Leaderboard

Updated the game now, so the FOV calculations are pretty much 100% correct, scale correctly with aspect ratio and will correctly max out at 113.69. So to i.e. find the correct FOV to match CSGO, go up/down on the entered FOV until the Actual FOV matches.

Well let me ask why it's better to set your MM to a specific flick distance? That's the thing - they are all arbitrary. There is no objective way to prove that one flick point is better than another. It is all subjective preference, as you said. However, what we do know is that if one point on the monitor is matched then the rest of the screen will be unmatched. Therefore we can make some conclusions about the advantages and disadvantages of different percentages. Let's say you match at the crosshair (0%). We should expect to have very good tracking, micro-adjustments, and feel much more in control of our aim as we turn and approach a target. But the consequence of matching at the center means that muscle memory will get much worse as we deviate from the crosshair. This is why extremely high FOVs are much too fast to control and extremely low FOVs feel too slow in comparison (as you approach 180 FOV the cm/360 becomes 0). However, this is more of a problem of distortion than a reason to not use 0%. All percentages have problems at the extreme FOV range but they are not reasons to prefer one percentage over another. Now since the higher percentages are arbitrary, I am not going to assume any particular percentage. But we do know, in comparison to 0%, that we should have much greater overall muscle memory. This is because the sensitivity doesn't start at 0cm/360 at 180 FOV (infinitely fast). It's a much more evenly distributed range of sensitivities. These are some old crappy charts I created but it shows how the cm/360 for different methods eventually converge as they approach 0 FOV: You can even test this in the calculator. So in contrast to 0%, the higher the percentage, the less matched the crosshair becomes. This is very important to consider because that means that as we approach our target from our match point we are going to be increasingly less in control. You must realize that we do not complete flicks in one single movement. We are constantly making adjustments as we approach our target. This is why it is more important to have the crosshair matched because we want to make sure we are in control when we are on top of the target, because there is no point in acquiring the target only to find we cannot stay on top of it due to our muscle memory being whack. One interesting phenomena that happens when you test all this out is that at higher FOVs it feels like you have more control with a higher percentage. However, this is not the case. You must make sure to differentiate between matching points on the monitor and the sensitivity simply being slower. A decrease in sensitivity may feel like you are in more control but you are not doing yourself any favours when it comes to muscle memory. Just consider how low FOV would be perceived - a higher percentage will feel much too fast at the crosshair. You are going about it the wrong way. It's very important that we make this distinction. We must choose the percentage according to its advantage, not because it feels better at [X] FOV. Ignore distortion. Distortion will be there for every FOV. So if we compare the advantages of using 0% to a higher percentage, you will realize that there really is no reason to use anything other than 0%. Especially because it isn't arbitrary. It translates the same no matter what setup you are using. It's not like having better overall muscle memory helps much. It's still not perfect. You are going to have to learn slightly different muscle memory for every different FOV no matter what percentage you use. You could alleviate this problem by using the same FOV in every game you play but then what would be the point in converting sensitivity? 0% is the point on the monitor where the 2D world and the 3D world touch. It is the tangent to the curve, the true idea of "viewspeed".

No, how it works is quite complex, but it works as expected all things considered.

great work! the thermal scope is still not quite right though, because it should be exactly FOV 41 at 4:3. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1k7jVpX782zoAIDGqj61l1Yw5qoPf1QVHpM01mwa-tTI/edit#gid=1 btw IW is also hor+ for ultra widescreen.

Have a look at this thread: That's the latest forum where we actually took a good look at how sensitivity is really perceived. And then I guess we've just been discussing in a whole bunch of other random forums. It really is a mess. Not very helpful to new users. I don't know what DPIWizard will do about it but he did say he was going to make a new version of the calculator. He'll probably make some new videos and explanations as well. Still not sure what everyone else's position on the best method is, but personally I believe it's 0% monitor match and I am certain I won't change my mind anymore. Unless Capta Praelium is still working on his method, but I think it won't work because I tried something similar and disregarded it as it didn't follow the gear ratio principle. @Skwuruhl has been saying it's 0% for a long time. Monitor matching is essentially the gear ratio so you could still mathematically be okay to use higher percentage monitor matches, but they are just not as good as 0%. And there is definitely not a perfect percentage as they are all arbitrary and affected by distortion. Same goes for Viewspeed. Viewspeed was another great idea but there wasn't really any proper logical reasoning behind why it would sync sensitivity. But if it works for you, keep on using it. Muscle memory you have developed over the years can play a big part in what you feel is wrong or right.

To be precise, you can use 360 Distance only when FOV is exactly the same. But even then, there's no point in doing so because if you monitor match you will also get the same result when the FOV is the same. Easiest way to do it is to just choose your monitor match percentage and convert everything with it. Why bother discriminating whether FOV are close enough to use 360 Distance when it's unnecessary... You can honestly use whatever monitor match percentage you want because they all follow the gear ratio principle but 0% is the most correct and best at tracking/precision at the crosshair. It's advantages far outweigh those of higher percentages. Also, keep in mind that it's ill-informed to think in terms of percentage of the screen, because we know now that perceived sensitivity changes according to size and distance of your setup. Your percentage will not translate the same to another person's setup. It is all arbitrary.

When FOV's are similar any conversion method will give the exact result. When the discrepancy between FOV's is noticeably high you should probably stop converting via 360 method. I personally use a low sensitivity, therefore 100% mm brings more versatility and room to improve IMO even though 00% is the way to go. You do you, what works for me might not work for everyone.