potato psoas

As WhoCares? mentioned, there is a new method being figured out since neither Viewspeed or Monitor Matching is correct. However, the closest you are going to get to something accurate is if you use monitor match at 100%. Viewspeed is probably second best, and 25% monitor match is actually the most average of the Monitor Match percentages

Hey can you please do LOTRO? It's F2P and the big, final Mordor update is coming so really want this added pleeease. The game has an unchangeable FOV for first person and 20 different third person FOVs, as scroll zooms you out. But you can easily get to a particular FOV by reassigning zoom to a side button on your mouse. I think it would be perfectly fine if we only had the option to use, like, first person, 10th third person zoom and 20th third person zoom. I usually play on zoom 10. I even asked the devs what the FOV values were and they said the third person (assumed it was zoom 1) has vertical FOV of 45, horizontal FOV of 62.5 and vertical FOV of 60, horizontal FOV of 83.4 for first person. Though I don't think they are correct because none of the FOV types in the calculator match.

What's the go with the Rust ADS?

Thanks

Hey I was wanting to convert game FOVs with different FOV types to actual HFOV in an excel spreadsheet but I'm not sure what formulas to use and if I need to adjust for radians or degrees or whatever. It tried the formulas here but they didn't seem to work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games I am particularly in need of the Vertical Degrees to HFOV formula Thanks

Yeah that explains a bit

Ok nevermind then. I don't know that much about the ways you project onto the screen.

What you are noticing with the cylindrical kind of look is that the vertical fov has a flatter arc. The horizontal arc is much more pronounced because the FOV is greater. And the HFOV is greater because the aspect ratio requires it to be. If the aspect ratio was 1:1 you would notice it looking a lot more even, like a sphere because the FOV and arc would be the same.

Well I also explained how it can be done: Well it's either spherical or like a "football". The shape it creates is how the view rotates around the player in game. If it's spherical then you don't need to worry about the vertical arc because everything is 1:1. It's just like having black bars - you don't see the entire 180 degrees of FOV. But if the game isn't 1:1 and the vertical is squished or something, like when you play with a 16:10 aspect ratio on a 16:9 resolution, then you need to adjust the vertical sensitivity to compensate.

But it is possible to do 2D to 3D conversion. As I explained in my post: Well if the game world is not spherical then what we need is a sensitivity for the horizontal plane and a sensitivity for the vertical plane. And you figure out the vertical sensitivity the same way you find the horizontal sensitivity.

I agree. I did some testing and 100% monitor match yields exactly the same results as my equation but only when converting between 3D and 3D. It doesn't work when you convert 2D to 3D or vice versa. I should say that to convert from 2D to 3D you calculate the radius of the FOV using the chord length (2D edge-to-edge distance) and then use that radius to calculate the circumference of the FOV (the cm/360). To convert from 3D to 2D you calculate the radius of the FOV and work backwards to find the chord length. It's very quick and easy to do in Excel.

I'm sure it would still work the same way, unless game developers messed up their sensitivity settings. So I wouldn't worry about vertical distortion as long as the game world is spherical. You should be able to sync in any direction as long as the sensitivity is correct for at least one direction. Edit: It would be like playing 1:1 aspect ratio but you have black bars on the vertical ends - distortion isn't different at all, you just can't see it

Well when we were originally trying to figure it out, we used gears to explain how FOVs moved in sync. I don't really know what Viewspeed is using but this is the way it should be. I know gear ratios don't exactly work, which is why you need to find the circumference according to the chord length, since the chord length is the one thing that doesn't change for all FOVs.

I'm not sure what page everyone else is on but I want to go back to the start and clarify some things... What is Viewspeed and why is it the best way to convert sensitivity? It is like your sensitivity is represented by gears and pulley. Each Field of View is completely in sync with each other and your sensitivity feels exactly the same no matter what. This helps hugely with muscle memory. It is not matching points on your monitor. Because of distortion, matching points on the monitor will always be inconsistent and imperfect. It may be close, but it's not perfect and it needs to be perfect. Now this is where I think everyone has gone off track and why the current formula just doesn't work... How is Viewspeed meant to convert? Firstly, we must consider how we convert from 3D to 3D. In terms of determining sensitivity, it is the circumference of the "gears" that we need to identify when converting between different FOVs. And according to math, it is very simple: given that you know the circumference of the first FOV and its angle (which is the FOV), you calculate its chord length and you then use that chord length to calculate the circumference of the FOV you are converting to. The equations for calculating this are: Radius_firstFOV = Circumference_firstFOV / (2 x pi) 1/2 Chordlength_firstFOV = sin(firstFOV) x Radius_firstFOV Radius_newFOV = 1/2 Chordlength_firstFOV / sin(newFOV) Circumference_newFOV = 2 x pi x Radius_newFOV In one big equation it looks like this: Circumference_newFOV = 2 x pi x ((sin(firstFOV) x (Circumference_firstFOV / (2 x pi))) / sin(newFOV)) The second part of the problem is converting 2D to 3D and vice versa. Now, we can say that 2D is essentially 0 FOV. As you approach 0 FOV the "gears" get bigger and bigger and the arc length becomes flatter and flatter (until it is essentially flat/2D). If 0 FOV were to have a Circumference (which is how we determine 3D sensitivity), it would be infinitely long and would turn infinitely slow. But we can't convert with infinity, so this idea fails. However, infinitely slow doesn't mean the gear is not moving. 0 FOV is still in sync with every other FOV. So we know that it is possible to convert 2D-3D. But how? The solution to this is that the arc length for 0 FOV and the chord length that each Field of View shares is exactly the same distance. Therefore, we don't need to calculate the circumference of 0 FOV, we can just use its chord length (which is what the calculator uses anyway). If we are converting from 3D to 2D we use the circumference to calculate the chord length and if we are converting from 2D to 3D we use the chord length to calculate circumference. This, I believe, is the solution to reworking Viewspeed. None of this overcomplication.

Keep in mind that unless the conversions you are using are perfect it will be hard to distinguish what feels off because of distortion and what feels off because of the incorrect formula.

Yeah, it feels exactly like my desktop DPI now, every FOV feels the same. I can really tell the difference when doing Fast Aiming mode in the CSGO aim training map. Interesting thing is that all my sensitivities are much lower. Maybe I will have to up my desktop DPI so that it is fast enough in-game.

Well I re-read your post... it wouldn't be the equivalent of playing with black bars but it would be similar to playing with 4:3, although not as stretched as 4:3 (you did say it was stretched, so there can't be black bars). Stretched resolutions will affect sensitivity. The horizontal will be different because the FOV will have changed (you can test this in the calculator). But tbh I'm not sure if it will feel off since the vertical remains the same. Maybe someone else can clarify? Edit: this is a good question... I want to know now

Can I point out, given that "viewspeed" is like gears synchronizing with a pulley, that 2D desktop sensitivity is the same as a gear representing 0 FOV, since the closer the FOV gets to 0, the flatter the arc of the circle. I know that 0 FOV is an infinitely large circle, but maybe it is possible to use limits to calculate the exact sensitivity. Ignore me if you think I don't know what I'm talking about lol (most of this thread is going over my head).

It does affect your sensitivity. 16:9 is 1920x1080 resolution and 16:10 is 1920x1200 resolution (or 1728x1080 depending on how you look at it). Usually 16:9 is better for gaming since there is greater FOV. And greater FOV means faster converted sensitivity - which gives you an advantage over others using 16:10 resolutions/monitors. Not to say that a 16:10 monitor is not good for gaming - it actually is much better for gaming, as long as you can set custom resolutions.

my cpu is damaged so I can reduce stuttering in my games if I use 500 hz instead of 1000

so when we are talking about converting sensitivity, the distance of the arc and chord length is all we need to compare?

what do you want to do?

Hey, I'm not sure if this has been discussed before (all I could find was some math by Drimzi here: but how exactly do you calculate Viewspeed conversions? I can't really wrap my head around just math, I want to know the process behind it. And last I tried wrapping my head around it my conversion calculations ended up being the same as 100% match at distance. I tried googling gear ratios and I found this on wikipedia but I'm not sure where to go from here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gear_train. I assume this is the right article.

Just match the hipfire from one game to another (using Viewspeed option). As long as you've converted all scopes for BF1 then you should be fine, otherwise you should decide which scope/hipfire sensitivity you like best and then convert that to hipfire (using Viewspeed option). And then convert the hipfire in BF1 to PUBG and then convert the PUBG hipfire to the PUBG scopes (if possible).

Standard osu does not help your aim in FPS games since the circles are too large. Even though you are practising your speed and snapping, unless the circles are small enough, it will not help in FPS games since you need to be snapping to targets that are like 15 pixels or smaller. If you try to practise like this then you will probably develop bad habits with your mouse grip, unless you use a really low sensitivity which you can easily decelerate the mouse. However, if you practise on McOsu and change all your circle sizes to 8+ then that could definitely help your aim in FPS games, though you might feel sad that you can't keep up with some of the harder songs anymore. That's something I've recently learnt. The other thing with aim is tracking/recoil management. There's no real way to practise your tracking with osu or McOsu apart from sliders, but even if you can, trying to practise sliders requires extra attention towards actually playing the song, distracting you from practising tracking. To practise tracking you would need to use an aim training program which you can adjust the speed and path of the targets. I don't know any that can do that (at least not very well), so really the only way to practise tracking for your particular game is to play said game. However, if there was a program where you could customise target speed so that it is the same as enemies for your particular game and for it to move in similar ways to actual players then that would be a great way to improve without playing the game. osu will never be able to do that.