True Aim Using Golden Ratio

Jowe

New member
May 26, 2010
86
0
0
isometry said:
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.
I was about to post this, so instead i'll second it. Theres no point in using more than 3-4 decimal points.
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
What the math fails to account for is play style, and user-reflex.
Every player has varying reactions/reflexes, and even different ways of approaching the game.

A Golden Ratio setting would make it generally more accessible for others, but it wouldn't be ideal to a specific user (if it were; I wouldn't have to change my settings back every time my sister played anything on my computer back in the day).

Especially if that user is already accustomed to using quicker settings, or better, MULTIPLE sensitivities for different situations. (I used different sensitivities for my railgun, shotguns, hyperblaster and rocket launcher in Quake 2. I had a macro for changing it in UT99 for each time I equipped the Shock Rifle from the menu, and another to return it to my default. Works much better than one-size-fits-all)
 

Kerr Cameron

New member
Apr 7, 2010
66
0
0
If you slap your hand on the keypad, and produce numbers..... those are not necessarily numbers from Pi, at least not numbers that are near the beginning, being the more accurate numbers.

I didn't feel it necessary to point this out but actually thank you for helping. Sometimes people help when they don't know it. It is likely quite important and I hadn't tested sequences of digits that appeared many millions of digits into irrational numbers! Try to choose digits that are closer to the decimal. If you take a bunch way down the line, they will be gradually less effective. I would imagine that they will still be effective for many hundreds and hundreds of digits though.

No, readers please come to terms with this fact: If you generate a long sequence of numbers, just because Phi and Pi are unlimited when expressed as a decimal doesn't mean that your digits you've randomly selected will appear in Pi, or Phi, or both, at least not for perhaps many outrageously numerous digits, at which point no one would use those numbers for anything because they are too arbitrary and inaccurate to the actual value of the number as a real number.

Bear in mind that you need a sequence from Phi that is quite long. If you set pitch, yaw, and then sensitivity all to digits of Phi as I describe, 50 digits for each seems enough. Too many create a consistency too smooth, too even somehow, and slippery.

I'm not bringing a new religion, or telling everyone to change their sensitivity right away. I'm showing people how I aim, and I aim more effective with this than any player I find. One with aim like me would surely want other people to be able to do this if they want.

It's very easy for you to set up, this takes about 20 minutes tops. I used a measuring tape, masking tape, a pen to draw on the tape to show which side I am measuring from, the Internet to get the digits of Phi, and that's it.
 
Dec 14, 2009
15,528
0
0
Kerr Cameron said:
Daystar, you are another person who has nothing to contribute. You must be far more bored than you realize, because your reply is only repeating what other thoughtless people have said, as if you just saw the flow of the thread and joined in on what you hoped was an attack, and you figured you'd be on the winning side.

But I offer no hostility to any of you, because I know (and I can't help but smile), that if you try it, especially using Wolf ET when using Phi's digits because I tested it on that specifically, it will not only work but you will enjoy it.

"How could I ever have played any other way?" You'll think.

This is why I am so persistent.

What I am proposing is that when people "feel" what sensitivity is best they are really just drawing closer to the measurements I describe. This method lets you do that swiftly and you will be perfectly calibrated. Then to use Phi's digits in the way I've described makes it absolutely comfortable and easy.

It's unfortunate that I cannot describe in terms of adequacy how this works.
Don't flatter yourself. I didn't attempt to join some personal attack on you, I was merely pointing out that all the maths in the world isn't going to make somebody better at, what is essentially, a point and click excercise.

Sure, you can alter sensitivity to what you feel most comfortable with, but skill is going to far outweigh any benefit of stupidly specific mouse sensitivity.

This is the same thing theory fighters do.

'Oh X has so many frames of invincibility and Y has so many frames of recovery, while Z has an attack that hits for full screen for Q amount of hits.'

This kind of stuff can only get you so far, but do you know how you get better at something?

You do it.
 

Kerr Cameron

New member
Apr 7, 2010
66
0
0
Atom, I've already stated that your 360-degree-turn mouse length should be in Golden Ratio with your screen, so different sensitivities will work, only some will be comfortable, and there are many many that will not work.

I divided by tiny little monitor of 14-inch wide into two Golden Ratio segments, and used the smaller one. Generate a even smaller segment and it will work, but hard to turn. This will be hard to understand until it is tried by someone.

People choose mouse sensitivity the same way they tend to choose their posture, with the exception of people with spinal conditions. A person might say they are more comfortable slouching, but really it is an improper alignment of the ligaments and musculature.

So if someone finds a sensitivity that isn't close to one derived by my method and says that it is comfortable, you have to consider the level of care the person has put into it. Has the person just set it to be relatively fast? Has the person actually taken the time to see how the crosshair will actually move on reflex instead of on a forced jerk?

Using my method it will make your movements in the game essentially perfect ergonomically, because you need not ever try very hard. It is very relaxing, and enjoyable, every time you use this method to measure and set the sensitivity.
 

Kerr Cameron

New member
Apr 7, 2010
66
0
0
Daystar your latest response is quite creatively expressed at best, and points out that it is the individual who must find the right sensitivity. That would be true . . . if the crosshair behaved correctly, and if your total turnaround with the mouse was already in Gold Ratio to your screen.

I did not figure this out until I investigated. So it is right that you must do something to experience it and learn it. I am a step ahead of you then. Not only did I do that, I have found this method that when applied you will then have the most comfortable aim.
 
Dec 14, 2009
15,528
0
0
Kerr Cameron said:
Daystar your latest response is quite creatively expressed at best, and points out that it is the individual who must find the right sensitivity. That would be true . . . if the crosshair behaved correctly, and if your total turnaround with the mouse was already in Gold Ratio to your screen.

I did not figure this out until I investigated. So it is right that you must do something to experience it and learn it. I am a step ahead of you then. Not only did I do that, I have found this method that when applied you will then have the most comfortable aim.
So really, this is the 'golden ratio' for you.

So what you've established is that you have found the best settings for yourself.

Congrats, I'm glad you could metagame the shit out of mouse sensitivity, but it ain't gonna work for everyone.
 

burningdragoon

Warrior without Weapons
Jul 27, 2009
1,935
0
0
*sigh* seems like I can't control myself.

<quote=OP>
I should repeat that I have only tried this using Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory.


Ok, so ignoring everything else said here, and whether or not this method for 'true aim' is bogus, the simple fact is, you cannot make sweeping claims that 'it just works' for every game, every person, every computer, and every mouse with an absolutely minuscule fraction of games you 'tested' it on.

Even if you were absolutely 100% perfectly correct (hyperbole intended) in what you are saying, your 'evidence' is equally absolute in how unreliable it is.

If you really want people to take you seriously and try it themselves, than you have to do a better job of convincing people other than saying 'it just works, I don't know why'.

If you aren't serious and just trying to get reactions out of people, then... well played.
 

Xpheyel

New member
Sep 10, 2007
134
0
0
You guys are forgetting to apply Fourier transforms to eliminate the resonant harmonics.
 

Lucas Auraelius

WARNING: Cartoon Violence
Feb 25, 2009
70
0
0
Xpheyel said:
You guys are forgetting to apply Fourier transforms to eliminate the resonant harmonics.
Okay, that made me giggle.

Until I realized that doing such a thing would then require one to find the partial-partial differential of the Bernoulli sequence created by dividing the length of the monitor by Phi. Afterwards, to balance the equation, you would have to differentiate again by the constant of the permittivity of free space, to account for the free radicals of mouse acceleration.
 

Xpheyel

New member
Sep 10, 2007
134
0
0
Logic said:
Xpheyel said:
You guys are forgetting to apply Fourier transforms to eliminate the resonant harmonics.
Okay, that made me giggle.

Until I realized that doing such a thing would then require one to find the partial-partial differential of the Bernoulli sequence created by dividing the length of the monitor by Phi. Afterwards, to balance the equation, you would have to differentiate again by the constant of the permittivity of free space, to account for the free radicals of mouse acceleration.
I didn't say it would be easy.
 

XMark

New member
Jan 25, 2010
1,408
0
0
Okay, I'm going to promise myself to avoid posting any more in this thread but there's just one more thing I have to get out of my system.

Just about all of the numbers in this theory are either completely random or completely arbitrary

Width of the monitor:
The formula is based on one number (the width) and not based on the ratio of the monitor's width and height. Since it's based on one flat number, that number is entirely arbitrary. Let's say you have a 14 inch monitor. Using your theory, you apply the golden ratio to the number 14 but HOLD ON A SECOND! 14 is the number of inches. If you were to measure the monitor in centimetres you would be working from the number 35.56 which would result in an entirely different string of digits. In fact, if you measured your monitor size to be 14.01 inches that would also result in a wildly different string of digits in your answer despite the original number being nearly the same. All things considered, the first calculation in the formula amounts to "pick a completely random number".

Besides, even if the visual size of the monitor had any effect (even a purely mental effect), you would also have to figure your distance from the monitor into the calculation for that number to have any meaning.

The digits:
The very arbitrary thing about the digits themselves is the usage of base 10. The golden ratio is expressed in base 10 because that's what people have learned to use. And the only real reason we use base 10 is because cavemen in the distant past had to figure out a way to count more than 10 things after they ran out of fingers. Yet, this formula is relying on there being some special magical property to the placement of digits calculated in base 10.

And as many people have said already, a mouse just isn't accurate enough for any precision in the sensitivity settings past the second or third decimal place to make any difference. Hell, probably even the first decimal doesn't matter, if you don't have a $100 pro-gaming laser mouse or something like that.

And... oh god, I'm really spending too much time on this. If you're really trolling, my hat's off to you on a job well done. If trolling is an art form this is a Picasso.

If you really do believe this... then, well, I'm worried about whatever other bogus things you're going to fall for in your life. Hope you don't end up in some kind of kooky cult or scam. If a prince from Nigeria emails you promising millions of dollars to move money out of the country DON'T FALL FOR IT!
 

Lucas Auraelius

WARNING: Cartoon Violence
Feb 25, 2009
70
0
0
Definitely don't fall for it, because it's nearly impossible to calculate true flight to Nigeria without using special addition.
 

Kerr Cameron

New member
Apr 7, 2010
66
0
0
I have to reply to this one because it will help others to understand. Thank you XMark:

Just about all of the numbers in this theory are either completely random or completely arbitrary
I became very interested here because this statement is quite clear. Usually there is a good point after such a clear statement.

Width of the monitor:
The formula is based on one number (the width) and not based on the ratio of the monitor's width and height. Since it's based on one flat number, that number is entirely arbitrary. Let's say you have a 14 inch monitor. Using your theory, you apply the golden ratio to the number 14 but HOLD ON A SECOND! 14 is the number of inches. If you were to measure the monitor in centimetres you would be working from the number 35.56 which would result in an entirely different string of digits. In fact, if you measured your monitor size to be 14.01 inches that would also result in a wildly different string of digits in your answer despite the original number being nearly the same. All things considered, the first calculation in the formula amounts to "pick a completely random number".
This may or may not be the same misunderstanding others are making, but if it is I will clear it.

You only need to measure the width because it is on the X-Axis that you require to be most accurate. Pitch, controlled by the m_pitch cvar, can be adjusted to comfort, and then inserting the digits out of the Phi sequence.

You also don't use many digits of the decimal representation of Phi when measuring the monitor. All you are doing is finding a segment that is in Golden Ratio with the monitor as a 360 turnaround mouse length. Recommended larger than the width of your hand but short as possible, so for me it was the smaller of the segments.

Besides, even if the visual size of the monitor had any effect (even a purely mental effect), you would also have to figure your distance from the monitor into the calculation for that number to have any meaning.
You do not have to determine the distance it seems. Your eye does that for you by judging the distance by using the periphery area outside the screen. If the monitor were very very large, you would still have to measure the distance and then find a segment of space in ratio to use as a 360 turnaround space for the mouse. If the monitor were somehow the size of the sky, the distance you would determine as some maximum, and measurement would be impossible, so you would then just go by feel due to the lack of data.
 

Hobonicus

New member
Feb 12, 2010
212
0
0
So I tried it, wasn't that difficult to follow (though your instructions are a little obtuse at times), and it doesn't feel too different. If anything, it feels too sensitive now. But the values changed were hardly any different than their default values, so I don't see how fifty digits after the decimal point can make any noticeable difference at all.

Honestly, I'm pretty sure you're just making this all up. You said yourself you don't understand why it works, so where did you get it from?
 

Kerr Cameron

New member
Apr 7, 2010
66
0
0
Hobonicus, I'm glad you tried it. Once you get used to it, and that takes only a couple of hours or less, you will find it better. If it feels too slippery, reduce the digits slighty for all three of the cvars that control the movement of the mouse: pitch, yaw, and sensitivity.

Here is what I found helped: Be sure to use the energy of your fingertips, all the way to your elbow or higher to aim, as if you are reaching out your whole arm and trying to point at something. The crosshair will be nearly as quick as if you were to reach and point. As far as my eye is concerned at this point, it is exactly that quick.
 

Kerr Cameron

New member
Apr 7, 2010
66
0
0
Someone wrote me a very nasty email. Please no one send me any more nasty emails.

Seems to me I didn't just find a cool way to make the mouse better. I've maybe inadvertently released a prize strategy that was a secret or something. As if though someone is going to kill me if I am one day able to explain how it's done! How exciting! Consider I'm getting nasty email now: Someone has threatened me! And here I am sitting safely in my chair.

If I ever find out how to explain how this method works to improve aim, I will post it here, or in a new thread, but don't hold your breathe because it might be a long time. It isn't so easy for me to learn this stuff.
 

Kerr Cameron

New member
Apr 7, 2010
66
0
0
I believe the answer is within grasp!

I'm currently on another forum, and a few people seem to understand. Someone showed me a binary expansion of pi. And of could there would be a binary expansion of phi as well.

I'll gather more info and post it shortly, but on waiting for the person to respond I was just too excited.

Any more interested in trying this method now?

Edit:

I'm laughing hard yet I can still aim!

Ha ha HA! You guys, all of you who play ET especially, put Gold in your Mouse, use this method, hunt me down in ET, and shoot the crap out of me. Robin will be Bravely waiting.

It's true, I could not explain the digits before. What a shame. I excited so much fuss. In the meantime I should collect more info I suppose, and form a more ordered and detailed Method.

Or someone give me a link, because I'd say I can't be the first person to do this! BINARY! The answer was BINARY! *faint*
 

Kerr Cameron

New member
Apr 7, 2010
66
0
0
There might not be a better explanation for the digits. I was hoping for more details but I think the guys felt saying "binary" was enough. So that's it I guess.

I won't bother posting a link to the thread, it's very short. Here is a bit of the thread:

Me: For example, say I found in the string, near the beginning, a sequence like this: 49675783. I then set my sensitivity exactly to 4.9675783.

Anonymous: Good idea. This works wonders with pi in particular. Say you start at the 98,096,445th decimal place of pi and take an 8-digit sequence (the same length as your example sequence above). This would result in setting your mouse sensitivity to exactly 5.0000000.

A Different Anonymous: You could look at binary expansion of pi, and phi. Since everything in the computer is binary at the root. The truth is not base-10 here.
 

Kerr Cameron

New member
Apr 7, 2010
66
0
0
Now it's just me here for the most part.

Kerr, where did everyone go? You thought you were going to make friends. Where did you go wrong?

I always talk like I'm talking to myself. It must be a sad and contemptible reason why I talk this way, and I see more clearly it can be detected easily. Even if I hope that it won't be detected while I try to pass on what I think is interesting, I still am unable to consider the position of the listener who sees no value in the words nor any reason to try.

How arrogant I am. Very pitiful, much like some have described. I see much truth in it now.

Don't you, Kerr Cameron?

I can see that no one has given any indication to me that the method has worked for them. After days, after posting it elsewhere. No one I spoke to in real life gave any indication that they thought it really worked to me.

All the while I seem to have been talking only to myself, and did not consider the audience. Someone already told you, Kerr, that you had just found the answer for yourself, and in bold type like this is here, very clear for you to see.

Sad. Maybe before I thought so much about the Golden Ratio, I should have first thought about the Golden Rule, which is different but also can be called beautiful. Both Golden things have scope, simplicity, and consistency as a basis.

Kerr, you probably wouldn't have posted anything. Let me tell you why, Kerr Cameron: Consider, If I give nothing, I will get nothing. If I had spoke as if someone was listening, I would see that I didn't have to tell them. Instead I spoke in a way to enthuse myself, but not in a way that was suited to enthuse an objective listener. If I had spoke while considering the listener I would have included everything that was required to be clear, but I see that I only included what made it clear to me. Only for myself, which makes no sense because it was already clear to me, or I was somehow fooling myself into thinking so.

My whole thread here is a huge heap of nothing. :|

It has the quality of attracting more of nothing. It is dense in its nothingness. Look at all of the nothing that is in it, Kerr, and tell me then that they are wrong when they say: You're insane.

We can't get any more insane than this. Look how much we have typed all ready, you and I, me and myself, Kerr and also Kerr.

I can aim easier, but who cares. My hand . . . is just too shaky.