potato psoas

It doesn't really matter if it's on or off. If you want to use USA you have to make sure all your gun sensitivities are set to 1. USA uses 75% monitor distance match in the calculator. This method isn't actually that correct. You should use Viewspeed v2 as it is better. It will depend on what game and what weapon you aim best with (it might even be hipfire) but you want to match that to every other game and change of Field of View using Viewspeed v2.

@DPI Wizard

I notice the pixel skipping using 400 DPI and it has thrown off my aim plenty of times. You have to use at least 800 DPI. Unless you use a really low sensitivity already. I think the pros use low DPI because it is more predictable, if you know what I mean.

If you want to know how they work have a look at this video: When you change your Field of View you have to adjust your sensitivity so that it matches the same point on the monitor as your previous Field of View. But you might ask which point on the monitor do I match? Well, the lower your FOV the higher the monitor distance match you should use and the higher your FOV the lower the monitor distance match you should use. This is true for most games as they use something called rectilinear projection. A good explanation for how games project their game worlds onto your monitor is in this video: The way Viewspeed v1 and v2 works is it scales your monitor distance match for you according to your Field of View (using mathematics), so you don't have to keep guessing a different point for different Fields of View. The difference between Viewspeed v1 and v2 is that v1 does not account for different aspect ratios whereas v2 does, so v2 is the better method. v2 still isn't actually the perfect method of conversion yet but it's pretty darn close. You should keep an eye open for any new methods being added to the calculator.

Viewspeed v2. Take my word for it. But keep your eye open as there will be a better method in the future.

Viewspeed v2, but there will be a better one in the future... of course if you do some research you can make your own decision about what method is best, or you can trust the people on this website who have discussed and concluded the best method of conversion.

Your sensitivity can be explained as the distance it takes to do a 360. When you lower the FOV if you use the same 360 distance it will feel too fast. Every time you aim down sights you are lowering the FOV in a game. So what you'd have to do is slowdown the 360 distance so that a lower FOV "feels" the same. The reverse is true when you increase your FOV. Now they won't feel exactly the same because of issues with projecting 3D worlds onto 2D images (your monitor), but we can get them to feel pretty close using some mathematics. At the moment the best mathematical conversion method is Viewspeed v2. In the future there will be a better method so keep an eye out for it.

100% doesn't work unless the game uses a corrected projection. Best to use Viewspeed v2 as CS:GO and COD use rectilinear projection. The reason why 100% monitor match feels better is because it is slower. Unless you are using an uncomfortably slow sensitivity already, lowering your sens will always feel easier.

You are getting the right sensitivity but you should use Viewspeed v2 which gives me 9.28.

You'd have to ask @DPI Wizard to add it. For now you could try other Valve games, like TF2, in the calculator but I can't say if the FOV will be the same.

Viewspeed v2 is the best option in the calculator so far.

Since Overwatch and CS:GO have slightly different FOVs they can't share the same 360 distance so you have to use a converter. The best one in the calculator so far is Viewspeed v2. For Overwatch to CS:GO you input your sensitivity, DPI and WPS, resolution and FOV in the top section and then unless you change your DPI or resolution when you play CS:GO all you need to do is select Viewspeed v2 in the "Convert to" dropdown and select whether or not you have Raw Input enabled in CS:GO you will get your CS:GO sensitivity in the CALCULATIONS section below the INPUT section. The FOV Type for the games is Hdeg Res and Hdeg 4:3 respectively so make sure they are correct as well. The sensitivity I calculated for you in CS:GO is "1.115126"

awesome

Hey @DPI Wizard I really think it would be a good idea if we had a Basic version of the calculator where it didn't have so many different options. I know a lot of people are always asking in the forums what to use but they never have the desire to learn it for their self. Once we figure out the best formula you should make that the only option in the Basic calculator. But then for people who want to mess around with their settings you should have an Advanced calculator. And one of the new things I really want in the Advanced calculator is the option to set your own monitor distance. ATM they only change in increments of 5% but I'd like to put a decimal number in there instead. Not sure how much you've got on your plate but I think if you eventually do this it would help your website heaps.

So I was thinking about how when we use higher FOVs we aren't using higher FOV for precision we are using it for speed, and speed doesn't require that much accuracy. So distortion wouldn't affect aim too bad at high FOVs if you're just trying to get a fairly similar feel. But the lower the FOV the more precision we require, which is why we ADS - for precision. And funny enough that is when the distortion affects it the least and it maintains more consistency with the 2D sensitivity. So I think everything ends up working out in the end. This makes me think about different games. Games with different zoom levels you don't need to worry about but games like CS:GO with only one high FOV you may need to have a hipfire sensitivity and an ADS sensitivity. Even though you're not actually ADSing what you do is bind a DPI adjustment to your right click to help with precision. But the DPI adjustment has a lower monitor match so that it is not as slow.

But you can't try 0FOV for yourself because 0FOV = 2D. In a real game situation you would never use a FOV lower than like 5. Battlefield 4's 40x scope is like 3 FOV. And low FOVs are meant to be slow. cos(3/2) = 0.999657324975557. So the monitor match at really low FOVs is very very close to 100%.

This method actually gives very similar results to Viewspeed v2 in the calculator.

Yeah we definitely need to scale using an aspect ratio independent formula. I'm just trying to figure out what is the best way to scale.

Well I did explain. The distribution of circumferential rotation as it is projected onto the 2D image becomes more equal as you approach 0FOV. And when the distribution is equal the best monitor match to use is 100% as 100% flattens the arc so that it is the same length as the chord (your monitor). And therefore 100% would be perfectly in sync with the 2D sensitivity. But because there is distortion the circumferential intervals are squished at the center and stretched at the edges so the higher the FOV the slower it feels at the center, at least compared to 2D. But if you just match your 2D to your most common FOV (90) and convert from it to higher FOVs using 100% then you reduce a lot of the slowdown at higher FOVs, while still allowing a lot of the screen to be useable. The 50% approach also makes a lot of sense but you still want your monitor match to scale to 100% as you approach 0FOV. So you could try that too, scaling from 50% at 180FOV to 100% at 0FOV. FYI the FOV with middle ground of 50% is 120: This is probably where I would have the cut off for my FOV range.

I'm seriously beginning to think there's no point in matching 2D to 3D. I'd rather just stick to 100% monitor match. And convert my 2D to 90 FOV or something.

This is honestly using the exact same principle that I figured out as well, except it gives you more customisation over what you think the useable window is. Mine just uses the unit circle to adjust the size of the window based on FOV: Just imagine the monitor match value is where the virtual window's edge is (as a percentage of the entire screen). There won't ever be unless the game itself accounts for distortion and in that case 100% MM would be the perfect method.

What do you guys think of this diagram? So the math gives us the GEAR RATIO METHOD. Then 100%MM theoretically matches 3D to 2D perfectly. But because of distortion you will never be able to match 3D perfectly to 2D. That is unless you correct the distribution of the projection or you have a perfectly malleable, customisable curved monitor. And I'm not sure if game developers can even correct the distortion, and how it differs from game to game (Bioshock e.g. uses the opposite, curvilinear projection). But we know Rectilinear projection is in most games so we definitely have to account for it. And if they did correct it then how would aspect ratio affect it? I'm not exactly sure how Viewspeed v1 or v2 account for distortion. Someone remind me. Obviously different points on the monitor will be faster or slower but you can find a middle ground to make it as close as possible, maybe even dropping off the useless extremely high FOVs. But I'm not sure what middle ground Viewspeed uses or if it has another idea? I know DNAMTE originally said something about speed vs distance. Tangential velocity or circumferential speed of rotation? (Something different from the gear ratio method) When I was thinking about it, at 180FOV the distribution is completely uneven. If you were to have a middle ground at 180 FOV it would be 0% MM. And the lower the FOV the closer you get to perfect distribution so the lower the FOV the better is to use 100% MM. So basically, the entire FOV range is scaled along from 100% to 0% MM. So I thought about how the monitor matching might scale and I'm pretty sure it would scale exponentially as if it were the curve of a unit circle: Math/working: At 0 FOV you get y = 100 MM and at 180FOV you get y = 0 MM. Since the y axis goes from 0 to 100 the radius is 100. Although another way to look at it is monitor match is a percentage. Therefore 100% is 1 and that means the radius is 1. So then using trig you can get the formula: cosine(ϴ) = A/H ... then substitute cos(ϴ) = y / r ... then we want y on its own y = r . cos(ϴ) ... and since r is 1 y = cos(ϴ) ... and ϴ is simply the FOV / 2, so ultimately monitor matching as a function of FOV is MM(FOV) = cos(FOV/2) So I plugged this formula into Excel and it gave me this data: As you can see, the "middle ground" monitor match for each FOV scales from 100% at 0FOV to 0% at 180FOV. The interesting thing is that the most common FOVs all lie somewhere around 70% which is what Viewspeed and such end up around. The difference, however, with this method is that as the FOV increases it approaches 0%. Therefore the monitor matched circumference would start at 0cm/360 and exponentially increase as we approached 0 FOV. Since the formula scales from 0% to 100% it wouldn't have the same aspect ratio dependent downfalls as Viewspeed v1 as everything stays within monitor match. And honestly, Viewspeed would never be perfect anyway because of distortion which I'm not sure it even accounts for. Perfection can only be given to 100%MM but with evenly distributed circumferential intervals. Although, the next closest thing is the Gear Ratio method (True Viewspeed) where every FOV's speed is in sync, though this method is limited to 3D to 3D conversions:

oh damn forgot I now got this: 1/sin((pi 73.74)/360) = 89.0392

So let's say I have a 73.74VFOV. Using the formula that is 1/sin(73.74/2)=1.666662697 What do we do with this though?

So once you are certain you know exactly how to make Viewspeed independent of your aspect ratio does that mean you can apply it to any formula or monitor match you choose? I'm probably making the wrong assumptions but I think you'll get what I mean.