Please help with FOV question

[Teddyjo]

Trying to convert Counter-Strike: Global Offensive pro's , s1mple, sensitivity over to Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2019. S1mple plays with a resolution of 1280x960, 4:3 aspect ratio-stretched (no black bars I believe) on a 24.5 inch 1920x1080 16x9  monitor. Call of duty uses 16x9 aspect ratio. My question is whether or not I should set the CSGO resolution as 1280x960 or if I should set it as 1920x1080, because of this quote from the FOV notes pertaining to COD, "You need to enter the resolution without black bars if you play with them. I.e. playing 1920x1440 with black bars is 1920x1200" 

I don't know if s1mple's 4:3 stretched aspect ratio means if black bars are, or, are considered not present when a resolution is stretched. That's why I don't understand if I should set CSGO FOV as 1280x960 or 1920x1080. I set everything to cm and I match monitor distance at 0% across all shooting games I play. Thank you. I also hope i'm interpreting everything correctly on this website. 

Edited December 9, 2019 by Teddyjo
more info

[DPI Wizard]

For this you need to enter the 4:3 resolution (1280x960). This is so the the FOV calculation is correct as the calculator assumes the resolution covers the whole monitor.

[Quackerjack]

5 hours ago, DPI Wizard said:

For this you need to enter the 4:3 resolution (1280x960). This is so the the FOV calculation is correct as the calculator assumes the resolution covers the whole monitor.

 

wait i thought resolution doesnt matter? so he should be fine with 16:9 res match fov and than 360 match

[DPI Wizard]

4 minutes ago, Quackerjack said:

wait i thought resolution doesnt matter? so he should be fine with 16:9 res match fov and than 360 match

Resolution doesn't matter per se, but aspect ratio does. If you use a 16:9 resolution the calculator will assume your entire monitor is covered by an FOV of 106.26. This is not the case if you stretch 4:3, your entire FOV is then 90 which is why you must enter a 4:3 resolution.

For 360 match it's doesn't matter, but if you match ADS or scope to your stretched resolution using monitor distance it will make a difference.

[Quackerjack]

damn i calculate everything wrong. I thought aspect ratio doesnt affect sensitivity.

Thats a big change when u calculate with 0% MDH

[Teddyjo]

Thank you both for the valuable input. Am I doing myself a favor, I.e. more efficient aiming accuracy and adaptability,  by matching all 4 conversion setups to “Monitor-Distance-Vertical” at 0%, as opposed to another method? I use this method based of a guide from this website. I guess I’m looking for true data on this rather than hypothesis. I believe that guide stated that matching monitor distance vertically (or horizontally) at 0% was, ASSUMED, to best method for making MICRO adjustments to recoil, which seemed like the author BELIEVED that this was the most valuable aiming mechanic to keep consistent amongst all games. I see where he is coming from, however, I’m looking for data to back this up. If not, it would be a really interesting study to test different conversion setup methods to determine the BEST way to use this calculator. I do feel that the authors explanation of recoil and micro adjustment on a target is VERY valuable, but there are many more aiming mechanics that occur rather than this. Thank you. 

Reference to "Conversion method guide. (and other FAQ's)" by Skidushe

Edited December 9, 2019 by Teddyjo

[Quackerjack]

2 hours ago, Teddyjo said:

Thank you both for the valuable input. Am I doing myself a favor, I.e. more efficient aiming accuracy and adaptability,  by matching all 4 conversion setups to “Monitor-Distance-Vertical” at 0%, as opposed to another method? I use this method based of a guide from this website. I guess I’m looking for true data on this rather than hypothesis. I believe that guide stated that matching monitor distance vertically (or horizontally) at 0% was, ASSUMED, to best method for making MICRO adjustments to recoil, which seemed like the author BELIEVED that this was the most valuable aiming mechanic to keep consistent amongst all games. I see where he is coming from, however, I’m looking for data to back this up. If not, it would be a really interesting study to test different conversion setup methods to determine the BEST way to use this calculator. I do feel that the authors explanation of recoil and micro adjustment on a target is VERY valuable, but there are many more aiming mechanics that occur rather than this. Thank you. 

Reference to "Conversion method guide. (and other FAQ's)" by Skidushe

Drimzi wrote a long post about why 0 percent is the best.  Just check his posts.

But i guess u have to use MDH 0% not MDV 0% cause if u change aspect ratio (which change the sensitivity) MDV 0% doesnt count the change.

[Teddyjo]

On 12/9/2019 at 2:13 PM, Quackerjack said:

Drimzi wrote a long post about why 0 percent is the best.  Just check his posts.

But i guess u have to use MDH 0% not MDV 0% cause if u change aspect ratio (which change the sensitivity) MDV 0% doesnt count the change.

For some reason I can’t find his post easily. Could you link it?

[Quackerjack]

This is what Drimzi wrote:

 

Let's go from 10" monitor to 20" monitor. Both have 1920x1080 pixels. First assumption will be to match the distance it takes to move the cursor from one side to the other side, AKA move 1920 pixels. This is what the calculator does. Let's extrapolate this idea to a 1" screen and a 1000" screen. If the distance it takes to move the mouse results in the cursor moving 1" in one case, and 1000" in the other, will it feel the same? Personally it wouldn't to me.

Instead of matching the quantity of pixels displaced, you want to match the distance displaced. Figure out how big a pixel is.

(rounded for simplicity)

10" monitor:  Every pixel is 0.0045"

20" monitor:  Every pixel is 0.0090"

If it takes 1" of mouse movement to move 1920 pixels on the 20" monitor, then 1" of mouse movement correlates to 17.4". This is a ratio of 1 : 17.4, or a gain of 17.4. It doesn't matter what units you measure, whether it is mm, cm, inches, kilometers, it doesn't matter. 1 unit of mouse movement correlates to x unit of cursor movement. This is what you convert, not the pixels displaced. It will become inconvenient to move the cursor from the start menu to the system tray if the screen was 1000" wide, but that has nothing to do with the sensitivity of the mouse. For convenience, you can change the sensitivity to reduce that distance, but that is just preference.

 

Let's take it to 3D. In the above explanation you can see that pixels don't matter. The monitor is acting like a window. You are keeping real-world distances. The same applies to 3D.

Imagine you are playing a game like CS:GO. You crop the aspect ratio from 16:9 to 4:3. Does the perceived sensitivity change? Is it like some kind of optical illusion where replacing some of the rendered game world with blackness changes the perception of sensitivity? It personally isn't to me.

What if instead of blackness, you just change to a 4:3 monitor. You effectively reduced the horizontal angle of view from 106.26 degrees to 90 degrees, but the perceived sensitivity did not change. If it feels the same, why would you scale the sensitivity by the change in angles, ie. 90/106.26, which is what 'monitor distance match' is doing. So at the moment, the angle of view (or FOV) is changing, but the cm/360° is not and it feels good. So maybe it is because the vertical angle of view is still 73.74, so that's why the sensitivity didn't change? Wrong. Since CS:GO enforces a specific angle of view, let's just place black paper on the monitor to 'crop' it, let's reduce the effective vertical angle of view to a low number, will the sensitivity appear to change? If you answer no, then you can see that the angle of view has no bearing on the sensitivity. The focal length remained constant, the angle of view changed, so the answer is the focal length.

Here is 90° (4:3) at 20" and at 10", overlayed

You can see that they are both different. They have identical angle of view, but the focal length is completely different.

 

If you convert from the 20" to the 10", then the 10" needs to reduce the angle of view to maintain the same focal length. 20" has 90° (4:3), 10" has 53.13° (4:3).

 

Here is 10" converted to 20". 10" has 90° (4:3). 20" has 126.87° (4:3).

 

The first scenario, where the game enforces 90° (4:3), the game sensitivity value doesn't change. However, the CPI did change, by a factor of 2 if you keep the same 2D sensitivity. This is because the 20" is twice the size of 10". The focal length has also changed by the same factor. So the change in CPI results in the change in cm/360°, even though the FOV is the same. If you didn't want your cm/360° to change, you would have to use a lower angle of view on the smaller monitor (the 2nd picture).

You can quickly test this for yourself by creating a custom half resolution, like 960x540, and then playing a game in windowed or fullscreen (with no scaling and override enabled). Compare no change in sensitivity, and double game sensitivity (or whatever sensitivity value is equivalent to half the cm/360°). See which one feels better.

Scaling the game sensitivity by the change in focal length is exactly what 0% monitor match does. The change in monitor size is also the same factor as the change in focal length. This suggests that 0% is the only way to convert game sensitivity/cpi, as it results in no change in 'sensitivity'. The relationship between the device and the display element remains constant. Any deviation from this will be personal preference.

Many will have personal preference that will override 0%. Like if the screen was incredibly wide such as 32:9, making the distance from one end to the other double than that of a 16:9, then they may prefer to scale their sensitivity by a factor or 2 in order to make the hand distance the same when going from the start menu to the taskbar, or closing browser tabs, etc. They distance matched, which requires a change of device/mouse sensitivity (also applies to 3D). Many may also prefer to amplify their sensitivity for aim down sights/scopes, so they don't have to scale their input proportionately with the change in zoom and image curvature. 0% usually feels too slow in this case because you are directly comparing two different focal lengths without the distance between you and the reference point changing to cancel out the perceived zoom, whilst simultaneously using the same hand movement before and after the zoom. The target size, distance between the target and the crosshair, the target movement speed, etc., all scale proportionately with the focal length, which means you also need to scale your input with the focal length to land the flick or track the movement speed (and then there's the difference in eccentricity/curvature that results in that snappy/sluggish feeling and different diagonal trajectories).

Due to these preferences to scale sensitivity instead of input, other methods like 'monitor distance match' can be useful. I think Viewspeed v2 is also useful, the feeling is is kind of comparable to zooming in and having the camera dolly in the opposite direction of the zoom. If you zoom in from one end of the spectrum to the other, whilst simultaneously moving the mouse in circles, it looks like the sensitivity is matched perfectly. But when it comes to actually using Viewspeed v2, it results in worse aim performance (personally) at the expense of it feeling more consistent in that exact specific moment, due to the no sudden feeling of slowdown or speed up whilst using identical mouse movement before/after the zoom.

 

As for focal length, I believe it is found by doing the following:

(SquarePixels/2) / tan(SquareDegrees * pi/360) = focal length in pixels?

It's the same as this graphical fov calculator: https://teacher.desmos.com/activitybuilder/custom/5a61dd34fafbd40a25416e02#preview/d123ef39-8694-4760-af7d-c18c936ce79d

Scale pixels by the physical dimension of a pixel, and you will see that the above cases have identical focal lengths despite very different angle of views.

10" 90 (4:3) has 720 pixels focal length, 720 * 0.0045 = 3.24"

20" 126.87 (4:3) has 360 pixels focal length, 360 * 0.0090 = 3.24".

 

i marked the relevant thing!

[Teddyjo]

On 12/9/2019 at 4:59 AM, DPI Wizard said:

For this you need to enter the 4:3 resolution (1280x960). This is so the the FOV calculation is correct as the calculator assumes the resolution covers the whole monitor.

Do i need to match monitor distance-vertical 0% or monitor distance-horizontal 0%

[Quackerjack]

MDH 0%. Try urself with MDV 0% it doesnt matter what aspect ratio u use. Wizard wrote u have to enter the 4:3 resolution so it makes sense to use MDH 0%.

[Teddyjo]

1 hour ago, Quackerjack said:

MDH 0%. Try urself with MDV 0% it doesnt matter what aspect ratio u use. Wizard wrote u have to enter the 4:3 resolution so it makes sense to use MDH 0%.

Should i set the Call of duty FOV to try and match the true HFOV of csgo?

Edited December 12, 2019 by Teddyjo

[Teddyjo]

On 12/12/2019 at 10:58 AM, Quackerjack said:

This is what Drimzi wrote:

 

Let's go from 10" monitor to 20" monitor. Both have 1920x1080 pixels. First assumption will be to match the distance it takes to move the cursor from one side to the other side, AKA move 1920 pixels. This is what the calculator does. Let's extrapolate this idea to a 1" screen and a 1000" screen. If the distance it takes to move the mouse results in the cursor moving 1" in one case, and 1000" in the other, will it feel the same? Personally it wouldn't to me.

Instead of matching the quantity of pixels displaced, you want to match the distance displaced. Figure out how big a pixel is.

(rounded for simplicity)

10" monitor:  Every pixel is 0.0045"

20" monitor:  Every pixel is 0.0090"

If it takes 1" of mouse movement to move 1920 pixels on the 20" monitor, then 1" of mouse movement correlates to 17.4". This is a ratio of 1 : 17.4, or a gain of 17.4. It doesn't matter what units you measure, whether it is mm, cm, inches, kilometers, it doesn't matter. 1 unit of mouse movement correlates to x unit of cursor movement. This is what you convert, not the pixels displaced. It will become inconvenient to move the cursor from the start menu to the system tray if the screen was 1000" wide, but that has nothing to do with the sensitivity of the mouse. For convenience, you can change the sensitivity to reduce that distance, but that is just preference.

 

Let's take it to 3D. In the above explanation you can see that pixels don't matter. The monitor is acting like a window. You are keeping real-world distances. The same applies to 3D.

Imagine you are playing a game like CS:GO. You crop the aspect ratio from 16:9 to 4:3. Does the perceived sensitivity change? Is it like some kind of optical illusion where replacing some of the rendered game world with blackness changes the perception of sensitivity? It personally isn't to me.

What if instead of blackness, you just change to a 4:3 monitor. You effectively reduced the horizontal angle of view from 106.26 degrees to 90 degrees, but the perceived sensitivity did not change. If it feels the same, why would you scale the sensitivity by the change in angles, ie. 90/106.26, which is what 'monitor distance match' is doing. So at the moment, the angle of view (or FOV) is changing, but the cm/360° is not and it feels good. So maybe it is because the vertical angle of view is still 73.74, so that's why the sensitivity didn't change? Wrong. Since CS:GO enforces a specific angle of view, let's just place black paper on the monitor to 'crop' it, let's reduce the effective vertical angle of view to a low number, will the sensitivity appear to change? If you answer no, then you can see that the angle of view has no bearing on the sensitivity. The focal length remained constant, the angle of view changed, so the answer is the focal length.

Here is 90° (4:3) at 20" and at 10", overlayed

You can see that they are both different. They have identical angle of view, but the focal length is completely different.

 

If you convert from the 20" to the 10", then the 10" needs to reduce the angle of view to maintain the same focal length. 20" has 90° (4:3), 10" has 53.13° (4:3).

 

Here is 10" converted to 20". 10" has 90° (4:3). 20" has 126.87° (4:3).

 

The first scenario, where the game enforces 90° (4:3), the game sensitivity value doesn't change. However, the CPI did change, by a factor of 2 if you keep the same 2D sensitivity. This is because the 20" is twice the size of 10". The focal length has also changed by the same factor. So the change in CPI results in the change in cm/360°, even though the FOV is the same. If you didn't want your cm/360° to change, you would have to use a lower angle of view on the smaller monitor (the 2nd picture).

You can quickly test this for yourself by creating a custom half resolution, like 960x540, and then playing a game in windowed or fullscreen (with no scaling and override enabled). Compare no change in sensitivity, and double game sensitivity (or whatever sensitivity value is equivalent to half the cm/360°). See which one feels better.

Scaling the game sensitivity by the change in focal length is exactly what 0% monitor match does. The change in monitor size is also the same factor as the change in focal length. This suggests that 0% is the only way to convert game sensitivity/cpi, as it results in no change in 'sensitivity'. The relationship between the device and the display element remains constant. Any deviation from this will be personal preference.

Many will have personal preference that will override 0%. Like if the screen was incredibly wide such as 32:9, making the distance from one end to the other double than that of a 16:9, then they may prefer to scale their sensitivity by a factor or 2 in order to make the hand distance the same when going from the start menu to the taskbar, or closing browser tabs, etc. They distance matched, which requires a change of device/mouse sensitivity (also applies to 3D). Many may also prefer to amplify their sensitivity for aim down sights/scopes, so they don't have to scale their input proportionately with the change in zoom and image curvature. 0% usually feels too slow in this case because you are directly comparing two different focal lengths without the distance between you and the reference point changing to cancel out the perceived zoom, whilst simultaneously using the same hand movement before and after the zoom. The target size, distance between the target and the crosshair, the target movement speed, etc., all scale proportionately with the focal length, which means you also need to scale your input with the focal length to land the flick or track the movement speed (and then there's the difference in eccentricity/curvature that results in that snappy/sluggish feeling and different diagonal trajectories).

Due to these preferences to scale sensitivity instead of input, other methods like 'monitor distance match' can be useful. I think Viewspeed v2 is also useful, the feeling is is kind of comparable to zooming in and having the camera dolly in the opposite direction of the zoom. If you zoom in from one end of the spectrum to the other, whilst simultaneously moving the mouse in circles, it looks like the sensitivity is matched perfectly. But when it comes to actually using Viewspeed v2, it results in worse aim performance (personally) at the expense of it feeling more consistent in that exact specific moment, due to the no sudden feeling of slowdown or speed up whilst using identical mouse movement before/after the zoom.

 

As for focal length, I believe it is found by doing the following:

(SquarePixels/2) / tan(SquareDegrees * pi/360) = focal length in pixels?

It's the same as this graphical fov calculator: https://teacher.desmos.com/activitybuilder/custom/5a61dd34fafbd40a25416e02#preview/d123ef39-8694-4760-af7d-c18c936ce79d

Scale pixels by the physical dimension of a pixel, and you will see that the above cases have identical focal lengths despite very different angle of views.

10" 90 (4:3) has 720 pixels focal length, 720 * 0.0045 = 3.24"

20" 126.87 (4:3) has 360 pixels focal length, 360 * 0.0090 = 3.24".

 

i marked the relevant thing!

I'm still struggling to fully understand this. I also can't find where anyone is saying to use MDH 0% instead of MDV 0% specifically when converting 4:3 to 16:9. 

[Teddyjo]

Do I need to set the FOV type to 4:3 for both games? Or just csgo and then keep call of duty at 16:9? Will it mater what fov I set call of duty at? I thought using horizontal monitor distance match 0% makes it it doesn’t matter what FOV number you set. Thanks