Uniform Soldier Aiming ...on or off?

2

Comments

  • ChaosIsMyMaster
    258 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Most players have it on but you can try sth different
  • Ameeba37
    1753 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Most players have it on but you can try sth different

    It's "off" by default so I'd say that is the way most people have it.
  • 00ANTISOCIAL00
    155 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    edited December 2016
    On the Uniform soldier slider i cant get it to 178% its either 177% or 179% so i stuck it on 177% and cant say i really notice a difference between 133% and 177% il keep it on the new setting for abit see how things play out.
  • SliceNaToooR
    244 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited December 2016
    I play with USA on and kept the default value at 1.33.

    Here is a thread explaining how USA works and why it's not a bad idea to keep it at 1.33, even if you obviously play on a different ratio.
    https://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf4/forum/threadview/2979150494051524581/

    Anyway, seems like an never ending debate from the research I did.
    Although, I'm really comfortable with my current settings, I might give 1.78 a shot.
    Post edited by SliceNaToooR on
  • Foodie88
    663 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    sluiceqc wrote: »
    I play with USA on and kept the default value at 1.33.

    Here is a thread explaining how USA works and why it's not a bad idea to keep it at 1.33, even if you obviously play on a different ratio.
    https://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf4/forum/threadview/2979150494051524581/

    I referenced this thread in my longer post (see my replies above) and I want to note that that page actually indirectly tells you why you should not use 133%.

    I quote:
    So you must be wondering why the default coefficient is 1.33
    First, because 1.33 seemed to work best, second, because that's what CS:GO used and compatability is awesome, and third, because when you times your vertical screen height by 1.33, you would get your horizontal screen width if you were using a 4:3 screen, which is the smallest aspect ration screen people use for games.


    'Seemed to work best' is dodgy logic at best, because if you know the guy who made the calculation, then thát guy should know. Perhaps the guy who wrote this write-up never bothered to ask.

    Second; the definition of what 90 degrees FOV is, changes as your aspect ratio changes. 90 degrees on a 21:9 screen looks different than on a 16:9 screen. So the calculation needs your aspect ratio to actually work correctly. Seeing as this coefficient stands for your aspect ratio, it is only likely that you should change it according to your aspect ratio.

    Third and last, the comparison with CS:GO is a very stale one because CS:GO only has a couple of different zoom levels available in certain weapons and it doesn't even support ADS (thus having a low zoom level for ADS). So in CS:GO it's a lot less important than in this game, where there's literally like 20 different options between 1x and 10x. Using CS:GO to validate this setting, is therefore not a very good point.

    To add some anecdotal evidence to the thread, I've been playing extensively with 233% (the 'correct' one for my aspect ratio) and it feels a lot better than the standard setting. But do with this information what you will :wink:
  • Foodie88
    663 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    On the Uniform soldier slider i cant get it to 178% its either 177% or 179% so i stuck it on 177% and cant say i really notice a difference between 133% and 177% il keep it on the new setting for abit see how things play out.

    Yeah in that case use 177. The difference between 177 and 178 should be minimal, if you can tell at all even.
  • SliceNaToooR
    244 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    @Foodie88,

    you seem to firmly believe in what you say.
    I trust your judgement, and will give it a shot.

    So you said that you played with the default coefficient of 1.33 before switching to the correct one for your aspect ratio?
    Did you notice that you had to change your sensitivity after that change?
    On the Uniform soldier slider i cant get it to 178% its either 177% or 179% so i stuck it on 177% and cant say i really notice a difference between 133% and 177% il keep it on the new setting for abit see how things play out.
    That's actually reassuring.
  • Foodie88
    663 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    sluiceqc wrote: »
    @Foodie88,

    you seem to firmly believe in what you say.
    I trust your judgement, and will give it a shot.

    So you said that you played with the default coefficient of 1.33 before switching to the correct one for your aspect ratio?
    Did you notice that you had to change your sensitivity after that change?
    On the Uniform soldier slider i cant get it to 178% its either 177% or 179% so i stuck it on 177% and cant say i really notice a difference between 133% and 177% il keep it on the new setting for abit see how things play out.
    That's actually reassuring.

    Yep, since launch of BF1 I was on 133%. I switched to 233% this weekend and yes, base sensitivity seems rose a little bit (hence I went from 11% to 9%). After getting my sensitivity back in the same ballpark, I was doing great with 2x ironsights even though before I was vastly inaccurate with it! Always overshot targets slightly when snapshooting.
  • SliceNaToooR
    244 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Thanks for sharing your experience @Foodie88

    I'll be going with 177 and give it a shot for the week-end (4k monitor).

    Cheers!
  • Foodie88
    663 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    sluiceqc wrote: »
    Thanks for sharing your experience @Foodie88

    I'll be going with 177 and give it a shot for the week-end (4k monitor).

    Cheers!

    No problem man. Just try to play through the first 30 minutes, you'll need to get used to the changed settings a bit but as for me, it will probably feel natural quite fast! Good luck.
  • Foodie88
    663 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Foodie88 wrote: »
    Yes, you should use it and no you shouldn't leave the coefficient at 133%. That's built around 4:3 screens and as you likely have something with 16:9 or 21:9, you need a different coefficient.

    Check my thread on this topic here:

    https://forums.battlefield.com/en-us/discussion/72159/psa-universal-soldier-aiming-youre-using-it-wrong

    @Foodie88 Actually, that's completely incorrect and you should probably edit your other thread / posts if you're interested in accuracy / fact.

    I helped test and develop the maths behind this when Dark Etheeral, DICE dev Julian Manolov and a few other contributers developed it during BF4 CTE.

    The coefficient isn't a setting of what aspect ratio you have, it's a mathematical modifier for mouse velocity synchronisation to a specific distance of screen space as a percentage of the vertical FOV.

    In order to understand this, you first need to realise that it is impossible to have equal sensitivities at different zoom levels due to the way 3D/2D conversion happens on screen. This is pure physics and can't be worked around with existing technology.

    At any given zoom level in a 3D game (i.e an FOV level, remember zoom and FOV are in-effect the same thing) the images in the pixels at the edge of the screen move faster as you turn than the images in the pixels in the centre of the screen. The higher the FOV (i.e lower zoom level) the more difference there is due to the fact that a 3D image has to be projected onto a 2D screen (i.e distorted) in order to for us to see it on our monitors.

    This means, that at any senstivity, there are actually a whole curve of sensitiities going on in front of your eyes. Our brains compensate for this and give us an "average sensitivity" feeling. The problem occurs in that as FOV decreases (i.e zoom increases) the amount of variance across the screen also decreases. This is why low FOV's look "flatter," and high FOV's look more "curved". It's also why it's harder to get consistent zoom sensitivitis across all scopes when you have a higher base FOV.

    The first ADS formula we tried was this:

    SensFactor = tan(ZoomFov/2)/tan(HipFov/2)

    This is the same as now having the coefficient setting at 0%. What this does is match the velocity of the mouse movement to the speed of images moving that are right underneath your crosshair at any zoom level.

    This looked fool-proof and simple on paper, but it became apparent as zoom increased with sniper scopes that they felt too slow. This was initially baffling, but we realised our brains don't give us a sensitivity sensation based on one part of the screen, rather an average across the screen, and this might be different for different people.

    So we then moved on to the idea of using a coefficient (i.e a mathamatical modifier) to change the approach. When the coefficient is set to anything great than 0%, the maths change to this:

    SensFactor = atan(tan(ZoomFov/2)*C) / atan(tan(HipFov/2)*C)

    where "C" is the coefficent value, of course.

    What this does, instead of matching the velocity of mouse movement to the speed of images moving under the crosshair, it matches it to a point at a specific distance as a percentage of the vertical FOV distance.

    If you set the coefficient at 178%, then the mouse movement distance will be synchonised to a screen space distance which is right at the horizontal edge of a 16:9 monitor at ANY zoom level BUT aiming at less than that distance (e.g aiming to 2/3rds width of your screen) will actually be less uniform as you change through different scopes.

    Since you are very rarely snapping to target right at the edge of your monitor, a 178% coefficient will likely make high zoom scopes feel too fast during the majority of your aiming relative to hipfire on a 16:9 screen.

    Since most "snapping to target" happens in the centre 2/3rds of the screen, this is why the default of 4/3 was used. In extensive testing with multiple players, it made all different zoom levels from hipfire right up to 10x zoom etc feel the most uniform. The bottom line though, is that different peoples brains create the "average sensitivity sensation" differently and this is impossible to measure.

    TL:DR Some very smart people have created the USA forumla, the default of 4/3 (133%) is there for a reason and we were all aware that most people are playing on 16:9 screen. The only argument for setting the coefficient distance higher would be if you're playing on a 21:9 or wider screen setup.

    Holy moly dude. Thanks for this reply and this is exactly what I was looking for. I overlooked the effect of the stretching nature of the FOV on the 'perceived sensitivity' and that's probably what makes it so finnicky too.

    Let me first say (No, I don't support Trump :tongue:) is that this kind of information is almost imperative to have a good understanding of how this feature works. The inner workings are probably too complex for a lot of people to understand so I guess that's why it is hidden in the advanced control menu.

    The big question that remains is, if 133% is actually the ideal value for a 16:9 screen:
    What are the ideal values for a 4:3 and for a 21:9 screen?

    If a calculated aspect ratio of 1.78 has an ideal coefficient of 1.33, then in this case the calculated aspect ratio is multiplied by 0.75 to get 1.33. Could I apply that to my 2.33 (21:9) ratio too and get 1.75 as 'correct' coefficient? I understand it is still dependent on the specific user but a 'ballpark' value should help.

    Once you answer I'll edit my topic accordingly. Then it wouldn't apply anymore for people using 16:9 but rather for people using a different aspect ratio like 4:3 or 21:9.
  • SliceNaToooR
    244 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Woah, thanks for jumping on board of this conversation to clear some things up @TheNoobPolice !

    @Foodie88, still much appreciate the help you have thrown in here. Although some of the info might of been wrong, it made a lot of sens. I also read the same thing elsewhere. Anyway, big Kudos for sharing your experience /knowledge and wanting to help!

    You guys, both deserve a :cookie: !
  • wigtown
    311 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    No no no, this was a terrible thread. It was both polite AND informative.
  • TheNoobPolice
    1613 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I should add there is another advantage to using USA vs not that a lot of people overlook.

    When USA is OFF, the pre-designed ADS sensitivity modifier kicks in immediately at the moment you press the ADS button, but before you have completely zoomed in yet.

    When USA is ON, the ADS sensivitiy gradually and proceedurally adapts according to the current FOV space during the course of the zoom animation /transition.

    Why is this important? Well, people don't ADS, then turn to target, they ADS and turn to target simultaneously. WIth USA off, there is a half-second moment where your sensitivity is way too slow for the current FOV. This is not a good thing for muscle memory when snapping to target.
  • Foodie88
    663 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Thanks for adding to the thread man. I'll think about how to edit my thread so it's better informed.

    I'm gonna try 156% for my 21:9 screen. I come to that because as you say you do not want to tune your snap aiming to the absolute outside of the screen but rather to two thirds of the width of your screen. So I take 2560, which is the width of my screen, and multiply it by 0.66. Divide the resulting number by 1080 (the height) and I get 1.56.

    I'll take that as a 'ballpark' starting number and experiment a bit next week.
  • Skitelz7
    980 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I should add there is another advantage to using USA vs not that a lot of people overlook.

    When USA is OFF, the pre-designed ADS sensitivity modifier kicks in immediately at the moment you press the ADS button, but before you have completely zoomed in yet.

    When USA is ON, the ADS sensivitiy gradually and proceedurally adapts according to the current FOV space during the course of the zoom animation /transition.

    Why is this important? Well, people don't ADS, then turn to target, they ADS and turn to target simultaneously. WIth USA off, there is a half-second moment where your sensitivity is way too slow for the current FOV. This is not a good thing for muscle memory when snapping to target.

    I'm a console player (Xbox One).
    Do you recommend that I play with it on or off?
    Not sure if it works the same way with analog sticks.
  • Moses0__o
    2 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited February 5
    @TheNoobPolice 
    If i choice 133% and i have 16 / 9 (1920x1080), what will C  in next expression be equal to? SensFactor = atan(tan(ZoomFov/2)*C) / atan(tan(HipFov/2)*C) Won't be it 0.75?
    Post edited by Moses0__o on
  • TheNoobPolice
    1613 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Moses0__o said:
    @TheNoobPolice 
    If i choice 133% and i have 16 / 9 (1920x1080), what will C  in next expression be equal to? SensFactor = atan(tan(ZoomFov/2)*C) / atan(tan(HipFov/2)*C) Won't be it 0.75?
    C is always the coefficient, so 1.33 in that case.

    So let's say you had a hipfire vFOV of 80 and aimed vFOV of 40, then you'd do

    atan(tan(40/2)*1.33)/atan(tan(80/2)*1.33) = 0.536598

    https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=atan%28tan%2840%2F2%29*1.33%29%2Fatan%28tan%2880%2F2%29*1.33%29&assumption=%22TrigRD%22+-%3E+%22D%22

    So if your hipfire 360 distance is 30cm, then that would end up being an aimed 360 of 55.91cm (30 / 0.536598). 




Sign In or Register to comment.