increments by 1 pixel.