Viewspeed v2

[DPI Wizard]

14 hours ago, Drimzi said:

The implementation is correct on the website. He removed it because it didn't compensate for the fact that someone stretched their game and was wondering why the stretched game looks faster than the output game.

Actually I stumbled upon a bug where the code didn't always execute properly, that's mainly why I moved. The formula is correct, but something causes it sometimes get stuck on a calculation. Working on it  

[Eleazar98]

16 hours ago, DPI Wizard said:

Actually I stumbled upon a bug where the code didn't always execute properly, that's mainly why I moved. The formula is correct, but something causes it sometimes get stuck on a calculation. Working on it  

Might I just add that that bug has been around for a while. I have experienced it occasionally when using the old viewspeed for the past 2 months or so. Maybe only 5-6 times, but I KNOW when my chord length is almost 2 inches off when I've been doing calculations for a few hours. Same bug occurs with the current viewspeed, even after you took the new version off of the live calculator. I've had it happen ~2 times in the past few days. If it is useful information, I have only noticed it happening when I use windows snap assist to put my calculator on the left side of my monitor while I edit the config file on the right side of my monitor. I've never seen it happen while chrome is maximized. I've found that refreshing or just opening a new tab with mouse-sensitivity.com fixes it though.

Regardless of any bugs however, I LOVE the new viewspeed, and I have been using it for every game now. I have always felt that my snaps from game to game have not been quite 100% since I started using viewspeed, but I was fine with it because I would otherwise only be able to seriously play one game at a time, and viewspeed made it so that it would feel very close, albeit not perfect, to a match. With the new viewspeed, however, all of my games feel identical, all of my snaps from target to target, regardless of game, feel identical. It is truly amazing. I was fine with compromising accuracy a bit before so that I could play more games than whatever title I was most invested in at the time, but now I can play my most competitive title (overwatch), and still be able to play whatever game a friend asks me to join him/her in without hurting my muscle memory whatsoever. This new version works perfectly (aside from the fov glitch which is easy to catch) for Overwatch at 70.53 fov converting to aimhero at 70fov and battlefield 4 at 90fov. They all feel identicle, and it is truly the most amazing change I have ever seen on this website. Thank you three (and anyone else involved) for all the hard work you've put into this!

Edited September 2, 2017 by Eleazar98

[DNAMTE]

Great feeback

[Bryjoe]

I ran into an issue possibly:

 

Why does DPI effect the conversion 360? If I am converting based on a 360 distance, dpi shouldn't matter the config/in-game sensitivity should just move up or down based on dpi. Is this due to the chord length?

[DPI Wizard]

It shouldn't affect it, I need to modify the calculations a bit so screen size in pixels don't affect it unless it's from desktop.

[Bryjoe]

59 minutes ago, DPI Wizard said:

It shouldn't affect it, I need to modify the calculations a bit so screen size in pixels don't affect it unless it's from desktop.

Ok, FYI, I also experience the different sens when changing DPIs when I use Monitor Distance. It doesn't seem to be a problem with a game without vastly different FOVS like Battlefield 1 only changed a few decimals on the distance/360 when I changed DPI.

See Resident Evil 7 below, it has a really low default FOV and we see almost a 20Cm difference between 360 values, Monitor Distance and Viewspeed for that matter should only be based on FOV no?

 

 

 

Edited September 6, 2017 by Bryjoe

[DPI Wizard]

3 minutes ago, Bryjoe said:

Ok, FYI, I also experience the different sens when changing DPIs when I use Monitor Distance. It doesn't seem to be a problem with a game without vastly different FOVS like Battlefield 1 only changed a few decimals on the distance/360 when I changed DPI.

Let me just clarify, changing DPI will change the calculations, but the end-result should be the same.

The reason you are seeing such huge discrepancy for RE7 is that it has very little fine tuning.

[Bryjoe]

35 minutes ago, DPI Wizard said:

Let me just clarify, changing DPI will change the calculations, but the end-result should be the same.

The reason you are seeing such huge discrepancy for RE7 is that it has very little fine tuning.

Ok I assume it's the same issue with Gears then? Which doesn't have an ability to fine tune sensitivity? But it should have different in-game sens outputs, like RE7 might be inaccurate but it still recommends the same in-game setting and it should be the same for Gears I assume?

It might be an issue with Gears, which doesn't really have much of an ability to scale; for 800 DPI and my medium/low sens of 41.6cm it can't calculate the ADS or Zoom sens. 

Edit: Yep after testing something like PubG even at a really low FOV it's sensitivity can scale much easier, so the discrepancy wasn't there. I guess the question is for games with super imprecise measurements like that, is it better to use a high or low DPI?

Edited September 6, 2017 by Bryjoe

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[CaptaPraelium]

On 10/08/2017 at 6:17 AM, Drimzi said:

edit: Well diagonal fov is a no go. It scales much faster as the fov decreases.

Did you try a diagonal other than the usual one from centre to corner of screen? Remember that won't work because of the whole perspective/distortion thing.

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[CaptaPraelium]

So basically, your theory is that projection distortion has no effect on our perception of the game world and our anticipated changes in sens with changes in fov?

Edit: by distortion I am referring to the differential distortion between the two axes

Edited September 7, 2017 by CaptaPraelium

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[CaptaPraelium]

Ahh I understand your approach now. Using the apothem ratio (combined with the zoom ratio) should take care of perspective nicely! One can easily see how the character seems to 'jump' closer when we zoom in/ADS. Apothem is a good simple way to deal with that.
I've been really unwell but I'm dying to try this, especially now that I understand the new formula. I'll be trying a new game (PUBG) tomorrow night so that's an excellent opportunity. I'll feed you back what i find but I already have good feelings about this.
The new formula is the alpha page right? Just to save me some time doing it manually.....

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[DNAMTE]

All these fancy terms floating around.... forget apothem, its not the apothem, it's simply the relationship between chord (flat) and radial ratios. You can pick any measurement from either; radius, diameter, apothem or any other measurement you desire.... same result.

Experimentation was the birth of this formula, as with view speed. I, nor drimzi have any proof that its correct, it's theory. It just so turned out that it resulted in something similar (logical) scaling to the old view speed. I always did feel that the lower FOV felt a little slow in comparison to the higher FOV and this new method speeds it all up a little. Great. I feel this method is superior as we don't have to deal with aspect ratios and the consequent mess that horizontal matching can present.

It would be great to get some feedback as to what everyone thinks (who has tested it) any constructive criticism is appreciated.

[Kilroy]

Ever since I asked a question back on page 7 about a month ago, did the view speed formula get changed again, or is it just getting explained?

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[onscreen]

Converting from 1080p desktop to CS:GO 4:3 stretched, would the calculation change? Or is it the same as 16:9 which works out with this formula as 2.893726?

 

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[onscreen]

So if I have this right. 

2.893726 = 14.1372

+12.5% = 15.90435

= 2.572195.

 

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[CaptaPraelium]

On 09/09/2017 at 6:45 PM, DNAMTE said:

All these fancy terms floating around.... forget apothem, its not the apothem, it's simply the relationship between chord (flat) and radial ratios. You can pick any measurement from either; radius, diameter, apothem or any other measurement you desire.... same result.

OK, I thought he meant apothem as in distance from eye to monitor... but TBH I prefer to exclude the monitor from this as much as possible and the 'apothem' chosen so far meets that requirement... What ever name we give it

I've been testing the living daylights out of this and I have to say it's pretty amazing. I've had to buy a new mouse and so that's meant a DPI change at the desktop (still using the same mouse for gaming), so I'm going to take things a step further and desktop-match. This means a change in hipfire sens (cm/360) from 42 to 44cm which could be a hindrance so it will be interesting to see if desktop-matching helps develop new 'muscle memory' quickly.

All in all, I have to say this new formula is by far and away the most natural-feeling I've encountered since joining the master race.
Edit: The only thing I feel I should add at this point, is that I feel this formula deserves to be added to the calculator and the original viewspeed left in place. Old viewspeed still has purpose (as has been said above, it's the same or similar to many games) and the new one is unique enough to have it's own name.

Edited September 24, 2017 by CaptaPraelium

[CaptaPraelium]

I think I may have found an issue with this. Something's not right with the BF1 vehicles. The tanks are SOOOO slow. It's like I set my mouse to 20 DPI.

[Drimzi]

Edited January 28, 2018 by Drimzi