Leaderboard

Exactly this^ You'll notice I almost always give %ages based on the vertical aspect. A sensitivity change based on FOV angles changing, should not be effected by whether you use an ultrawide monitor or not. As I've mentioned before, what if we turn the monitor sideways? It happens every time I roll my plane..... Should my sensitivity change then? of course not. I really like the 2nd post there. I've covered a few times in this thread that we should not necessarily be concerning ourselves with what is projected onto the screen, and given the example of rolling a plane or spacecraft, to demonstrate that what's on screen and off screen are not determined by only FOV but also by the perspective of the player. I posted the gif above to demonstrate that what's visible in the scope isn't really important, but it also gives you a hint that I like not only to fly, but to shoot at planes, and sometimes they are quite high overhead, and the effect you just described is all too familiar to me. If a plane is directly overhead it's like your horizontal sensitivity has been turned wayyyyyy down. a 360degree horizontal rotation is some 3+ times my screen width at the horizon, but looking 'straight up' (in quotes because the soldier can't look all the way straight up), it is a circle just a few inches wide. It has to be this way, or rather we choose to program it this way, because the alternative is to keep the lateral movement rather than horizontal, and if we imagine an example where we are looking *up* at a rooftop, and we move our mouse directly to the left, we would now have the effect of moving left *and down* in the game world. This is one of the reasons why my formula operates by division of angles and not by screen distance. As I mentioned above (in my "I don't know how2spoiler"), there is also the opportunity to extend the boundaries of the formula beyond the edges of the screen, and we have that in the geogebra graphs posted earlier, extended to infinity, it's the purple line. Just as you have encouraged the use of the term "zoom ratio" for 0%MM, I have encouraged the use of the term "angle ratio" for 100% vertical. After all, the result is exactly the same as the ratio of the FOV angles. In previous posts ITT, I've looked at how we actually judge the size of, or distance off centre to, an object/target - in other words the distance between two points. We do this by means of angles and depth perception, which makes a lot of sense, I mean, how else could we possibly do it? We have a rotating eyeball and we can measure the rotation of it in order to ascertain the angle between two points, and we have the effects of perspective to indicate depth, so we can do that trigonometry and our brain does it for us instantly. However, as we zoom the image on screen, we alter the perspective effects, thus altering our perception of depth, thus our determination of the distances between points, and that is exactly why we feel a need for a change in sensitivity. So, if our perception of these things is based on angles, there's a strong argument for using only angles to calculate sensitivity. 0% and 100% vertical 'monitor matching' both do this, in their respective guises as zoom ratio and angle ratio. So, having excluded the validity of monitor matching, why might we consider one or the other, or neither, of zoom or angle ratios? Because for all the math in the world that might be super correct to a machine, we are human animals with brains that lie to us, largely because our monitor is lying to us. We all know that zoom ratio works on paper and we have all felt that it feels wrong in reality. Likewise simply dividing the FOVs. Neither of them actually work because we are always distorting the image projected onto the screen, thus always distorting the angles which our brains use to determine the required amount of movement. Our perception of the projected image is a real thing and we can't just ignore it for the sake of pure mathematics.

I'm going to copy paste an explanation someone gave in a Discord on why a screen distance match is flawed, and why zoom ratio is the only correct way to convert sensitivity. He absolutely despises this website, so will probably never come here to explain for himself.