potato psoas

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at here? I thought the sweet spot was at the crosshair for 0%MM? Well you probably can't flick shot without developing muscle memory, but I don't doubt that you will experience the sensitivity becoming more in control as you approach the target. To what extent we can distinguish the change in perceived sensitivity with respect to speed of movement I don't know. Although one thing I realized is that a higher refresh rate monitor would help when you are making micro-adjustments. Try playing on a low framerate - you are going to be over/undershooting everything. You are definitely constantly evaluating the entire screen as you turn around. The refresh rate plays a big part in how good we can become before needing to develop muscle memory for flicks. But even then our muscle memory is never going to be perfect so it helps to be able to make those micro-adjustments.

I was thinking about something I said before about how our eyes are constantly evaluating the screen as we move our mouse... well, in-game, when we are moving our crosshair to acquire a target, the distance we expect to move and the distance we actually move is constantly changing. If you think about how this applies to monitor matching, then with 0%MM the distance we expect to move and the distance we actually move gets closer to being the same. We feel more in control as we move to acquire the target - which is what we want. We're not just over/undershooting everything, our eyes constantly adjust. Whereas with 100%MM the difference becomes greater and we feel less in control as we approach the crosshair - wish is something we don't want. If you ask me, knowing this makes a huge difference and makes it so much easier to decide which method to pick. There's no doubt 0%MM is far less flawed than 100%MM and every other monitor match percentage.

Well you accommodate by converting your sensitivity with one of the conversion methods, which are currently Gear Ratio, Monitor Matching and Viewspeed... and CaptaPraelium is trying to figure out another one as well. While they each follow a similar pattern, as in the diagram, the results are slightly different. Which method you use is still up for debate, mainly because the conversions will never be perfect, because of distortion on the monitor. Each method has its strengths and flaws, so you have to decide which one you think will give you the advantage.

When you change FOV you must change the cm/360 with respect to the FOV. Here is a diagram to help you visualize why this is the case: As you can see, a change in the FOV increases the radius and the cm/360 of the circle. But if you were to imagine that both of these circles shared the same cm/360 then the lower FOV will feel faster because the same angular movement in-game would translate to a position further along the monitor, or even outside the monitor - totally not what you expected.

You would need to be sitting infinitely far away to match eye FOV to 0 FOV, which isn't possible. The only way to have your desktop matched is to have a curved monitor.

Well whatever sensitivity I use doesn't matter, what does matter is the principles you use to get to it. Just keep in mind that people don't always migrate to what is best, as there is still the herd mentality idea behind a lot of this. IMO you can use whatever sensitivity you want as long as it's not too high and not too slow. But my principle is to pick the highest sensitivity you can comfortably hit the smallest targets with (~20 pixels). Although I should say, I originally decided on my sensitivity because I was going to use two - one for hipfire and one for ADS... along the way I forgot about using ADS and just started using it as both. I may have to revisit how much precision I have because I honestly can't be bothered using two sensitivities.

I thought I'd make a diagram explaining what I was talking about in my post before. It is showing the distortion for 0 FOV (or approaching 0 FOV), the eye FOV and 180 FOV (or approaching 180 FOV), demonstrating how the required mouse movement is affected at the edge of the monitor and at the center of the monitor, smartly shown by dividing the angle into two equal parts: Then consider how 0% MM and 100% MM work and you can figure out how each method is affected by distortion. Simple explanation: 0%MM slower approaching 0 FOV, faster approaching 180 FOV 100%MM faster approaching 0 FOV, slower approaching 180 FOV The direction changes at the crossover point when the eye FOV and in-game FOV are the same.

Okay that makes sense. I actually found a video that better helps you figure out your eye dominance: I seem to be right eye dominant (at least doing it this one time)

I was thinking more along the lines of the eyes aren't exactly centered at the crosshair, they are to the left and right of it, so unless we play with an eyepatch and sit to one side of the monitor, none of our math is going to be right... and I tried this and my left eye is going blind :/ but it really did feel like I was looking at a 3D model and not a 2D image.

I swear even if the "monitor match" was off the monitor then there would still be distortion... but if you are going to do that kind of thing, 100% MM works best at all points outside the boundaries of the monitor because 100% MM is the gear ratio method, the method that synchronizes sensitivity like gears connected by a pulley. Keep in mind, theoretically, the pulley can be at a tangent to the gear or wrap around the gear completely - it will still pull the gear in sync with all the other gears.

Does that mean 100% MM accounts for the shift in the radius/hypotenuse of the visual angle?

Okay, I'm just putting my thoughts into words here. I just want to figure things out for myself and you can read along to see if I'm making sense... One of the things I mentioned before was that if your monitor were able to shift to match your eye's FOV with the in-game FOV then you wouldn't need to change your cm/360 (I think - or was it the gear ratio...) - it would feel exactly the same (and across all points of the monitor). But because that ain't going to happen, we have to figure out how the distortion changes so that we can compensate for it. As a reminder, the eye-to-monitor distortion and the rectilinear projection distortion cancel each other out when the game FOV matches the eye's FOV, thus causing the sensitivity to be the same at all points on the monitor (as it is perceived by the eyes). Previously, I thought that each method had only one behavior, i.e. 0% MM only became faster at the edges and 100% MM became slower at the center, but adding the function of the eye into the equation instead gives us two behaviors as you move away from your eye's FOV - one for when you approach 180 FOV and one for when you approach 0 FOV. So I thought about it and I found this: 0%MM: The center is matched for every FOV, but as you approach 180 FOV the sensitivity gets faster at the edges and as you approach 0 FOV the sensitivity gets slower at the edges. 100%MM: The edge is matched for every FOV, but as you approach 180 FOV the sensitivity gets slower at the center and as you approach 0 FOV the sensitivity gets faster at the center. Keep in mind, monitor matching (MM) in this sense refers to angle matching, not distance matching, but the concept is still the same - we are just identifying how the distortion changes so we can figure out how to compensate for it. As you can see, there is still distortion, but the behaviors are different and when the distortion occurs depends a lot on sitting distance. One of the important things to remember is that there is a limit to distortion with 100% MM, as it is limited by the chord length as it refers to the arc length, whereas 0% MM approaches 0cm/360 at 180 FOV. But as I said before, this does not mean 0% MM is the inferior method. So in the end, there is still going to be distortion, but the approach you take determines the sensitivity. I think a lot can be said about your eye-to-monitor distance, as this can also exacerbate the flaws of each method. If you intend to use 0% MM, make sure your monitor is further away from your eyes, whereas if you intend to use 100% MM, make sure your monitor is closer to your eyes. I don't know the specifics but I'm sure there's a formula to help you find the sweet spot... but even then, there will still be distortion.

Keep in mind this question depends on your FOV. E.g. 25cm at 120 FOV is going to be slow but too fast at 90 FOV. I'm assuming the question is asking for 90 FOV 16:9 in Hdeg 4:3. My answer to this problem is that you should pick a sensitivity that allows you to comfortably acquire small targets, i.e. 20 pixels wide. Trying to shoot anything smaller than that is just too picky. If you have to shoot anything smaller then you should just avoid the gunfight/use a higher zoom weapon. I also believe your grip style plays a big part in how high a sensitivity you can use. And your own anatomy. People with longer arms will find it more difficult to control their accuracy, so they would have to lower their sensitivity. And there's no doubt you should be rotating from the elbow because rotating from the wrist can put you at risk for carpal tunnel syndrome. But a lot of it comes down to practice - developing your dexterity and muscle memory. If you aren't going too extreme, you really can use anything. To me, personally, don't go too high, but generally higher is better. I recommend maximum of 800 DPI, which is about 15cm/360 at 90 FOV, converted using 0% MM. I use 25cm/360 @ 90 FOV 16:9 in Hdeg 4:3. Overall, I'd say 30cm/360 is about the sweet spot.

Okay I understand this... I actually mentioned the eye distance shift idea in my post (below). Though I didn't realize that it would cancel out the distortion if you lined up your eye FOV with the in-game FOV. I've actually done this before... It's why many players of racing games like to line up their FOV for more immersion: http://www.projectimmersion.com/fov/ I guess I only just realized when I made my other post that different points on the monitor have different "sensitivities" - but only if we were looking at it from a 0 FOV perspective... you really have to take into account the design of the eye. Oh that reminds me - keep in mind WE HAVE TWO EYES. Shit, I understand what I'm missing now... this thing is amazing: https://www.geogebra.org/m/DyZprxpA

Lower sensitivity as in lower cm/360, that's for sure. But no, 0% is matched at the crosshair but becomes faster as you go towards the edge of the monitor. Whereas 100% starts off slow at the crosshair and gets closer to match at the edge of the monitor. If you want to prove which has the lower cm/360 you can always check in the calculator.

This diagram represents how rectilinear projection works - it shows a progression of FOVs. As the FOV decreases, the circles get bigger, the circumferences increase and the arc between the bounds of the monitor edges becomes flatter. Then as you approach 0 FOV, the circumference approaches infinity and the arc, and even the rest of the circle, becomes completely flat, until it is considered 2D. 0 FOV is both 2D and 3D. And even though we can't define 2D in terms of cm/360, because the circumference of 0 FOV is infinitely long, its "sensitivity" can be defined another way... the chord length. If the FOVs all share the same chord length, then the length of the chord also determines the circumference for all the fields of view. It's in the diagram, so the proof is in the pudding. So whatever your 2D edge-to-edge sensitivity is, you can use trigonometry to convert it to a 3D sensitivity and vice-versa. And from testing, this method yields the same results as 100% MM and the gear ratio method, but with the addition of not getting an error at 0 FOV. It's just another way to look at things, and only further solidifies the fact that 100% MM would be the only true method, if it weren't for distortion.

I think I've been too hard on 0% MM... I know I've been testing things at higher FOVs for the sake of comparing methods but that only exacerbates the flaws and minimizes the strengths of 0% MM. I found that at 90 FOV it is perfectly fine for what I need it to do. It only feels off right near the edge, which hardly affects my consistency. Yet the rest of the screen is extremely useable, especially the center. In this situation I would prefer a consistent center than having the little area at the edge feeling off. I believe on top of this approach would be to simply cut off my FOV range at about 103 - the highest FOV I normally use. It's compensation I'm willing to take because I know every other method is flawed anyway. I think I'm convinced on this now, I agree with many things Skwuruhl has said... I was just being too picky.

I simply don't believe this is true. I think the distance from the monitor to the eye has more to do with the 2D realm than the 3D realm. I covered a lot about how 2D works in this post: It explains a lot of reasons why I've always hated moving between McOsu first person mod and normal osu!... Since there is a crosshair in the first person "3D" mode, you are developing your muscle memory from one point on the monitor to every other point on the monitor. But with normal 2D cursor movement, because points on the monitor have different distances from the eye, the perceived sensitivity is changing slightly depending on where the cursor is. You could probably minimize this by getting a curved monitor so that all points on the monitor are equally the same distance away from your eye... not that that is something you can do. It's the other reason why you should make sure you sit in exactly the same position every time you play.

@CaptaPraelium I like what you're trying to do with this whole figuring out how we perceive sensitivity, but I would've thought this had been solved by now. I think I have a good way to explain what exactly is happening... So when we move our mouse a certain distance, we expect to move a relative distance (Edit: our eyes actually perceive things in angle, but I guess this helps us determine distance, so sensitivity can still be considered "distance" over time) on the monitor from the cursor/crosshair. This is what defines muscle memory and it is the very basis behind monitor matching. However I think what we need to define is this idea of "sensitivity" or speed of mouse movement. Since speed is just distance over time, then we can assume that "sensitivity" can be defined in terms of distance - over time we are constantly evaluating how far we expected to move with how far we have actually moved. If you know anything about the way our eyes and brain work, you would know that they are constantly perceiving new information (like a refresh rate) and making instantaneous judgments about that information. There is nothing magical about "sensitivity". But it is not just the crosshair that you are constantly referencing - when you move your mouse you are looking at the entire screen and constantly referencing the "sensitivity" of many points on the monitor at the same time. Your eye is not just focused on one single point. There is a useful field of view that you always use. Even peripheral vision can play a part in perceived sensitivity. Lastly, because of distortion, the perceived "sensitivity" of all points on the monitor are going to feel different. This is why, no matter what method you use, something will always feel off. E.g.: This is why 0% MM feels amazing at the crosshair but it feels too fast at points closer to the edge of the monitor. This is why 100% MM feels too slow at the crosshair but feels better at the edge. And this is why every other method in between 0% and 100% will feel imperfect. (Edit: some of this part isn't exactly correct and I have refined my explanation in a future post) There is no way to work around the distortion. From what I've explained, it's clear that what we perceive, what we expect, our muscle memory, can be explained in terms of distance. It's best that you share these assumptions to help you determine picking the optimal method. If you want to test what I have said, a good way to tell how the perceived sensitivity for different points on the monitor changes is to use the McOsu first person mod and compare it to a 3D game. McOsu pans the camera around the 2D plane but it essentially uses the same principle as 3D, given that 2D is just 0 FOV. But anyway, as an example, you can compare how the speed at the edge of the monitor is supposed to feel compared to a game with sensitivity converted from 2D using 0% MM. (meh)

One thing I've realized after taking a couple months off of shooters is that I've found it REALLY obvious to perceive how the methods differ. I think the explanation for this is that I have lost my muscle memory (I never really had much to start with because I'm always changing sensitivity) so it's a lot more obvious to me what feels different from my desktop sensitivity, which I have been using this whole time. 0% feels amazing at the center and it's like it seamlessly switches between FOV - most noticeable when you change from game to desktop. But then when it comes to flicking to targets further away from the center I'm always missing. And if you are aware of the rest of the screen, it moves too fast and so your perceived sensitivity just feels off. 100% just feels way too slow at the center. But turning around and flicking to targets closer to the edge is effortless. I haven't tried Drimzi's VFOV 100% MM but I'll see how it feels, though, I'm assuming it will be halfway between the two, unless there's some magic happening. But I doubt it... I really think there is no perfect method.

Ah I meant to say independent not dependent. I'll get round to explaining this because it is something I can prove. That's true, but the point I was trying to make was that when there is no distortion, all points on the monitor are equally distributed, so the best method is to use would be 100% MM. This is one of the reasons why I made the assumption that the best formula should scale from 100% MM at 0 FOV to 0% MM at 180 FOV. Well when I say 0cm/360 I mean, as you approach 180 FOV, it takes less and less mouse distance to do a 360, until you reach the error of doing 0cm for a 360 at 180 FOV. I have some ideas on how to do it >.> I don't understand how this proves it to be wrong. Scaling is not a bad assumption, it just dynamically changes the monitor match -> MM(FOV). Approaching 0 FOV, it converges like the rest of them, and approaching 180 FOV it becomes more like 0% MM - it stays well within the expected pattern of the other methods. Even in testing, it has no worse a feel than the others. You'll have to better explain what you mean cause I really just don't get it.

Ok wait so you are using the gear ratio method?? I was wondering what kind of formula you had created.

Sounds like a good idea.

Yeah, although I think something can be said about understanding which flaws you're willing to accept for each method, it really does come down to practice. All these methods are just as bad as each other so the most important thing for building muscle memory is to stick to it and not change your settings. And try not to have too many different fields of view that you practice on because for each field of view you're learning a completely new layout of distortion.

I didn't say it was a good route to take because of distortion, but without distortion, the projection would be evenly distributed along the monitor, and therefore, if you match mouse movement to the edge of the monitor (100% MM) then all points on the monitor would be correct. But I never said it was the best method. I agree with what you say and a lot of it has to do with personal preference and playstyle, but remember to consider the assumptions behind your arguments because they determine which method you prefer. The main assumption I use is that it is better to have the whole screen equally "useable" than to only have one point on the screen useable and the rest completely unuseable, which is why I came up with the middle ground approach. So I don't use 100% MM with rectilinear games, I use a scaling monitor match formula which scales from 100% at 0 FOV to 0% at 180 FOV along the unit circle, allowing a smoother and more consistent approach to sensitivity conversion.