Skwuruhl

When you ADS it still goes to first person like ARMA yeah? If so I don't know how well any matching method works when swapping between first and third person like that since the camera physically moves in addition to the FOV change. I haven't personally tested (with AHK scripts etc.) any method in third person games.

You literally said this. ? No? This reads like there's some extra multiplier reducing sensitivity even more after scaling sensitivity. (there isn't) *citation needed* Where did I say to call it horizontal? It's vertical. In every case of "1:1" it's vertical. Calling it 1:1 implies it perfectly matches sensitivity 1 to 1. https://prosettings.net/overwatch-pro-settings-gear-list/ has their monitors (and other meaningless shit like gaming chairs lmao). Distance to screen probably doesn't vary that much, especially in the tournament where they all have the same desk. Yes it is. Also that's interesting since usually people who think it's off think it's not sensitive enough.

I don't know that aiming with a physical gun and a mouse/monitor are all that comparable 51 and 103 horizontal, ~30.04 and ~70.53 vertical, 38 is zoom ratio, 45 would be 75% match. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1th02m-cuo7mg-aCKPkSRTjJ7IsmCeSBuzSD-gTP1_u4/edit?usp=sharing Filtered for all OWL players that have played Widow or Ana during the tournament (and that settings are known for). It's evidently not everyone. Something worth mentioning about CS:GO is that if you change zoom sensitivity for one zoom level, it "messes up" all the other zoom levels. If there is no bias then this could account for most pros using the default. What? Nothing you said here is wrong, you just worded it really weird? Mouse sensitivity is scaled by zoom amount so that the physical mouse movement also depends on the zoom. Monitor distance does not depend on the zoom. Zoom is how much larger or smaller everything appears to get. I can't think of a better description than "it scales to match mouse movements to certain monitor distance," but it doesn't scale by zoom amount. If it did you could factor the zoom out of the equation, but you can't. Also why not just call it vertical match? People don't play with their monitor in portrait orientation.

Since USA is using the arctan(x tan(Θ/2)) equation, you can't use an X of 0. You can either just put in 0.01 or do your own calculations in wolfram alpha using tan(Θ/2) instead. Using 0% in the actual game scales correctly, however.

It's probably that people have been playing with 75% match for a very long time (or as it was back then 100% of 4:3). I mean it's more or less how CS 1.6 did it nearly 2 decades ago, it's what people are used to. While I do think 0%/zoom ratio would ultimately match better, if you're that used to 75% then it could take a while to get used to a different sensitivity. Especially with counterstrike players who've basically been using the same sensitivity scaling for more than a decade. It's not surprising that the average zoom sensitivity of pros is basically 1. OWL on the other hand has an average of 38.53 which would be like using 0.8477 zoom sensitivity in CS:GO or 18% match distance. The most common sensitivity is 40. Due to Overwatch being a new game with new FOVs and a zoomed sensitivity slider players are probably more likely to adjust sensitivity to their liking. Especially so since unlike CS:GO the default zoom sensitivity is pretty garbage (21% lower than 0% match). Imo that it's gravitated more towards 38 rather than 45 (75% match) says something. Also as another example: Here the enemy (specifically its eye) is ~172 pixels or ~12.7° away from the crosshair. With my sensitivity this means it'd take me ~1.1 cm of mouse movement to flick to the target. When I ADS the enemy is now ~455 pixels but still ~12.7° away from my crosshair. Since the enemy is 455/172 or ~2.6 times "further" away it should take a correspondingly longer mouse movement to turn those 12.7° and aim at it. The scalar to do this would be 172/455 = 0.378.

that's just tan(FOVa/2)/tan(FOVb/2) http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=tan(a)%2Ftan(s)+%2F+(tan(b)%2Ftan(s)) In fact you could replace tan(s) with anything and it'd still get canceled out. Regardless I don't think distance from your screen should affect what sensitivity scaling you use. Like FOV sure, and then by extension sensitivity, but not sensitivity directly.

For the purpose of zoom amount they are. Consider cameras, zoom is the ratio of focal lengths. If you go from 25mm to 50mm you will have 2x zoom. When a camera projects it's image using rectilinear projection the relation between fov and focal length is fov = 2*arctan(h/(2f)) or h/(2tan(fov/2)) = f Where h is the length of the lens and f is the focal length. This is true regardless of which axis you measure on. x, y, diagonal, it doesn't matter as long as you use the same axis for the ratio. From here take the ratio between 2 focal lengths. h/(2tan(fova/2)) / (h/(2tan(fovb/2))) = fa/fb simplify 1/tan(fova/2)*tan(fovb/2) = fa/fb tan(fovb/2)/tan(fova/2) = fa/fb http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=h%2F(2tan(a%2F2))%2F(h%2F(2tan(b%2F2))) And thus we have the way to find zoom amount of 2 rectilinear images given the FOV of each.

Basically CS:GO does its FOV in 4:3 HOR+ and then their ADS scaling is ads/hip. How USA works is it converts the field of view to another arbitrary aspect ratio defined by the coefficient, where the horizontal axis is coefficient times longer than vertical. So the default of 1.3333 is the same as 4:3. Trying to find the generally best scaling method is all well and good but again "viewspeed" is just sin(vADS/2)/sin(vHIP/2). There's no solid basis to do this, calling it "viewspeed" is even misleading. Generally what's "natural" to most people is going to be what they've been using for years, which in most cases will be 75%. "viewspeed" and diagonal match are within 2% difference compared to 75% match distance: https://www.desmos.com/calculator/elvuehnnw3. You're probably just sticking with methods close to 75% because that's what you're used to. See above. Frankly any difference you feel between Viewspeed, diagonal match, and 75% is placebo. It's the difference of a single centimeter in a mouse movement half a meter long.

Just something more obvious I noticed, this is the same thing as hFOV. Trig functions don't always cancel out like this but in this case they do. But this would mean (assuming your math is right) that the true vertical FOV at a given angle distance from the center is true vFOV = vFOV / Θ 79.13/150 isn't 30.22 so I assume you made a typo in the equation somewhere in your post. I doubled checked this by plugging in without simplifying and got the same error. Regardless if I set up an equation to find at what true vFOV the y coordinates intersect for 0° yaw from the center and 75° yaw from the center like so: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=tan(x°%2F2)%2Fcos(150°%2F2)+%3D+178%2F804+tan(150°%2F2)%2Fcos(0°%2F2) note: tan(arctan(c*tan(Θ))) is the same as c*tan(Θ) Alternatively a version in terms of screen (image) distance: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=tan(x°%2F2)%2Fcos(arctan(1.0+*+tan(150°%2F2)))+%3D+9%2F16+*+tan(150°%2F2)%2Fcos(0°%2F2) I get a true vFOV of 24.14° at the very edge of that image. Edit: I'm not positive I set the equation up correctly but I think I did. edit 2: okay I'm pretty confident that I did. All that said: If this were true then in this image only the axes of the ADS image would line up with the hipfire image, and then as you got away from the axes it'd stop lining up as much. Now if the crosshair weren't in the center of the screen then 0% wouldn't work because then the zoom ratio wouldn't simply be tan(ads/2)/tan(hip/2). Luckily that isn't the case. As an aside zoom ratio or something is more accurate name than 0% MM because while it is technically what mm is equal to as distance approaches 0, it's more immediately the zoom ratio. The same distortion actually happens on both axes, it's just way less noticeable on the y axis because you very rarely have a vertical FOV of anything higher than 75°. The distortion is more or less aspect ratio independent. We just get more of it on the x axis because our x axis is longer. If you had a 1:1 screen the distortion would be equal on both axes. It's not tied to aspect ratio so much as how much screen you have in a given direction.

But what makes 1:1 diagonal any more "correct" than the others? That'd be 360° distance match and 100% match respectively. 0% is having speed determined by the zoom amount. This is where it's personal preference which is fine. Although it's worth pointing out that part of the reason why 0% may feel slow is since you're used to higher ADS sensitivity. 0% compared to 133% takes up to ~20% more mouse movement in ADS for the same turn. What I don't like is when people use pseudoscience in their methods. Like Viewspeed v2 is just sin(vAdsFov/2)/sin(vHipFov/2). I can't think of any mathematical basis for doing this. Also in general scaling match distance to "account for distortion" as if match distance doesn't already. I mean it's based off the equations by which the distortion happens. And as I pointed out in my last post it usually results in making the effects of distortion worse.

Scaling distance match will lead to inconsistent sensitivity at best. Using cosine to scale is one of the examples of at worst. It will invariably give sensitivities dramatically higher than even 100% match. At low FOV you'll be more than 35% above 100% match if your hipfire is 103 (and 90% above matching by zoom amount). The difference is even larger at high FOVs. By scaling match distance with cosine you're exacerbating the problem with using adsFOV/hipFOV to scale sensitivity. y=arctan(x*tan(...))/arctan(x*tan(...)) (or any variation thereof) isn't solvable for x to a general equation. Wolfram (and this website) have to brute force solve it with all other variables provided as constants whenever you want to find x. Flicks across your entire screen for a Hail Mary headshot shouldn't be a strong consideration when you're deciding on your sensitivity. You (or at least I) want a sensitivity that you can consistently and precisely land shots with after acquiring a target or while holding an angle. 1. It makes sense from a mathematical standpoint to scale sensitivity based on the zoom amount. 2x zoom means 1/2 sensitivity. 2.63x zoom means 38% sensitivity. And yes, this does account for the distortion, otherwise I wouldn't be able to do this (http://i.imgur.com/HN5GcL3.jpg) using the same exact equation that I scale sensitivity based on. ads/hip doesn't account for distortion. tan(ads/2)/tan(hip/2) does. 2. It's a difference of 2%

FOV scaling of what? Stuff doesn't scale based on the 1:1 diagonal. Scale with it, sure, but so does the rest of the screen.

And what exactly is the benefit of the entire space being inside the circle?

You do realize how distance match works right? It's not "wasted" in any way. The red area doesn't suddenly become inaccurate just because it's outside the circle. And everything inside the circle isn't automatically accurate. As a general example with 50% vertical match (~28% 16:9 horizontal match): Accuracy from the circle just falls off with distance. Anything outside it isn't "wasted." If anything having a match distance circle that goes out of the bounds of your screen is wasteful. (note: I didn't make the gradient to scale of actual accuracy fall off, it's just an example)

Imo if you use 75% for ADS you should use the same for 2D.

It's very easy to convert between 16:9 horizontal and 21:9 horizontal and doing this would avoid any sensitivity discrepancies. If you don't want to do that then either use vertical or a hor+ version of 16:9 or 4:3. I guess since it wasn't clear in my graph it's 16:9 hor+. From a mathematical standpoint it doesn't matter if your input is vertical because you can just convert it to 1:1 diagonal or whatever you want. The difference is that everyone knows what 106.26 or 103 horizontal FOV looks and feels like, but nobody knows what 80 1:1 diagonal FOV is without doing the math. It's just easier to take an input of what people know and then convert it.

Putting the axes in terms of 1:1 diagonal FOV adds needless complication. Virtually everyone thinks of FOV in terms of horizontal or vertical. Desmos also has a degrees mode so you don't need to use mathematical conversions. is the exact same thing as It's the same thing because zoom amount is completely independent of aspect ratio. Here's the graph readjusted to be in terms of horizontal FOV, consolidated 0% match, and added viewspeed v2, and a few other things fixed: https://www.desmos.com/calculator/2cb6fgyrbx With all that out of the way: No, it's flat because you graphed it in terms of (1:1) diagonal FOV. Not because it's correct or incorrect. Also graphing like this is somewhat misleading because all the methods appear to converge at 0 FOV. While their absolute difference does converge, the relative difference diverges significantly. Example graph showing % change going from 0% match to other methods: At very low FOVs 100% match gives about 40% higher sensitivity and the difference gets smaller the further from 0. The original graph implies the largest difference is around halfway between hipfire and 0. Here's the graph with every method relative to 0% / zoom ratio: https://www.desmos.com/calculator/t1wkmkkrao

You could have it default to 75% (since that's what CS:GO and Battlefield use) or 0% (CoD and Titanfall) in greyed out text like you do with default FOV.

This is why I would prefer doing distance match in terms of vertical just like Battlefield does. It makes it so 133% match is always the same thing just like 73.34 vertical FOV is always the same. Wizard already made their videos and stuff with horizontal though so I don't expect it to be changed. Regardless you can get around this by converting between "resolution base distance match" and "16:9 distance match" or whatever you want. An example to achieve 75% 16:9 match with a 16:10 monitor: 16/9*0.75 = 16/10*x x = 0.83 or with a 21:9 monitor: 16*0.75 = 21*x x = 0.57 The calculator has a dropdown of 5% increments so you'd either have to round to the nearest %, do your own calculations based on 100%, or @DPI Wizard would have to change it from a dropdown to text box thing Also worth pointing out that any given match distance is a matched circle with the given radius. Examples with 25% horizontal: Not the best examples since I didn't bother to line the circles up with an enemy but still show what I mean.

here's an image comparing hipfire, 0.819 (0% match), and 1.0 (75% match) in cs:go. Basically if you use a high match distance it's only accurate with really big mouse movements.

I'm not sure what you're asking?

Ported to python for those that didn't want to install java. (you still need to install python)

Well yeah that's kinda how the distortion works. If you match at the very edge of your screen then the center isn't going to be matched and vice versa. You can't get around this. Even if you match at 50% that'll just mean it's perfectly matched at 50% but still off at the center and edges of the screen. It's not possible for there to be a method where the entire screen is matched at once. However This is a valid point that comes down to personal preference. Yes it will be "most correct" for every point on the screen but in my opinion the area around your crosshair is the most important to match. Mostly because that's where you're doing micro flicks and tracking. Here I disagree though. I don't see how taking the cosine of half of the higher FOV is supposed to correctly give an 'average' monitor match. You are right that you can't just linearly scale it because monitor match doesn't scale linearly, it has more "matches" at low screen distances. https://www.desmos.com/calculator/48ico4emry you can use integrals to average all this: https://www.desmos.com/calculator/wnbs9nuyeo In this case it comes out to be about 62% match distance http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.434508085152%3Darctan(xtan(51­°%2F2))%2Farctan(xtan(103°%2F2)). I do want to reiterate that even though on average this will be the closest to correct, it will still be somewhat significantly off at the crosshair. Also that having different match distances for different zoom levels may impact your aim. I still believe that 0% is the best for lots of reasons.

Why would I do this? Monitor match is already taking into account this distortion. It's literally the entire point of using it over adsFOV/hipFOV scaling. The amount of distortion is modeled by tan(x/2). Your FOV at any given point is given by 2*arctan(d*tan(x/2)). These equations didn't come out of nowhere. I mean in my last post there's empirical evidence showing that it works. It ties screen distance to mouse distance. If you change the screen distance by throwing it into some arbitrary equation you completely undo that. Can you link to the post with the math for this?

I'd just like to point this out again: https://imgur.com/a/05PqD Imo matching physical mouse movements with physical screen distance should be the goal of ADS scaling. If 1:1 ratio diagonal match aka 70.71% match distance is your usual flick distance then that will be best for you. If your target is near your crosshair by the time you're in ADS then 0% or a small % will be better. I had more typed but the forums editor reverted to an old version and I don't feel like typing it all again. Basically was just saying the important part is that you consistently use the same match %.