CS:GO>Battlefield

[l_Almas_l]

What is better to use for sights? I tried different, but I do not know what is best. The Pubg 360 is too fast for the sights. But in BF all functions give similar values. I can not understand what is best for memory

[Quackerjack]

believe me i tried all v1 v2 and monitor distance 56.52 is the best

[iBerggman]

11 minutes ago, Quackerjack said:

believe me i tried all v1 v2 and monitor distance 56.52 is the best

I've settled on 56.25% too, I recently tried 0% for about a month and found that while I really loved it for the accuracy it allows (Kar98k shots in pubg for example) in the end I still went back to 56.25% as I found it works better for me due to how the rotation speed compared to mouse movement feels more similar across a wider range of fovs. With 56.25% I seem to be able to transfer my recoil control from say a 1x scope to 4x more naturally than with 0% because it feels like the mouse input required is similar whereas on 0% the lower fov would feel clearly slower (as it should). Another thing is I like to play very fast and aggressive so I often find myself doing 180's and scoping in in the middle of the rotation and a higher match % seems to help with that. But in the end I don't think anyone can say what's the best conversion method for you as it varies a lot depending on personal preference as well as playstyle even though 0% technically might be the most "correct". Viewspeed V2, 75%, 56,25% and 0% are all good options to start with,  it just comes down to trying each one for a while and determining which one fits you best.

[popnik90]

9 часов назад, iBerggman сказал:

I've settled on 56.25% too, I recently tried 0% for about a month and found that while I really loved it for the accuracy it allows (Kar98k shots in pubg for example) in the end I still went back to 56.25% as I found it works better for me due to how the rotation speed compared to mouse movement feels more similar across a wider range of fovs. With 56.25% I seem to be able to transfer my recoil control from say a 1x scope to 4x more naturally than with 0% because it feels like the mouse input required is similar whereas on 0% the lower fov would feel clearly slower (as it should). Another thing is I like to play very fast and aggressive so I often find myself doing 180's and scoping in in the middle of the rotation and a higher match % seems to help with that. But in the end I don't think anyone can say what's the best conversion method for you as it varies a lot depending on personal preference as well as playstyle even though 0% technically might be the most "correct". Viewspeed V2, 75%, 56,25% and 0% are all good options to start with,  it just comes down to trying each one for a while and determining which one fits you best.

Why no 100% mm?

[MuntyYy]

6 hours ago, popnik90 said:

Why no 100% mm?

Choose whatever feels more natural for you.

[potato psoas]

Just keep in mind that 75% and 100% are arbitrary percentages, dependent on perceived monitor size/aspect ratio, that 56.26% is only 100% vertical for 16:9 monitors, and that Viewspeed is also pretty arbitrary and doesn't follow the gear ratio principle. Wait for the next release of the calculator. It will hopefully explain things a bit better than they are now.

[l_Almas_l]

in the Battlefield sight equally feels different sensitivity. I ran both CS and BF at the same time and could not understand what was better. Can you mathematically justify the choice? Much depends on the game engine

[popnik90]

17 часов назад, potato psoas сказал:

Just keep in mind that 75% and 100% are arbitrary percentages, dependent on perceived monitor size/aspect ratio, that 56.26% is only 100% vertical for 16:9 monitors, and that Viewspeed is also pretty arbitrary and doesn't follow the gear ratio principle. Wait for the next release of the calculator. It will hopefully explain things a bit better than they are now.

Then new ver calculator?

[potato psoas]

10 hours ago, popnik90 said:

Then new ver calculator?

DPIWizard has been working on the new version of the calculator that takes into account all the new understanding we have about converting sensitivity now. I imagine he would be making another tutorial explaining all the features on the calculator as he said he was working on that as well. Best thing we have now for newbies is the Simple calculator but it seems that people want to use the advanced stuff but don't understand how to use it.

[Drimzi]

On 8/20/2018 at 8:40 PM, potato psoas said:

Just keep in mind that 75% and 100% are arbitrary percentages, dependent on perceived monitor size/aspect ratio, that 56.26% is only 100% vertical for 16:9 monitors, and that Viewspeed is also pretty arbitrary and doesn't follow the gear ratio principle. Wait for the next release of the calculator. It will hopefully explain things a bit better than they are now.

I would just like to mention that all percentages, besides 0%, is actually arbitrary. Even the 1:1 aspect ratio percentage of 56.25%. This concept can be taken a step further, instead of just aspect ratio independent, to monitor size independent.

Think of the monitor as the aperture for the camera, or simply a window to the game world. When thought of it this way, then dividing any angle, even if its the angle that's at the screen boundaries, is just as arbitrary as any other angle, as the screen boundary depends entirely on the size of the monitor. A 24" monitor displaying 90 degrees vertically, is the exact same as a 12" monitor displaying 53.13 degrees vertically, as they both have the same focal length (149.4 mm). It's just different apertures. The 15" monitor's frame could be placed on top of the 24" monitor's frame and it will blend in perfectly. You could play a game windowed on the 24" with half the resolution (and 53.13 vfov) to emulate the 12".

An example. Both cases have very different angles of view. If you just divide angles, which is what monitor distance match does, then you get very different results, and this isn't even including what length you use (Vertical? Horizontal? Diagonal? 1:1? 4:3? 16:9? 12"? 24"?).

Both the 24" and 12" examples should have the same sensitivity, except they won't if you use monitor distance match at any percentage other than 0% (whilst simultaneously using the appropriate CPI for each monitor). If you did 56.25%, you would distance match to 90 degrees on one, and 53.13 degrees on the other, simply because that's the angle at the monitor boundary for that specific focal length, and both will have very different sensitivities as a result. 0% is aperture independent, doesn't matter what the monitor size is, whether you use vertical, horizontal, diagonal, etc., you get the same result. Calculations need to take monitor size into account in order to convert the control-display gain for CPI (DPI Wizard already has this, displayed as 'base length'), and to convert 3D sensitivity based on focal length.

 

BTW using the above concept, you can play any FOV restricted game in a custom resolution with black bars to emulate a portion of a higher FOV. So Overwatch's 103 FOV can be converted to 106.26 (CSGO) by using a smaller resolution with black bars (1810x1018), where the extra vision that CSGO has is replaced with black borders. Both games can share the same cm/360° as they will have identical focal lengths, even though the angles are different. In this scenario, any conversion method that doesn't normalise the angles using the tangent function (anything other than 0%) will result in Overwatch having a different cm/360° compared to CSGO, which would be incorrect.

Tldr 0% is the correct way to convert, anything else is preference.

Edited August 23, 2018 by Drimzi

[l_Almas_l]

I'm using Google Translate . Tell me what to do to translate correctly in bf4? Should I use 360? Or do you want to add a new calculator function that will give 100% correct sensitivity?
I use one resolution and fov, as shown in the screenshot

Edited August 22, 2018 by l_Almas_l

[l_Almas_l]

3 часа назад, Drimzi сказал:

I would just like to mention that all percentages, besides 0%, is actually arbitrary. Even the 1:1 aspect ratio percentage of 56.25%. This concept can be taken a step further, instead of just aspect ratio independent, to monitor size independent. When thought of it this way, then dividing any angle, even if its the angle that's at the screen boundaries, is just as arbitrary as any other angle, as the screen boundary depends entirely on the size. A 24" monitor displaying 90 degrees vertically, is the exact same as a 12" monitor displaying 53.13 degrees vertically, as they both have the same focal length (149.4 mm). The 15" monitor's frame could be placed on top of the 24" monitor's frame and it will blend in perfectly. You could play a game windowed on the 24" with half the resolution (and 53.13 vfov) to emulate the 12". Both the 24" and 12" examples should have the same sensitivity, except they won't if you use monitor distance match at any percentage other than 0% (whilst simultaneously using the appropriate CPI for each screen). If you did 56.25%, you would distance match to 90 degrees on one, and 53.13 degrees on the other, simply because that's the arbitrary monitor boundary for that specific focal length, and both will have very different sensitivities as a result. Calculations need to take monitor size into account in order to convert the control-display gain for CPI (DPI Wizard already has this, displayed as 'base length'), and to convert 3D sensitivity based on focal length.

 

BTW using the above concept, you can play any FOV restricted game in a custom resolution with black bars to emulate a portion of a higher FOV. So Overwatch's 103 FOV can be converted to 106.26 (CSGO) by using a smaller resolution with black bars (1810x1018), where the extra vision that CSGO has is replaced with black borders. Both games can share the same cm/360° as they will have identical focal lengths, even though the angles are different. In this scenario, any conversion method that doesn't normalise the angles using the tangent function (anything other than 0%) will result in Overwatch having a different cm/360° compared to CSGO, which would be incorrect.

I'm using Google Translate . Tell me what to do to translate correctly in bf4? Should I use 360? Or do you want to add a new calculator function that will give 100% correct sensitivity?
I use one resolution and fov, as shown in the screenshot

[l_Almas_l]

Much depends on the game engine. In Battlefield, all functions (360, V1, v2, Distance) give a similar result. But how do you know what to use in each game?

[MuntyYy]

Use in all the games monitor distance - 00%

[Quackerjack]

why

[MuntyYy]

1 hour ago, Quackerjack said:

why

That's the only independent method out of all the matches, viewspeeds. But its hella fast at high FOVs & hella slow at the low ones. If you play 2d games ( osu, lol, dota ) as well, then you can't go wrong with it either, as opposed to having 100% mm ( for example ) and trying to match it with your desktop.

[MuntyYy]

To be honest, its all about preference, I myself don't use 00% but acknowledge it as the most superior method out of all. With practice, consistency, patience and dedication you can make the most out of anything. 

[l_Almas_l]

I understand that he is also the best for this?
I noticed that CSGO> Battlefield 360 ° in the 1x sight is the best option. Games have similar engines for management. And in the 4x and 8x sights you need to use Monitor distance, because it takes into account the FOV

[stereo3D]

GstInput.MouseSensitivity 0.007479

GstRender.FieldOfViewVertical 73.74

GstInput.UniformSoldierAimingCoefficient 1.333333