Bryjoe

Yeah, I just tend to think from experience that any perception (good or bad) felt when changing your sensitivity can't be reliably counted on if you do not spend an appropriate amount of time testing it. Enough time where you have completely broken your old muscle memory. That depends entirely on how ingrained a sensitivity is for you and, to a lesser extent, the game you are playing. CSGO pros use 1 because they've been using 1 for over a decade, Overwatch pros use 40 because it felt best for them when they first picked up the game. Are either of these perceptions correct or wrong? Is Ana's scope fundamentally different than the AWP (it's not)? 0% is literally more accurate around your crosshair, we know this, does that mean KennyS would be better if he used it? His experience and familiarity at 75% trumps the small advantage 0% gives any day. And if you were regularly flicking to the edge of the screen 75% would be better, and a higher match percentage may be superior in games where quick aim is valued over center crosshair precision, but you can only have one. To be consistent, to improve, you need to stay at one method and stick with it long-term, I think we can all agree to that.

I have switched to 0% monitor match in all my games given @Skwuruhl's images above. I switched about a month ago and I still am not as comfortable with it as I was at 75% or Viewspeed V2 (pretty negligible difference between these two). From my perspective, strictly from a non-mathematical point of view and how quickly my brain and muscle memory adjusts to something, it takes a long time (many hours) to adjust to a new sensitivity. This perception also doesn't really seem to rear its head on games where you don't need to be perfectly precise (Single Player Games). On games I am intimately familiar with and have over 1k hours on I do notice the difference between 0% and 75% and I am noticeably less precise with it. Is this because 75% is "better", I personally don't think so. Do I think 0% is a superior enough method to switch over for someone used to 75%? I would say no, and you only need evidence from the pros as said above to see this. For someone who is not a serious competitive player in CS or otherwise, I think the change is worth it, as I think 0% gives you a little more margin for error around the crosshair compared to 75%. But I wouldn't recommend the change to a CSGO veteran, personally.

But if you used CSGO's zoom sensitivity 1 and used 75% monitor distance for your scope scaling in every game over the last 4 years it would feel great to you. Aim is all about consistency, use the same scaling method in every game, the same hipfire and same FOV and suddenly every game does feel the same. The argument of which is "better" objectively is up for debate.

Depends how you play, for 3rd person, I would highly recommend just going with whatever your Distance/360 is for CSGO and converting it for hipfire. For anything that is scoped, you have to use some type of match or scaling, whether that be viewspeed v1 or v2, or a monitor match percentage. It doesn't matter which, just make sure you are consistent with it. There is also the option to not touch any of the scopes and just match hipfire and then the scopes will match based on your hipfire at 100% monitor match (should feel pretty fast for most players though). Quick and dirty: If you are using first person, match the FOV in the game as close as you can to CSGO (103), then just convert based on a monitor match, it should be very close to whatever you hipfire is for CSGO, though. Then use this same match method for every scope. And you're done, don't edit in in-game or you will ruin all your hard work!

I kind of hate how they have this set up TBH. Like just give us a ratio!

I believe the turret sensitivity is just based on your vehicle sensitivity. The tank turret has a certain rotate speed that is hard locked.

Interesting that most the people that seem really interested in the "best" sensitivity (aka people that frequent this site) seem to settle on 40ish CM/360. There are many pros that use even lower than that, but to me it's a sensitivity that is low enough for precision but can also be used in fast-paced games with relative ease. I actually run games like Quake at a match, so that I have a sensitivity in the realm of 28CM 360 at its crazy FOV, but almost every game I run at 41.6CM/360 and have tried other sensitivites high and low and just keep going back to it. I don't want to say there is some logical reason for this, but it does seem like a "happy medium" sensitivity if there ever was one. A sensitivity that can aim vertically well, a skill that is not necessary in CSGO, but is invaluable in a game like titanfall.

Obviously , I don't know anything about the math behind USA, but I read the entire post by its creator. It is based on CSGO and therefore 75% match. From everything I have heard and read the default USA is functionally identical to CSGO's default of 1 zoom_sensitivity_ratio. This site is not the first to surmise that 0% match may be superior to 75% from a practicality standpoint due to 0% inherent advantages with close to the center crosshair matches.

So basically TLDR, 0% match isn't perfect but is the closest to accounting for the distortion different FOVS make. You can get "used" to any match % and become very consistent with it as long as you use the same match for everything. 0% is good for things around your crosshair while 50% and 75% would be more of your "flick" matches, but with enough practice could be just as good. It's about remaining consistent in your match distance more than what you match it, but objectively 0% is the best all around solution.

But plain old monitor distance match seems to have worked just fine for many years. To me AWP zoom 1 and 2 feel perfectly natural, maybe I am just super used to that? When I match PUBG scopes to Viewspeed V2, they feel fine too, I don't have this jarring like "WTF moment" when I get into new games if I matched them based on Viewspeed V2 or monitor distance 75% from game to game. Now, what I've also noticed is that games with a locked match of 0% or whatever usually feel fine to me after a short while of practicing. As long as lower FOVS are appreciably slower and higher FOVS are appreciably faster, I think you can get used to any match or viewspeed method. That being said, I am very interested in trying out this (I guess we can call it) dynamic monitor match that is based on FOV. I just will have to wait for a calculator implementation as I only like game to game conversions.

You should really use Universal Soldier Aiming in BF1, it will allow you to not have to set the sensitivity for every scope. Just turn it on and leave it at default and it's good enough. You can also match it to Viewspeed V2. I would recommend matching all the vehicles and the cavalry to Viewspeed V2 if you plan on using them as well.

Yep, the thing is Viewspeed V2 already feels/felt good for me when switching between hipfire and ADS. I am interested in how this feels different and why it is better. Given that I only like to base my sensitivity on CSGO, I guess I will just wait. For now, I am just using monitor distance 75% as at 16:9 it feels almost the same as viewspeed v2 anyways. In the highest FOV game I play, Quake Champions, the sensitivity is virtually the same. I am excited to see what comes of this "Viewspeed V3" they are working on.

I was looking at some of these comments and it finally makes more sense to me. I still don't really understand how to utilize this formula if you don't care about desktop, all you want to do is match one game to another. Essentially, the downfall of monitor match is aspect ratio related and it is also flawed when you get to the extremes of FOV at either end. This one seems to be the consensus best one correct: 100% Monitor Match - 1:1 Diagonal Desktop, 1:1 Diagonal FOV ?

So, I was playing around with these viewspeeds and matching them to CSGO. The issue is, compared to a straight monitor match, the value for the different scopes is actually different depending on the scope you want to use AWP vs SSG for example. If you use monitor match 75% it is the same no matter what scope it is, i.e. 1 for everything instead of .98 .971 or whatever it would be. I realize it is more accurate to use something like Viewspeed between FOVS, but why not just leave it at 75% MM and it's not perfect but at least it's the same for everything. The only game I know of that has a default FOV above 110 is Quake Champions, the only things that have FOVS <50 are typically high powered sniper scopes, in those two outlying situations, I am ok with a little less accuracy, I think. I am curious how 41.6cm/360 in CSGO translates to Quake Champions with this formula (the 100%MM one) as that is kind of the best "real" world example I can think of. Anyways, I am excited to see the conclusion you guys come up with.

But 100% monitor match simply is as far as possible from accuracy in the center of the screen. Are you referring to a different 100% monitor match than exist in the live calculator? In the calculator, it actually was originally 50, as being in the middle is good for flicks and good for aiming. It was changed to 75% because many games already use that method and most people seem to like it. I have heard some people like 0%, but almost no one prefers the 100% monitor match, it feels bad unless you are playing a game where pinpoint accuracy in the center of the screen doesn't matter. It is hard for me to keep up with your implementation versus Drimzi's, so I apologize if you're referring to 100% monitor match implemented in a different way. If you truly think the current calculator implementation of 100% monitor match is the best please explain why. Edit: Drimzi's seems to be close to the original Viewspeed, so that can't be the same as 100% monitor match, can it?

Ah, see that makes a lot of sense. This new formula attempts to get rid of this favoritism towards a scaling method at low and high FOVS? So, for sniping, you would like a lower match and for Quake Champions you would like a higher match for example?

I think the innate problem is that it's based on feel right? I mean we know that if you are going from a high to a low FOV the aim has to be slower or it's jarring, but how much slower? How much faster if we go the opposite way? How do we know a particular scaling method is superior if it's just by feel? Especially if we have long sessions that allow our brain to become acclimated with the scaling. If the middle of the screen is most important, you would think a method that scaled closer to a 0% would be preferred, but it isn't.

I haven't gotten a chance to try this yet. Obviously, the more you use a method, the better it tends to feel, I wonder if quickly switching between the methods before you actually got "used" to them would be ideal?

Some games don't have a way to adjust the zoom based on a ratio. This means that different scopes won't scale properly or that it is hard locked to some value they have set internally. A lot of times you can have one scope that scales properly according to the calculator, but the other scopes don't work. This really isn't as big of a problem as it seems as even games with a lower or higher monitor distance match, you can adapt quickly. The idea is that you NEED some form of scaling for the change of FOV as you're are zooming, it must be slower or it doesn't feel right, and it must be based off your hipfire.

Because 100% monitor match often doesn't feel as good towards the center of the screen. Matching a point at the edge of a 16:9 screen is not something you would do frequently in games, shooting an enemy towards the far edge of the screen you probably are already dead in most cases. At that same token, I don't know why people don't like 75% as that is matching on a 4:3 screen that nobody uses anymore. You would think 0% would feel most natural to people, but it's often too slow. Like how is Viewspeed V2 any different from 75% match? It is surely different, but if you had a blind test could you tell the 1cm difference it makes in most games? Maybe you could, but even if you could, the difference would be small.

The current implementation (Viewspeed V2) is actually very close to Monitor Distance 75%. I think the base of this conversation is related to converting desktop sensitivity. Even when matching based on Monitor Distance 75% there are still situations where it doesn't feel good, typically when going between high or low FOVs or going from 2D to 3D. I have always thought Viewspeed felt a bit better than monitor distance 75%, but really it is so close that I probably could hardly tell if I compared them side by side in a typical game at a typical FOV. Also, in reference to PUBG, the third person conversion has long been an issue when trying to match sensitivities, 3rd person games often feel terrible when you match them based on a ratio. They are trying to find a perfect solution that works in every single scenario and I am excited to see if they can. The irony is, a TON of games have very poor sensitivity options that make these detailed calculations obsolete. If they don't have a way to match based on multiple decimals, for example. Even high profile multiplayer games like Rainbow Six Seige and Call of Duty have locked aimed sensitivities that ruin the whole point of in-depth sensitivity calculations.

So, how much of a difference are we talking from Viewspeed V2?

So, how does it feel different than the existing viewspeed? Faster or slower?

Yeah, I can understand that, but wouldn't something like 1200 DPI on desktop be almost "twitchy" in a game like CSGO? I suppose at 400 DPI it would be low enough to match and fit any game though, maybe even as high as 800. I found it very hard to navigate a 1440p screen at 400dpi, however.

Is it just me that doesn't really understand the point of matching desktop sensitivity to anything? At a reasonable DPI (800+) matching it to a first-person game would be unreasonably fast and vice versa. I don't think I want my CSGO sensitivity when I'm navigating my desktop as it is slow at 41.6CM/360. It is slow because precision is important in shooters but not when I'm navigating my browser. Now, for a game like WoW, or perhaps movement in a 3rd person game, RTS I can see why some parity between desktop and in-game is warranted, in the other cases I'm not sure why.