Leaderboard

If you use 0% mm to convert your sensitivity, don't worry too much about the FOV. With practice, your brain will develop the necessary muscle memory for you to be good at a wide range of FOVs.

You should be fine with 0 at any sensitivity. I've played with over 100cm @ 0 for more than a year and i was pretty decent.

THANKS FOR ADDING SWARMLAKE :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Because you did it here:

The issue is thinking of it in terms of 2D, or basically the whole idea of matching to pixels. It's only going to work in pure horizontal or vertical movement because 3D !== 2D. Monitor Distance Match works by matching distance to degrees, not pixels. So if you did a conversion, and have 90 degrees angle of view, horizontally, in one case, and 60 degrees in another, the distance to rotate 45 degrees (90/2) will be the same distance to rotate 30 degrees (60/2). This is reasonable. Now when you try and put this into a 2D perspective, like saying it is matching to a ring of pixels an equal distance away from the crosshair, it falls apart. What's actually happening in each method: Viewspeed - Vertical : An aperture dependent conversion, scaling the sensitivity by the change in Vertical Chord Length. Viewspeed - Horizontal: An aperture dependent conversion, scaling the sensitivity by the change in Horizontal Arc Length, as well as the difference between Horizontal Arc and Chord Lengths. Monitor Distance Match - Vertical : An aperture dependent conversion, scaling the sensitivity by the change in Vertical Arc Length, using a user defined aperture size. Monitor Distance Match - Horizontal: An aperture dependent conversion, scaling the sensitivity by the change in Horizontal Arc Length, using a user defined aperture size. Monitor Distance Match - 0%: An aperture independent conversion, scaling the sensitivity by the change in Throw Length (zoom). The Viewspeed methods don't just change the measurement axis. They are both completely different methods. Viewspeed - Vertical should be using 1:1 measurements rather than Vertical. Horizontal is an older idea that was similar to Monitor Distance Match - Horizontal, but scaled by the difference in Horizontal Arc and Chord lengths. All methods except for 0% depend on the aperture, which is the hole you are viewing the game world through. The hole being your monitor. Since you get different results for using different measurements, you end up with so many different methods. The only consistent method is the one that ignores the aperture, which is 0%. You can use vertical, horizontal, diagonal measurements, it doesn't matter, the result is the same.

Not available in my region yet, I'll see if I can get around it.

Please refer to this forum post if you have any questions: https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/topic/4704-conversion-method-guide-and-other-faqs/

I would use 0% to convert between everything. 360 Distance does not account for a change in zoom. Viewspeed and every other monitor match percentage is arbitrary.

Added now!

You convert using different methods depending on what you want to achieve. 360 Distance 360 distance will convert the sensitivity without any FOV compensation. The amount you rotate per mouse count is constant, and so the distance to rotate 360 degrees (or any other amount, like 45, 90, 180) is also constant. Since the FOV determines how many degrees are squished onto your screen, how sensitive the mouse feels will depend solely on the FOV. This method would have the most extreme change in perceived sensitivity when the FOV is changed. My opinion: It is useful for converting hipfire sensitivity if you prefer to keep 180 degree flicks, but I would never recommend to use this for zooming/aiming. You will need to master all aiming styles, as low FOV will require micro finger movement and high FOV will require arm movement. Viewspeed Viewspeed V2 converts the sensitivity using the Sine trigonometric function for FOV compensation. The intended outcome is to make the perceived camera speed constant for all FOV while using a constant mousing motion. Since the FOV determines how many degrees are squished onto your screen, higher FOVs naturally look faster as there is more information moving, and low FOVs naturally look slower, and Viewspeed attempts to equalise this. My opinion: The perceived sensitivity may be a little too high for low FOVs and too low for high FOVs. I don't think the perceived camera speed should be kept constant, as it is natural for it to change with the FOV. It can improve visual comfort, but I don't think this benefits muscle memory. Monitor Distance Match Monitor Distance Match converts the sensitivity by comparing the horizontal angle values of the FOV, and lets the user define a percentage of the horizontal FOV to match to. Rather than matching the distance for a constant angle like 360 distance, it matches to a dynamic value instead, your FOV, which is an angle on your screen. The result is a screen-space distance match, where the distance to rotate to a point on the screen is constant, but the discrepancy to rotate to any other point will depend on the FOV. This method is the same as Battlefield's Uniform Soldier Aiming system, except you define the point using a multiplier of the vertical angle in Battlefield, and a percentage of the horizontal angle in Monitor Distance Match. The method of comparing the angle values is also commonly used by most games, so you can replicate most games using this method. Example, CSGO divides the horizontal 4:3 angles, so 75% (for 16:9) will copy this. My opinion: Matching to the square (1:1) aspect ratio's angle is the best distance match. You can find the percentage of this using a calculator, e.g. 1080/1920 * 100 = 56.25%. The benefit for this method is that you can specify a max radius required to move your mouse to aim within your FOV, which can give the sense of comfort, let you use a very low sensitivity, and master one aiming style (such as wrist only, arm only, etc.), but I wouldn't recommend this method for muscle memory. I think the logic behind this method is also flawed, it holds up for camera pitch distance, but camera yaw distance depends entirely on the camera pitch, if you look up or down, the distance to reach a predetermined point will fail. Zoom Match (0% Monitor Distance Match) Zoom Match converts the sensitivity using the tangent trigonometric function for FOV compensation. The sensitivity scales proportionately with the zoom / focal length, so if the camera zooms in 2x, the sensitivity will also scale by 2x. Screen distances and camera speed are not preserved. This method will have the largest discrepancy in 360 distance when comparing high and low FOVs. My opinion: This will be the best method for muscle memory, but can also be the least comfortable and requires a higher sensitivity in general. You need to master aiming with all aiming styles. High FOVs will require micro finger movement, and low FOVs will require arm movement.

If you match at 0%, you will judge the necessary mouse distances properly, since the distances scale proportionately with the fov, whereas any other method is going to be counter intuitive for this, despite the whole concept being to match a a perceived speed or match a screen distance. Instead, these alternative methods give the illusion of better, more consistent aim because they maintain the area on your mouse pad that you use to aim within your field of view. This lets you become very proficient in a single aiming style/method (such as wrist aiming) with specific swiping distances as you don't have to scale your input with the fov. It also lets you get away with low sensitivity at high fovs (people reduce sensitivity for instant results instead of just improving their mechanical skill) due to the same reason, not having to scale your input. Since 0% does not match a distance, it instead matches the velocity, and since other methods are not 0%, they have to result in different speeds in order to accomplish what they were made to do. Matching the velocity has to result in different perceived speeds and different required mouse movement as every fov is unique. The amount of information and distortion scales with the fov. The very essence of increasing the fov is increasing the number of degrees that you can see. So naturally, if you pan the camera, there is going to be a lot more activity on your screen and it is going to look faster than a lower, flatter, more zoomed in fov. So it makes sense that the correct conversion is going to be something where the distance and view speed is not matched. If you do match the view speed instead, then you are slowing the velocity of the camera down for high fovs and increasing the velocity for low fovs in order to make them look the same. The biggest issue with this is that low fovs will feel too sensitive as the required mouse distances are far shorter than assumed. Only 0% will have the correct distance scaling. The reason why you can judge distances properly with 0% is because the distance scales with the zoom. If you zoom in 2x, the target will be 2x further away on your screen, and will require 2x more mouse movement to flick to compared to before the zoom. If you make this a fair comparison and scale the distance between you and the target to counteract the zoom, then the mouse distances will be the same. This will also benefit tracking, since the perceived movement speed, size, and distance of the movement will scale with the zoom, and so will the sensitivity. So if the distance between you and the target scales with the zoom also, then a target will move the same speed across your screen, and require the exact same mouse movement. As for the question about 'match at' percentages and matching a distance in general, the best distance match IMO is the inverse of your aspect ratio, multiplied by 100. E.g. 9/16 * 100 = 56.25. It will match the distance to the radius of the 1:1 aspect ratio. Higher percentages, like 75% are close to matching viewspeed, which suffers from the sensitive low FOV issue. Besides, all distance match methods are arbitrary, and you will get drastically different results depending on what fov measurement you use. 0% is the only method that has the same result regardless of the measurement used. Matching the view speed, screen distance, or 360 distance, is only going to be detrimental to aim performance in the long run. You will have to compromise and develop unique muscle memory for a wide range of fov and hope that your brain can fill in the blanks for fovs in between. These methods will only improve comfort and may give better results, but only in the short term (due to being only proficient in one aiming style, or having a low sensitivity for a high fov, or not having enough mouse pad space in general). They only seem correct because when you zoom in/out, the distance between you and the reference point is remaining static, you don't teleport forward/back to counteract the zoom. For long term, you need to get used to 0%. Ignore the deceptive issues with view speed and the variance in mouse movement. You won't really have to develop muscle memory for every fov, as you will figure out the distances automatically as they scale with the zoom, but the different distances will require you to master your aim with all the styles, such as micro, finger, wrist, and arm (from elbow and shoulder) movement, and you will probably have to use a higher sensitivity in general. And yes, for anyone wondering, I have switched over to 0%.