Viewspeed v2

[Bryjoe]

1 hour ago, Quackerjack said:

@Bryjoe for me V2 gives the lower sensitivity

In what games? What is your FOV in those games? It shouldn't. Viewspeed 1 is very close to Monitor Distance 70% and Viewspeed 2 is very close to Monitor distance 75%. 75% should be a faster sensitivity than 70%, actually, it is in all cases as far as I know.

So, H1Z1 hipfire should be lower than CSGO if you are using the default FOV, not by much though. It is all about your FOV, your FOV determines your sensitivity, lower FOV, lower sens with Viewspeed. If you think about it like that, you can see why scoping sensitivity makes such a huge difference. All games have a ratio for scoped guns (if they didn't it would feel terrible) it is a ratio that is slower than your hipfire. 

 

Here is the process if you want to match sensitivities between games for best accuracy:

1. Match both games by hipfire using either viewspeed or 360 distance. If you use 360, I would recommend trying to match FOVs as well, this is a little trickier though, as games use different methods for FOV calculation and just inputting the same number for each is often wrong. You have to match the type of FOV calculation too. This is why, for beginners, it might just be best to use Viewspeed V2 for hipfire as well.

2. Now, with Viewspeed V2 selected, simply click the drop-down menu on the right to match each scope. CSGO, like many games, only has the option to match one of the scopes. I would recommend you match it to the AWP and match it to the scoped setting for H1Z1.

 It gets really confusing if you try and match scopes and hipfires across games. It is best to just convert the hipfire for one game and then use Viewspeed V2 for each game individually. You can then use Viewspeed V2 for all scopes in every game and be confident your scope is always scaled based on the same sensitivity. Some games don't even have the option to adjust scope sensitivities, in those cases you sensitivity while scoped will NOT be consistent, but at least it still will be a ratio of your hipfire.

The beauty of Viewspeed is it takes all the confusing nature out of it, it is the same ratio for every game no matter what you FOV is, scoped or unscoped. Your distance 360 changes based on the FOV, but that is always based on the same consistent ratio. 

Like for me, my "home" game is CSGO. It is a great one because it has a very safe FOV. I use 41.6CM/360 hipfire to convert the aim in every single game that I own. Using Viewspeed V2 I don't even have to match the FOV is I don't want too (although that is objectively the best option for a perfect match). Pick a "home" game use that one sensitivity for every game.

Edited November 2, 2017 by Bryjoe

[Quackerjack]

i guess why, i try to convert ma Bf4 ADS sensitivity for CSGO, think thats why V2 is slower.

[Bryjoe]

7 minutes ago, Quackerjack said:

i guess why, i try to convert ma Bf4 ADS sensitivity for CSGO, think thats why V2 is slower.

The BF4 ADS sensitivity is a really low FOV compared to CSGO hipfire, there is no way a straight conversion would be slower using Viewspeed V2. You are doing something wrong, can you screenshot it?

If you use Universal Soldier Aiming, the calculation would be different as well.

Edited November 2, 2017 by Bryjoe

[Quackerjack]

 

[Bryjoe]

1 minute ago, Quackerjack said:

 

Yeah that's right your hipfire is faster,  not slower, and actually the FOV is not that much different because you have changed it to 74 VDeg which is pretty close to CSGO. 1x ADS is not that much different of a FOV compared to hipfire. 

[Quackerjack]

so i done it right and should use V2? Yea i just mean V2 gives me lower setting

Edited November 2, 2017 by Quackerjack

[Bryjoe]

Just now, Quackerjack said:

so i done it right and should use V2? Yea i just mean V2 gives me lower setting

That is preference, and Viewspeed V2 gives a faster sens as well:

 

 

In reality, I am not sure why you want to match it based on your scoped 1x in BF4, that is already so close to the hipfire in terms of FOV. It is up to you, if you use that setting to match every game you have with Viewspeed V2, they should all feel pretty close no matter what FOV you use. If you match FOV between games they will feel even better, but that is not always desirable.

[Quackerjack]

V2 is slower than V1 V1 gives me 1.05.....  yea but hipfire is way faster than scoped in bf

 

i mean why its preference one should be closer to my ads sensitivity for csgo or?

Edited November 2, 2017 by Quackerjack

[Bryjoe]

5 minutes ago, Quackerjack said:

V2 is slower than V1 V1 gives me 1.05.....  yea but hipfire is way faster than scoped in bf

Hmm, well scoped in BF4 is based on a weird calculation if you don't use Universal Soldier Aiming. The different scopes all feel different, the more magnified they are the slower they are, but not necessarily by the same percentage (which is why USA was created).

V2 should be faster, but you are right, it is slower in this case. It must be because you are using that conversion.

Edited November 2, 2017 by Bryjoe

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[KandiVan]

I wish I could use viewspeed with third person, nothing ever feels right and its so frustrating. I feel like there has to be a way we can scale the FOV knowing the distance the camera pans back in game, but I just cant figure out the math. Regardless, Ill give the new formula a test in CS:GO when I get back from sweden. 

[Bryjoe]

9 hours ago, KandiVan said:

I wish I could use viewspeed with third person, nothing ever feels right and its so frustrating. I feel like there has to be a way we can scale the FOV knowing the distance the camera pans back in game, but I just cant figure out the math. Regardless, Ill give the new formula a test in CS:GO when I get back from sweden. 

I use my default 360 for pubg or 41.6CM/360. I then convert Viewspeed V2 for all games based on 41.6CM 360 for Pubg, it seems to work pretty well. In a game like The Witcher 3, which has approximately a 90 FOV it feels fast enough using viewspeed. 

It really depends largely on how the 3rd person FOV was calculated and how accurate it is. For instance, in a game like WoW, the calculator FOV is based on the first person view, but in reality, you are zoomed way far out in WoW, so who knows what the actual FOV of that zoomed out view is. 

I think the problem is that the FOV is more inaccurate on some 3rd person games than others, I have found through trial and error that pubg feels good at a similar sensitivity that I use in first person games, so I convert based on it and it works decently, but not great. Thankfully, there are very few competitive 3rd person games, so it doesn't matter all that much.

[KandiVan]

20 minutes ago, Bryjoe said:

I use my default 360 for pubg or 41.6CM/360. I then convert Viewspeed V2 for all games based on 41.6CM 360 for Pubg, it seems to work pretty well. In a game like The Witcher 3, which has approximately a 90 FOV it feels fast enough using viewspeed. 

It really depends largely on how the 3rd person FOV was calculated and how accurate it is. For instance, in a game like WoW, the calculator FOV is based on the first person view, but in reality, you are zoomed way far out in WoW, so who knows what the actual FOV of that zoomed out view is. 

I think the problem is that the FOV is more inaccurate on some 3rd person games than others, I have found through trial and error that pubg feels good at a similar sensitivity that I use in first person games, so I convert based on it and it works decently, but not great. Thankfully, there are very few competitive 3rd person games, so it doesn't matter all that much.

I think pubg feels fine because its third person FOV is static, when you switch from first to third person the actual size (scaling) of your environment doesnt change, or atleast it didnt use to when I played. Ironically I play h1z1 professionally and unfortunately it is third person. There are a few things im certain of when it comes to H1 third person,

1) there is a static distance your camera is panned back in h1 assuming nothing is obstructing you, ie backed against a wall, that value is 1.67 meters for hipfire and 1.1 meters for ADS (with the AR-15). 

2) switching from first person to third person compresses the image on screen (everything gets smaller, increase in FOV). 

3) the speed of the crosshair in first and third person feel completely different, it is much faster in third person and feels damn near identical to WPS speed when you viewspeed match (which is what you would expect from an FOV change). 

The way i visualize we figure out the problem is by comparing the monitor to a projection of a microscope. First person is the base height of the microscope, and you have your set config FOV. Third person is the equivalent of raising the height of the microscope a set distance, with that everything gets smaller and you see more on the projection (an increase in fov).  There has to be a relationship somewhere where we can figure out the third person fov using the distance the camera pans back.

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[WhoCares?]

I followed your steps, (dunno if i did everything right) and for my settings I get a significant higher sensitivity. My hip 360° distance changed from 47.8778cm to 41.7667cm   (from old viewspeed 2 to your here posted method)

Is this possible? Or did I do something wrong?

For me it feels way to fast :/

 

Edit: Why do I have to use 90 for x when this formula is for vertical fov? Wouldn't 73.74 be more logic? 

Edited December 2, 2017 by WhoCares?

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[WhoCares?]

Hmm, It feels too fast to be honest but maybe just because I am used to a lower sensitivity 

This is only for Windows-2D to 3D environment and not for 3D fov to another 3D fov, right?

For ADS I am using the regular viewspeed v2 right now.

Can I just use the fov for that specific sight/ironsights if I know the value and put it into the calculator?

 

Btw, greatly appreciate your effort ! 

Edited December 2, 2017 by WhoCares?

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[WhoCares?]

Even tho it feels strange, I am doing quite good in games I will test it a little long and will report you

Edited December 2, 2017 by WhoCares?

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[WhoCares?]

Hmm, I never was a big fan of this aim practising applications, but maybe I should give it a try...Looks impressive 

[potato psoas]

I know it's hard to tell the difference between different methods, so I thought I'd create some visuals to display how they actually differ. Should help you guys.

Note: chord in middle of 180 is my method, which just syncs FOVs, like gears, according to the monitor/chord distance (what I think is True Viewspeed)

Some things you can learn:

• obviously, the cm/360 is exponential and will only continue to grow as it approaches 0 FOV, but the difference between the cm/360s decreases as the FOV goes down
• so all the other methods converge the lower the FOV, except for Drimzi's latest formula - which I have labelled Viewspeed v3 (not that it's another version... really there should only be one Viewspeed, anything else is based on another concept)
• at about 30 FOV all conversion methods yield essentially the same cm/360, except for Viewspeed v3 (keep in mind this is from 2D - 3D)
• Viewspeed v1, Viewspeed v2 and Monitor distance 75% are very similar
• monitor distances never cross over, start off quite varied with 0% and 20% having fast cm/360's at high FOVs

MY conclusion:

Since the methods all have increasingly differing cm/360 results at higher FOVs, it might be best to test your "feels" in games like Quake. And the smaller the targets the easier it is to tell. 75% monitor distance and Viewspeed v1 and v2 (and v3) will feel very similar unless you test this way. Lastly, since Viewspeed v3 differs quite a bit at low FOVs, best to test your feels in low FOV, with any method.

 

This is my example data that I used to graph:

Edit: found an error in my graph and added some other screenshots, and I'm going to continue clarifying when I see something that needs better explaining.

Edited December 5, 2017 by potato psoas

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi