DNAMTE

Keep us posted, I've heard lots of good things about them. I recently bought the Steelseries extended, its my perfect thickness of 4mm. I also bought the Razer deathadder elite to test out. UPDATE: The Razer DeathAdder Elite had such potential. The sensor, mouse feet, buttons, scroll wheel, weight and even the power cord are all VERY GOOD. This mouse feels very snappy in game contrary to my statement above regarding no noticeable difference between sensors, I really believe I do notice how much sharper this one feels. ​Unfortunately as much as I've really tried to like this mouse, the shape lets it down. The shape is comfortable, very comfortable but it lacks shape that allows you to 'clamp' the mouse, there's no ledge on the right side anywhere that allows your ring / pinky finger to grip the mouse, coupled with a relatively slippery plastic. Ultimately making this mouse feel unreliable and lowering in game performance.

DPI Wiz machine is plenty accurate enough to test Viewspeed or alike. Removing any software potential discrepancies or complications. The figure of 8 test, as provided, would also clearly display any angle snapping to ANY degree your eye, or hand, could ever detect. Dead zones?... Give your mouse a wiggle, mine don't have one. I'm a believer in keeping tests relevant. I'm not interested if my mouse has a 1/5th pixel dead zone, neither should anyone else. Lets not worry about 'interesting tests' and let the wizard focus on relevant tests. No point measuring a football field to the nearest nanometre. PS: Sensor in what mouse? Implementation can vary. Especially when were using the nanoscale to nail that headshot from around the world...

I'm somewhat addicted to mousepads and mice.. The collection will grow when I see something that looks worth buying! I ORIGIONALLY had a similar issue "Originally I tested this pad and it had what felt like a lumpy under surface (was like an air bubble that seemed to move around. I wrote this pad off and called it a day." ​​Luckily for me when I tested it again, after reading lots of positive comments about it... The issue had resolved itself... Regardless I prefer the Qck surface anyway, a smidge.

As previously posted by others in this thread, it comes out around ~70% - avg, pretty close in most comparisons, not all, But then the debate of which '%' for monitor matching has never been agreed upon. Now it's clear who was on the right path.

In my opinion your sensitivity/ mouse movement range should be soley based on how you play / game you play. For example i could safely assume the majority of targets in a game like CSGO are going to appear inside your view direction, generally you know which direction your enemy is going to appear. Compare this to a game where targets can seemingly appear anywhere around you, requiring a sensitivity that can accomidate essentially a much larger target zone. Ultimately that is what will BEST dictate your sensitivity. If we use an aim trainer that has targets ~3pixels confined within a relatively small target box, players using a very low sensitivity in general will score much higher. The opposite could be assumed within a simulation using larger targets in a 360' target zone. I think anyone can become GREAT at ANY sensitivity. But I genuinely believe they could be GREATER using one that better fits whatever game / game style they are playing. Ultimately you have to decide what game/ role you suits you. Don't try writing on a postcard with a paint roller, Don't try painting a wall with a ball point pen. When it comes to monitor size or more specifically resolution I think this has allot to do with your eyes focus. It's my opinion that your focus within a game should remain centred, not looking left and right. Where your eyes look your crosshair should follow, always. If your sitting around arms length from your monitor. Focusing dead centre, tell me, how much of the screen can you actually focus on? Widescreen simply becomes unnecessary and potentially distracting. That's my opinion. I Think if you use the extra FOV 16:9+ provides as peripheral ONLY then its no hindrance. But not required either. Eye movement in unison with your cursor/crosshair should be the ultimate goal.

The test ingame has nothing to do with mouse sensors. It's about testing viewspeed or other methods of linking mouse movement between Field of Views.

I think any movement must be executed from an external device, DPI wiz machine would be perfect. In fact I think if he was to have the machine complete circles repetitively and you wrote a simple FOV script that could cycle between multiple FOV at a rate of ~0.5 Seconds? (trial and error). You could effectively get the flip book effect and EASILY notice if the cursor movement is different between field of views?

My aim was still never better @ 63cm/360. But since i play COD and other fast FPS that sens is just too slow. If i ONLY played CSGO i would quite possibly be using that sens still. Now i'm at 42cm and it is the best mix of precision and mobility for me so far.

ALL of the above . But seriously the full range DPI test would be good to see, I've first hand experience with the DPI being incorrect and now check every mouse I buy. Knowing the sweet spot of the DPI range would be GREAT. Latency and acceleration would be handy to see but not a necessity as I'd expect all modern releases to be acceptable with differences much more acute than we could ever notice! The sensor drift is the real show stopper here. Some games (OSU) it can be REALLY noticeable, the above demonstration really shows the difference in hardware. As for which mice to test, it would be great to see all the most popular models put through the bench. Logitech ​Zowie Steelseries ​Razer FinalMouse (I'd wait for the new version as the current one is still full of flaws) Lots more potentials but I think that covers the majority of trending mice.

I'v never tried the GTF-X although i've heard good things about it. Zowie made a great reputation on their ORIGIONAL 'blue' G-SR pad which i'm told is nothing like the new BenQ version. Sadly... I have watched quite a few of RJN reviews, He's great at giving an opinion but I really would like more detail when it comes to mouse pads. The majority of his mouse pad reviews come down to 'wish it had stitching', colour and how thick it is. The friction (glide, stop, start) of a mouse pad and how it reacts with mouse feet, hand & arm is the make or break for a mouse pad IMO. Something barely mentioned, if ever. I've left comments on his YouTube previously with some potential beneficial tests to improve his mouse pad reviews. Sadly, unless you say something to boost his ego the chance of a reply are slim. TBH I'm really looking forward to DPI Wiz mouse reviews as they have some real factual benefit. Something I don't see anywhere else.

I think a hardware section on this website is a great idea, here is a few ideas on mousepads and mice I use! First lets talk mouse pads... I've been through a few.. few more then a few. I Use a moderately low sensitivity (~50cm/360) so the size of the pad is important, bigger the better. In my opinion mouse pad friction should be very consistent, IMO the actual speed of the surface is not as important as its overall consistency. Starting your mouse movement (static friction) and continuing a movement (kinetic friction) ideally would be equal, though this is not possible, I believe the closer they feel the more consistent and reliable the pad will feel. Adding to that is how the pad material lets your hand/arm slide over it. Some pads in my experience really grab to your hand/arm (Possibly not as much of a problem if your have very dry hands, moisture is the root cause of the problem). Here's a few I've recently used: (RED = honourable mention), (GOLD = My top pick) - Logitech 640 - 450x400, 3mm thick. This pad is a well made, smooth textured consistent glide retaining lots of control. It shares a lot of similarities with the Zowie GSR, although personally I find this pad doesn't deal with humidity as well and can stop your hand gliding uniformly. - ASUS ROG SHEATH - 900x440, 3mm thick. Perfectly flat and VERY fast. Friction is very consistent on the mouse unfortunately this is one of them pads that really tends to lock on to my hand when it gets sweaty, making it feel less consistent overall. - BenQ Zowie G-SR - 480x400, 3.5mm thick. Perfectly flat with a somewhat *inconsistent surface speed. *Static friction is really quite high, highest I've tested, coupled with a fairly fast *kinetic friction speed, resulting in a fairly inconsistent experience. On the positive side it's very well made, perfectly flat with a silky smooth high quality feeling texture that allows your hand to glide as well as the mouse. I still rate this pad highly if you get used to the unusual glide. - Steelseries Qck+ - 450x400, 2mm thick. Perfectly flat and moderately fast surface speed. Friction is quite balanced on this pad making it feel consistent and reliable. Adding to that my hand has little trouble moving over this pad i rate these pads highly. - Razer Gigantus - 455mm square, 5mm thick. Originally i tested this pad and it had what felt like a lumpy under surface (was like an air bubble that seemed to move around. I wrote this pad off and called it a day. Well i decided to give it another go and to my disbelief the 'lump' is nowhere to be found. Perfectly flat and with similar mouse feel to the Qck pads. Qck possibly a little bit faster. Friction also feels really consistent and reliable. Overall i notice little difference between this and the Qck and rate it highly. - Steelseries Qck HEAVY - 450x400, 6mm thick. Read Qck+ but thicker. Despite people saying it uses a different cloth, I've compared them both and they are identical cloths. IMO its a tad too thick. - Fnatic Focus G1 XXL - 487x372, 3mm thick. Perfectly flat and second only to the ASUS ROG in terms of surface speed. Friction seems consistent however alike the ASUS (all 'glossy' pads???) as soon as your hand gets a bit sweaty it starts sticking to the pad. - Roccat Taito 2017 900x330, 3mm thick. I played with this pad only for a short time. It's not tall enough for me, so I'm trying to source the 370mm tall version (not available in Australia, yet . What I can say though is it really feels like a faster steel series pad. Friction seems consistent and in the short time I used it I never had any problems with it gripping to my hand! When I get the larger version I'll update. - Steelseries Qck Extended - 900x400, 4mm thick. Read Qck+ but thicker and wider! Despite people saying it uses a different cloth, I've compared them both and they are identical cloths. This pad is the best thickness out of the range coupled with extra room! - ARTISAN Ninja FX Zero XL (SOFT foam) - 490x420, 4mm thick - What can i say, this pads quality is #1, sits perfect flat out of the box. Sub-surface stitched edges, perfectly flat / uniform base, consistent feeling cloth with little friction. Negatives? Firstly the cloth texture is fairly coarse, the coarsest texture of any pad I've tested, something you can adjust to fairly quickly but worth a thought, noticeable if your coming from a pad like the smooth Zowie GSR, it's not a huge problem but the GSR certainly allows your hand to glide better. Now for my deal breaker, the foam. For me, it's too soft, this is the only pad I've ever had which will cause the mouse to really DIG IN by applying 'excess' pressure to the mouse, i talk more about this on pages 4 & 5. - ARTISAN Ninja FX Zero XL (MID foam) - 490x420, 3mm thick - READ ARTISAN Ninja FX Zero XL (SOFT foam) then consider that the foam issue is now gone, this base is great and I've had zero issue with it. My favorite pad right now! - HYPER X Fury X 'speed' - 450x400, 3mm thick - First of all lets correct and change the name - HYPER X Fury 'control', it's not faster than the standard Fury X, it's slower. The texture and glide are 'smoother' but it's noticeably slower. Static friction is on the higher end but seems fairly consistent with the general glide and feel of the pad. The smooth texture allows your hand to glide easily, however there is a SLIGHT issue with humidity which seems commonplace amongst 'glossy pads' (Read ASUS ROG SHEATH) Unlike the Fury X i tested, the base is very flat and consistent which surprised me as I'd assumed they used the same base material, quality control? the stitching however, does not sit flat around the edges even after a month sitting on a flat surface. Overall i didn't mind this pad after getting used to it. - HYPER X Fury X - 450x400, 3mm thick -To be honest, this pad ALIKE the Logitech 640 suffered from a 'lumpy' under surface, a GREAT disappointment and likely a quality control issue given the fact that the HYPER X Fury X 'speed' did not have the issue. This pad is a slightly faster sibling of the 'speed' version, confusing i know... The texture is more coarse and i believe that's really the only difference, a larger weave of the same material. As we've seen before 'smoother' is not always faster, often less contact points = less friction. I would pick this pad out of the two IF IT HAD A SMOOTH BASE! which it doesn't... AORUS AMP500 - 430x370, 1.8mm thick - This pad is by far the best pad i've tried for tracking, its glide is second to none, my tracking is more consistent with this surface than any other (i've not tested any hard pads), friction is very consistent making micro adjustment very easy and you never get that 'stuck' feeling. I'm more comfortable / consistent at target acquisition on a more controlled surface like the ARTISAN Ninja FX Zero XL (MID foam). honestly that could be simply due to more time on that surface, time will tell but ultimately this pad is tied as My favorite pad right now! X-Raypad THOR - NEW - TESTING!! - Lets talk mice... Listed in the order of receiving them! NOT by performance! - Razer Viper (currently using) - Glorious MODEL O - Logitech G PRO Gaming Mouse HERO - Logitech G PRO Wireless - Steelseries Rival 600 - Steelseries Rival 310 - Razer Lancehead TE - Razer DeathAdder Elite - ROCCAT Kone EMP - Zowie FK1+ - Zowie FK1 - Zowie EC2-A - Zowie FK2 - Logitech G403 wired - Logitech G403 Wireless - Logitech G900 - Steelseries Rival 300 Here's some specifics on my favourites! You can find more feedback on most of the above by looking through the pages of this thread! Razer Viper - NEW, currently testing! I've only just received this mouse, already love it, consider the Zowie FK 1 & Glorious Model o as predecessors to this. They are all similar in shape, but this mouse LITERALLY does everything better. Better balanced, better grip, better cable, better side button placement and an even better shape. The Geometry of this mouse feels fantastic. To top it off this mouse feels extremely well built, no flex or creaking and still comes in under 70g. Glorious MODEL O - Read Zowie FK 1. consider this; it weighs only 67g, better buttons all round, comfort grooves for M1 & M2, better cable, RGB and software allowing DPI steps of 100 and then consider that this shape is slightly better than the FK1, I get no cramping with this mouse and still get a great solid grip. Steelseries Rival 310 - This mouse has a GREAT shape, the geometry allows a very solid grip. the buttons are all very good, great flexible cable and one of the best gliding mouses I've used. The only negative I can pick is the rubber sides, when your hands are dry they offer amazing grip, coupled with great geometry the mouse is literally locked in place. Perfect. Unfortunately after your hands warm up, any moisture makes the grips very slippery and lets this mouse down. Honestly if this mouse had comfort grooves in the M1/M2 buttons and a similar coating/ grips as the Rival 600 (the grips on the rival 600 almost improve as your hands warm up, the rest of the mouse is coated in an anti slip coating, Great!), this would easily be my top pick. Zowie FK 1 - Almost as soon as I picked up this mouse I liked it, a lot. You can get a VERY SOLID grip on this shape and ultimately is why it feels so consistent and reliable, no rubber grips and it doesn't need it, the geometry is good enough. The L&R clicks are stiffer than most and take some getting used to and the side buttons / mouse wheel are OK. Great contact pads, glides well. Great flexible cable and not much to say about the 3310 sensor, works fine, tracks well. Obviously DPI steps are limited to 400, 800, 1600 & 3200. Not really a problem for most. After months of using this mouse the only concern I had was discomfort in my hand as your pinkie finger is generally completely unsupported. Any specific questions feel free!

That's a great way of testing the sensors! Really easy to see the sensor drift!

Base FOV i think they match at 0%... Change your FOV and it drifts out, not 100%. Someone can clarify i'm sure. (EDIT: DRIMZI already did ) As for viewspeed and what games to match. I figure that speed is ALWAYS going to be your hipfire, so if some games you match ADS to viewspeed then your still just training your hipfire (not a bad thing). The problem is not many gamers even know about FOV and mouse sensititivy changes, they just adapt when a new game comes out. It's really only the minority that take the time to look in to potential correlations. This reason alone is why newer titles are often providing less and less adaptability for sensitivity values (look at Infinite Warfare). They don't waste time polishing parts of the game that 90% of users would never appreciate. Thank consoles for this degeneration.

The concept of Monitor Distance matching is flawed. Given that Monitor distance matching covers 100% of your viewspace, obviously somewhere a value will match viewspeed. This does not mean anything relevant. ​If you look at 100FOV. Using Monitor Distance Matching & view speed we have the exact same arc length with either method. If the value they cross is 70% (I don't know I'm assuming) then this is the range on the arc where the two methods crossover. I would expect this value to drift in correlation to Monitor Distance Matchings expanding inaccuracy with increasing FOV. You are comparing two arcs of EXACT length, the only difference is the increasing misalignment from Monitor Distance Matching as we expand to larger FOV. ​"With my DPI it only drifted out by 2.3cm at 179 FOV" - Given that A complete 360 takes only 20.8709cm at this FOV, 2.cm is a substantial difference of ~10%. - 400dpi used for comparison. Do not take lightly percent increase/decrease, it's relative to the selected FOV. If We had a match of 70.45673% across ALL FOV then I would know we have an error. We don't, the entire range from >0 - <180 changes accordingly.

The problem i have with comparing Monitor Match and Velocity or 'viewspeed' is that they are completely different. With view speed there is only ONE perfect match, with Monitor Matching it's anyone's preference. Somewhere along the 'line' you will match the value of view speed and Monitor Matching, wherever their paths may cross. Battlefield 1 notes behind their Universal Soldier Aim implementation of Monitor Distance Matching they essentially went by 'feel' and adopted CSGO's core value which is remarkably similar to applied view speed calculations. I see two major problems with this comparison. The first is that any two ARC lengths from our pool of >0 to 180, (most being somewhere in the middle) don't have that much of a discrepancy in length. This alone will make results very tightly bunched when compared to monitor distance % matching. Secondly, the closer we approach 0, the closer we are to FLAT. the less notable difference ANY monitor match percentage will have to differentiate between values as there's such little difference between ANY value. This after all is the major flaw with Monitor Distance Matching, It's perfect at ~0 degrees, from there on the match becomes increasingly less consistent throughout the field of view range. IMO its a case of apples and oranges, Always look forward to new ideas though!

Great stuff. Nice to see everyone chipping in to get this perfect! Will be worth the effort.

Now I understand where your coming from. I think you've highlighted an Error. Although we need to 'reduce' Arc length/speed by the increase from Chord to Arc, we are negating the percentage from an ARC measurement therefore we must use it in this manner; 'Percent Decrease from ARC to Chord' Resulting in: 12.931758446299706% is the percent Decrease from Arc to Chord. 14.852440126890471% is the percent Increase from Chord to Arc. (360 / 103) * (10.16 - (10.16 * (12.931758446299706%))) = 30.9185243 We can check this by comparing this from the original 100% Monitor Match sum of: 10.16 (360 / 103) = 35.5106796 30.9185243 + 14.852440126890471% = 35.5106796 - Thus showing that we have reduced the arc length/speed by exactly 14.852440126890471% (Percent Increase from Chord to Arc). Thanks for highlighting this, I'm not sure if the Wiz has pasted the same error in to the calc, will have to check!

Simply because the percentage to be used is 14.85244011%. You can Re write it as: 360°/103FOV * 10.16cm * (1 - 14.85244011%) = 30.236477 cm Or more simply: 360/103FOV * 10.16cm * (0.851475599) = 30.236477cm If you decide to now use: 360°/103FOV * 10.16cm / (1 + 14.85244011%) = 30.9185 cm Or more simply: 360°/103FOV * 10.16cm / (1.1485244011) = 30.9185cm Your dividing and multiplying using two different base values. I'm not exactly understanding where your going with this one.\ For example if I take 10 and multiply it by 0.5 (50% of itself) = 5. I Cannot then decide to get the same answer by calculating 10 divided by 1.5 = 6.666 When in fact the correct value is 2. 10 / 2 = 5 Correlating to 360/103FOV * 10.16cm / (30.236477cm) = 1.17443178 360/103FOV * 10.16cm / (1.17443178) = 30.236477cm

Great news, When some decent new games come out that allow you to adjust everything (if ever) this will be a huge time saver!

Just something that Drimzi mentioned earlier but i think its importance is overlooked, mousepad... Honestly IMO mousepad is of most importance to get right. Is your Zowie GSR the old blue one? or new Benq black version? I'v been through a decent amount of gear and left my feedback on my steam account; http://steamcommunity.com/id/DNAMTE in 'Artwork'. Here: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=853949930 The Benq Zowie GSR is not comparable to the old blue one (the one that allot of people LOVED). It has a nice glide but possibly one of the highest static friction of any pad I've got my hands on. This means it will get 'stuck' on small movements and ultimately has a disconnect between glide and starting movement. Personally I like the steelseries QCK series pads and the Razor Gigantus. I've also briefly tested out the new roccat Taito 2017 (waiting for king size now) which also seemed to feel quite good but I need to try it out more. 50cm/360 should be plenty of room to get your aiming dialled in. Like drimzi also mentioned, allot of games focus on twitch rather then fine aim so often its an area that can be significantly improved. Drimzi just happens to be a freak when it comes to mouse control, maybe he can share some of his secrets and or videos. I've not looked at the above website but there's great options in CSGO for fine aim training. Ultimately I don't think having an offset speed for ADS and hip fire is the way to go, you want things in sync. Honestly. get a new mousepad.

If you were to plot Lines from your head to the edges of your monitor and measure the angle it would become very clear how difficult it is to display 90FOV inside that window and make it appear 'normal'. Increasing the FOV, increasingly distorts the image from the centre outwards. Stretching 4:3 to 16:9 can often appear more natural after using it, quite possibly because you are offsetting some of the distortion, As for viewspeed, on a speed/ pixel measurement then there is a difference but I wouldn't change sensitivity to try accomodate this difference as it's relative to the image. If you wanted to test then increase your sensitivity by the % increase of the ratio. IMO leave it the same.

The actual size of the screen shouldnt matter if your using the same resolution / aspect ratio. The only time this gets messy is when going from say 1080p to 1440p, often on the same size screen, 27" for example. The pixel density is much different and obviously things will be out of sync. The calculator does have a conversion for this however.

I think I misunderstood what the question was trying to achieve. 103FOV 10.16 (360 / 103) = 35.5106796117 100% Monitor Match 360/103 (10.16 - 14.852440126890471%) = 30.2364771837 Matched C speed 51FOV 10.16 (360 / 51) = 71.7176470588 100% Monitor Match 360/51 (10.16 - 3.3792073091990504%) = 69.2941590874 Matched C speed That is the result of 640 DPI @ 2560x1440 synced 2D - 3D - 3D. The in game sensitivity from the above settings was around 7.1~ (overwatch) Obviously if you wanted to match 7 sensitivity exactly the DPI value is unobtainable and therefore 2D - 3D match incompatible with the standard windows multiplier. The formula works great though! -(((30.2364771837÷360)×103)÷(0.14852440126890471-1)) = 10.16cm Great work

stereo3D has the right idea. Your numbers did not look correct so I had a quick look. Resolution 2560 x 1440DPI: 640 ​Windows: 6Distance: 10.16 cm to move mouse cursor across screen 103FOV10.16 (360 / 103) = 35.5106796117 100% Monitor Match 360/103 (10.16 - 14.852440126890471%) = 30.2364771837 Matched C speed 51FOV 10.16 (360 / 51) = 71.7176470588 100% Monitor Match 360/51 (10.16 - 3.3792073091990504%) = 69.2941590874 Matched C speed As for 3D in game settings, I don't know what overwatch uses to adjust other sensitivities or any other games for that matter. But if each FOV has a linear scale alike the hipfire, then: This example will take 106.26FOV (90 4:3) and convert the in-game numeric value to match 63.74FOV (50 4:3) 3D - 3D 106.26 - 63.74 106.26 Matched = 46.3581742cm 63.74 Matched = 86.9018603cm 86.9018603 is 187.4574692929542% of 46.358174271622 Calculate: Sensitivity Numeric Value ( for 106.26FOV) / 1.874574692929542 = Sensitivity Numeric Value (for 63.74) Hope that helps.