Welcome to symthic forums! We would love if you'd register!
You don't have to be expert in bit baking, everyone is more than welcome to join our community.

You are not logged in.

Hey! If this is your first visit on symthic.com, also check out our weapon damage charts.
Currently we have charts for Battlefield 3, Call of Duty: Black Ops 2, Medal of Honor: Warfighter and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

  • "BleedingUranium" started this thread

Posts: 3,674

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

  • Send private message

21

Tuesday, January 30th 2018, 5:36am

Wow such vocab for having such a hard time understanding the most basic concepts of how uniform aiming works: your 360 distance/time is NOT uniform. It attempts the equalize the number of pixels traveled on screen for X amount of control input at all zoom levels. Testing based on degrees traversed is a totally flawed method, end of story and if you can't understand that read through this till you have a grasp of what USA does: Important Guide to U - Forums - Battlelog
/ Battlefield 4


You're actually not really making a point here, just saying the same thing with more text. I chatted with Dark a lot back in BF4's CTE, before and after he developed UsA, so this stuff isn't unfamiliar to me.

What you haven't explained is why pixels travelled is supposedly more desirable than distance travelled. Linking me to a post which also doesn't explain this (because it's not the topic there) isn't adding anything useful. Also, I've read it before.

At present I have a functioning, logical model backed up with significant testing, and numerous other people who agree this method massively improves their aiming experience. Don't bother telling me I'm wrong if you're not going to explain and demonstrate why.
Who Enjoys, Wins

Posts: 13

Date of registration
: Jan 8th 2015

Platform: PC

Location: Trinidad and Tobago

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 2

  • Send private message

22

Tuesday, January 30th 2018, 8:47pm

I use 74(+90). I will try to get my USA to match but I dont wanna do math >.<!

400DPI, 20%.



YT: http://bit.ly/1rHfjcB


Posts: 26

Date of registration
: May 24th 2012

Platform: 360

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

23

Wednesday, January 31st 2018, 4:59am

Wow such vocab for having such a hard time understanding the most basic concepts of how uniform aiming works: your 360 distance/time is NOT uniform. It attempts the equalize the number of pixels traveled on screen for X amount of control input at all zoom levels. Testing based on degrees traversed is a totally flawed method, end of story and if you can't understand that read through this till you have a grasp of what USA does: Important Guide to U - Forums - Battlelog
/ Battlefield 4


You're actually not really making a point here, just saying the same thing with more text. I chatted with Dark a lot back in BF4's CTE, before and after he developed UsA, so this stuff isn't unfamiliar to me.

What you haven't explained is why pixels travelled is supposedly more desirable than distance travelled. Linking me to a post which also doesn't explain this (because it's not the topic there) isn't adding anything useful. Also, I've read it before.

At present I have a functioning, logical model backed up with significant testing, and numerous other people who agree this method massively improves their aiming experience. Don't bother telling me I'm wrong if you're not going to explain and demonstrate why.

I'm not critcizing your testing, but rather the guy I was originally responding to. You did the math to convert degrees traversed relative to zoom level, which he did not from what I could tell. And since he didn't understand my criticism of it all...

Posts: 26

Date of registration
: May 24th 2012

Platform: 360

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

24

Wednesday, January 31st 2018, 5:01am

I use 74(+90). I will try to get my USA to match but I dont wanna do math >.<!

The FOV you use has no bearing on USA unless the findings here are proven correct. That would mean that DICE has some super funky business going on with aim mechanics in ONLY the console versions even though they have taken the time and effort to add numerous options in for controller users.

Posts: 24

Date of registration
: Sep 7th 2017

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 1

  • Send private message

25

Wednesday, January 31st 2018, 2:15pm

I'll try again; Are the findings independent of if you have FoV dependent zoom on or not?

As a side note, my aim drastically improved when I went from 12x% (tried to customize it) to 100%, with the same hipfire sens I use in CS and every other game (~9% at 800DPI, one 180 deg turn when using half of my mouse pad). Universial soldier aiming on. Maybe I've just gotten used to it, but with everything set at 100% it doesn't really feel weird when going back to other games, and then later on back on BF1.

Posts: 64

Date of registration
: Mar 27th 2012

Platform: Xbox One

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 7

  • Send private message

26

Wednesday, January 31st 2018, 5:11pm

Thanks Mr. Uranium. I used your settings last night on xbox and thoroughly enjoyed the way the game felt.

Thanks for doing all that work.

Posts: 8

Date of registration
: Nov 11th 2016

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 1

  • Send private message

27

Thursday, February 1st 2018, 12:04am

You should probably clarify your post that this is only for Console, so as to prevent PC players perhaps getting misinformation.

PC works fine as intended with the settings doing what they should.

As far as I would expect on Console, the screen space distance modifier (UsA coefficient) should synchronise turn-rate velocity at full pitch on the stick for any given base sensitivity to screen space across different FOVs. Since max pitch (since BF1 calculates everything from Vertcial, not horizontal FOV) is the only absolute. Gamepad input always features some element of acceleration in how they work at any other position apart from max, making synchronisation impossible when the stick is some point at halfway.

If Julian Manolov has decided to do use a different method for BF1 on Console for UsA than BF4, then I'm not sure what would make more sense, but maybe there is a reason. Have you asked him?

On PC in BF1, even UsA off uses base FOV for ADS turn-rate calculations (just with a 100% fixed coefficient, rather than 133) so UsA is not as necessary as it was in BF4, although it does still help with calculating ADS sens transitions which is still essential in my opinion, although people have different ideas.

Posts: 24

Date of registration
: Sep 7th 2017

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 1

  • Send private message

28

Thursday, February 1st 2018, 5:33am

You should probably clarify your post that this is only for Console, so as to prevent PC players perhaps getting misinformation.

PC works fine as intended with the settings doing what they should.

As far as I would expect on Console, the screen space distance modifier (UsA coefficient) should synchronise turn-rate velocity at full pitch on the stick for any given base sensitivity to screen space across different FOVs. Since max pitch (since BF1 calculates everything from Vertcial, not horizontal FOV) is the only absolute. Gamepad input always features some element of acceleration in how they work at any other position apart from max, making synchronisation impossible when the stick is some point at halfway.

If Julian Manolov has decided to do use a different method for BF1 on Console for UsA than BF4, then I'm not sure what would make more sense, but maybe there is a reason. Have you asked him?

On PC in BF1, even UsA off uses base FOV for ADS turn-rate calculations (just with a 100% fixed coefficient, rather than 133) so UsA is not as necessary as it was in BF4, although it does still help with calculating ADS sens transitions which is still essential in my opinion, although people have different ideas.
sometimes it's easy to forget that there exists people that play first person shooter games on consoles with a controller

Posts: 2

Date of registration
: Dec 23rd 2017

Platform: Xbox One

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 1

  • Send private message

29

Thursday, February 1st 2018, 6:26am

Ok, I'm confused by the 167% part of this. So, using your example, 25% Soilder Stick Sensitivity sould be mated wit a 83% Zoom sensitivity. What if I ran with a 35% Stick sensitivity?

Or perhaps a better question, is there some kind of formula to determine an ideal Zoom sensitivity using the 167% rule?

  • "BleedingUranium" started this thread

Posts: 3,674

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

  • Send private message

30

Thursday, February 1st 2018, 7:38am

Ok, I'm confused by the 167% part of this. So, using your example, 25% Soilder Stick Sensitivity sould be mated wit a 83% Zoom sensitivity. What if I ran with a 35% Stick sensitivity?

Or perhaps a better question, is there some kind of formula to determine an ideal Zoom sensitivity using the 167% rule?


As far as I can tell, Soldier/Vehicle Stick Sensitivity doesn't matter at all (use whatever you like), it's just Soldier Zoom Sensitivity that's weird on console with 166.6666% being a true 1:1 match. Having it set to 167% is 100%, and 0% is still 0%, so it just scales normally between them.

If you want 1.0x ADS to move at the same speed as hipfire, use 167%. If you want 1.0x ADS to move at half the speed of hipfire (as I have it), use 83% (half of 166.6666). Just do 166.6666 times how much slower you want it. 166.6666 x 0.5 for 50%, or x 0.75 for 75%, etc.


This part is entirely independent of UsA and the whole coefficient thing.
Who Enjoys, Wins