DNAMTE

I personally didn't like the G403 shape, it also has crappy glide on standard feet. It might be an all rounder but it's not close to the best I've handled. I personally found the EC2 -A to be a far superior shape to the G403. I also much preferred the FK series to the EC series. Personally, i like the FK 1+ the most, you can hold it more traditionally and it has really good sides for grip. The FK2 is way too small IMO, certainly a fingertip grip. Honestly the rival 310 needs a different material on the grips and its damn near perfect. When your hands are dry it grips amazingly well, but any moisture and it gets really slippery. If it had some 'comfort grooves' in the M1 + M2 buttons and a grippier material - #1 mouse easily IMO. For the record the Rival 600 material does the opposite, you get a better grip once your hand warms up, however it is not as well designed on the right side as the rival 310 and you need to grip it harder. If your a high sens player it might not matter, but for me i need to pick up the mouse a lot and i really appreciate good geometry like the FK series and the Rival 310. Right now id rate the FK1+ and the Rival 310 as the top two. It sways in favor to the FK simply because there's no issues with grip under any condition.

Picked up a Steelseries Rival 600. First impressions, it feels great, the design is very good. I've been using the Rival 310 as my main for some time now, and it's been a great mouse, my favorite out of EVERYONE i have tried. My only concern with the Rival 310 is the rubber sides, the rubber is soft and does not give a SOLID grip and can feel too slick. The Rival 600 has a much thinner, firmer feeling material which at this stage seems better, i will update in due time if my opinion changes. The scroll wheel also feels extremely good on the Rival 600, one of the best. All the buttons feel great and despite what others say, the left and right clicks are perfectly fine, much better in comparison to a Zowie EC or FK click. One of the main changes i notice is the mouse feet. They are noisy when gliding, you would think that means they have more resistance, but they don't. In fact one of the stand out features of the Rival 310 was how nicely it glides, this glides even better. I'll leave my thoughts here, let the honeymoon period settle and report back when I've found some issues? hopefully not.

I understand your train of thought, at one stage i started making a formula that would specifically change the variable based on ACTUAL viewspace, derived from your distance from the monitor. Heres some screens from the calcs i was working with. In the end i decided to not follow that path as it becomes too theoretical.

I think you would be surprised just how 'smart' your brain really is. Ask anyone who takes prescription glasses, what it's like when they first put them on, or when they changed to a new prescription from an old prescription. Some will tell you everything looks distorted and 'wrong', ask them in a few hours. everything will be normal. This happens because your eyes don't see, they just project information to your brain, your brain is what makes the image and allows you to 'see'. You might be aware of all the people who get a feeling of disconnect in reality after spending too much time in a VR headset, their brain has begun to 're wire' itself accordingly. An 18" and a 27" are both reasonably sized to be positioned an arms length away without any dramas, a 50" might give you issues because parts of the screen will simply be too far in to your outer peripheral view and a 2" is going to give you issues without putting a magnifying glass in-front of it. My point is, your brain is designed to work synergystically with your eyes and every other part of your body. Changing viewing distance by an inch will take you less than 5 seconds to adjust. I think sensitivity should be based on whats inside the little black box (monitor) and let your brain take care of your physical self, that's something it specialises in. Ultimately your trying to squeeze 120 degrees virtual FOV in to what is? 30-40? degrees of actual viewspace from your eye. Something that your brain adapted to a long time ago. (and something that gives 'non gamers' a headache just trying to watch). PS: heres something i found on google regarding the VR side effects https://forums.oculusvr.com/community/discussion/53287/i-feel-like-im-in-vr-when-im-not

You also got to remember, this is a game, it's not real. FOV / distortion and lots of other factors will determine your best way to match zoom levels.. If you wanted to compare to reality, if you have ever shot a long rifle or anything with a scope... you will notice just how twitchy it is to aim through a 4x- 8x -12x scope. Games tend to slow down your sensitivity when looking down a scope, the opposite of real life. 1cm of movement at the barrel can result in 10m down range. This is why 0% match never felt right, and never will feel right. On that note no sensitivity match will ever feel perfect, it can't because it's not the same.

I still use view speed, V1 and V2 are so similar it doesn't make any difference IMO. As per manufactures instructions, you should sit an arms length away from your monitor. There is a reason PC screens have not grown to the size of TV's, and don't pretend its because of refresh rates... My phone has a 4k screen, the pixels are almost impossible to see. Screens are relative to viewing distance. Also Munty "That's irrelevant in a 3d world, if you keep the same aspect ratio." correct, which is why i highlighted the word desktop in my response.

When you go to the cinemas... do you like to watch from 5 feet away with a 50' screen>? You need to keep things relative.... If i have a 27" 1440p 16:9 monitor or a 50 foot 1440p 16:9 cinema screen... if they are both using the same resolution / aspect ratio then i would want the EXACT same sensitivity. I would expect i am not sitting the same distance from each screen. As a competent human being you should be able to position your head in front of your screen so that it fits in to your 'view space' perfectly. Sensitivity should not be based on SPATIAL AWARENESS, I'm sure one can understand your thumb is not larger than the empire state building even though you can block out the sun with your thumb... The ONLY time the actual calculative sensitivity needs to be altered is if your monitor size / aspect ratio remains the same BUT the pixels per inch changes. For example a 27" 1080p 16:9 monitor vs a 27" 1440p 16:9 monitor, the latter has a higher density of pixels that will affect how the mouse moves across the desktop.

I was being sarcastic...

If you ever buy one of them custom mouse pads that covers your entire desk.... your gonna need some serious time to normalise to your 'sensitivity' change

Eventually, maybe, people will realise that there's no golden match. The reality is simply as FOV increases, distortion increases. Put simply the edges of the screen will move faster in comparison to the centre as we rotate. If everybody sat the same distance from the same width monitor and focused primarily on the same areas when playing then I have no doubt we could come up with a best fit golden formula. Unfortunately everybody uses peripheral vision differently, some people maintain focus on their crosshair and look with their gun as it were, others actively move focus across the screen out of sync with the crosshair. Essentially when tracking or 'snapping' to a target your brain is constantly trying to predict and react to the targets movement. An ongoing calculation of time, acceleration & distance to nail the next headshot. Given then that all the variables to this formula are as individual as we are as a race, then you cannot expect any less variance in the 'perfect' formula. Accept the fact that as FOV increases so does the variance of rotational acceleration across the screen, forcing more variables in to your head.

I've not checked in for a while, still on viewspeed 2!! should be up to V5 by now? But seriously, I just want to point something out that I feel is important. It's worth taking the time to understand exactly what all these formulas are trying to accomplish, to keep on track. Lets be frank, we're playing games, a 'perceived' virtual world whereby we connect using a mouse, and a keyboard. We push the mouse forward to look up, backwards to look down and push buttons to move left and right. Nothing alike, in input or physical movement compared to the 'real world' and our daily interactions. However, it does not mean in-game interactions cant be just as fluid and natural. Take for example someone who gets a new prescription for glasses. "Because we see with our brains, it takes a while for the eyes and the brain to coordinate getting used to a new prescription." This is because our eyes are simply a sensor, a sensory input that is translated in to sight, in the brain. Take for example the new technology allowing people to 'see' with their tongue... By playing games long enough the movements become as natural as walking. You don't think to press a key, to move forward, you just move forward. Alike how we interact with our mouse, to hit our target. The longer we spend within a new 'interface' the more accurate - efficient - 'natural' our reactions become when using it. The importance of a 'viewspeed' formula is to provide a familiarity between games, making the 'interface' between games feel as similar as possible, minimising our learning process between them. You have to understand that different FOV's can never feel the same, they are not supposed to, they are different... Take a look down some binoculars and spin around, feel normal? No. Not that this matters, what matters is that FOV's and any other input controls feel unified between games. PS: regarding the video, the tongue is second to the eye in sensory receptors (10k vs 100million), I guess it would be like a super crappy low res version compared to the eye. Perhaps even comparable to using a mouse to look around, rather than simply turning our head... onwards with next gen virtual reality gaming please

Every mouse varies with its actual DPI and what's advertised in the software. Normal. I've tested a dozen mice in the hardware section of this website. The rival 310 is my top pick for various reasons. What you need in a sensor is consistent, fast accurate plotting.

All these fancy terms floating around.... forget apothem, its not the apothem, it's simply the relationship between chord (flat) and radial ratios. You can pick any measurement from either; radius, diameter, apothem or any other measurement you desire.... same result. Experimentation was the birth of this formula, as with view speed. I, nor drimzi have any proof that its correct, it's theory. It just so turned out that it resulted in something similar (logical) scaling to the old view speed. I always did feel that the lower FOV felt a little slow in comparison to the higher FOV and this new method speeds it all up a little. Great. I feel this method is superior as we don't have to deal with aspect ratios and the consequent mess that horizontal matching can present. It would be great to get some feedback as to what everyone thinks (who has tested it) any constructive criticism is appreciated.

mice have an optimum lift of distance, by adding extra feet your most likely out of that range.

Great feeback

Your suggesting an axial measurement is part of a square, which its not. it's just a length. Using vertical measurements makes sense to me, diagonal does not. Simply using chord length / Circle Ratio whereby all measurements come from the vertical axis gives very nice results. IMO. (and a very small step from the current view speed implementation)

Vertical matching is the way to go, I agree. when your going from 4:3 to 16:9 for example the only difference is peripheral, not turning mechanics, vertical FOV eliminates some of the problems that this presented. When I previously posted the formula of Chord Ratio / Circle Ratio (which equals extremely close to 100% monitor match) it seemed that something was not correct, I expected different results, put it on the back seat and looked for another solution. Using Vertical FOV in the formula gives the results I was looking for, in a similar way that original view speed does. I'm testing this method currently with Drimzi and so far I really like it.

Honestly, Zowie EC shape is nothing like the G403, IMO, There's quite a distinct difference in the middle of the mouse if you compare them both, I prefer the shape of the zowie, the buttons and workings of the Logitech (needs better feet, too)... The 3310 implementation is great however the latest Razer mice and the new steelseries really have something additional to the standard 3366, they feel sharper (I mentioned this when testing out the new Razer DA). It is noticeable, especially going from a 3310. Mouse pads is personal preference really, some people prefer fast and others more control, I think it depends largely what sensitivity your using, low or high. I still need to get my hands on the ROCCAT extended version, that one felt great too. For an Update on the Steelseries Rival 310... It's my main driver now. The shape, buttons, sensor... I like it all. I really have no nagging flaws to pick on, which I do with EVERY other mouse on my list. This mouse is #1. Lots of thought has gone in to this mouse, it glides better than any other mouse I've tested, the bottom centre is raised so literally ONLY the feet will touch your mousepad, unlike most others (including zowie). The bottom edges are rounded nicely and no protruding angles (looking at you ROCCAT) which can cause issues if your swiping your mouse a lot and NOT keeping it perfectly flat. It has a fantastic shape that is easy to hold, feels locked in, always. FANTASTIC job steelseries.

I'll take a look today at the steels series software. Logitech often takes the throne for scripting. I'll check and get back to you. The g403 gave me an achy hand with the lack of pinky support, so did the Fk1. The ec2-a has given the most comfort in this regard (no problems with the RIVAL 310, still early days). Unfortunately I cant find the kind of scripting function required that Logitech provide. Nice Guide provided by Drimzi here: Most likely what your using currently. The Steelseries software provides support for push button macro recording (doesn't seem to even register the CPI button) and also a text script function which seems to only allow pasting of commands or text to clipboard. Unless you played a game with an active console and made a script to modify the games sensitivity rather then the mouse DPI I don't think the software has what you're looking for. If anyone who knows the software better than me can chime in, please do!

First Impressions of the steelseries Rival 310... GREAT! Shape, buttons, feet, cable, weight = A+. It is a refined Rival 300. I'll update when I've used this mouse for a while but it's on track to my top pick for sure. It feels especially smooth on the pad, touching on the issue noted above with the ROCCAT EMP, this mouse has a nice bevelled bottom edge all around the base and feels consistently smooth regardless how messy my swipes are. I run with 1600DPI WPS 3 (AKA 400DPI @ WPS6) sensor is notably crisp and lag free. Keeping in mind I've been using the Zowie 3310 for the longest time. If I had to pick on something I would say the mouse wheel is slightly lower than I'm used to, personal preference.

Ordered a steelseries Rival 310. I really liked the Rival 300 shape, just needed slightly more grip on the pinky side and nicer feet! Really looking forward to this one. The ROCCAT Kone Emp... Pinky side is an awkward shape, thumb side is great. Buttons were ok, not as good as Logitech. Sensor felt great but no better than current Razer or Logitech offerings. Something else that really stood out from using this mouse is how I prefer a thinner base on the mouse. Using a low sensitivity your picking up the mouse A LOT, often the mouse is not perfectly flat on the pad during a fast swipe, the wider a mouse is, the greater the distance from sensor to pad when on a slight angle. Looking at the Logitech G900, the bottom tapers in to effectively reduce the footprint of the mouse, helping this issue. ROCCAT should work on this. To top it off I think the LED strips are outdated and the weight is not justified in comparison to similar sized mice. I'll Update when I get the Rival 310.

This game gives endless fun but it does carry some major glitches. They need to sort out first person view, period. Your view and where your actual bullets fire from are not in sync. In most FPS your view is linked with your weapon, in this game the bullets come from the gun, sounds realistic. It's not in practice. Handrails and lots of other objects will stop your shots even when you have a clear view through your ironsights. They need a dedicated first person view model and camera, rather then zooming in to the third person model, this is why the world seems extra large.

I have a solution for this, I've not put it together in to a formula but I can work out any FOV. IMO this is a required variable that needs to be accounted for. As FOV increases so does the difference of perceived velocity from edge to centre. The actual angle does not matter so much, its merely recognising that the physical FOV (eye to monitor) remains fixed regardless off virtual FOV. Accounting for this fact will help compensate for the increasing distortion on screen. Like Drimzi says though... I've been doing this when I'm bored... slow progress... Here is a screenshot of one example, feel free to make a formula

So to summarise what you just said... Viewspeed is almost the same, but more dynamic.

The reason you cant seem to find a one fits all is because of distortion. Using lower FOV 's, the distortion is minimal, as you increase your FOV, when rotating your view space, from edge to centre displays a vastly different velocity. Peripheral vision is absolutely a primary tool when lining up your shots, your brain needs a reference of velocity and time to predict the next headshot. Having such a large variance makes it harder to land shots consistently, there's a reason 'black bars' are so popular, they remove much of the distortion, allowing you and your brain to focus on fewer variables. All the above would be 'Virtual FOV'. We do however have a constant 'physical FOV'. More on this later, I've discovered a relationship that may help put a logical formula to ALL FOV.