Viewspeed v2

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[DNAMTE]

Vertical matching is the way to go, I agree. when your going from 4:3 to 16:9 for example the only difference is peripheral, not turning mechanics, vertical FOV eliminates some of the problems that this presented.

When I previously posted the formula of Chord Ratio / Circle Ratio (which equals extremely close to 100% monitor match) it seemed that something was not correct, I expected different results, put it on the back seat and looked for another solution.

Using Vertical FOV in the formula gives the results I was looking for, in a similar way that original view speed does. I'm testing this method currently with Drimzi and so far I really like it.

 

 

[Bryjoe]

On 8/25/2017 at 2:56 AM, NoSafety said:

oh! well... just testing it now , overwatch and cs feel the same, couldn't tell a difference between 1x and 2x awp but idk may not have spent enough time on this, I will go back and check, about to play aim hero and i'll get back in a hour or so the one thing I will note is that I honestly could not tell you if the desktop and game feel different to one another yet.to be

Overwatch and CSGO have such close for 103 to 106 I assume the conversion would be almost 1:1 no matter what method you used?

 

I think this viewspeed is ready for the calculator tho. 

 

 

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[KandiVan]

Ouuu, excited to get home and try the vertical version. Sounds like you've figured it out drimzi, bravo!

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[DNAMTE]

5 hours ago, Drimzi said:

Yup, I think Option B is indeed the correct option.

Taking the aspect ratio out of the equation leaves you with a square. Perfect 1:1 ratio. The only measurement you can use in this case is the vertical since that is the bottleneck. So for 3D all measurements will use the vertical field of view.

The diameter of a square is the indeed the diagonal length. So if you use the vertical measurement (pixel count) of your native resolution, use that for the height and width of the square, then calculate the diagonal of that, you get the diameter. Multiply by π and you get a circle instead of a square, essentially giving you the circumference (360 distance) for 90 degrees vertically (and horizontally if your monitor was square).

Here is an illustration of what I am talking about:

 

So, 2D to 3D 360 distance, which is applied to 90 degrees vfov, is as follows:

Circumference = (sqrt(2) π h)/m

h being resolution height, m being the pixels moved per inch of mouse movement (mouse dpi @ wps 6/11)

Your suggesting an axial measurement is part of a square, which its not. it's just a length. Using vertical measurements makes sense to me, diagonal does not. 

Simply using  chord length / Circle Ratio whereby all measurements come from the vertical axis gives very nice results. IMO. (and a very small step from the current view speed implementation)

[NoSafety]

On 8/26/2017 at 5:22 PM, Bryjoe said:

Overwatch and CSGO have such close for 103 to 106 I assume the conversion would be almost 1:1 no matter what method you used?

 

I think this viewspeed is ready for the calculator tho. 

 

 

 

I noticed it was a little slower on overwatch but only enough to undershoot by a pixel quite consistently when I went back onto cs. I've changed back to my sensitivity now anyway for now.

Edited August 28, 2017 by NoSafety

[DPI Wizard]

The new Viewspeed is live!

Thanks a lot to everyone contributing to this!

Unfortunately I can't plug the formulas directly into the code, I need to work them a bit so it takes some time. And I also need to find the formulas for reverse conversion. But it helps a lot with the way you organized the first post @Drimzi!

It's all done now, please test it and report any weird stuff or if it works as expected.

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[iBerggman]

5 hours ago, DPI Wizard said:

The new Viewspeed is live!

Thanks a lot to everyone contributing to this!

Unfortunately I can't plug the formulas directly into the code, I need to work them a bit so it takes some time. And I also need to find the formulas for reverse conversion. But it helps a lot with the way you organized the first post @Drimzi!

It's all done now, please test it and report any weird stuff or if it works as expected.

Converting from Windows/Desktop to Game with the new viewspeed doesn't seem to work, it always gives me the same value (2.170295 for csgo) no matter what DPI or WPS I use.

[DPI Wizard]

6 minutes ago, Drimzi said:

Awesome, I'm on phone ATM but looks like there's a bug with raw input or WPS. Its only giving the 6/11 sensitivity value.

Indeed, forgot to add the WPS modifiers, updated now.

[Bryjoe]

CSGO fov  shows at 104 instead of 106 is this right?

[DPI Wizard]

5 minutes ago, iBerggman said:

Converting from Windows/Desktop to Game with the new viewspeed doesn't seem to work, it always gives me the same value (2.170295 for csgo) no matter what DPI or WPS I use.

Fixed WPS now. Changing DPI will not yield a different result  as long as they are the same on both input and output.

[DPI Wizard]

3 minutes ago, Bryjoe said:

CSGO fov  shows at 104 instead of 106 is this right?

Should be 106.26 still, is your resolution detected correctly?

[KandiVan]

14 hours ago, DNAMTE said:

Your suggesting an axial measurement is part of a square, which its not. it's just a length. Using vertical measurements makes sense to me, diagonal does not. 

Simply using  chord length / Circle Ratio whereby all measurements come from the vertical axis gives very nice results. IMO. (and a very small step from the current view speed implementation)

so are you using the previous vertical implementation? I always felt viewspeed was too fast on lower FOV's, and this new formula increases it even more. I thought the vertical formula was going to be perfect.

[Bryjoe]

3 hours ago, KandiVan said:

so are you using the previous vertical implementation? I always felt viewspeed was too fast on lower FOV's, and this new formula increases it even more. I thought the vertical formula was going to be perfect.

Too fast? If anything the lower fov should feel slower to you as it's substantially increases the distance/360. Did you mean too fast at higher FOV?

 

I've always felt that was the downside, too slow at really low FOVs, for instance Fallout 4 has a really large 360 distance conversion.

 

[DPI Wizard]

I think there's an issue with how I integrated the formulas, as changing FOV and resolution do not alter the output at all. Reverted back to the original method and moved the new one here while I'm looking into it.

[massivelivefun]

How do I go about using the formula with wolfram alpha? I'm trying to compare values to the calculator's alpha to results that I get on wolfram.

@Drimzi Could you check if I re-purposed the formula correctly so that I can use a specific 360, or is that not possible anymore?

a=3/4;

h=1440;

m=400;

C=(sqrt(2) π h)/m;

C=43.2955

x=90;

θ=2 arctan(a tan((π x)/360)); [no a variable]

(C csc(θ/2))/sqrt(2);

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=x%3D90;+d%3D43.2955;+θ%3D2+arctan(tan((π+x)%2F360));+(d+csc(θ%2F2))%2Fsqrt(2);

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[massivelivefun]

Okay, so I did this; a basic example of 4:3 csgo hipfire: 2.4 @ 400dpi, 1.2 @ 800, & 0.6 @ 1600, et cetera:

a=3/4; x=90; θ=2 arctan(a tan((π x)/360)); (C csc(θ/2))/sqrt(2)=43.2955 cm;

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=a%3D3%2F4;+x%3D90;+θ%3D2+arctan(a+tan((π+x)%2F360));+(C+csc(θ%2F2))%2Fsqrt(2)%3D43.2955;

And C solved to 36.7374 cm.

I then try to match hipfire viewspeed to the first awp zoom with my C I found:

a=3/4; x=40; θ=2 arctan(a tan((π x)/360)); (36.7374 csc(θ/2))/sqrt(2);

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=a%3D3%2F4;+x%3D40;+θ%3D2+arctan(a+tan((π+x)%2F360));+(36.7374+csc(θ%2F2))%2Fsqrt(2);

Which got me 98.6445 cm. However the alpha calculator shows 98.6446 cm, which probably means that the calculator just rounds up at the ten thousandths place.

Just to check, I put my C back into the formula that handles hipfire, a=3/4; x=90; θ=2 arctan(a tan((π x)/360)); (36.7374  csc(θ/2))/sqrt(2);

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=a%3D3%2F4;+x%3D90;+θ%3D2+arctan(a+tan((π+x)%2F360));+(36.7374+ csc(θ%2F2))%2Fsqrt(2)

I get 43.2954 cm, but it should be 43.2955. Just more minor discrepancies I suppose.

 

 

For the sake of redundancy I'll try your other way you recommended with the random dpi:

a=3/4; x=90; h=1080; m=130.611; C=(sqrt(2) π h)/m; θ=2 arctan(a tan((π x)/360)); (C csc(θ/2))/sqrt(2);

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=a%3D3%2F4;+x%3D90;+h%3D1080;+m%3D130.611;+C%3D(sqrt(2)+π+h)%2Fm;+θ%3D2+arctan(a+tan((π+x)%2F360));+(C+csc(θ%2F2))%2Fsqrt(2)

The above got me approximately 43.2955 cm.

Then I isolated h, m, c to see if I get the same C from earlier, 36.7374 cm.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=h%3D1080;+m%3D130.611;+C%3D(sqrt(2)+π+h)%2Fm;

I got approximately 36.7374 as my C.

 

 

From this exercise I have a few questions:

1. Does variable 'a' have to equal '3/4' when said game uses strict horizontal 4:3 fov handling?

2. Otherwise does 'a' have to 'match' the screen's aspect ratio when using the other formulas?

3. Can I use the same 'C' in other games, or will I have to check for 'C' for every game?

Edited September 1, 2017 by massivelivefun

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[massivelivefun]

Thank you for the responses. So the only problem left with your viewspeed formula is to handle stretched resolutions?