Bryjoe

Looking at your post again, I realize your problem is matching Overwatch Ana scope? The issue here is they are VASTLY different FOVs. The iron sight on R6 Seige is a small FOV change. The FOV change when zooming in as Ana is massive. There is no way to match the FOV of the Ana scope to the R6 Iron Sight. The actual issue is that you use 50 for Ana. This does not correspond to what Viewspeed does, viewspeed usually adjusts for around 75% monitor match, which is about 45 for Ana. I am unsure if the calculation takes this into account, but I would think it is matching your quicker 50 sensitivity to to 75% monitor distance in R6 Seige might be your issue.

Viewspeed v2 is an improved version of viewspeed, but they are pretty close. Viewspeed V2 feels closer to the industry standard 75% Monitor Distance Match (but it isn't always this) If you like a little slower scoped movement Viewspeed V1 is slower. For most, Viewspeed V2 will feel the most natural, especially if you grew up on games like Counterstrike.

In Battlefield, I could definitely see the argument for 360 hipfire match, as the majority of your precision aiming is in ADS. In Quake, your movement and aiming is all done from the hip, so it really is a tough call in that game. Couple that with the fact that Quake is an incredibly fast game that is suited for the higher sensitivities and you would probably be at a disadvantage playing at a lower FOV than the default. It really is a catch 22, if you want consistent aim at different FOVs, you pretty much have to use something like viewspeed. If you want consistent movement, you have to use 360. It's a game by game basis and I think Quake is an especially tough one given how good aim and movement are both extremely important. After thinking, I believe Quake is definitely a game where movement is much more important than aim, but then do I lower the FOV to have the best of both worlds? Ugh.

I am kind've torn on not using viewspeed for hipfire. Like yes, you have consistent movement from game to game, but couldn't your aim suffer from the FOV inconsistency? Especially for games like Quake that has an absurdly high FOV, or even something like Battlefield that has a pretty low default FOV. Thoughts?

You can use it for all 3 and it works just fine. I would actually recommend it. Well, there is one caveat, are you playing 3rd person mode? For 3rd person mode, I would recommend matching CSGO hipfire to 360 distance, as the FOV is not constant. Every other setting can be more or less matched with viewspeed. It seems counter-intuitive, but once you get it feels right. Think of the AWP in CSGO, does the scoped sensitivity feel weird to you? It is actually much slower than your hipfire 360, but it doesn't feel weird because it is based on a ratio that is suited for the scoped FOV. The lower the FOV, the lower your 360 sensitivity needs to be for it to feel "natural".

You don't want to match an 8xscope for pubg to csgo hipfire 360 distance. Use viewspeed or Monitor Distance (just use viewspeed for simplicity). It was discovered (or maybe always known) that matching 360 distance is really only ideal if your field of view is the same. Some make arguments that for hipfire, 360 distance is best, but I tend to think sensitivity should always be matched on a ratio if FOV isn't the same.

Even for hipfire, if the game uses a significantly different FOV, it would probably be better to use viewspeed. Unless the game is 3rd person. Viewspeed doesn't tend to work as well for 3rd person as the FOV is not constant. In my experience viewspeed is not inherently bad for 3rd person, it just usually feels a bit slow. If the game is first person, I think you should use viewspeed for everything. Some people say muscle memory is tied to how far you move your mouse, others say it's tied how far your crosshair moves on the screen (which is effected by FOV). For a perfect match in FPS, match your FOV and then match your 360 hipfire. Your hipfire will feel the same, then use viewspeed for the scopes. Objectively, that is the best way to match hipfire. Many games are not designed for high FOV(Fallout 4) and other games look bad at low FOV (Quake), so viewspeed allows you to play the games as they come right out of the box and have a sensitivity that feels spot on, if not perfect.

In the tank or on foot?

Are you using viewspeed? I think the Heavy Tank has a lower FOV. Also, I think it might be best to just match the vehicle sens on 360 because of how often you use them in 3rd person and how much less precise FOV accurate aiming matters in a tank. Where it gets tricky is the cavalry. It always is in 3rd person, but I wonder if it is worth matching the FOV for the aimed portion, I would lean towards no, because like every vehicle, I think your movement is more important.

Nice! Is there any way to know what FOV the plane uses? They have separate sensitivity for it and in the plane feels a bit too slow compared to the tanks.

BF1 vehicles are broken right now, use the in-game sensitivity version. The wiz altered the calculations recently and I think moved the decimal one over. For me, it recommends about 11% in game but in the config the calcuator says 0.016009 . This would be like under 1% in game. Use the in-game sensitivity, it is "close enough". I should clarify, someone posted about an error in the cavalry sensitivity, I "think" the Wiz altered vehicle sens when he fixed it. Regardless, the problem with the calculation right now is large enough that an 11% becomes less than 1% on the config file versus the in-game. My first logical conclusion is a decimal error because of the discrepancy, but I don't know. 11% is 0.165000 to give you an exact idea. So .165000 compared to .016009.

Kind of unrelated to sensitivity, but how do you "estimate" field of view in 3rd person games?

The settings that feel best for me: Use 360 distance for hipfire and then viewspeed for the rest. If it feels faster than your hipfire you did something wrong. I use the "Viewspeed Test" version of the calculator, which is very close to 75% Monitor Distance.

If you have a DPI toggle on your mouse, I have one set at my default sensitivity and a super low one for games with terrible options like GTAV. I have two dpi steps on my mouse one is 1200 (my normal DPI) and the other is 350, which works for games like GTAV that don't have good options.

Yep, and in this case, it's probably best to match ACOG unless you have a preference for Red Dot. ACOG will probably feel too fast if you match it the same as Red Dot. In my experience, the lower your FOV is, the more apparent an improper match feels. You would not want the same 360 distance and hipfire for zoomed scope, it feels really unnatural.

The Landship Viewspeed calculates wrong now (this is under new Viewspeed). For the "In-Game" calculation it says 11, but when you use the filed value it's below 1% in-game, so pretty far off. It worked fine before you did this adjustment. This is with default calc viewspeed, but still the same problem: That vehicle sens is nowhere near 46/cm 360, it's unbearable slow. For referance, 11% in-game is : 0.165000 So, perhaps a decimal was moved one place too far?

Question. In a game like this, would it be "better" to match the sensitivity with the lowest FOV change (i.e. the pistol) or the highest (the sniper rifles)?

Right, but viewspeed/Monitor Distance would be accurate with zoomed aiming over the shoulder or scoping etc?

I was wondering if it might bet better to calculate 360 distance for hipfire rather than viewspeed? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't calculating the FOV for hipfire in 3rd person games really problematic?

Yeah. Is Ironsight a similar match to the red dot/holo? The most common scope is the going to be the red dot in this game.

What does Rainbow Six use for the scopes by default is it 75% monitor match? If that is the case, wouldn't it be better to not touch the XFactorAiming and just leave it at default to get a similar ratio for both?

The pubG fov is 90, it's really not much different from Overwatch, so hipfire shouldn't feel that different. Again, if you are talking about scoped gameplay (this means any time you aim the gun, regardless of whether or not you actually have a scope on it) you have to match with viewspeed or don't use the calculator at all. Like Drimzi said, the game uses 100% match, so it already has this conversion built in. I match PubG at 90 to my CSGO sens at 106.26 FOV. It feels the same. The "result" and calculation is the same for PubG, now the view model of the gun is unique in PubG, maybe that's why you think it's different? The viewmodel is consistent for a much lower FOV than it actually is. I'm not sure why you're hellbent on 1:1, it will never be 1:1 for scoped gameplay, unless the games have the same FOV for the same zoom levels on them. The only way to get 1:1 is to match FOVs and 360 calculate the hipfire, and that is only 1:1 on hipfire. The scoped sens is based on what your hipfire is. In PUBG, it's 100%, which means it will be accurate for flicks on the edges of your widescreen monitor but less accurate closer to the middle. There is no way to be perfectly accurate with aimed or scoped sensitivities. You will need to use viewspeed for something that should feel good, if you don't like it, use the games built in conversion. (i.e. don't touch the scoped sensitivities)

What he said. When I first found this site I just used distance 360. It wasn't really an issue as almost all games had a conversion for scopes built in. The sens was "close enough". I have found viewspeed/monitor distance to be vastly superior if the hip fire FOV is different, but it IS a preference. Best scenario: match the hip fire FOV to your favorite game. Use viewspeed for scopes OR don't touch scopes and use the games conversion. I like using default FOVs as I feel games are "meant to look" that way and sometimes it feels bad imo. For example: Playing quake champion and 103 FOV when its default is 130 feels bad, it feels slow even though if you convert it properly it's the same.

For scopes, use the new viewspeed or Monitor Distance 75% (almost the same, but not quite as good I don't think). Any scoped sensitivity in any game is a different FOV, so it needs to be matched via Viewspeed. Most games have some type of conversion for this already; if it's not listed in the settings it happens automatically based on a ratio of your hipfire. The game would feel "wrong" when scoping if there wasn't some type of conversion. (Obviously, if you're just using iron sights or something it wouldn't feel that different). A lot of games use 75% Monitor Distance, some use 0% Match. 0% match feels great around the crosshair, or when ADS but typically feels bad for movement and hipfire, 75% and Viewspeed should feel just "right" for most.

You should use Viewspeed (the viewspeed calc up top) or use Monitor Distance Match 75% if you use different FOVs. As you can see, the FOV in Overwatch is 103 degrees compared to 90 degrees in PubG. This is not ideal. If you want to use 360 distance you should match FOVS, PUBG can scale up to Overwatch's FOV of 103 IIRC. With how you calculated this, your 360 distance should, in fact, feel slower. Your mouse moves the same distance on the mouse pad, but the visual distance should feel slower because of the narrower FOV. In my opinion, matching 360 distance based on the same FOV is actually the best you can do. If you up your FOV to 103 in PUBG it won't feel exactly the same it WILL be exactly the same. Now that viewspeed exists, I prefer to just use Viewspeed to make it easier and not mess with FOV. The unfortunate side effect of messing with the default FOV in games is graphical glitches and occasionally reduced performance. I still think the "gold standard" is same 360 same FOV.