Viewspeed v2

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[WhoCares?]

Thank you for all your effort in this Drimzi! 

Right now, I can't play games, but I will spent some more time with this new method! I am sure I will like it in the long run even tho It felt too fast at the first sight 

And thank you for the charts potato psoas

 

I hope the DPI Wizard will update/add this to the calculator in the near future

Edited December 4, 2017 by WhoCares?

[Bryjoe]

16 hours ago, Drimzi said:

Edited last post and updated again.

edit: Edited again. The solution posted before seems correct. Doing the warp stabilizer test, it is spot on.

So, this new solution is only for those that convert based on desktop sensitivity right? The current iteration of Viewspeed V2 is unchanged if you are converting from one game to another?

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[CaptaPraelium]

Just a suggestion: Constantly editing the same post gives no history and disallows people to follow the conversation and your logic. Maybe best to just leave it in place and make a new post.

[Cocyx Skeleton]

Is this going to be the new formula for the "Windows / Desktop" selection?

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[potato psoas]

Hey guys I did some thinking and I came up with some stuff in this thread I made:

 

[potato psoas]

In terms of what conversion method to use, I posted about this before but you assume the monitor distance doesn't change and all FOVs are bound by the edges of the monitor screen, like this:

FOVs scale around the monitor. Then all you have to figure out is the radius for a particular FOV you want to convert to and you can find its cm/360 (or sensitivity), given that you know the monitor distance (you can always find the monitor distance by doing this whole process in reverse for a cm/360 at a FOV you like).

 

But if this doesn't work I also like the idea of monitor distance 100% as that is True Viewspeed, like gears and pulley.

Edited December 7, 2017 by potato psoas

[potato psoas]

On 12/3/2017 at 6:11 PM, potato psoas said:

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.

So I followed my advice from my previous post and I have to say 0% monitor match feels the most in sync to me. I did find that you had to make the targets as close to the same size as possible to make sure the feel was the same. This is especially IMPORTANT at high FOVs like 170.

The pincushion effect also causes you to think a target is bigger than it really is, so you move to it but you over shoot. You overshoot by a mile at 170FOV. But it doesn't mean the sensitivity is too fast, it's just too stretched for you to accurately predict.

Then there is the fact that 2D sensitivity is based on dots and 3D sensitivity is based on counts. Your smallest targets never get any smaller in 2D but can become unimaginably smaller at high FOVs like 170.

100% is perfect.

Viewspeed is even more perfect

Nevermind, they all feel off until you've tried my method. (Sorry for being such an inconsistent noob about this lol)

Edited December 9, 2017 by potato psoas

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[potato psoas]

15 minutes ago, Drimzi said:

Viewspeed V2 works like u describe. It is pretty much just a value scaled up and down by sin(x/2), which is the height. 180 is 1, 90 is 0.707, 45 is 0.38, etc. The inverse being csc(x/2).

well I get vastly different results than Viewspeed v2, so it seems to be using a different process

[potato psoas]

If anyone has CS:GO and wants to test out my method can you give me your:

DPI and WPS

How far away your eyes sit from your monitor (tape measure! )

Resolution

And your monitor's actual horizontal width (tape measure?) - not your chord length

[Bryjoe]

5 hours ago, Drimzi said:

No, but I do want to make sure it is correct first before anymore changes in the calculator. I don't think viewspeed v2 is 100% correct at the moment, I know it needs to be faster for desktop conversion, but I really don't know how to verify.

I am trying to take the concept of viewspeed v1 and apply it to viewspeed v2 in order to get the desktop speed feeling 1:1.

Starting again from DNAMTE's model, which he made to try understand what is happening with fov change and how it scales on a screen.

 

There are 2 ratios to consider for FOV scaling.

The Chord ratio from 180 degrees: (sqrt(2) cot((π x)/360))

You can verify with the image:

• 1571.731948 / 1110.83258 = 1.41 = (sqrt(2) cot((π 90)/360))
• 1571.731948 / 460.12 = 3.41 = (sqrt(2) cot((π 45)/360))

The Circle ratio from 90 degrees: (sqrt(2) cos((π x)/360))

You can verify with the image:

• 785.8665 / 601.7557 = 1.3 = (sqrt(2) cos((π 45)/360))

Chord ratio / Circle ratio (simplified) = csc((π x)/360)

Now we can use this to scale a sensitivity.

For Viewspeed v2 desktop conversion, simply take the desktop height, multiply by π, divide by DPI, and multiply by csc((π x)/360) to scale it to a specific FOV.

Example: 1080 π / 400 csc((π 90)/360), for 1920x1080, 400 DPI, and 90 Vertical FOV

 

This desktop conversion to me is incomplete. Viewspeed v1 was a good idea, and is why it is still in the calculator. I am thinking the logic behind it needs to be applied here to complete the formula. The desktop length needs to be a bit shorter at 90 FOV.

 

What is interesting here, is applying that logic to every FOV will result in 100% monitor match, which is much different to the calculator's version of 100%, since I'm using the 1:1 resolution and FOV. The 90 FOV result is pretty close to what I would call 1:1 with Windows, it is the exact same as the solution I came up with earlier. The rest of the FOVs scale in a 100% monitor match fashion though, truly like gears.

45 FOV is exactly 2x the 360 distance of 90 degrees, and so on. This could actually be the true answer right here, but only with my theory on using the 1:1 resolution and FOV. It results in slower fov scaling to lower fovs, which will stop people complaining that viewspeed is too fast, it results in faster desktop conversion which will stop me from complaining, and overall it's more logical.

Chord / Arc = c/(c + c * (((π x)/180) - 2 sin((π x)/360))/(2 sin((π x)/360)))    // c=chord/desktop length, x = fov

(Chord ratio / Circle ratio) * (Chord / Arc) = csc((π x)/360) / (c/(c + c * (((π x)/180) - 2 sin((π x)/360))/(2 sin((π x)/360))))    // c=chord/desktop length, x = fov

= (360 c)/(π x)    // c=chord/desktop length, x = fov

= (360 (1080 π / 400)) / (π 90), for 1920x1080, 400 DPI, and 90 Vertical FOV

 

If you apply the logic only to the chord/arc multiplier, then you get Viewspeed v2 FOV scaling but with the desktop conversion being the same as the above at 90 FOV, which is the same as the solution I came up with earlier.

DNAMTE did assume from his measurements in the image above that it resulted in 100% monitor match. So maybe viewspeed v2 was incomplete all along, and needed viewspeed v1 to finish it off.

 

Food for thought.

 

 

 

So now we are talking about going back to the drawing board on Viewspeed? To me Viewspeed V2 made the most "sense" not in a mathematical way, but it was close to 75% monitor match which most people seem to like. Really, you can quickly get "used to" any Monitor Match after a few hours of playing. Games where the match is hardcoded like COD feel fine after awhile even if you're used to 75%. 

 

Maybe it's truly something like what was thought originally: there is no "right" ratio. 0% is better for aiming around the center of the screen, 50% is good for both, 75% is great for flicks while still retaining most of the accuracy of 0% and 100% is best for flicks.

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[DPI Wizard]

I will review this when I'm doing the next code update, great work!

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[KandiVan]

2 hours ago, Drimzi said:

Just tested Shoot the Beat at 114 FOV and osu!, same song, absolutely no recovery time between both, just raw flicks and the accuracyand feeling is perfect and 1:1 in both scenarios.

I couldnt be bothered clicking, i cant click/tap keys in these hard maps...shoot the beat doesnt have auto click

 

With this formula, 114 vertical FOV, which is 140.57 horizontal, I can accurately and subconsciously predict the distances perfectly fine, even though the targets are so fast and far apart, with motion blur etc.

So relative to the previous viewspeed v3 formula, is this faster or slower? The previous felt really good to me, potentially a tad bit fast. And can you post a new formula? I tried modifying the previous one but dont think I did it right.

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[potato psoas]

None of these formulas you are creating are going to feel correct because you aren't taking into account your sitting distance. You will get a different perceived sensitivity depending on where you sit. It's why we have to change our sensitivity for different FOVs in the first place. If we changed our sitting distance to account for a change in FOV then you wouldn't need to change your sensitivity because it would feel exactly the same (but that is highly unpractical). Whatever formulas you create which feel good for you won't feel good for everyone else unless you account for sitting distance.

Edited December 9, 2017 by potato psoas

[potato psoas]

Try measuring the distance between the monitor and your eyes then calculate your sitting FOV and sitting cm/360 using this formula in Excel:

FOV = 2*DEGREES(ATAN((P/2)/S))

RADIUS = (X/2)/SIN(RADIANS(FOV/2))

cm/360 = 2*PI()*RADIUS

P = Physical Monitor's Width (e.g. my 22" 16:10 has a width of 47.4cm from the first pixel to the last pixel)

S = The distance between the monitor and your eyes (e.g. 63cm)

X = Desktop 2D sensitivity (e.g. 10.668cm)

 

Then you convert, using this calculated FOV and cm/360 distance, to any FOV, using any conversion method you think works best. I tried it with 100% and I think it works perfect. I would show you a video but you can really only tell for yourself.

Edited December 9, 2017 by potato psoas

[knocksee]

why cant i delete this post ><

Edited December 7, 2017 by knocksee

[KandiVan]

4 hours ago, Drimzi said:

It's slower.

Input: Horizontal 4:3 Based

Input: Horizontal 16:9 Based

Input: Vertical

f = fov, c = resolution height, m = mouse dpi.

Since the formula uses vertical fov, use the correct link, the fov you set will get converted to vertical, so it can output the correct 360 distance.

Feels a tad slow. I also noticed were completely eliminating the FOV scaling formula with this one?  

 

EDIT: Maybe not, let me test for a few more hours.

Edited December 7, 2017 by KandiVan

[Bryjoe]

8 hours ago, potato psoas said:

Try measuring the distance between the monitor and your eyes then calculate your sitting FOV and sitting cm/360 using this formula in Excel:

FOV = 2*DEGREES(ATAN((P/2)/S))

RADIUS = (X/2)/SIN(RADIANS(FOV/2))

cm/360 = 2*PI()*RADIUS

P = Physical Monitor's Width (e.g. my 22" 16:10 has a width of 47.4cm from the first pixel to the last pixel)

S = The distance between the monitor and your eyes (e.g. 63cm)

X = Desktop 2D sensitivity (e.g. 10.668cm)

 

Then you convert, using this calculated FOV and cm/360 distance, to any FOV, using any conversion method you think works best. I tried it with 100% and I think it works perfect. I would show you a video but you can really only tell for yourself.

Why would sitting farther away help with the FOV? No matter how far or close you are to the screen the 3D space that is shown is the same. Actually, when you are farther away a lower FOV should be more comfortable, hence why a lot of console games have low FOV (also better performance). I think matching based on a ratio like viewspeed works just fine. In fact, it has been a revelation in how I match sensitivities across multiple FOVS. Game to game, my aim feels the same, it is not challenging to jump right into a new shooter anymore.