potato psoas

You can post requests in this forum

This just isn't true, it's the opposite. Like MuntyYy said, 0% actually makes it easier to control your recoil. Recoil mechanics happen at the crosshair, and if you have muscle memory at the crosshair, then you can better control recoil at any FOV. As you approach 100% monitor match, the deviation in sensitivity at the crosshair gets bigger. You do not have muscle memory at the crosshair with 75% monitor match. And if you don't have muscle memory, then it's not actually easier. What you may be finding is that with higher FOVs the sensitivity at the crosshair is slower, so you feel more in control. But at lower FOVs, the sensitivity is much faster. Then if you compared the desktop to 90 FOV, you would find that they feel completely different at the crosshair.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by following the shortest path and the geodesic. From what I understand about it, it shouldn't have any effect on choosing a conversion method. That would have more to do with actually moving your mouse to follow that path... which is actually really interesting. I never thought of that before. It's hard to wrap your head around what the shortest path would look like though. But if you're asking what feels perfect then I would have to say nothing feels perfect because of distortion. If there weren't any distortion then I would use 100% monitor match but there is so what can you do. That depends on if I've used the same sensitivity this whole time - and I haven't. I haven't really stuck with a sensitivity, so I've never developed proper muscle memory. I have muscle memory for a range of sensitivities. I can adapt to anything really. When I was doing testing a while back, I was aware that 0% didn't feel right and I thought other methods were better, but I learnt about the strengths and weaknesses of each method and changed my mind. I realized that with a bit of practice 0% doesn't feel weird at all. It feels really consistent where it matters most - accuracy. It shouldn't matter what sensitivity you use. Why would we even want to do that? Pick the method you like and then convert using it, not the other way around.

FYI, 56.25% isn't special. It's not actually aspect-ratio independent. It's really quite arbitrary. See here. Also, it's probably not the best idea to choose a percentage based on what everyone else uses. I understand that most people don't understand anything so they just want someone to tell them what to use, but you really can't join the bandwagon. That's not scientific. I have a hunch that this is going to be the next eternal gaming debate, just like whether to use high or low sensitivity. I wish there were an easy answer, but you are just going to have to go on a journey of experimentation and find out for yourself. But if you want some help on choosing one, here's what I have to say: There is no perfect method. Because of distortion, you are going to have to be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of each percentage. Also, keep in mind that every percentage above 0% is going to be completely arbitrary. It will not translate as the same percentage for different aspect ratios (depending on FOV type the game uses). 0% monitor match will match your sensitivity at the crosshair. This is extremely helpful when you are tracking, making micro-adjustments and generally requiring precision. 100% monitor match will match your sensitivity at the very edge of the monitor. Unlike 0%, 100% does not make the crosshair consistent between FOV. But what it is good at is maintaining the most muscle memory at all points on the monitor. I won't bother mentioning any other percentage because depending on if they are closer to 0% or closer to 100% they will give you more precision or more muscle memory. You might think - then why not use 50% monitor match and get the best of both worlds? That may be true, but you have to remember that "50%" is arbitrary. Just imagine if you extended the length of your monitor by upgrading to a larger aspect ratio. Your 50% monitor match at 16:9 would become 38.1% monitor match at 21:9, as shown below: (And just imagine what the percentage for 16:9 would be if you matched at 100% for 21:9...) If you are going to use a percentage above 0% then a lot of it comes down to: how much of the screen do you actually want to use? Other than that, there's no such thing as "50% or 75% is the perfect percentage". They are all arbitrary. You might be thinking - well, what if we all base it on the same aspect ratio? Wrong assumption. You are forgetting that people sit at different distances from the monitor. What feels right for you at 50cm from the monitor may not feel the same way for someone at 100cm from the monitor. And not to mention the fact that the monitor dimensions won't be the same for every monitor even though they have the same aspect ratio. You can get 19" 1080p monitors and you can get 24" 1080p monitors. Personally, I wouldn't bother trying to pick a monitor match somewhere on the 2D plane and just go with 0% monitor match. It will be the same no matter the dimensions or aspect ratio of your monitor. And the most important part of your aim, the crosshair, will always be matched. As you approach your target your crosshair will feel more in control rather than less in control like 75% or 100% monitor match. And if you learn to improve your smooth tracking then every new moment that you reset your awareness, you will feel in control, even if you don't have the muscle memory for flicks, like 100%... but it's not like you don't develop muscle memory through practice anyway. You will get used to the feel of different FOV - but what matters most, your precision, will always be consistent.

0% isn't just based on the math, the reason why it's a good idea is because it is matched at the crosshair. You give your mouse a little wiggle and it feels natural - a great feeling when you wish to feel precise... and if you over/under shoot you can just make an adjustment. It's very easy to do with 0%. On the other hand you won't develop muscle memory at the crosshair if you use 75% or vertical 100%. And there's nothing special about them - they are arbitrary. The only truly aspect-ratio independent percentage is 0%. But if you think these arbitrary percentages feel good to use then go ahead since there is no perfect method. Just don't try and go solely by feel because that won't work - it will never be perfect. You will still miss shots and forever keep on changing your settings because you're not satisfied.

Like I said before, no matter what percentage you use, it is going to be "synced" as shown by the gear ratio concept. All it does is change the window you look through. Here, I made a diagram: Imagine that monitor matching flattens the arc so that it requires the same distance as the 2D plane to get to that point on the monitor. At 100% MM the edge is actually the edge of the monitor, but as you approach 0% MM the "viewing window" gets smaller. But they are all still 100% monitor matched to that point on the monitor. And we know that 100% monitor match is the gear ratio method, so it is theoretically synced no matter what percentage you use. But this is not the case with Viewspeed. It doesn't maintain the same monitor match percentage. And if you have a formula that changes monitor match then your sensitivity is not theoretically synced, as per the gear ratio principle. This is another reason why I have abandoned the scaling monitor match method. No point on the monitor is truly synced, and the consistency for muscle memory's sake is lacking.

Another reason I think 100% vertical monitor matching is a bad idea is: what if the game maintains the same HFOV for different aspect ratios, like Overwatch - instead of the HFOV adding or cropping, the VFOV does... But if you vertically monitor matched then you would get different matched points even though the FOV is being cropped from/added to the vertical, as you can see in this diagram: This just proves to me that vertical monitor match is based on a bad assumption.

@DPI Wizard

Earlier COD games don't have an ADS setting. The only way to do it is to change your DPI through macros. And for that you may need to start using a lower Windows Pointer Speed.

Basically, it means your crosshair is matched between FOV, since 0% of your monitor is the crosshair. If you don't know what monitor matching is you should watch this video:

I was thinking about the gear ratio method and how 100%MM and vertical 100%MM follow the same principle, and yet they use different monitor match percentages... and then it clicked - the point on the screen you match IS the "'edge of the monitor". Therefore, using vertical 100%MM is just as arbitrary as every other percentage, even if it is aspect-ratio independent. Every monitor match percentage is "synced", as per the gear ratio concept, it just changes the size of the window you look through.

360 Distance is only used when the FOV remains the same. But every other method will give the same results anyway, so there's no point in using it except to see what happens. Viewspeed is kind of arbitrary, it doesn't really have proper assumptions behind using it. If you don't know what monitor distance matching is then you should watch this video, as you'll need to to understand what I am going to say down below: Using monitor distance 56.25% theoretically follows the principle of the gear ratio concept, which you can read here: It is simply using 100% monitor match but for the vertical length of the monitor. If your aspect ratio is 16:9 then if you divide 9/16 you get .5625 or 56.25% monitor match. The reason why we do this is because using the horizontal length of the monitor isn't aspect-ratio independent - which means it gives different results for different aspect ratios. And we don't want that because we know, for the games in which this applies, the FOV is simply added or cropped depending on aspect-ratio and not stretched to fit. 100% MM is the best method in theory, but because of distortion it doesn't really sync like you expect. Because of distortion, speed is not uniform across all points on the monitor. The only benefit of 100% MM is that it has the smallest deviation of sensitivity across all points on the monitor, which in theory should make it easier to develop muscle memory. But if you ask me, if it's deviating at all, then you're still going to have to learn different muscle memory for different FOV just like every other monitor match percentage. And you will notice that the crosshair/cursor will feel unmatched between FOV. You should realize that no method will be perfect because of distortion. Each monitor match percentage has its advantages and flaws. Personally I use 0% MM because I prefer to have my sensitivity matched at the crosshair - it makes it so much easier to be precise and make micro-adjustments for tracking. And if you're worried about developing muscle memory then don't worry, you eventually get used to it just like every other method. Just make sure you don't set your FOV too high because it gets insanely fast due to the distortion. Try out 0%, 56.25% and 100% MM, keeping in mind that 0% feels good at the crosshair and 100% MM has better muscle memory, and 56.25% is somewhere in the middle of the two. Then you can decide for yourself what you want to use.

It doesn't really matter. It depends on what you are converting from. Use Sensitivity if you are converting from a particular game to another game. I honestly never use Distance. I prefer to choose a DPI and just convert from Windows/Desktop to every other game/aimtype I play.

Eh I wouldn't bother with this method or the scaled monitor match because they don't take into account the distortion of the eyes.

this game is aids

There's two ways to decide for yourself what to use: 1. Start learning about the different methods and why we have them. You can start here with this video: Then you might be interested in reading our discussions on sensitivity conversion in these forums: Sorry we have not made any formal explanations yet. We should probably get them done sometime. But part of the reason why nothing has been made apart from the monitor match video is because we are undecided as a group what we want to use as the default conversion method. There may not even be a perfect method because of distortion on the monitor. 2. You can try them all and experiment to see which one you like best. Here is a list of all the common methods: cm/360 - if you watched the video you would know how wrong this method is. You only want to use this method when converting between the same FOV since cm/360 is determined by FOV. 0% monitor match - this method makes your crosshair feel the same. It is also the method used in Call of Duty games. 100% monitor match - this method converts based on the gear ratio principle, and "in theory" should sync the speed of your crosshair/cursor like gears and pulley. 100% vertical monitor match - this method is the same as 100% monitor match except we use the vertical length of the monitor as if it were the horizontal. This is because the horizontal is not aspect-ratio independent, which means it gives you different results for different aspect ratios - which should not happen because FOV is simply added or cropped, not stretched to suit the aspect ratio in some games. As such, you can calculate your 100% vertical monitor match by dividing your aspect ratio like so e.g.: if your display's aspect ratio is 16:9 then your monitor match percentage is 9/16 = .5625 or 56.25% 75% monitor match - this is the method used by CS:GO and Battlefield. It's kind of arbitrary and it is similar to Viewspeed v1. Viewspeed v1 - this method is kind of a misnomer. The true definition of Viewspeed goes to 100% monitor match, as was discussed in the first forum post I linked. As such I wouldn't recommend this method as it is just an arbitrary formula. Viewspeed v2 - this method is similar to Viewspeed v1 expect it uses the vertical length of the monitor, to make it aspect-ratio independent. It helps to know what's going on behind each method, but I understand it is very hard to wrap your head around, so if you can't be bothered to learn, just experiment or stick with the method most people use (we should create a poll) since that seems logical I guess.

You need to pay for the calculator to use it. It doesn't cost that much. $60 will last you a lifetime.

No COD4 and BO2 definitely both use 0% monitor match to convert between different guntypes. Just make sure you're converting properly between the two games. Unless you've been using promod. http://forum.symthic.com/off-topic/other-games/5606-call-of-duty-4-modern-warfare-promod-ads-multipliers/

COD 4 uses 0% monitor match to convert between different guntypes.

You ADS in COD/PUBG for accuracy but you can't ADS in CS:GO (apart from snipers), so it is always going to be too sensitive playing CS:GO if you use your COD sensitivity. There's honestly no way to work around this... You have to decide for yourself which type of game you would rather play - use a faster sensitivity to be good at games with ADS mechanic or use a slower sensitivity to be good at games without one. You could have two sensitivities, but that would mess up your muscle memory. Though I do know a few people who do this and they end up being pretty good at both games. This is an issue we addressed in this topic here:

Well you should really match from Game A hipfire to Game B hipfire first because otherwise your hipfire will be wrong. Then you can convert from Game A hipfire to Game B ADS because you usually have to input the hipfire sensitivity into the calculator to find the ADS sensitivity. If you want your hipfire to be converted differently then you can still convert from Game A hipfire to Game B ADS as long as the hipfire is what you want it to be.

You can definitely convert between 2D and 3D. 2D can be represented as 0 FOV. Although it is not represented in cm/360 because 0 FOV is infinitely slow. Instead, we use cm/monitor edge-to-edge distance. The only thing you need to consider with 2D is that, because of distortion: for 0%MM points on the monitor are slower as you approach the edge from the center, and for 100%MM points on the monitor are faster as you approach the center from the edge of the monitor.

that would be cool

But I'm not using a script, I'm just using a macro to auto press 1 constantly. I tried the macro with both LGS and CUE and I got the same problem.

I don't think you need a script to change the direction of the bindings. You just need to program the creator.py to make it so the second last execs change the direction. And then you can just have a toggle set to constantly repeat keypress 1 (or any key actually - would need to edit that in Python). ...And I did do that, and I have the FOVs scaling now, but I'm finding that the sensitivity goes erratic every so often. Does this happen to anyone else, or is it smooth changing for you?