DNAMTE

What value do you normally use in CSGO? From memory the value you listed is 0% monitor match in the calculator, if your used to that, use that for PUBG conversion. Viewspeed is closer to CSGO default values. Note that your hip fire sensitivity will slow further using 0% rather then viewspeed or CSGO default value of 75% Monitor match. PS: I use 800 DPI viewspeed matched, my settings scale lower as follows: Normal - 0.006296 2x 0.006124 15x - 0.006080 Post your results if you need assistance.

Picked up a ROCCAT Kone Emp about a week ago, update soon.

Good to hear, see you on the field!

So you want to change your Dpi from 400 to 800? What does this have to do with a sensitivity formula?

? Please clarify. Increasing your DPI and nothing else will obviously increase your sensitivity, thus, reducing your relative mouse movement per full rotation. Viewspeed certainly does not do the opposite...

The current view speed can certainly do the job.

ALL formulas have the same issue. Naturally as you increase FOV, you increase distortion, the more unnatural it becomes. The closer the FOV in comparison, the less comparable distortion, the more natural conversion will feel. Personally 106° @ 16:9 (90° @ 4:3) is my max preference. As monitors and resolutions widen, so will my preference. As FOV decreases, distortion decreases, radial perception across your monitor becomes more uniform.

BTW that change in FOV is so small you will barely notice a difference between methods. IMO any value under 0% or over 100% is not sound logic

I still use it. I think extreme FOV will never feel the same. it's like looking through some binoculars IRL, everything is the same but its still different.

Given that we know Zoom Factor is literally the Chord ratio between two FOV, and Zoom factor = 0% Monitor Match. A correlative connection from a 2D plane. The radial Plane, the other factor in projecting 3D to 2D, then, must be the circle ratio. Chord Ratio / Circle Ratio = 100% Monitor Match. Essentially this accounts for the radial difference and the zoom factor in its entirety. One could safely assume that the optimum correlation between 2D and 3D planes most definitely lies within 0% - 100% monitor match. The sweet spot most likely has more to do with distortion and visual perception then a stand alone formula.

Check the hardware section in the forums, I've posted a few thoughts of mice I've used and dpi wiz has his test bench thread in there. More people that share experiences the better. https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/forum/forum/16-hardware/

When I first joined this website, before we had a choice to change the percentage monitor match... I assumed it was perfect, therefore it felt perfect. In fact as soon as DPI wiz made the suggestion that the value match was up to user discretion (0 - 100%) it opened a can of worms for me. Point being, placebo and the old sugar pills can do miraculous things. View speed was a big hit and the majority of players seem satisfied with it, aided by the fact that it sits within a general range that has been chosen by large game developers such as CSGO and Battlefield 1, add to its credibility. I personally use it and find it matches FOV quite nicely, various snap testing and dot games all tell me that it works, good enough. Its every time you miss that flick shot and look for something to blame, new sensitivity, better FOV... It must be something OTHER then my aim skill.... An endless hunt that I have fallen victim to personally, searching for the perfect match. Maybe there is no perfect match, perhaps its the fact that perfect is by ones own definition, that is, whatever you use, will, over time become your norm, natural and BEST. I've been testing out various formulas and correlations with Drimzi and often what he thinks matches up, doesn't for me. But I've been playing with viewspeed for so long now, anything other then that feels unnatural. I have a several correlative formulas that land within the ballpark for our current sensitivity matching, but, none truly make logical sense to me as of yet. Just because a formula gives an acceptable answer does not mean its logical or correct. I think we have to realise that 180' FOV and 20' FOV will never feel the same. CSGO pros don't get their god like flick shots because of 75% MM, they get them because they practice that FOV with that sensitivity on the daily. I would like to see a correlative explanation that makes logical sense in the matching of FOV sensitivity for any formula. The reality is any match that falls within a certain percentage will feel ok, it's truly hard to notice a difference when the FOV varies so greatly. Larger the FOV the greater the difference in perceived speed due to distortion. PS: Sometimes actual or theoretical does not line up with how we interpret or perceive something. I say this because when I played COD (at or close to 0% monitor match) I found it a terrible system, in fact I used Iron sight or ELO sight ALWAYS, unifying the different weapons for me. Perhaps 0% does match the movement under the crosshair, however, given the fact that we have a mix of radial AND zoom ratios that do not correlate (3d projection, 2d plane). A one sided approach is nor logical or perceptually accurate IMO.

I don't mind tinkering around. If we come p with something that benefits someone, like a clearer choice for % match (like viewspeed) then that's great. Back to chasing my tail.... I still feel the circle ratio (1.3 for 90 - 45FOV) coupled with a multiplier is where the correlation should be made. What the multiplier is I've not 100% decided on yet. I have results and ideas but not a solid theory.

As you say, the result for very high fov should be extreme. Depending where your sitting, your 'natural' view if the monitor were a window would never even approach 90'. Excluding some super wide super monitor. 180' is simply distorted too much when projected on to a flat plane.

I think given that the outer circle remains fixed in dimension as the smaller circle expands/ contracts inside it, the diameter could be used rather then a trigonometric for 180 calculations? What this dimension is remains up for debate. TheNoobPolice, I don't think anyone is trying to match the entire screen.

Heres something to consider. Take this example: Putting alternate theory aside for a second and lets look at zoom factor. Essentially we are going to multiply the 45' 'viewspace' by 4.64, thereby filling up the 125' viewspace'. Now we have two arcs with equal chord length, however the expanded 45' viewspace does not share the same geometry as the 125' viewspace. The 125' arc is 1.1966 times longer. Point being even when we have a FOV over two and a half times larger, the actual arc length differential can be minimal. Ultimately even before we figure out exactly how far the apple drops from the tree, ALL FOV are scaled in some correlated way to fill the same size screen. EDIT. WIP... thought I'd add this diagram here if anyone would find it useful. The numbers between dimensions are ratios.

I've been thinking too much again. IMO the reason 0% feels too slow is because its simply relative to sensitivity, meaning sensitivity should not be matched by correlating zoom, rather zoom is a product of correlating sensitivity. In this diagram putting games aside, we can say the small 45' Arc circumference requires double the input (mouse movement) to match the circumferential speed of 125'. We can also see that the 'view space' at 45' must be multiplied by 4.64 to fill the 'view space'. Maintaining the 'circumferential speed' relationship ultimately ensures your radial view maintains the same speed?

The shape of your screen is irrelevant. Both things we are comparing use the same screen. FOV is part of an arc, part of a complete circumference... When comparing pulley speed we need two pulleys or two circles, thus disregarding your monitor all we need is two FOV to compare. Your monitor for this comparison can be shaped like a pyramid, it does not matter. As for 75%, if we disregard zoom and simply compare FOV and the consequent circumference, then 75% monitor match is the exact percentage where all FOV will exactly match circumferential speed (4:3), eg; 50FOV to 100FOV matched at 75% Monitor Match will have the exact same circumferential speed. Just like this diagram. It certainly wasn't just a stab in the dark to settle on 75%, BF1 did follow suit by 'feel', I agree. Obviously there's more to consider which I outlined in my previous post.

100% is simply Horizontal Resolution / DPI * 2.54 (360 / FOV). The foundation. As far as cogs and relevance go. they are quite relevant. Nothing is perfect, I agree. One thing is for sure that we now have something that points to a better solution then choose somewhere between 0% and 100% monitor match. If you want to take cogs as a direct example, doubling the FOV (45 to 90) should result in exactly half the mouse distance to perform a 360, since FOV is an arc, arc is part of a circle... If your wondering what might that magic number be, 75% monitor match (4:3 resolution). Which is why viewspeed was so interesting as it differed ever so slightly, input discrepancy? I'm not convinced. Why not just use 75%? You can and it's all close enough to not matter in game. My nagging issue in using simply 75% monitor match has its own questions. 90fov to 45fov doubles the mouse distance required to perform a 360. Your screen however remains the same size, therefore the zoom must be at least doubled to account for the smaller radius to fill your 'view space'. How this ultimately changes things I've not tried to calculate and until it can be clarified I'm satisfied in using the difference in arc and chord length to determine the difference in speed. It certainly made matching desktop to 3D programs feel much more natural. Maybe you would like to help?

Because ingame field of view is radial, simply displayed on a flat screen. Simple logic in the above diagram demonstrates why you cannot measure distance from a flat plane and project it perpendicularly to an arc and expect to get any correlative results between varying Fields of View. Distance is irrelevant. Velocity, time, two ingredients to -masterful- aiming. Distance becomes relative.

When the earth was flat. PS: ''Viewspeed is not accurate at all screen distances either though. It uses the average error between your 2d screen and the 3d FOV to give a sensitivity. Key word here is average. It can still only be perfectly accurate at a single screen distance. I suppose its *average* accuracy across all screen distances will be higher. However you're not aiming at the edges of you're screen. You're aiming with the center of your screen. Viewspeed will have worse match accuracy near your crosshair while its accuracy peaks around 70% screen distance. Matching your ADS to 70% screen distance of hipfire would only be perfectly accurate when doing mouse flicks to enemies on the green circle'' WRONG. This chain maintains the exact same speed regardless of radius. FOV - FOV is simply one radius to another radius. Matching 3D is as simple as matching 2D. Forget comparing viewspeed with Monitor match percent, values may cross, but they are defined by different methods entirely. Viewspeed is never always exactly 70% monitor distance, nor any other. Viewspeed is not defined by a point on your screen. Yes, you can broadly define viewspeed by a median percentage comparison over a median grouping of FOV, broadly define is where the comparison ends.

Sounds like a mouse driver issue to me. 4000dpi is more than enough for smooth aiming. IMO so is 400dpi. I seem to recall a similar issue with an OLD razer mouse I had... Razer Diamondback I think... It had a driver issue which resulted in very 'stuttered' movement. I bought a new mouse and the problem was gone. Later I fixed the issue with a driver update. Something to think about.

First of all select a game to convert to battlefield 1 and enter all your details in the conversion box. Secondly, select battlefield 1 and enter the appropriate details. Convert your hip fire sensitivity via view speed. Take note of your battlefield 1 sensitivity value. If you then click on the 'aim' tab in the battlefield 1 conversion box and select USA co efficient. (If you scroll down you will see instructions and a basic explanation on how to fill out the required fields. NOTE; sensitivity 1 will be your hip fire calculation you previously worked out. Sensitivity 2 = 1. Multiplier 1 = 1) Your new USA co efficient should be displayed in the Multiplier 2 box below! The alternative is to scroll through each zoom sensitivity value in the config file and match individually with view speed, which provides a degree of extra accuracy I don't think anyone would notice... PS: I did the alternative option because I have no life...

Personally, ALL my zowie mice shut down my USB controller at 1000hz at some random irritating time (MSI Gaming pro carbon X99). I realise that the issue could well be my motherboard, however I have no issues with any other mouse (500 or 1000hz). Switching zowie to 500hz fixed the issue completely. If you prefer the feel of 1000hz, don't let 4% cpu usage worry you though... Personally I don't notice a huge difference from 500 to 1000hz. I run 800DPI.

I've tested most of them mice and the only one I found around a 50dpi discrepancy was the steelseries rival 300. I can check the DA specifically if you'd like. Regarding the sensor, axis orientation of the mouse sensor and how it is seated in to the mouse cannot be altered, if you hold the mouse slightly rotated from intended design, then moving sideways may not appear as such on screen. This is why most 'good' mice tend to have the sensor central (central to all grip styles is almost impossible to achieve). If you rotate your mouse back and forth from the wrist you should notice a fairly tight cursor movement, this is an attempt to minimise intended cursor movement and actual cursor movement. As you can imagine, a sensor located on the 'nose' of the mouse would be subject to much more movement if you twisted your wrist whilst trying to track something.