potato psoas

Yeah I can't remember exactly what I said either, but this is definitely a solid (and simple) formula. You don't even need the monitor match formula for this because the calculator now allows you to input custom monitor distances. What you do is use the formula: COS(FOV/2) to calculate what monitor match percentage you use for each FOV. Keep in mind if you want things to be aspect-ratio independent you use the VFOV instead of the HFOV. E.g. If the VFOV is 73.74, then the VFOV MM% = COS(73.74/2) = ~79.99989281% Keep in mind that the calculator uses the Horizontal Monitor Width to do its calculations so you will need to convert VFOV MM% to HFOV: I.e. HFOV MM% = (10/16)*VFOV MM% = 49.375% Here is an example of what this should look like in the calculator: COS(FOV/2) simply finds the "middle ground" monitor match percentage. It means the distance to move to the center of the screen and the edge of the screen are equal, thus allowing all points on the monitor to feel more correctly converted. It scales from 100% MM at 0 FOV to 0% MM at 180 FOV using the curve of the unit circle (which I thought was appropriate). It's not perfect, but as I said, it's what I think is the best poison. One of the interesting things I've been doing has been to combine different methods when changing aim type. I've found that it's simply easier to play with Call of Duty's default 0% MM and not adjust the DPI on my mouse, as long as I un-ADS before I move to acquire a new target. Though it takes a bit of getting used to. And I found it had another benefit, that, aside from maintaining muscle memory, you can acquire targets faster.

Is there another forum we have migrated to? I notice Drimzi edited all his posts so not sure if he has started another forum with a better idea or if he just gave up trying to find a solution. Either way I'd like to reflect on some of the things we've talked about in this forum... When solving any problem there are two ways to go about things: The first way is to start with a set of assumptions and logically define a method. (induction) The second way is to gather data about various methods and identify patterns in the data to help us define a method. (deduction) These two methods of science work interchangeably to come to a conclusion about things. One of the problems with our discussion has been that we are too heavily defining the solution based on method number 2. It's been useful for collectively defining the basic skeleton of our conversion method (we can all agree that the correct solution lies somewhere between 0% and 100% monitor match, keeping in mind, for many games that use Hdeg 4:3, monitor match is dependent on aspect ratio). But we've gotten to a point where asking for a consensus about which formula is best isn't going to work anymore. At this point it may very well be personal preference, but I'd like to try addressing some of our assumptions as this might help clarify what we are looking at. What do we know about aim so far: FOV is added and cropped depending on your aspect ratio, so cm/360 should theoretically remain the same no matter what aspect ratio you use. 0% MM and converting based on the VFOV are aspect-ratio dependent methods (if the game uses rectilinear projection). 2D can be represented as 0 FOV. At 0 FOV the circumferential rotation is equally distributed so it is best to use 100% MM at 0 FOV. At 180 FOV the distortion is completely squished in the middle, so theoretically it is best to use 0% MM at 180 FOV. As we approach 0 FOV all the common methods converge so it doesn't really matter which method we use past 30 FOV as they will all feel exactly the same. It matters more how the methods feel at higher FOVs because this is where the results differ the most, and as such, we should be testing our "feels" at higher FOV rather than 90 FOV and especially not 30 FOV. So knowing this, we need to address some questions to define the assumptions we have about what makes aim consistent and allows us to develop muscle memory: How does our brain perceive "sensitivity"? Is it retaining the same cm/360, screen distance matching, synchronizing FOVs using the gear ratio, maintaining Viewspeed, maintaining speed at the crosshair, or something else? How do we compensate for distortion? And how does it relate to different projection methods? Does it matter if our formula can never be perfect? How good is the brain at adapting? I don't think these are all separate questions, they all need to be addressed at the same time. I know the correct formula is so hard to prove without testing, but I really think we need the ideas to make sense first and foremost. It should get to a point where we don't even need to test with our mouse to know it's the correct method. I also think something we need to remember is that if it weren't for the fact that most games use rectilinear projection then we would have a different set of problems. I think nothing will be as perfect as we want it to be. There is no such thing as a perfect conversion method. It is dependent on the projection method. We don't live in a perfect world - we have to make do with the cards life has given us. We have to "pick our poison". But this doesn't mean we can't try our best and pick the "best poison"... So we need to make sure we address the assumptions before we continue on our discussions. One of the biggest things we should finalize is: How does our brain perceive "sensitivity"? One of the concepts we've been using to convert sensitivity has been to maintain "sensitivity". So I thought I might give my opinion on some of the methods: cm/360 Method: This one is probably the easiest to disprove because you really can tell by feel that this is incorrect but like I said, we should prove by idea and not by feel. So I'll explain the reason behind this: as we approach 0 FOV the sensitivity should slow down, and as we approach 180 FOV the sensitivity should speed up. But if your sensitivity stays the same, lower FOVs will feel too fast and higher FOVs will feel too slow. You can represent FOV with circles going around the edges of your monitor, as shown in this diagram: (the bigger the circle the lower the FOV and the greater the cm/360) Gear Ratio Method: This one makes the most sense in theory, having all your FOVs synched together like the gears on a pulley, and from testing it has been found to yield exactly the same results as 100% MM, which I stated before would be the perfect method if the distortion was corrected and every point on the monitor was equally distributed. So this method actually would be perfect if it weren't for distortion. But since we are compensating for rectilinear distortion, the problem with this method and 100% MM is that it is far too slow at the center of the screen for higher FOVs. The same degree of rotation from the middle of the screen and from the edge of the screen translate to movement that is too slow at the center of the monitor in comparison to the edge of the monitor as you can see in this diagram: 0%MM Method: The 0% MM method suffers from the same problems as 100% MM but just in reverse order - too fast at the edges. It might actually be worse than 100% MM because at least 100% MM has a limit to how slow it can become as it approaches 180 FOV, whereas with 0% MM, the sensitivity also approaches 0cm/360. And if you were to convert your 2D sensitivity to 90 FOV using 0% MM then the lower FOVs would feel far too slow. The plus sides to this method is that it is aspect-ratio independent and the center of the crosshair feels the same - which is important when you want to maintain your consistency to micro-adjust. However, I personally think, apart from the fact that it is aspect-ratio independent, if you are going to choose a method that works best for aiming at the crosshair then you should use 20%, or something similar. This is because, when you are reacting to movement, the target is already off the center of your crosshair. My method: One of my main assumptions with developing this method has been the idea that we do not only aim at certain areas of the screen. A lot of the time we are snapping to various targets outside of our crosshairs. This is especially true in games like osu! and aim training where you are moving around the entire monitor. A big part of aim is not just to make micro-adjustments at the crosshair/cursor, but to utilize your muscle memory and snap to multiple targets in quick succession on the entire monitor. There's no point in using 0% MM if you keep under/overshooting your targets. So what did I do? I created a simple formula to find the "middle ground" monitor match percentage, the point on the monitor where the distribution of distortion is equally split into two sections. What this does is it equalizes the entire screen so that the crosshair is not too slow and the edge of the monitor is not too fast - it is equally incorrect. It's still not perfect, but I think this is the best all round "poison". It minimizes the flaws of each method and allows you to use both playstyles. And in play testing I found that the center of crosshair was fine - it did not feel significantly different going from 90 FOV to 2D, and yet the rest of the screen didn't feel too fast like with 0% MM. Keep in mind that you can use either HFOV or VFOV with this method. But using VFOV would make it aspect-ratio independent of course. Aspect-ratio independence: Hear me out on this - I really don't think your method needs to be aspect-ratio independent. As I said before one of the assumptions I made was that I wanted to use the entire screen. It's not like you are going to jump back and forth between 4:3 and 21:9 aspect ratios all the time. The aspect ratio you use isn't going to change. If you really wanted to work around this, you could just get a 1:1 aspect ratio monitor. But I don't think there is a point, because as I said - you have that extra screen space because you are going to use it... aren't you? Just because 0% MM is the only truly aspect-ratio independent method doesn't mean it's the best method. Other methods: One of the assumptions that was made by Drimzi was that we perceive things in terms of 3D. I have to disagree - our eyes perceive in 2D. We live in a 3D world but what we are actually seeing are 2D images with our eyes. So when it comes to muscle memory, you are expecting to move a certain distance on the monitor based on how much you move the mouse. But one of the interesting things, as I mentioned earlier, was that the method that matches based on 3D rotation - gear ratio method - would actually be correct if the gameworld projection was undistorted. So I think, 3D and 2D work together, but it's just the distortion that prevents this. I really don't think there's another way to reckon perceived sensitivity in light of the distortion but if anyone has any ideas, then I'm all ears. Conclusion: I mean, if game developers corrected the distortion then we wouldn't even be having this discussion because the obvious answer would be to use 100% MM. We really should tell developers to program their games properly. Ditch the rectilinear projection method and come up with something entirely new that has no distortion. Unlike correcting pictures from actual camera lenses, I think this should be very easy to do. I'm open to being wrong about the things I've said, but I really think we should take a more inductive approach to this problem. It's clear to me now that it's a pick your poison kind of thing. But I believe there is a best poison. It's not exactly a preference, but I'm seriously okay with people using whatever the heck method they want to use. I'm more concerned about changing the way we make games.

Think you have to sign up on the website: https://statespace.gg/aimlab/

Elaborating on this, if you do want to have the best muscle memory at the crosshair then you shouldn't use 0% you should use 20% or something. When it comes to tracking, you are reacting to how the enemy moves. By the time you have reacted they are already off your crosshair. 20% is actually pretty good because the center hardly feels any different between FOV but it makes a world of difference with regards to the rest of the screen.

Well scaling using cos(FOV/2) made the most sense to me. MM would scale along the unit circle, with radius 1 (representing 100% MM) and through trig I end up with MM(FOV)=radius cos(FOV/2). But even though it makes sense it's not aspect ratio independent. The other idea I had was to use a linear method: (180-FOV)/180 Even though it makes less sense, the 360 distances are tighter than using cos(FOV/2). Ultimately, to make it aspect ratio independent we need the monitor match formula for both horizontal and vertical to give the same 360 distance. I.e.: HCL((π HMM)/(ATAN(HMM TAN((π HFOV)/360)))) = VCL((π VMM)/(ATAN(VMM TAN((π VFOV)/360)))) (CL = chord length, MM = monitor match percentage) but I don't know how to get HMM/VMM on its own. I actually disagree that it's best to match only at the crosshair. Yes you do a lot of aiming there but it's not the only place on the screen you need muscle memory for. Snapping to targets closer to the edge happens all the time, especially in games like osu!. Scaling the monitor match minimizes the flaws of both 0% and 100% monitor match.

yeah, (15.6/24)*600 = 390

Monitor match doesn't really take distortion into account. E.g. if you use 100% at 179 FOV, it will feel so incredibly slow at the center. It would be matched to the edge of the screen but the closer you get to the center the more incorrect it feels. Same applies to 0% except now the edges are too fast. But what scaling does is it finds the "middle ground" where the edge and the center are equally incorrect, therefore making it much more consistent between FOVs at all points on the monitor. Here is a diagram showing what I mean, where the red lines depict the distribution of points on the monitor: The monitor match will scale according to the distortion/FOV. And I thought the best way to scale it would be COS(FOV/2). If you were going to use a single monitor match, the most average of them would be 20%. You can use integrals to calculate that. But I don't think it's a good idea because as you approach 180FOV and 0FOV you want to approach 0% and 100% respectively. If the distortion was corrected then we could just use 100% the whole time. I linked an excel spreadsheet before, but I don't think you should bother looking at it cause it's probably wrong. You can use COS(FOV/2) to scale your monitor match but the hard part is making it aspect ratio independent. Although COS(FOV/2) is so close to aspect ratio independent that you probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

If you are trying to maintain consistency with the 2D image, you should be scaling your monitor match based on FOV/distortion. You can't just use one single monitor match. Using COS(FOV/2) I get a monitor match of 50% at 120FOV, 70.71% at 90FOV, 92.39% at 45 FOV and 99.14% at 15FOV. That being said, I came up with a scaled (aspect ratio independent) monitor match formula and it ended up being the same as 0% monitor match, which honestly makes no sense.

Since the 24" is bigger, you will need to lower your DPI by ratio. Your new DPI would just be (15.6/24) x old DPI. E.g. a 400 DPI will now become a 260 DPI. The other way to do it is to imagine you are using a smaller portion of the 800x600 resolution. 15.6" as a portion of 24" gives us a resolution of 520x390. Then you can get your new DPI by converting from your old resolution to your new resolution, e.g.: Keep in mind that DPI values are limited to 100 or 50 increments, depending on your mouse, so it's not always possible to get the exact same sensitivity (as you can see by the results which are in red). You can lessen this problem by using a lower WPS value: It's one of the annoying parts about picking a sensitivity for life. Unless you've prepared for it, a change in resolution will always make things complicated. Hopefully they make mice with smaller DPI increments in the future so that this isn't as much of an issue. In terms of converting your ingame sensitivity... if you haven't already done it, you should convert your ingame sensitivity to windows/desktop using the conversion method you like best. And then it will give you a desktop DPI that matches your ingame. And then you multiply this DPI by 15.6/24 to get your new DPI. And then you just use this new DPI and convert back to your ingame.

okay will try again

Lol this is just 0% monitor match... but the interesting thing is that 0% is not aspect ratio independent, so this could still prove useful.

See how in this picture the aspect ratio is different but the image is actually the same in the center. This is what I mean by adding and cropping FOV. And because of this it means you should share the same 360 distance. However, when you use Viewspeed v1 it gives you a different 360 distance for different aspect ratios. So all that aspect ratio independent means is that the 360 distance will remain the same no matter what aspect ratio you use, which is what Viewspeed v2 is doing.

This one is even faster than my one

Scaling to 100% as you approach 180 FOV and scaling to 0% as you approach 0 FOV doesn't make any sense. The only reason high FOVs get stupidly fast is because they are stupidly distorted. The virtual window of useable screen space gets smaller and smaller as you approach 180 FOV. If you scale to 100% then you are making the screen space useable but it won't feel like it is converted correctly. It's why I think we shouldn't use them at all - maximum FOV should be 120 or even less. For the next release there should be a warning in the calculator telling you not to use them haha.

This is actually just 0% monitor match - who knew! Okay, so I have figured out how to make the scaling monitor match formula aspect ratio independent. @seventhfrost it's done now Here is an Excel link for you to play around with: https://1drv.ms/x/s!AgoMjDNmWWpe6DLsZ8sBaZmddWHI You can tell it's aspect ratio independent because if you make the resolution width the same as the height for Hdeg 4:3 games the 360 distance won't change even though the FOV and aspect ratio is changing - it's truly adding and cropping FOV. It has all the formulas you will probably need. All the highlighted areas are the things you need to customise/worry about. Keep in mind that the results are in cm. The only way to make it aspect ratio independent was to use MM(FOV) = COS(FOV/2). I tried including a limit but it didn't work. I don't think this is a flaw, just the way circles work. If you imagine the distortion is corrected and we used 100% then there would be different 360 distances but it would still be right - hard to wrap your head around (or maybe I don't know what I'm talking about). I know it is faster than what everyone is used to but it really does maintain the consistency with all points on the monitor, so it won't feel so slow at the center but it will feel faster at the edges as your FOV increases - which was the goal, because of distortion. At 90 FOV it's not too bad, very consistent.

Viewspeed v2 is aspect ratio independent. Viewspeed is not. Aspect ratio independent means the 360 distance doesn't change with a different aspect ratio. And we know that because they have the same point of rotation - all that is changing is cropping and adding of FOV.

You should probably use Viewspeed v2 instead of v1. And I'm not sure if you have but make sure you have raw input enabled in CS:GO. And the other thing is you should just make sure the aim type for CS:GO zoom is the right one for you as they all give different results.

The biggest thing you are doing wrong is you are using stretched with CS:GO. This means that your vertical perceived sensitivity will feel different from your horizontal perceived sensitivity as you aren't maintaining a 1:1 turning rate. Unless you have adjusted your m_yaw value in CS:GO to make them the same. But I doubt you have because you didn't mention it. As such the only way to make PUBG feel the same as CS:GO is to use a DPI adjustment on one of your axes.

Yeah that's true, but it's only for one guntype (which you could probably put up with). Well whatever sensitivity you use for CS:GO should be your hipfire for COD. If you aren't using the same FOV (90) then you will need to convert between the games using Viewspeed v2. Then... If you're playing COD WW2 you can convert from your COD hipfire sensitivity setting to your ADS setting using Viewspeed v2 and everything is pretty well good enough. If I'm correct, BO3 and Infinite Warfare use 100% monitor match to convert between FOVs and all other CODs use 0%. Then depending on how the game converts by default, you need to adjust the DPI of your hipfire so that the result of the ADS is the same as you would get if you were converting with Viewspeed v2. This might be hard if you are using 6/11 WPS so if you want to or have to go down this route you may need a lower WPS multiplier. The next part is to create a macro in your mouse software that allows you to change your DPI when you right click so that your ADS will be the same as your hipfire, based on what you just calculated. However, I'm not too sure you can bind a macro like that with the Synapse software.. the last Razer mouse I used was the Deathadder 2013 and I couldn't find a way so I had to buy a new mouse, but the Chroma might have new features, so can't say for sure.

Yah, merry christmas. Will await your explanation.

Yeah you can use the same hipfire in COD but ADS is a different story. COD doesn't have an ADS (aim down sight) sensitivity setting as it uses its own inbuilt converter so the only way to make your sensitivity feel the same when you are ADS-ing is to adjust the DPI with mouse macros. Of course that depends on the type of mouse you are using. If you are interested in doing that I can help.

So I was playing around with the monitor match percentage. MM(FOV) = COS(FOV/2) actually makes the different aspect ratios give similar 360 distances so I'm going to see if I can figure out a better formula for the monitor match percentage so that the whole monitor matching formula is aspect ratio independent, so we don't have to use VFOV or DFOV. Our aim is for this equation (monitor match formula) to be true: HCL((π HMM)/(ATAN(HMM TAN((π HFOV)/360)))) = VCL((π VMM)/(ATAN(VMM TAN((π VFOV)/360)))) Since CL (chord length) and FOV are known, the only unknown is MM (monitor match percentage).

Okay so I got the Excel sheet almost done, only problem is my FOV formulas aren't working. They aren't calculating properly for different aspect ratios I guess you can pull the FOVs from the calculator (needs more decimals) so I'll just post it while I figure out how to fix them.

Yeah all the stuff you've shown me has definitely changed what I think about everything. But I don't understand why you don't like circles... it's just representing 360 distance.

I'm still not sure what you are trying to do but, I'll say this: In terms of which method to convert with, I don't think it should be a single monitor match because distortion changes from FOV to FOV. As you approach 0 FOV or 2D, the best monitor distance to use is 100% because the arc of projection becomes flatter and the distribution of points on the monitor becomes more equal, until it is perfectly equal at 0 FOV. However, as you approach 180 FOV the distribution of points projected on the monitor becomes more squished at the center. So therefore, the best way to deal with this is to find a "middle ground". At 180 FOV the middle ground is in the direct center of the screen because EVERYTHING is squished in the center, so the best monitor distance to use is 0%. And because 0 FOV has no distortion, the best monitor distance to use is 100%. Then anything in between is just scaled according to where the "middle ground" is. Higher FOVs approach 0%, lower FOVs approach 100%. Of course this depends on what projection method the game uses. If it uses rectilinear projection this is the way to do it, if it uses curvilinear projection then things might get a bit more complicated. And I'm not sure if it's possible or if a game even exists, but if a game can or does correct the distortion you wouldn't need to scale at all and could just use 100% monitor match as it would match the whole monitor and therefore all points on the monitor perfectly on the 2D image.