Viewspeed v2

[WhoCares?]

I am going to test it out today !

 

Btw, can have a graph or something later on? I am interested in how the curve looks like

Edited December 15, 2017 by WhoCares?

[potato psoas]

What do you guys think of this diagram?

So the math gives us the GEAR RATIO METHOD. Then 100%MM theoretically matches 3D to 2D perfectly. But because of distortion you will never be able to match 3D perfectly to 2D. That is unless you correct the distribution of the projection or you have a perfectly malleable, customisable curved monitor. And I'm not sure if game developers can even correct the distortion, and how it differs from game to game (Bioshock e.g. uses the opposite, curvilinear projection). But we know Rectilinear projection is in most games so we definitely have to account for it. And if they did correct it then how would aspect ratio affect it?

I'm not exactly sure how Viewspeed v1 or v2 account for distortion. Someone remind me. Obviously different points on the monitor will be faster or slower but you can find a middle ground to make it as close as possible, maybe even dropping off the useless extremely high FOVs. But I'm not sure what middle ground Viewspeed uses or if it has another idea? I know DNAMTE originally said something about speed vs distance. Tangential velocity or circumferential speed of rotation? (Something different from the gear ratio method)

 

When I was thinking about it, at 180FOV the distribution is completely uneven. If you were to have a middle ground at 180 FOV it would be 0% MM. And the lower the FOV the closer you get to perfect distribution so the lower the FOV the better is to use 100% MM. So basically, the entire FOV range is scaled along from 100% to 0% MM. So I thought about how the monitor matching might scale and I'm pretty sure it would scale exponentially as if it were the curve of a unit circle:

Math/working:

At 0 FOV you get y = 100 MM and at 180FOV you get y = 0 MM.

Since the y axis goes from 0 to 100 the radius is 100. Although another way to look at it is monitor match is a percentage. Therefore 100% is 1 and that means the radius is 1.

So then using trig you can get the formula: cosine(ϴ) = A/H ... then substitute

cos(ϴ) = y / r ... then we want y on its own

y = r . cos(ϴ) ... and since r is 1

y = cos(ϴ) ... and ϴ is simply the FOV / 2, so ultimately monitor matching as a function of FOV is

MM(FOV) = cos(FOV/2)

So I plugged this formula into Excel and it gave me this data:

As you can see, the "middle ground" monitor match for each FOV scales from 100% at 0FOV to 0% at 180FOV.

The interesting thing is that the most common FOVs all lie somewhere around 70% which is what Viewspeed and such end up around. The difference, however, with this method is that as the FOV increases it approaches 0%. Therefore the monitor matched circumference would start at 0cm/360 and exponentially increase as we approached 0 FOV.

Since the formula scales from 0% to 100% it wouldn't have the same aspect ratio dependent downfalls as Viewspeed v1 as everything stays within monitor match. And honestly, Viewspeed would never be perfect anyway because of distortion which I'm not sure it even accounts for. Perfection can only be given to 100%MM but with evenly distributed circumferential intervals. Although, the next closest thing is the Gear Ratio method (True Viewspeed) where every FOV's speed is in sync, though this method is limited to 3D to 3D conversions:

Edited December 15, 2017 by potato psoas

[mcdoncod]

I've been testing the newest formula on OW, and I'm loving it. I want to test on another game that I play at 1024x768 black bars.  I use the 4:3 formula, and edit the 1080 to 768 for the conversion right?

Edited December 15, 2017 by mcdoncod

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[seventhfrost]

I've been lurking and testing these in siege the past few days, and figured I'd post thoughts on some of the formulas. I use 90 vFOV hipfire, which is 81 vFOV in ADS, and I matched both of those 360 distances up as well as I could with siege's settings. I've tried every formula since the post with the wrong formula for 90 diagonal arc length for a couple hours. It might not be the best reference point but it's what I'm judging by personally. Also I use 300 dpi (usually) and have been using v2 from desktop for both sensitivities for a good bit now.

Anyway, these are some thoughts I had on the formulas that I thought might be useful (maybe).

I really liked the 2d to 3d from the 'bugged' diagonal 90 arch length formula, but it really was probably too fast.

The one drimzi said felt best going from 2d to 3d felt the tiniest bit slow for me.

"Viewspeed using Diagonal FOV" was very slow in comparison to the rest. Didn't match up at all to me, I don't think, even if it felt nice ingame.

Having spent time using v2, the "Viewspeed v2 / Chord/Arc" formula, which was the same as v2 at 90 vfov and faster at 81, felt better than v2 in ADS by quite a bit. However when testing with the ACOG matched (31.5 vFOV), it felt faster than I thought it should. 

This new formula felt a tad slow to me at every fov, but I performed very well with it at all 3 FOVs and adjusted more quickly than I ever have, though I didn't quite lose the sluggish feeling at 31.5 vFOV. Both tracking and flicks (flicks to enemies on screen and also to doorways on and off screen) were great almost immediately. As good as or better than V2 / Chord/Arc, which is the best it's ever felt in ADS. After a few hours with it, I'm willing to bet the feeling of sluggishness just had to do with me being used to V2.

That's all from my notes I thought might be of any help as another data point. I'm not sure how final that declaration on the last formula that it should be super perfect is, but if you're not already there, I think you're definitely on the right track, and I do hope whatever ends up being the final solution ends up on the calc. Really cool to see people trying to continue to improve this!

Edit: forgot to just say that in general i think the newest one is the best overall. Going to try it in pubg soon, I think.

Edited December 15, 2017 by seventhfrost

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[WhoCares?]

Thank you for the grahps:)

Some quick feedback from my side : I think it feels extremy good, but to be honest, a lot of formulars before felt quite similar and good too. Hard to tell the differences between some of them.

Just looking at this and the old Viewspeed 2; I find this one (a little bit )better

Edited December 15, 2017 by WhoCares?

[Bryjoe]

41 minutes ago, WhoCares? said:

Thank you for the grahps:)

Some quick feedback from my side : I think it feels extremy good, but to be honest, a lot of formulars before felt quite similar and good too. Hard to tell the differences between some of them.

Just looking at this and the old Viewspeed 2; I find this one (a little bit )better

I haven't gotten a chance to try this yet. Obviously, the more you use a method, the better it tends to feel, I wonder if quickly switching between the methods before you actually got "used" to them would be ideal?

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[Cocyx Skeleton]

Feels like it might be too slow to me personally, compared to desktop mouse movement. But I might just not be used to it.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding how it's supposed to feel -- but if I were to take a screenshot of a game and set it to my desktop background, would moving my mouse from the center of my screen (where my crosshair is) to an object in that screenshot be the exact same distance as going in-game and moving my crosshair to that object?

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[Cocyx Skeleton]

2 minutes ago, Drimzi said:

No that will only work for monitor distance match, which doesn't account for the distortion.

It is impossible to make 2D and 3D result in the same 2D distance at every point on the screen, due to the distortion.

You only aim within the center of the screen anyway. Your crosshair is fixed to the center of the screen. As you rotate towards the object, everything that was distorted is now moving towards the center of the screen, gradually becoming undistorted.

This is why matching 2D and 3D is so difficult and there is no known factual method yet.

I see -- so the only viable measurement is to just rely on muscle memory via something like comparing OSU to shoot the beat?

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[KandiVan]

Just now, Drimzi said:

There probably is a way to measure it, but for now just have to judge based on feeling. To truly be able to reflect on your feelings across 2D, 3D, and FOVs, time is needed. Play a long session, and once you finish and you are back on the desktop, it shouldn't feel odd. Shoot the Beat! is pretty good, but it's so close to the playfield, that low FOVs require a lot of rotation and can feel too slow, whereas if you try the same low FOV in a 3D shooter with objects at normal distances, it will feel completely 1:1.

If we limit the fov range to limit distortion, say 60-80 vFOV, does it make finding a perfect solution easier? It always seems like the extremes of the spectrum are what cause us issues. I realize that with sniper scopes in other games it has to be done, but personally in H1 its pretty much irrelevant because the hunting rifle ~22vFOV is so rare and im not even my teams dedicated hunting rifle so i essentially never use it. 

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[seventhfrost]

When I decided to try matching 2d to 3d, i wanted to do that. preferred DPI would have been 320, but steelseries only allows steps of 100, so 300 it is.

[Bryjoe]

13 minutes ago, Drimzi said:

There probably is a way to measure it, but for now just have to judge based on feeling. To truly be able to reflect on your feelings across 2D, 3D, and FOVs, time is needed. Play a long session, and once you finish and you are back on the desktop, it shouldn't feel odd. Shoot the Beat! is pretty good, but it's so close to the playfield, that low FOVs require a lot of rotation and can feel too slow, whereas if you try the same low FOV in a 3D shooter with objects at normal distances, it will feel completely 1:1.

I think the innate problem is that it's based on feel right? I mean we know that if you are going from a high to a low FOV the aim has to be slower or it's jarring, but how much slower? How much faster if we go the opposite way? How do we know a particular scaling method is superior if it's just by feel? Especially if we have long sessions that allow our brain to become acclimated with the scaling. 

If the middle of the screen is most important, you would think a method that scaled closer to a 0% would be preferred, but it isn't.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Bryjoe

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[Bryjoe]

2 minutes ago, Drimzi said:

The monitor match % depends on the amount of distortion. As you approach 0 FOV, you will prefer 100% monitor match, as you approach 180 FOV, you will prefer 0% monitor match.

Ah, see that makes a lot of sense. This new formula attempts to get rid of this favoritism towards a scaling method at low and high FOVS?

So, for sniping, you would like a lower match and for Quake Champions you would like a higher match for example?

Edited December 15, 2017 by Bryjoe

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[seventhfrost]

Just now, Drimzi said:

Use WPS. 3/11 will basically allow 25 DPI steps.

• 300 * 4 = 1200
• 1300 / 4 = 325

Your minimum possible ingame rotation will be 1/4 of what it was as well, since you will have to decrease the game sensitivity by 1/4 to maintain the 360 distance as raw input bypasses WPS completely. This is 4x more potential precision, and 4x as many increments of rotation, so 4x smoother aiming when the polling rate is not the bottleneck.

I tried that, but siege uses raw input no matter what and I think I didn't want to bother finding out if its settings could handle whatever i'd need to change it to. But since I've been messing with this stuff anyway, it can't hurt to see if it'll work now.

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[seventhfrost]

Just now, Drimzi said:

Siege applies raw input to the 2D mouse cursor as well? Ouch.

oh sorry, nono. 2d is fine, but it was more work than I felt like doing to find the settings that'd get me the right 360 distance ingame at the time. just laziness. But now i've been doing that for like 3 days.

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi