potato psoas

Yeah that is definitely a problem with testing. I actually put some graphs up a while back explaining that you should really test out which method is best at the higher FOVs because the 360 results differ so much. Whereas they all converge at lower FOVs, so can't really tell the difference there. Then the best way to test is people should check how the sensitivity feels at the center, the entire screen, and then compare both to the desktop to get a better idea of what feels off. Most people are testing around 90 FOV but it honestly will be too hard to tell this way. They need to be testing at like 170 FOV. It's very easy to tell what feels off and what feels acceptable. Well the method is just using the monitor match formula but where you input monitor distance you have a separate formula that scales the monitor match according to your FOV. I thought the best way to scale was to use the unit circle (makes sense to me, though I doubt it matters) and therefore monitor match is just COS(FOV/2). I also added the ability to set a limit since using the COS(FOV/2) causes the extreme FOVs to feel too fast. So instead of scaling from 0% at 180 FOV to 100% at 0 FOV you can scale, for example, from 50% at 180 FOV to 100% at 0 FOV. I might link an excel sheet so you can play around with the limits and stuff. I can get pretty much the same results as Drimzi's formulas if I just set the right limit. Which limit I like best though is undecided.

Yes 100% is wrong but compared to 0% it is far better. Which was what I was trying to say. With what you say about 100% monitor match being too fast at higher zoom, that's only because the higher FOVs (at the center) are too slow to begin with. (you do most of your aiming at the center) But as you approach 0 FOV it's actually better to use 100% because it maintains consistency with the 2D image. But it doesn't really matter what you use at lower FOVs because all monitor match percentages converge at about 30 FOV anyway.

Well I have to say that there is no perfect solution to this problem because of distortion. But we can find a solution that is close enough. Yeah you could probably adapt to any method, but it really makes it harder for you and reduces the limit of your potential. For example, say you are using 0% and you stick with the same resolution. If you gave it enough time you could get good at every sensitivity for every FOV. But each time you had a new game you'd have to get good at that particular sensitivity and you'd be back at square one. I know some people are good at any sensitivity they use just because they have good dexterity, but they could be so much better if they could utilise their muscle memory.

You shouldn't have to get used to it though. That's the whole reason why we are trying to find a solution to this, so that we can seamlessly move from game to game, fov to fov without stressing about our aim being off. Using 0% is the worst of the 3 ideas. You can easily tell how different hipfire and ads feels. 100% is better but it's too slow the higher the FOV. 75% is much better, probably because your common FOV range is in the lower half... but it can be better still... And yeah the best way to do that is to scale it based on FOV.

So are you saying you want to use individual monitor distance matches for different levels of zoom?

You want to convert with Viewspeed v2. Make sure the resolution for CS:GO is 4:3 and the resolution for PUBG is 1080p and that you are using the correct settings. Just keep in mind, for CS:GO, that because you are stretching the horizontal axis, your horizontal sensitivity will feel different to your vertical sensitivity. If you go and play unstretched again it will feel off. You can adjust this using the m_yaw setting or leave it as is. But whatever you do, make sure that you are converting for both axes for different games.

...choice to make...

Well you can't actually perceive things in 3D. When we aim for a target the distance we expect to move is dictated by the distance between the crosshair and the target on the monitor, which is a 2D image. And so we want to match our expected 2D distance to our 3D sensitivity. The only other ways to look at it are to use the gear ratio method where we sync the "speed" between FOVs. But we know that doesn't work because it feels too slow. And the other way is using the same 360 distance for every FOV. But we know that doesn't work either because higher FOVs will feel too slow and lower FOVs will feel too fast. And the reason why they feel off is because we are expecting to move a certain distance as it is dictated on our monitor.

If you want to convert hipfire to 4x or whatever you input the hipfire sensitivity you calculated in the first section into the Sensitivity 1 box of the second section. Then the Multiplier 1 is just your soldier zoom sensitivity. Zoom sensitivity should just be set to 1 for simplicity - just make sure it is 1 in your config file (or in game). For me Sensitivity 2 is not applicable, so don't need to put anything there. If it is there for you then you should read the GAME INFO section to figure out what to input.

Monitor matching actually isn't flawed at lower FOVs. The closer you get to 0 FOV (2D) the more equal the distribution of circumferential rotation. And if this is the case, the better it is to use 100% monitor match. Although, you can use any monitor match at this point because they all converge anyway. What is true is the more squished the distribution the harder it is to match 2D distance to rotational distance. And since we perceive things in 2D, not 3D, you will never be able to perfectly match your 360 distance to 2D. But you can get close, to find a middle ground. And that "middle ground" scales from 0% at 180 FOV to 100% at 0 FOV. You can't just use one monitor match - it has to scale according to the distribution.

So I made sure to use the aspect ratio independent monitor match formula this time round and I found that this formula is pretty much 100% MM at 1:1: And I actually don't like this formula: As your FOV increases it gets too slow. You switch between 170 FOV and 2D and 2D feels way too fast in comparison. That's why I like the other one because it's not too slow but it's also not too fast at the high FOVs. It's a good middle ground, I feel like I am not too far off what the 2D feels like. I might even decrease the limit to 75% maybe. Just a little bit faster than what the formula has.

So the monitor match formula is inch/360 = (height/(DPI*WPS))*((PI*MM)/(ATAN(MM*TAN((PI*VFOV)/360)))), where MM (monitor match percentage) = COS(FOV(ACOS(limit)/180)), and where the limit is the monitor match limit you want to use for your scaling. This allows for heaps of customisation. I bet the default limit in the calculator should be 75% MM 1:1 as this is the similar to the formula of Drimzi's that I like best.

IMO this is the best formula It's like having your monitor match set at 50% for 180 FOV and then you just scale down to 100% monitor match as you approach 0 FOV. But I think it would be great if you could also set your own monitor match limit so you can play around for yourself (this would just be the default in the calculator).

Comparing data for 0% limit and Monitor Match - 1:1 Diagonal Desktop, 1:1 Diagonal FOV

wot ...monkey in space...

Does anyone know the formula for matching monitor distance (2D to 3D preferably)? I managed to figure out 0% and 100% but I'm stumped at how I can make it a function that takes monitor match as well as FOV as an input. I'm thinking I can find it by doing trig with this diagram: but the formulas I come up with are always just a little bit off from what the calculator says. @DPI Wizard

I agree it's a bit odd

360 Distance doesn't work unless the FOVs for each game are the same. As you lower the FOV the perceived sensitivity feels too fast and as you increase the FOV the perceived sensitivity feels too slow. Your eyes perceive things in 2D not 3D. If you want the same feel you need to use a method like Viewspeed v2, which I recommend at this point in time.

Use Viewspeed v2

Assuming your monitor is 1920 x 1080 and your Fortnite settings are default (because you didn't specify), your Fortnite sensitivity should be: 0.020382

The more you get into PC gaming the more you'll want things like a really big mousepad and a big enough desk to fit said mousepad. You usually start off with a 2cm 360 and end up playing on a ruler's length or more 360 (at 90 FOV), haha. Reason being, because if you under or over aim with a high sensitivity, you can be off your target heaps but with a lower sensitivity you have more room for error. And since there is less room for error you are far more consistent from game to game. Of course this is relative to how big of a target you are aiming to. In most games the smallest targets you are going to shoot are like 10 pixels wide. So you want to make sure your sensitivity allows you to comfortably aim at small targets as well. Speed doesn't matter if you can't aim. But you don't want to go too low as well otherwise by the time it takes you to move your crosshair to the enemy they will have already killed you. You have to find a balance between speed and aim. Unlike console controllers, you can actually use a low sensitivity because you can just compensate by moving your mouse faster. You want to make sure you are pivoting from the elbow and not from the wrist. The benefit of using your elbow is that it gives you a greater arc of rotation with which to aim with - more space to paint the finest details of your masterpiece! And unlike wrist aiming you shouldn't develop carpal tunnel syndrome. You'll build pretty big arm muscles doing this as well. And the stronger your arm gets the faster you can move your mouse, and in turn, the lower the sensitivity you can use (if you even need to lower it any more). So you can have your elbow on the table or you can have your elbow off the table or you can have it in the air. Now I wouldn't recommend having it in the air because gravity ways you down and it can feel uncomfortable after a while. Having your elbow on the table is much more comfortable. But you can also have your elbow off the table. You might get a sore forearm but when it comes to aim you are essentially decreasing your swinging arm. If you've ever played golf or pushed a shopping cart around you will know that controlling the extension of your arm is harder to when you're at the heel of the extension. You generate plenty of speed and power but it's just too hard to control. So what you can do is you "steer closer to the front of the shopping cart" or "move your hand down the golf club". You don't want to move all the way down though otherwise you won't generate any power. But moving a little bit forward can help tremendously with control. The same can be applied to your arm. By moving your elbow off the desk you give yourself more control. You should know that because of this fact, the longer your arm is the harder it is to aim. What long-armed players can do instead is to lower their sensitivity since they can, on the otherhand, generate more power than short-armed players. But I still don't think lower sensitivity is enough to counteract the lack of control. So sucks to have long arms (I have long arms lol). All in all though, it comes down to practice. While short-armed players have more potential, if long armed players put in more work then they get more results.

Your eyes perceive things in 2D not 3D. Since the points on your monitor are what you want to aim to then you need to match your 3D sensitivity to the 2D plane. Just use Viewspeed v2, though there is going to be another better method in the future.

For a game this old only thing you can really do is play the Singleplayer.

omg I just found out about this haha