True Aim Using Golden Ratio

Kerr Cameron

New member
Apr 7, 2010
66
0
0
Hello, stop here. Yes this all probably doesn't work.

Please don't waste your time trying. But if you want to get a laugh, read on and see the craziness. I was TOTALLY convinced it worked and I just lost my mind. There is more to it but lets just leave it as I am hopelessly crazy for now.

Everything below here is what I wrote before I knew I must be a bit nuts. Read on but it's pitiful. The joke is more on me than ever!

So if you don't want to learn how to aim but just want to watch a crazy person ranting in the street, here I am:


(Edit: I've made a large edit which deleted a lot of what I had posted in an effort to condense things. Some of the responses are to these things I wrote so some of them will make less sense now. But my post will be now shorter and easier to read for those who would like a very quick and easy way to aim incredibly easily and comfortably.)

(Edit: Right now I am currently corresponding with an individual who may be able to better explain why these digits work. I will say that it has something to do with the binary expansion of phi, which goes on endlessly as well like in the decimal system. Binary is how computers count, and they only use ones and zeros: 111001001110100100010111010010 a number in binary.)

Here's how to get True Aim using the Golden Ratio:

Two lengths are said to be in Golden Ratio when the larger length and smaller length together is the same ratio to the larger length as the larger length is to the smaller length. The formula is this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

That's just the formula for the Golden Ratio. I don't offer a formula really but a method for exploiting this to achieve excellent aim.

Here is the actual positive value of the Golden Ratio, called Phi, to many digits:

1.61803398874989484820458683436563811772030917980576

Phi has an unlimited number of digits when expressed as a number. You can find Phi to over a thousand digits on the Internet.

This sequence of digits makes your mouse move perfectly and remain stable. Any sequence of numbers that appears in Phi will have this effect.

Here is how to get what can only be called true aim:

1. Measure the width of your screen. For example, let us use 14 inches.

2. Calculate using Phi what lengths two pieces would have to be to add to give 14 inches and also be in perfect Golden Ratio. For example: 14 multiplied by the reciprocal of Phi is 8.652 inches. Subtract that from 14, so the other piece is 5.348 inches. These are your two ideal 360-degree-turn mouse lengths which we will set to work using Phi as your mouse sensitivity. If you like you can work out a smaller or larger length that is also in Golden Ratio to the screen, but we will use just either of these two.

3. Determine how fast you want to turn verses how accurate you want to be. The larger of the lengths used to make a 360-degree-turn (that is, dragging the crosshair over 100% of the gaming environment on the X-axis) will require a lower sensitivity than the other, but gives a steadier crosshair than the other, yet both will work effectively.

4. Select a sequence of numbers in Phi that begins with a number that, if your mouse sensitivity were set to it exactly, would let you do a perfect 360 on dragging the mouse the length you have selected, either of the two.

Let's say that this works out to be a 5 for you. You can then use the sequence beginning here: 58683436563, and then put the decimal point after the first five and then keep many digits after, as many as you like and the more the better. . . but we must be sure to round off properly, and this sequence will round to 6. So let us instead use the sequence beginning here: 4989484820. You will need to go back and select different sets of digits to be sure to make the turn be as close to a perfect 360 as possible. Try to get it on the pixel. The trick is to use a large segment from the Golden Ratio whose initial speed will work out to make the proper 360 in the length that is also in Golden Ratio with the size of your view.

5. Now your mouse sensitivity would look like this with many digits of Phi in it:

4.989484820458683436563811772030917980576286213544862270526046281890244970720720418939113748475408807538689175212663

Be sure to round the last digit in the right direction.

If you use too many digits, it seems to make the crosshair wavey and like liquid. I do not know the cutoff point at which the maximum can be reached, but filling the line in the console isn't necessary. If you put not enough, the crosshair behaves too solid. Experiment with different amounts, but for me I felt that about 50 digits of Phi were required. Round the last digit properly.

Now simply change your cvars m_pitch and m_yaw to resemble Phi in the same way, pasting in your digits and finding 22#### somewhere, then replace the default 0.022 with 0.022Phi. If you like a lower m_pitch, just pick different numbers.

If do everything right you will have the most comfortable aim you ever could have. It's very easy.
 

Squilookle

New member
Nov 6, 2008
3,584
0
0
Previously, on 'True Aim Using Golden Ratio'

"3. Determine how fast you want to turn verses how accurate you want to be."

This concludes the recap.
 

Drenaje1

New member
Aug 6, 2011
171
0
0
MATH?! What is this nonsense?

Well, actually, once I get done with this schoolwork, I think I'll be coming back here to test this theory of yours.
 

The Funslinger

Corporate Splooge
Sep 12, 2010
6,150
0
0
Drenaje1 said:
MATH?! What is this nonsense?

Well, actually, once I get done with this schoolwork, I think I'll be coming back here to test this theory of yours.
Your avatar framed your response perfectly.

OT: This is all very interesting. Unfortunately, when it comes to mathematics, I have the attention span of a rat with ADD.
 

ElPatron

New member
Jul 18, 2011
2,130
0
0
Firing on the space bar?

One does not simply use WASD and Spacebar at the same time.

EDIT: Obviously this relates to firing, not jumping, duh
 

isometry

New member
Mar 17, 2010
708
0
0
He's saying that setting the ratio of your horizontal and vertical mouse sensitivity equal to the golden ratio gives you "true" "perfect" aim.

The goal is to map a golden ratio rectangle in mouse-space (the real space where you mouse moves) to the ratio of your computer monitor. The aspect ratio of your monitor is either 16:10 = 1.6, 16:9 = 1.78 , or 4:3 = 1.33. The golden ratio is 1.618. All you do is set your horizontal sensitivity to 1, and your vertical sensitivity aspect ratio / golden ratio.

The difference would be most noticeable on a non-widescreen monitor, since 16:10 and 16:9 are already close to the golden ratio 1.618.
 

isometry

New member
Mar 17, 2010
708
0
0
Kerr Cameron said:
The most essential thing to do firstly if you just want to see something amazing is slap on Phi's digits onto your mouse sensitivity that you already use. You needn't worry initially if the first digit isn't really the digit before the next in the Phi Sequence, just erase any other decimal values you hand, your tenths and you hundredths or whatnot, and put Phi. So if your sensitivity is usually 7.272, just use 7.A-big-chunk-of-Phi. That will make the screen accelerate and decelerate perfectly. I have found that you need about 30 to 50 digits for the effect to have a maximum impact. Steadying the crosshair will be much easier than ever before.
I'm trying to understand the idea, so don't take this as criticism, but me just trying to make sense of it.

First, I don't understand the use of "7.A-big-chunk-of-Phi". That number isn't close to the golden ratio at all, it shares some of the same digits but "2" is closer to the golden ratio than "7.618...". How can we justify turning the most significant digit, the "1" before the decimal point, into a 7 ?

The other thing I don't understand is the purpose of using "30 to 50 digits." Even the most precise mouses have less than 100,000 dots per inch, and that's only 6 digits of precision. On the hardware level, 64-bit processors have 16 or so decimal digits of precision. With 20 digits of precision you could specify the distance an atom in New York and an atom in L.A. So I don't understand how 30 to 50 digits of precision can effect anything noticeable.
 

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Apr 18, 2020
7,120
1,356
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
What is this...I don't even...none of this math makes any logical sense.
 

Kerr Cameron

New member
Apr 7, 2010
66
0
0
(Edit: Some of this deleted)

Don't anyone be discouraged. It's only a matter of time before someone tries this and verifies that it works. Figuring out why it works is beyond me.

I was only trying to see why it made sense desperately, but I bad the mistake of posting my speculation. No no I don't know why this works . . . I know that it does work.

If I take for example the value of Pi, just to be different, to a handful of digits: 3.14159, multiply it by a power of 10 such as 1000, giving me 3141.59, but then subtract 3.14 (for some reason) times 10 to the power of 2 give me 1.59. And this 1.59 will make the crosshair accelerate and decelerate in a same curve but just be initially slower . . . this 1.59 now has nothing to do with circles or anything. It's a totally different number. I agree it makes no sense . . . I'm totally perplexed as to how to explain this.

I will have to find out some day why it works, or why it shouldn't work . . . so far I'm quite unclear.

Just for those who don't know, an irrational number is a number that cannot be expressed properly as a fraction.
 

Wolfram23

New member
Mar 23, 2004
4,095
0
0
Or you could just adjust sensitivity to what feels best in about 5 seconds.

The golden ratio is cool and all, and maybe there is some truth that the golden ratio makes a mouse feel better. However, your math is nonsense. And frankly, thanks to various things like hardware acceleration and adjustable DPI, the true value to get that golden ratio is nearly impossible to calculate.
 

Asehujiko

New member
Feb 25, 2008
2,119
0
0
Kerr Cameron said:
Have you ever considered the possibility of something called the "placebo effect" and that setting your mouse sensitivity to an arbitrary string of numbers far beyond the rounding cutoff rate doesn't do anything to your accuracy because it is physically impossible?
 

GrandmaFunk

New member
Oct 19, 2009
729
0
0
seeing as mouse sensitivity settings vary greatly between mice, games and OSes...I doubt that there's one ratio that gives near-perfect result for all of them.

also, most games only let you alter this through use of a slider....making any numerical value pretty useless or a very gross approximation at best.
 

Kerr Cameron

New member
Apr 7, 2010
66
0
0
To the responses that emphasize that I don't know what I'm talking about, I will reply in bulk.

Try it. It works.

As for my math being nonsense, that's nonsense. It's all quite clear. . . .

Again: Try it. It works.
 

GrandmaFunk

New member
Oct 19, 2009
729
0
0
Kerr Cameron said:
To the responses that emphasize that I don't know what I'm talking about, I will reply in bulk.

Try it. It works.
no offense, but that's a boiler plate response used in every hoax thread.
 

Naturality

New member
Feb 23, 2010
130
0
0
I'm gonna join in here and say that there is no mathematical/physiological basis for this. Using a set of digits that happen to be within the golden ratio is meaningless. You could easily do the same with any random string of digits. Not to mention the fact that mouse sensitivity is often down to personal preference, arm strength, etc. I have a slight tremor, so I tend to keep my mouse quite slow so as to reduce this effect, for example.



"When you get used to it the aim will be as quick as your eye." I'm pretty sure this is true for most mouse speeds, save for those at the far ends of the spectrum.
 

jesco

New member
Jan 19, 2012
14
0
0
I thought you were done "participating" in this nonsense? You realize you're only embarrassing yourself further by scrambling around deleting your posts and leaving the rest of the pseudo-scientific garbage intact? Your "large edit" consisted of nothing more than deleting some pseudo-scientific nonsense that you probably read on Wikipedia and then you left the zany, "slap some magic numbers from phi onto your mouse sensitivity" crap intact. "Try it, it works" isn't proof of ANYTHING. What you're essentially saying to people is "prove me wrong." Well guess what? Logically (and I know you obviously have a problem with logic, o try to follow along), we can't prove a negative. We can't prove that your nonsense _doesn't_ work, in the same way that we can't prove god _doesn't_ exist or that reindeer _don't_ fly around the world every Christmas eve helping Santa deliver gifts. However, most of us (you excluded) have something called "common sense," and common sense tells us that those things are unlikely to be true simply because there's no evidence of them. And common sense tells me that picking some decimal places and slapping them onto a mouse sensitivity that I've already determined works well for me isn't going to have an effect at all.
You haven't addressed any of the problems with this little theory of yours, and I suspect that you won't, because you've obviously become so deluded by your own BS that no one is going to be able to convince you otherwise. You'll just parrot out "try it, it works," and that'll be enough to prove that you're right and everyone _else_ is crazy.
You want to delete "anything unimportant?" Delete the whole thread and stop trying to force-feed your pseudo-scientific beliefs to people on the forums.