Bryjoe

So, I understand the idea behind this, but since so many game use the 75% 4:3 Aspect Ratio, wouldn't it be easier on most gamers to use the existing viewspeed calculation? To apply this to a game like Battlefield, or to games with multiple view sensitivities, you would need to calculate it for each zoom. Systems like USA make this process so much easier in Battlefield. I just wonder if it is worth the trouble.

With different FOVs, Viewspeed is going to be your best option. If you can match, or closely match, the FOV in CSGO (106.26 Horizontal, I believe)360 distance is the best. Matching at 100% feels super unnatural for most long time PC gamers. CSGO and Quake have used 75% matching for about 15 years now. Use ViewSpeed, IMO. Matching your First Person Sensitivity to third-person often doesn't feel as natural, people are used to panning the camera more quickly in the 3rd person view than they do in FPS. I get a converted sensitivity of 52 Cm/360 based off my CSGO sens of 41.6CM (this is a medium-low sens). 52 CM/360 should feel perfectly natural if you're used to playing at low sens. Regardless, it's a 10 CM distance, which isn't very much and should feel fine to you at the lower FOV. I play BF1 at the default FOV with about 52 CM/360 and have no problem turning on people and tracking, you do need to have a nice big mousepad for this style of play though. Edit: You have almost the same sensitivity as me, try about 52 ish CM/360 and see how that feels compared to matching it at 100%. For a point of reference, matching at 100% is the same as matching at the edges of a 16:9 screen, it is pixel accurate if you are flicking to the edge of your 16:9 (i.e. 1080p) screen, but not very accurate at all in the middle.

So, wait. This viewspeed is supposed to be more accurate than the current implementation? I was wondering if it's worth using viewspeed on something like Battlefield 1 vehicles. The vehicles have a locked FOV, but I was wondering if it would be better for do 360 distance since it's not really the same as infantry. Also, 3rd person view puts another wrench in it as that probably changes the FOV entirely.

I just bought the Zowie G-SR. It is better than the QCK+ Heavy. I also have switched to the Logitech G403 (I have 19.5+CM hands) and it is very similar to the EC1-A, but has software which I enjoy and a little bit better sensor. Zowie really tends to make the best peripherals, designed for FPS more than any other company. I think your mouse should be chosen based on what works best for FPS games, and Zowie really has you covered there, there is a reason about 80% of non-sponsored CSGO professionals use Zowie. There are certainly plenty of good alternatives when it comes to mice, the Rival 310, Razer DeathAdder, Mionix are all good mice, but in terms of safe shape and a mouse the will fit any hand size, Zowie has you covered. I only use the G403 because it mimics the EC1-A so closely and has software, the shape of the EC1-A is perfect for large hands in my opinion. I should note the Zowie is super barebones, by design and that their build quality is typically not as good as Logitech and Razer. (This is not a note for durability, more in terms of how the material of the mouse and buttons feel) The zowie plastic, buttons and finish could be improved, but they really have nailed what is important in a quality FPS mouse: Light weight, safe shape and a great sensor.

Best way to is match 360 distance with same FOV. Second best is viewspeed. Viewspeed is best for scopes, or if you don't like messing with the default FOV in games, which sometimes is ideal.

So, after testing out the new "Viewspeed" option it has very similar results to matching monitor distance at 75%. In fact, it's often within a cm for a 360 calculation for it. Viewspeed calculation would not be much of a difference compared to monitor distance matched at 75% which is what both CSGO and BF1 USA use. All in all, if you were using 75% before or you were using USA in BF1, viewspeed should feel almost exactly the same. Edit: I should say it's the same as CSGO Zoom Sensitivity 1, which is the default in the game. It actually corresponds to .978something for zoom sens on CSGO, basically extremely hard to tell the difference between 1 zoom sens and .978, I would argue that if you think you can it's probably in your mind more than anything else.

Just wanted to chime in and say the the QCK+ Heavy is the best mousepad in existence, if you have the space for it. In terms of mouse, I use an Zowie EC1-A because I have big hands. For other big handed people, I think the deathadder is also a good choice.

It's never going to be the same on all zoom levels. That isn't what you want though. You don't want a very powerful sniper scope to feel the same as iron sights. WHat USA does is makes the ratio of movement the same. The actual sniper scope sensitivity is slower due to the low FOV, but it is the same relative to that FOV. Hipfire would be the fastest iron sight slightly slower, and so on and so on.

Wait, so what is the 133% coefficient representing then? When USA was first introduced in BF4, it was designed around the edge to edge ratio of a 4:3 aspect ratio screen, which should be the same thing as "1" in CSGO. So, naturally one would think that the default coefficient in BF1 is corresponding to this 4:3 aspect ratio. Also wouldn't messing with the zoom all alter the USA zoom ratio? Here is the definition of USA: So you must be wondering why the default coefficient is 1.33 First, because 1.33 seemed to work best, second, because that's what CS:GO used and compatability is awesome, and third, because when you times your vertical screen height by 1.33, you would get your horizontal screen width if you were using a 4:3 screen, which is the smallest aspect ration screen people use for games. This is so confusing...

Sensitivity is not effected by FOV technically. In reality, it is effected because your viewpoint effects how many pixels the gun needs to travel across the monitor. Games with different FOVs can never be matched 100% accurately. If you transfer the CSGO hip fire sensitivity directly to Battlefield without changing the Battlefield FOV to the same as CSGO, it will feel slightly different. If you are going to use different FOVs, it is probably better to use the "Monitor Distance" setting rather than 360 distance.

It's not about "best" that will depend on your personal preference. If you are trying to match sensitivities between BF1 and another game, the easiest way would be to match the 360 distance using the calculator (make sure the FOV is similar for best results). Once you have that value just turn on Universal Soldier Aiming and your GTG, no more messing around needed. It is definitely the easiest way to do it. If you are trying to match sensitivities with CSGO and you use a zoom-sensitivity ratio OTHER THAN the default of 1, you need to wait for the wiz to update the calculator so you can do it by scope, or you can find the coefficient. As we said above, there are pros and cons to using different values under the coefficient, but the default is what most people are used to on PC.

Yes. Set your FOV in Battlefield to 74 (this should be close or the same as CSGO's FOV, althought the wiz said BF1 calculated it differently) match the 360 distance for hipfire in BF1 to what you have for CSGO, and then turn on USA and use 0.017778 as the coefficient.

If you are using USA, you shouldn't mess with the zoom sens in battlefield. If you change the zoom sensitivity, you ruin what USA is attempting to do, which is make zoomed scopes feel similar to hipfire. CSGO doesn't have zoom senstitivity it only has zoom sensitivity ratio, which is the same thing as USA. Battlefield is one of the only games I know of that has different sensitivities for all the scopes. Once the wiz comes out with the individual scope calculations, you will be able to match at whatever ratio you prefer. If you have messed around with this stuff as much as me, you would know that matching the 360 distance (hipfire) to scoped distance is not only impractical, but sometimes impossible. The difference in FOV makes it very hard. TLDR: CSGO doesn't have the a zoom sensitivity, only a zoom sensitivity ratio, which is the same as Battlefield's Universal Soldier Aiming.

BF's USA ratio defaults at a coefficient of 133% this is the same thing as "1" in CSGO for zoom sensitivity ratio. You have to have the same hipfire distance on both games to get an accurate zoom sensitivity ratio. As this ratio is based off of your hipfire. You can match the BF coefficient to csgo, but if you just leave it at default it is matched to "1" on csgo.

Exactly, and I chose 75% because that's the default for CSGO and probably realistically what most people are used to and what a lot of games are based on. There is definitely an argument that 1% is optimal, as being accurate on flicks isn't nearly as important as being accurate in the center of your screen.

The zoom sensitivity ratio in csgo is the same thing as Universal Soldier Aiming in battlefield and monitor distance on this site. Messing with the zoom sensitivity in the game settings is not the best way to do it. The best way is to find the corresponding coefficient, match at 1 % = GstInput.SoldierUniformAimingCoefficient 0.017778 ^^^This is what it would be matched up to .81, but in order for this to be correct you would need to match your FOV to csgo and your 360 distance, as it is based off of those settings. Once you did that it will feel EXACTLY like csgo, because it is literally your exact same sensitivity.

Once the wizard puts the sensitivities up for all the different scopes, it actually would be most accurate to match the fov and then corresponding sensitivity for each of them. USA just makes this process a whole hell of a lot easier and uses the same zoom sensitivity ratio of 1 that is standard in csgo, but it is not quite as accurate and most games don't have individual scope sensitivities like Battlefield. I have found that if you're matching sensitivities across many FPS (what this site is designed to do), it's best to try and match FOV first and then 360 distance. Second best, if you don't want to change FOV is to match to monitor distance (premium members only) at 75% which is an approximation of the 133% coefficient or the figurative edges of the 4:3 aspect ratio. In this way, you can pretty much have the exact same aim in every game no matter what the FOV limitation is. It is kind of complicated, but if you want the exact same aim in every game match the FOV and 360 sensitivity and then if they have a separate scope sensitivity, match that at 75%. If the game doesn't have good FOV settings use monitor distance at 75% for both and it will be pretty close. This is just my 2 cents and I have played around with this great tool for years. Matching the monitor distance at 1% would actually make you more accurate in the center of the screen less accurate at the edges, this actually is great for precision as most engagements take place in the center of the screen. The main and probably only reason I don't use 1% is because of Battlefield's USA, I don't want to match each battlefield scope to this value, I just want to use USA to match them all quickly and easily. I know with the coefficient it is now possible to match this, but it's not worth the hassle. This is also why the Monitor Distance tool defaults at 50%, this is the literal middle point between edge to edge accuracy and pixel perfect accuracy. 100% would be edge to edge accurate on a 16:9 screen, but not nearly as accurate as 0% in the center.

I have been using 75% to match monitor distance, as that is how zoomed in ratios are commonly calculated (such as in CSGO). Uniform Soldier Aiming in Battlefield is also calculated using this method IIRC. Basically 75% matches up with the distance on a 4:3 aspect ratio screen, which is carried over from the Quake and Unreal Tournament days. I am sure the wizard will correct me if I am wrong, but I base all my games off of my CSGO sens and use 75% to match monitor distance for everything. It actually is more accurate to use 1% if you're trying to match hipfire sensitivity in the center of the screen, which is typically ideal for most engagements. The downside to this is, it's not accurate when you're outside the middle of the screen. The default setting of 50% kind of straddles this, giving you a mixture of close to accurate ratio on the edges and in the middle, but it's impossible for the calculation to be perfect except for in "one" section of you FOV, as has been demonstrated in the tutorials on this site. If you use 50% you would have to go and make sure it matched with each scope in Battlefield, if you use 75% you can just check Uniform Soldier Aiming and be good to go, that's the main reason I use 75%.

The new patch screwed up sensitivity. The config files doesn't seem to have the same effect as "mouse sensitivity" doesn't exist. It is just horizontal mouse sensitivity and vertical. I assume "mouse sensitivity" just converted into "mousesensitivity horizontal" but I don't know.

Hi, They added a new vertical and horizontal sensitivity setting to Rainbow Six Seige, and I think it is effecting the calculation. My sensitivity feels way off. There is no "normal mouse sensitivity" in the game options any longer, it is just vertical and horizontal. Although, it does still exist in the config file. Thanks

Ok, so for 16:9 1.096285 is the most accurate edge to edge or matching at 100%? Given that the ability to be accurate in the middle of your screen is objectively much more important than the outer edges .81 is superior in most gameplay scenarios. However, being accurate edge to edge sacrifices some pixel precision in order to be able to hit anyone in your field of view easier. It is an interesting trade-off. Actually matching at 50% using your monitor distance calculation would be the best of both worlds. More pixel accurate than a perfect 1:1 ratio, but also more accurate over your entire view than pixel perfect 1%.

Ok, what is similar to 1 in CSGO? .81 is the pixel close value, but 1 is the most accurate edge to edge. 1 essentially makes the sens similar to unscoped edge to edge, but is off on a pixel by pixel standpoint as you have said. Thanks for your help.

Ok I put "Match at 1%" and I get 38 relative aim. Is there any reason I would want to match at 1% compared to the default 50%?

Ok, so I use 41.6 cm to a 360 at CSGO's default FOV, when I convert that to Overwatch via your new monitor distance feature (which is fantastic BTW), I get relative aim of 42. This is at a resolution of 1440p monitor size of 27 inches. That isn't far off from what you just said in 37, but should I be using 37 for it to feel closer to .81 in csgo? Also, should I apply this logic to games like Rainbow Six Seige? The goal with zoom sensitivity seems to be to have the accurate ratio rather than that actual Distance for a 360 I feel, except for ironsight and close scopes like red dots and such.

Hello, I was wondering if the relative aim sensitivity for Widowmaker in Overwatch is the same as CSGO. In CSGO, a sensitivity of .81 is the best ratio. This doesn't mean that the zoom sens is the same as hipfire, but rather the zoom sensitivity feels the same pixel wise. I read in another forum on here that 50 was the best relative aim sensitivity for the default FOV of 103, is this accurate, or does the calculator make a difference?