Bryjoe

Yeah, in BFV with 26 cm/360 a 2x scope is 52 cm 360 at 0% MM. ADS really slows things down enough. Like I said I have been using 40 cm for most of my PC gaming life, and it was noticeably easier to track targets in Kovakks (which is unscoped BTW) at 26cm compared to lower sens. If you add verticality, forget about it. I find tracking vertically to be incredibly difficult at low sens. Tracking aim just seems so much more important than precision flicks. You can see some of this in the pro scene as well, Shroud using 30cm in Apex.

Yeah and some god aimers use accel for sure. I just am unsure the precision of low sens is needed in modern games. ADS already slows down the aim enough to be precise. Hell most quakers, even ones with insane rails and aim, use high sens and the game doesn't even really utilize Aim down sights. Seems to me, when you are talking about the larger benefits of low sensitivity it applies to CSGO and not much else.

The wired will have the 3360 (basically perfect) and the wireless will have the 3355 I think? They stated they used the lesser sensor in the wireless to increase battery life. Honestly, the difference between those sensors is probably basically nothing in game.

G-wolves are coming out with some very promising light-weight mice in the summer and early fall. They are a chinese company that clones shapes. They have an EC-1 clone coming in August, a wired version with a paracord at 68 grams and a wireless (with a slightly worse sensor) at 68 grams. Truly might be endgame territory if their QC is good.

So, I have been having trouble tracking fast moving players in BFV using 0% mm and have been trying to improve it through tracking drills in Kovaaks. I came across a guide by aimer7 where he states 20-25 cm 360 tends to be better for tracking. I did the PSA method (basically trying a ton of different sens low and high until you get to a perfect middle ground) and settled on 26cm 360 for tracking scenarios. If we look at games like BFV, Apex, fortnite, Quake, virtually any modern game with ads tracking is preferable aim over precision flicks (csgo). I tried 26 cm in game and voila I can suddenly track those Usain bolt sprinter in BFV. Maybe it's my aim style or placebo, but it certainly is interesting. 26cm isn't really super high either it's just high for csgo. Is the precision offered through 40 cm 360 or higher even worth it when most games have ads? I am starting to think no.

Yeah, I own an FK1+ as well and it's not wide enough for me, unfortunately. So, I ruled out the Odin early, looks like a great mouse! Razer is announcing a super lightweight mouse today, if it's a Deathadder/Mamba I am going to buy it on the spot. Really only a small selection of mice are big enough for me, the EC-1, the Deathadder, the Intellimouse Pro and probably the MX518 from Logitech. There are a few that might be good too if they are wide enough like the Corsair Harpoon, or M65 but they are too heavy for me.

Hmm, interesting you prefer the vertical height compared to the horizontal? I am kind of convinced there is no mouse the "fits" my annoying fat and large hands. I main the mamba wireless and it's still small short and not wide enough. I am thinking of picking up the Logitech MX518 as it's super wide and long. The best traditional shape for me is the Zowie EC-1, but the rest of its features (coating, clicks scroll wheel) are all just about worst in class, it's a damn shame that Zowie doesn't improve their mice quality because they know people love their shapes.

The bigger the FOV difference, the more jarring having your zoom sens be equivalent to your hipfire senes will be. If you think about it, it's similar to matching 0% on games with vastly different FOVs. Even though the ratio is consistent, the difference is so large that it feels terrible. Obviously, your tracking is faster, you 360 sensitivity is faster, but look at games like Apex (who's default zoom FOV is 0%) you don't see anyone changing that. Is Shroud's tracking hampered by 0% in Apex? It seems to be a more placebo thing. Pros are just good at the game, I don't think they would suddenly be worse if they switched to 0%. Why does Coldzera use 1 zoom sens when 0% is mathematically superior? Do you think Coldzera wouldn't be as good if he switched to 0% matching? Maybe at first, but I guarantee you it's not what is separating them from you. This site is designed to develop muscle memory between different games, and 0% is the best at accomplishing that goal. Most Overwatch snipers use 38 zoom which is 0% BTW, why do you think that is? It's certainly not because of this site. R6 Seige ADS is about 10-15 Cm if you match on 0%, yes noticeably slower, but even at 75% match (pretty much the norm across the industry) it's only a difference of 5cm/360 between that and 0%.

Your FOV in BFV is significantly higher than CSGO. BFV uses vertical FOV. The correct conversion is 73.74 in the config file or 74 in-game for BFV. FOV effects the ADS significantly. It actually makes hipfire feel different as well.

I certainly would support it over the finalmouse. I actually have a guy on reddit that is trying to make me a custom wireless deathadder at only 66grams. Final Mouse, Deathadder and Rival 600 are the only mice I would say are great for large wide hands. I think the EC-1 A also works for this purpose, but zowie tech is consistently outdated by their competitors. They do have great shapes, but I feel the ec-1 is inferior to the deathadder shape wise.

I got the mamba wireless, it's kind of like a deathadder but completely wireless. It is a big heavy at 100g. The G Pro Wireless is the best mouse on the market, but it simply is far too small for people like me with ginormous hands (especially from a width perspective). I feel the deathadder is the most comfortable shape for wide/large hands and it has a wonderful shape in general. I main the G403 for a long time and noticed it cramped my hands after extended use, it's a common downside for logitech mice IMO. If you have large hands, I high recommend the Mamba Wireless, the curves are little more subtle than the Deathadder, but the wireless is fantastic. Again, I think the G Pro wireless is the best mouse on the market for most people, but if you have big hands (especially wide) I think it's too small. Until the come out with a large mouse as light as the G Pro wireless, I think the Mamba Wireless is the best wireless mouse for large hands. It goes without saying, but wireless is a GAME CHANGER. I am aiming so much better than I ever have and it's because of the lack of cord drag.

I haven't played BF1 in a long time, but when I match FOV (106.26 Horizontal) couple with 0% coefficient on USA and all my guns and scopes feel perfect? Not sure if I just don't notice the problems or what... You guys should be using USA instead of trying to match all the scopes. @Snookray 4x scope is very different than 6x because the FOV is different. The 360 distance is based on FOV matching.

I simply just convert from CSGO hipfire. Make FOV 73.74 in BFV and 0% on USA and everything feels great. Not understanding why it's not working for you. You don't change any of the scope values in BFV right? They all should be kept at 1.

It's been pretty much conclusively determined that monitor distance 0% is the "one size fits all" solution. It is the most direct way to scale your hipfire sensitivity. That being said, preference is preference, a lot of people prefer 75% monitor match or the default Zoom sens in CSGO (plenty of incredible professional players use this). If you are used to and like Viewspeed, then continue to use it, but it's there is no "magic" to it, it's just another way to scale your sensitivity to different FOVs (it's actually rougly the same as 75% monitor match if I recall). Math wizards with much more knowledge on the subject and calculations than me have determined 0% to be the best for muscle memory so that is what I use and it's also what I would recommend.

From what I remember, aircraft sensitivity is not possible to put in the calc ( I think because there is a lot of accel, not sure). Pros use pretty low sens for them and bind "pitch up" to spacebar. If you use 800 dpi, something like 5-10% vehicle sensitivity combined with plane sensitivity at default. Also, the vehicle FOV you see in-game only effects 3rd person, and the calculator vehicle sensitivity is based on first-person view.

Hi, Seems the bug is still there? Before it was calculating very close to one for the multiplier. To use USA correctly, wouldn't all the other scopes have to be "1" or something close. Anyways, I double checked it because the scope felt artificially slow after changing all those values to .694087. I think it should be 1, (it used to be like .989) Not sure how the calculation works but it's definitely slow and felt wrong.

In this case, it would feel probably slow with 360 and incredibly fast with monitor match 0%. 360 is static, so assuming you are converting from a game with a mid-range FOV 140 would feel slow using 360 and super fast using monitor match 0%. The difference with 360 being that your movement should feel similar, your aim would just be fast, in a lot of games hipfire aim just isn't a large factor. I convert fortnite using 360 distance as I feel monitor match 0% does not work.

I think 360 works just fine for hipfire unless it's Quake and/or CSGO. If you are matching hipfire FOV (you should try to do this if you can) 360 distance and monitor match are the same anyways. If you're not matching your hipfire FOV you sacrifice movement familiarity for your aim when using monitor match 0%. I think most would agree it's pretty jarring say going from 40 cm/360 to 51cm/360 or the other way. This would happen when matching monitor match 0% to a lower or higher FOV respectively. You aim around the crosshair would feel good, but movement would not feel natural until you got used to it.

Sure, that works well too. I still prefer to match hipfire FOV if I can to preserve the movement between games. You are correct your aim around the crosshair would feel the same if you converted based on monitor match 0%. As an aside what is the new calculator options for seige "All with ADS" "All with ACOG" etc.?

The base of this argument and probably not even what you're referring to is someone changing their FOV to 90 because of pros, just scroll up to see this. You certainly seemed to imply there was a competitive advantage "Most pros use 90 FOV in Siege because they can handle the extra FOV and keep their aim on point." If you use 90 FOV in every game and then change it to 90 FOV vertical in Seige your aim WILL suffer, not that it even matters as seige is much more about positioning and holding an angle rather than flicking. I would go even further and say if you want to use different FOVS in all your games, why even bother with this site? It defeats the purpose.

What advantage would using 4:3 have in Seige, what advantage does using 120hfov have in seige? The point is why are you blindly copying them when their selection of FOV and aspect ratios seems arbitrary (it is, it has ZERO impact on gameplay) We already discussed how about 99% of streamers/pros don't match their settings between games, they get an approximation of what their used to (e.g. high or low sens, high or low FOV) and stick to it. Again, it's really foolish to copy pros, except as a rough guideline. I am telling you, you can believe it or not but there is ZERO COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE to using 90 over 75 FOV. Hell look at all the pros that use 75, hell some of them use 100, some use 60, I mean you get what I'm saying? This guys uses 16:10 aspect ratio, but most of them use 4:3, this guy performed better in tournament X so 4:3 must be better than 16:9. Like you can get some truisms from spreadsheets like this, but changing your FOV to 90 just because the average FOV is 83, why would you do this? It would be one thing if you have been using 120 FOV in every game that you play and you want to keep it in seige, but it's another to just change it because you saw a pro using it. So looks like there is like 80 people that use 90 FOV and 17 that use 75. Does this mean 90>75, if so, why do you think this? The real answer is it doesn't matter.

0% match works fine, my personal opinion is that it doesn't work well for 3rd person games as you can't match FOV accurately. In general, your hipfire is not only our aim, but your movement, right? You want your movement to also be consistent from game to game. In a FPS, this is not really a big deal because you can match your FOV. When you match your FOV in two FPS games monitor match and 360 distance are actually the same for hipfire. Here's one example where I do use 0% with different FOVs overwatch has a max FOV of 103, I use CSGO to convert which is 106.26. I monitor match those two games, so my sens in overwatch is a hair slower than in CSGO. In general, I would want them to be the same, if the FOVS are far apart in hipfire I just use 360 distance.

For PUBG, I would just match distance 360. I don't think matching works well for 3rd person hipfire. I would then match on 0% monitor for all the scopes.

CSGO doesn't have anything to do with it, but I guarantee you almost none of them know that 90 FOV in CSGO is actually different than 90 FOV in Rainbow six seige. 90 FOV is simply the most common FOV people use when playing FPS on PC, this goes back to the original quake games. Anyone who's been playing PC games for a long time knows this. The aspect ratio is also something inherited from 90s FPS games. People use aspect ratios like 4:3 Streched or play at 720p or what have you because they believe it gives them a competitive advantage by stretching player models/hitboxes. Most of them probably have no idea 90 FOV in Rainbow Six Seige is actually over 20 degrees what "90 FOV" would be. https://prosettings.net/rainbow-6-pro-settings-gear-list/ Looks like a huge amount use 75 FOV anyways, or what would be about CSGO's FOV. As I said, have done a ton of research on this very topic and the reason pros use 4:3 and 90 is because of legacy games. They have use 4:3 and 90 in FPS PC games dating back to the 90s or early 2000s.

So true as well. Putting the hours in is the main factor here. I do think this site helps me acclimate to any new game in a much shorter time period. I have been using 41 cm/360 for years, I use it in every single game, I even use it in fortnite. I feel that if you take me versus another brand new player in a game, I convert my sensitivity immediately and they use the default or try to approximate it based on feel, I will be the better aimer from the get go. Now, once their hour count surpasses mine and the weeks go on and they continually put more time into the game, they will be better than me in every facet. Matching aim is only a temporary booster and designed to help you adjust quickly to new games.