-DPI value is meaningless in any shape, way, or form when it comes to pixel accuracy. You have to remove this silly idea from your brain.
- Your pixel precision depends on angle degree value at any given hor res/fov combo. In game sensitivity is a multiplier of m_yaw and m_pitch which happens to be locked on 1 axis in valve games. Default value for both is 0.022.
0.022 x (1.8 sensitivity) = 0.0396 yaw/pitch= "smallest" pixel @ 1920 hor, 106.26 FOV. = 1440 hor 90 fov
0.022 x (3.6 sensitivity) = 0.0762 yaw/pitch= "largest" pixel @ 1920 hor, 106.26 FOV. = 1440 hor 90 fov.
@ a resolution half it's size.. lets say 960 x 540, 106.26 fov, (720, 90) you can basically double your yaw and pitch and essentially keep the same precision.
But in reality, it does not matter as much. You do not need to adjust your sensitivity like so. I think your current settings are beyond fine for the game and personally know invite players using very similar settings.
If by any chance you are uncomfortable with scoped weapons, you can mess with the zoom sensitivity ratio setting and increase precision by lowering the default value.
Originally Posted by jr92
You realise resolution in CSGO makes no difference whatsoever, head size stays the same. It isn't 1.6
Technically didn't even make a difference in 1.6... other than scaling models to a specific resolution size. The game just reads off whatever the graphic driver tells it. Same thing would happen in any alternative games provided similar models and what not.
It was silly to play on large resolution as limited crosshair size and locked 90 FOV without hor+ scaling kinda hindered the experience. I think CSP dev team is dumb for carrying this model over. Hell, they actually removed hor+ and cut off vertical resolution on anything over 4:3....
I just don't understand the point of porting 1.6 to source if theres really nothing to show for other than slightly better and now "dated" (dont bother me) graphics for spectator mode. Should have just retextured 1.6 and fixed bugs while improving little things mentioned above. But alas 5 years too late. /rant
Originally Posted by Rayleyne
A 120hz LCD still cannot even remotely compete with a high end CRT at 240hz or even 300, Not sure if they ever got to 300, But still, If you were aiming for true competitiveness you would have a CRT, it isn't like they are expensive just bulky,. And again as we've said, Either view the thread and do the math yourself, OR STOP WORRYING ITS NOT NEEDED, JUST PLAY AT THE DPI YOU FIND COMFORTABLE
Please tell me where I can find a 240hz CRT. All the high end models I'm aware of cap off in the 150-170hz area, with a few capable of reaching 200 or so.. And that's at 640x480 or 800x600.
I agree with your 2nd statement though.