DNAMTE

The ASUS ROG and Fnatic Focus pads I tested also suffer with this. Any 'glossy' pad in fact seems to suffer with this. Another reason the SS Qck pads remain #1. Humidity and glossy pads = disaster. It's my belief that the less actual contact area between mouse and mouse pad, the more consistent and less reactive to humidity changes. Quite possibly because less contact area = less area that can change under alternating conditions. A fan favourite was the Razer Goliathus 'speed' pad which has a 'textured' surface, minimising surface contact. It seems very common that companies associate speed with 'smooth' when designing mouse pads, quite the opposite can be more beneficial considering static and kinetic friction. The reality is not much R&D is put towards mouse pads and frankly many of the pads given some effort end up worse.

I've not had the chance to play with one, if you don't see any issues when using it. Keep it!

I personally match the co efficient with viewspeed, the variance from different FOV ingame are not noticeable IMO applying it to the USA co efficient system.

I think this topic has some merit, limited merit. Resolution / aspect ratio are the more important factors here IMO. I would think using the same Resolution / Aspect ratio on a 27" monitor 2 feet in front of you will have the same 'feel' as a 60" TV 8 foot in front of you provided the former are the same.. Where this gets a little more tricky is if for example we have two 27" monitors with a considerable pixel density difference, hence different resolutions and ultimately much different 'feel' given two screens that are the same size & distance from you. (If your wanting to Match desktop to in game)

Median, a word that never goes well with mouse sensitivity. The answer is already implemented in to the calculator. When a game has multiple FOV, for example Titanfall 2, the user selects what ADS FOV he would like to match with hip fire. Once that decision is made then providing a DPI alternative, when in game sensitivity is not an option, would be great!

I wonder how hard this would be to implement in to the calculator . Not many games support variable sensitivities, but lots of software supports variable DPI. It would be great if the calc could show you what DPI would be required to match hipfire with viewspeed (or alternative methods). COD 106FOV, Hipfire 1400dpi - viewspeed matched = Iron sights '1600DPI' toggle sensitivity.

I would hope users of this website could divide something by 2 or 4.

In my opinion, showing partial rotation has no benefit to showing just complete rotation. If you want to match 90deg, simply match 360deg, perfect!? Besides, if people want to keep 180 flicks the same then matching FOV between games is always going to be critical. Aiming is a combination of things and keeping a datum field of view between games for hipfire is very important IMO. For arguments sake, overwatch to CSGO or 103' to 106' in practical use would not affect someone's 180 flicks if all else remains equal IMO.

I didn't mind the Logitech G403, I just found other shapes that fit me better. It was my favourite ergo until I decided to try out the EC2 A. G403 still has flaws and I feel they are deliberate. G900 for example has a superior mouse wheel, L&R clicks, mouse feet. If they simply made it as 'premium' as the G900 then offered a cheaper wired version (with a better cable ideally) I feel it would cover more of the market. I've been using the EC2 A as of late, I really do think a EC1 A will be better (for me) but I'm not willing to buy another Zowie until they update the sensor. Great to hear your feedback though!

As previously hinted, you would be better of turning ingame acceleration off and running a third party one that applies to all games. That way you ensure the level of acceleration is consistent. Different games / programs often use different curves of acceleration. Like wiz mentions, its impossible to compare acceleration sensitivities with non accelerated sensitivities as the movement is defined not by only distance, but the differential in velocity over time. You need to configure your sensitivity between games first, then apply a unified acceleration value second. PS: what mouse do you use? some companies, for example steel series have the option to use a unified mouse accel.

Boil it all down. Moving a mouse to aim at targets is all the same. If you get no value from OSU or '2D' aim trainers, unfortunate. I personally get value from them all. The true key is ensuring your mouse speed is relative between them all. Some games don't require pixel precision, movement is dominant, and, vice versa. Not pursuing something because you don't understand it, disadvantages only yourself.

Fibonacci, golden ratio, PI.... Regardless, none of this is natural. True natural is making your screen movement 1:1 with your mouse, which results in an insanely low sensitivity. Unusable. And that's the point, your looking at a vertical plane (monitor) and performing movement on a 'flat' plane (desk)... Up becomes forward, back becomes down, none of this is truly natural. It doesn't have to be. The brain excels in naturalising things we repeat, over time. Realistically a 1cm 360 is not going to give you a decent foundation to aim at pixels across a map in CSGO, alike a 100cm 360 certainly may cause a few problems trying to break the world record running through the Gauntlet in Titanfall 2. There's a mid ground for each and every game, this is the 'zone' where sensitivity becomes irrelevant and players skill becomes apparent. I truly believe providing your not at the extremes of mouse sensitivity either way, the rest comes down to skill. Which is why I personally try to find one that fits all, medium. Skill can make up for the rest. Slower paced games, clearly will have more low sensitivity players, not because low sensitivity is better, rather high sensitivity is worse, you can take a gun to a knife fight, but unless your Wesley Snipes taking a knife to a gun fight might not go in your favour. *waits for the Wesley snipes of mouse sensitivities to chime in*

To some extent I agree with the above statement, however I know for a FACT that OSU very much improved my aim across the board. Regardless what you think, OSU requires you to track and flick to targets at speeds generally much more demanding then FPS shooters. OSU also trains you to use your peripheral vision to its full extent. I do agree that in-game trainers (lots in CSGO) are also good but at the end of the day providing your mouse speeds are matched, they all contribute. I've mentioned in other posts that personally my aim using 60cm 360 in CSGO was no doubt my most accurate sensitivity, however I would never try taking that in to COD. Horses for courses... You need to factor in the Aim down sight and the less predictable environment in comparison to a game like CSGO. There's no sensitivity that fits all games. Look up the pro players for CSGO, Quake Live, Overwatch and the average cm /360. Vastly different, no doubt. You need to consider what game you play, and what role you play within that game. If your playing fast paced close quarter combat roles you can forget 60cm 360, alike trying to aim at a pixel sized target on CSGO with 10cm 360. Personally I have 'settled' around 40cm / 360 for some time now. Although in reality I seem to constantly convince myself to adjust it.

Interesting, what program did you make the model? Solidworks is easily transferrable to 3D print if you wanted to get feedback.

Razer Lancehead Tournament Edition The shape is nothing like the DA. To me the size and overall shape feels a lot like the FK1, however they have added curves in the wrong places. For example the thumb rather then having a slight indent to provide grip has an outward curve that would allow your thumb to rest? Eliminating the thumbs solid grip feeling you get on the FK1. The opposite side where your ring finger rests has a very awkward protruding 'sharp' curve that really makes this mouse feel awkward to use. I honestly do not know who gave them reason for this shape, it really does not feel good at all. The overall quality seems good, the L&R clicks are possibly my favourite from my collection, the scroll wheel and side buttons are a downgrade from the DeathAdder Elite (which are very good) however not to bad. It weighs around 10g more than the DA E and is only about 2g lighter then the G900... Overall unless you have tried this mouse in the hand I would not recommend it. If you like Razer then I would recommend the DA E as I really do like that mouse, I just wish it had a better area for the ring finger to lock on to. NEXT!

Received the Razer Lancehead TE today. First impressions are; GREAT L&R clicks, stiff scroll wheel. Contact pads aren't as good as the DA E. shape is.... questionable but I'm going to give it a roll first. Update to follow.

They use the same sensor and implementation as the G900 (3366). Already tested.

Ultimately I think whatever you choose, your brain / eyes will adapt. I do however have opinions regarding spacial focus on the screen. But I covered that already. Allow me to bless you with my paint skills and show you how your distance from your monitor could help determine your initial feelings towards a FOV. Obviously my images need no explanation... they are very well designed The circle represents your head, the rectangle, your monitor. The angle then would be the natural view you would see if you were to assume the rectangle was... a window. Obviously your rotation point in game puts your head on top of the rectangle (180FOV would then be optimum, coinciding with natural peripheral vision)... which unless your going to wear top line VR goggles, can not be synced with your position in your chair. Nonetheless, something to consider.

I think that's quite a good idea, It might take some getting used to but would be something interesting to try out!

Huge improvement to the website overall

In your opinion.

Sniper Ghost Warrior 3

I think the problem is fairly obvious then. Even if your crosshair is moving at the same 'speed' the 360 rotation is going to be vastly different comparing 47FOV to 90FOV. Ultimately throwing out any muscle memory that is related to angular reaction (180' turn, 90' turn). Maintaining a 'similar' FOV between games is always necessary to transfer as much 'feel' between games. Zoom or 'aim down sight' is a best fit scenario, something you cannot match exactly so unifying crosshair speed is the best match. If Crosshair speed remains constant, then: Larger FOV - Less movement required to complete a rotation Smaller FOV - More movement required to complete a rotation

I was not aware of the issues? please elaborate. FOV at extremes has problems regardless. At the small end you have people getting motion sickness due to high rotation vs mouse speed. At the large end your forcing a larger radius in to a much smaller view space then should be used, causing 'fish eye' and other distortion problems. IMO 90' at 4:3 or 106.26' at 16:9 is the best mix.

I Really hope companies like Razer in future releases can distinguish between comfortable ergonomics and useful ergonomics. The most comfortable shape DOES NOT mean it's the best performing shape. ​The Zowie FK is actually quite an uncomfortable mouse in comparison to the Razer DeathAdder, however it allows a very solid grip with minimal pressure. Anyone who thinks they get a firm grip on the DA, I suggest you try out FK. PERFORMANCE > COMFORT