Leaderboard

The more you get into PC gaming the more you'll want things like a really big mousepad and a big enough desk to fit said mousepad. You usually start off with a 2cm 360 and end up playing on a ruler's length or more 360 (at 90 FOV), haha. Reason being, because if you under or over aim with a high sensitivity, you can be off your target heaps but with a lower sensitivity you have more room for error. And since there is less room for error you are far more consistent from game to game. Of course this is relative to how big of a target you are aiming to. In most games the smallest targets you are going to shoot are like 10 pixels wide. So you want to make sure your sensitivity allows you to comfortably aim at small targets as well. Speed doesn't matter if you can't aim. But you don't want to go too low as well otherwise by the time it takes you to move your crosshair to the enemy they will have already killed you. You have to find a balance between speed and aim. Unlike console controllers, you can actually use a low sensitivity because you can just compensate by moving your mouse faster. You want to make sure you are pivoting from the elbow and not from the wrist. The benefit of using your elbow is that it gives you a greater arc of rotation with which to aim with - more space to paint the finest details of your masterpiece! And unlike wrist aiming you shouldn't develop carpal tunnel syndrome. You'll build pretty big arm muscles doing this as well. And the stronger your arm gets the faster you can move your mouse, and in turn, the lower the sensitivity you can use (if you even need to lower it any more). So you can have your elbow on the table or you can have your elbow off the table or you can have it in the air. Now I wouldn't recommend having it in the air because gravity ways you down and it can feel uncomfortable after a while. Having your elbow on the table is much more comfortable. But you can also have your elbow off the table. You might get a sore forearm but when it comes to aim you are essentially decreasing your swinging arm. If you've ever played golf or pushed a shopping cart around you will know that controlling the extension of your arm is harder to when you're at the heel of the extension. You generate plenty of speed and power but it's just too hard to control. So what you can do is you "steer closer to the front of the shopping cart" or "move your hand down the golf club". You don't want to move all the way down though otherwise you won't generate any power. But moving a little bit forward can help tremendously with control. The same can be applied to your arm. By moving your elbow off the desk you give yourself more control. You should know that because of this fact, the longer your arm is the harder it is to aim. What long-armed players can do instead is to lower their sensitivity since they can, on the otherhand, generate more power than short-armed players. But I still don't think lower sensitivity is enough to counteract the lack of control. So sucks to have long arms (I have long arms lol). All in all though, it comes down to practice. While short-armed players have more potential, if long armed players put in more work then they get more results.

Thanks mate I understood all that already, I was just wondering why you chose that FOV in particular. It seems it's just for historical reasons (as in, that's how it was done before). I was hoping that it was actually optimal but it turns out that it's not - although as you say, it is close. For rectilinear projection, x=tan λ y=tan λ /cos Φ So optimal FOV will be 90 (45 degrees either side of zero) and anything beyond this becomes hyperbolically more lossy. This is fine if we have a circular monitor but we don't.... And obviously there is a balance between taking a wider FOV which may contain lossy parts, and a more narrow FOV which avoids lossy projection but at the cost of losing (by not displaying) optimal projection around the edges of the monitor. I'm guessing that on this forum, there is a math nerd who knows how to find the volume of two intersecting objects, and if there is, they would be able to make a formula to find the actual optimal FOV given a particular aspect ratio. Edit while discussing this with a friend, he has pointed out that my source for the rectilinear projection formula (this PDF: http://www.tawbaware.com/ptassembler_mod_rect_projections.pdf) may be wrong, as he has found this more reliable source: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GnomonicProjection.html