TheNoobPolice

DPI doesn't cause pixel skipping. "Pixel skipping" is a term that refers to an in-game sensitivity value that returns a minimum turn distance (degrees turned in game per single count from the mouse) at a given FOV, that is then greater than is represented by the pixel resolution at screen centre. Unless you use a very high in-game sensitivity value, it's incredibly unlikely that you would pixel skip even at modern resolutions of at least 1080p, especially if you use 3200 dpi, as you are likely to use a low in-game sensitivity value. foe example if I was playing CSGO at 1440p which as a fixed FOV of 74 degrees vertical, the sensitivity of 2.712866 at default yaw of 0.022 degrees returns a pixel ratio of 1. If I increased the sensitivity anymore than that, it would result in a minimum angle greater than 1 pixels distance (pixel skipping). As long as the sensitivity is below that, there is no pixel skipping, regardless of the DPI value from the mouse.

I'm not reducing at lower FOVs, I'm increasing the equivalent monitor distance as the FOV transition moves to a lower target value (i.e more zoomed)

I just use 0% until the amount of FOV change (i.e zooming in) starts to feel to slow, so I increase the sens by feel for higher zoom scopes if it's possible in the game. I probably end up with the equivalent of around 100-133% MDV for very high zooms, 50-90% MDV for medium or "4x" scopes, and 0% for anything like 1x-3x zoom (ish). But I just do this by feel now to be honest.

Not sure what you mean by horizontally correct? How could they be horizontally incorrect? All monitor distance functions are effectively a hack to bridge the gap between perceived sensitivity changes and the factual maintaining of crosshair sensitivity (i.e focal length scaling), and viewspeed is just a calculation that arrives at a sensitivity value which could also be expressed as an equivalent monitor distance, only this "equivalent distance" just scales up or down slightly depending on the source and target FOV values.

Both are just arbitrary alternatives to a monitor distance barometer for the sens ratio you like across different FOVs The difference between the two is that vertical is aspect ratio agnostic and similar to a 133% vertical monitor distance (so similar in fact, that it may as well not exist) and horizontal is more similar to around 60-odd percent screen distance horizontally at 16:9.

88.9% vertical is exactly halfway between the centre screen and horizontal edge on a 16:9 monitor, if you wanted a "rationale" Not that it matters, in all honesty.

You can see the reasoning for this straight from the horses mouth https://devblogs.microsoft.com/directx/demystifying-full-screen-optimizations/ That post was a while ago and the system has become more and more integrated into windows now, and is also the only way Directx 12 functions at all (there is no such thing as "true exclusive fullscreen" in DX12.) This is probably for the best, as exclusive full screen is hardly a smooth operating system experience, and a system that allows the benefits of both legacy systems of FSE and Windowed will ultimately be the only system that makes any sense moving forward. And to answer your question, if a particular game was made before the feature existed and not designed with it in mind, there is a possibility it may well run at frame rates similar to windowed mode. Since frame rate is the largest factor affecting input latency itself, then that would be the only interaction of the two components. There is no way in itself for the window method to affect the (x,y) packets that come from the mouse at driver level under the OS proper, and if any game processes mouse input relative to window functionally, it's a very badly designed game (as well as this being unheard of in any case, afaik).

Good shout - possibly better option in the Calculator would be to just have "Required DPI" as an aim output , so you could just arrive at the required effective dpi without doing the discrepancy calculation. You could then just do (output dpi/actual mouse dpi) = Rawaccel sens multiplier. There's also nothing wrong with scaling up the dpi either with a multiplier above 1. Math is math.

BF4 uses a combination of old legacy sliders for base mouse sensitivities and more straight forward linear multipliers for all the scopes that were added post launch. All the scope sliders are multipliers of the base yaw value which is set by the legacy hipfire slider, that's why you need to enter the hipfire value

188cm 360. Think I may have found the accel user.

I know exactly the effort that goes into doing this as I have done it myself, it is far from trivial and I for one really appreciate the effort DPI Wizard puts into this service. I am usually amazed how quickly he adds things to the calculator usually. I can only think you haven't ever done a days work in your life if you think accurate results just materialise instantly into existence, and that goes for any subject.

There is no best, it is just personal preference. Experiment with both and see which you prefer.

Does seem strange why such a modern engine has chosen such antiquated defaults. I can only imagine they expect devs to be more interested in having a perfectly smooth camera presentation in all circumstances as more paramount than mouse input accuracy.

Have you been able to decipher why so many games drop packets above 500hz with this engine?

Well of course it's going to be a different feel because its a different FOV, you'd just have to choose a way to match them that is most intuitive to you.

You can set the BFV target to in game instead of config file under "location"

I guess there's both around on the internet of course, Reddit was an example that immediately sprang to mind as having a sidebar a user would regularly interface with, and any google search puts a sidebar of info over on the right side. Still, Youtube does the left side now I'm looking for different examples so I guess it's just what you are used to

Really liking this new look & layout. Far less dated than the old theme. However, I think it would be nice if the sidebar could be moved over to the right side where it is more common in other sites. Still much better overall, makes the calculator cleaner / less intimidating I think.

No such thing as a natural sensitivity, moving a mouse is all learned behaviour and your "natural preference" is merely an expression of familiarity from a culmination of all the experiences you have had prior to that moment. Also, games require different sensitivities. CS:GO players typically use lower sensitivity because they need to be very accurate for a small head hit box at long range to be the most competitive, Quake players use high sensitivities because they need to use complex movement and rocket jump around the map in order to play the most optimal meta. There would be no point in being a CS player who used a 70cm/360, and then wanted to have try a playing Quake stubbornly insisting on maintaining that sensitivity as it's just not the most practical for that game. Use a sens that works for the game you want to play and the type of movements it requires.

When you get scopes that start approaching 2 or 3x less of the actual FOV (not in-game zoom value which are usually arbitrary) then you really have to accept that it's not going to feel like hipfire in any way at all, not matter what you do. At that stage, you may as well just eyeball the sens you like. The only mathematically sound approach is focal length, but it's obvious that falls down when FOV changes become large, monitor distance is effectively just a hack to find a speed across the whole screen that feels most uniform between two fovs, but if you have a game where you have a 1.2x zoom and a 20x zoom at the same time, there's not going to be one approach there that scales to them both to exact preference. Although, monitor distances can sometimes be a shortcut to "close enough" without having spend ages messing about with zoom sensitivity sliders.

Provided you changed all scaling off in the gpu control panel, a 27 inch monitor with a custom res of 2323 x 1307, would be the "same" experience as a 24.5 inch monitor. Perhaps I should expand on this. so in a 3D game there would be a change in pixel density for the image clarity compared to your 1080p monitor,, but no other real change of any note to how it feels except you visually have some black around your image which you may not have been used to before. But on the desktop, the cursor speed would change relative to the displayed screen size, since, for example, 6/11 always moves one pixel for each count, and 24.5 1080p has a different pixel density than effective 24.5 "1307p"

Underrated franchise these days

It's a good game actually, was pleasantly surprised.

Wow, I didn't realise you would have all that to hand, that's really interesting thank you! Makes me want to think of more questions now ha! I'm really surprised most devs go for MDH 100% a lot, to me it feels really obviously too fast, even when scripting a turn movement, sitting back and taking in "the whole screen" then it still feels quick vs base hipfire/look. The fact that 40% of games that are good enough (mouse input wise) for the site to support, but yet still don't have even 2 decimal places of sens is quite frankly appalling. This means it's probably less than half when we also factor in games the site can't support.

I was having a few discussions recently about various ways developers implement sens (and HID input in general) in their games and was thinking about the landscape of games as it is. This website is probably the only resource that has pooled together so much data, and so was wondering about a few questions that could probably be answered from the database @DPI Wizard has created over the years (if the data is easily obtainable). For example: What percentage of games incorporate FOV into the hipfire/look sensitivity formula? I would guess it's around 20-30%? How many games use a non-linear sensitivity scale? FPS games in general seem to be fairly consistent with this, but I've noticed this is more common in 3rd person or non-competitive games, possibly around 30% of them too at a guess? How many games implement what could be describe as "good" or at least "satisfactory" mouse input? i.e No baked-in accel or mouse "packet" loss, raw input option, FOV-based sens adjustment for zooms (if applicable) and with granular sensitivity sliders? My guess is that this is still severely lacking in the majority of games outside of the FPS genre, and even still some within it? What is the most common ADS scaling method games use? I would have thought it was focal length (probably should be by default) but I wouldn't be surprised if it's actually quite rare that developers do this. It's quite easy to make assumptions from the selection of games any one of us would have direct personal experience in, but it would be interesting to see overall trends.