XIM Community

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - EvilSparx

Pages: [1] 2
On PS4, this happens to me if the PS4 controller is lit up. After restarting the PS4, the light turns off and it stops happening

Game Support / Re: Best ST for Star Wars Battlefront 2?
« on: 05:51 PM - 11/13/17 »
I found them to be very similar, the SWBF1 ST worked really well, the only issue was the vehicles

Game Support / Re: Star Wars Battlefront 2 (Beta)
« on: 07:36 PM - 10/05/17 »
I've found that the battlefront 1 ST works a lot better than the battlefield ST, especially with ADS.

Now that the diagonals being broken with aim ease are going to be fixed, would it be possible for a new ST? I feel like training the ST to something closer to linear with a more predicatable exponential curve (unlike the hand drawn exponential ramp) would feel better.

Exponential ramp ST may have a lot to work with when it comes to slow aim movements, but when it comes to sharp and snappy movements the ST has less speeds to work with and so it feels a bit sloppy.

Using linear ramp with the smallest amount of aim ease required to make micro movements feels good would leave more higher speeds available to the ST due a ramp which curves less near the higher end.


Normally yes, the settings should stay the same with aim ease at 0.

There might be some improvement in the new ST, we'll have to wait.


They've fixed it, now aim ease at 0 should be the same as your old settings.

I'm hoping linear ramp with a touch of aim ease will help the ST feel a lot tighter

Would a smart translator be needed if you knew the exact equation of the aim curve and XY ratios provided there was 0 aim acceleration?

I would like a feature in the XIM manager that allows us to create custom curves using functions, maybe consider it in beta firmwares.

This would take ballistics curve to a whole new level.

Blizzard messed up, they just posted again saying they would release a hot fix to change the aim again very soon so I would wait a bit before retraining the ST.

Here's where I think they went wrong.

They said exponential ramp was a hand drawn curve, call it f(x).

Linear ramp is just the line x which is the same as x^1

They thought it would be a good idea to be able to customise the exponent on linear ramp, so they let it be x^c where c is a value from 1 - 5.

This makes sense since setting c = 0 would mean x^0 = 1 and so you would not be able to control your turn speed at all, hence why c starts at 1.

Now some genius at blizzard probably had the idea that they could also add this setting to exponential ramp, so they though why not just multiply x^c by f(x), forgetting that c only starts at 1.

If c started at 0, this would make sense since having 0 aim ease with exponential ramp would be (x^0)f(x) which is equal to 1f(x) which is the same as f(x). (The original hand drawn exponential ramp)

However they forgot that c only starts at 1, and so using exponential ramp with 0 aim ease is actually (x^1)f(x) which is xf(x) which is not the same as the original exponential ramp.

The same applies to dual zone. This could explain why it feels different, although it may not be exactly what they have done but nevertheless I feel like it is something along these lines.


I feel like an exponent of 1.5 such that the aim looks like x^1.5 would allow enough micromovements while also remaining fairly linear giving the smart translator an easier time.

Edit: try using linear ramp at 56 - 62 aim ease with the official overwatch ST, that should be the same as the old exponential ramp.

Just a thought, but he said the default for exponential ramp was about 2.5 (From the graph the dev posted, there's a 2.25 factor curve which I have a hunch is the real default)

Since the exponent goes from 1 - 5 (can shift this from 0 - 4)

Multiplying by 25 makes 0 - 4 go to 0 - 100

Since these are the values of the aim ease slider, that would mean that in order to get the default exponential ramp you would need aim ease to be at:

 2.5x25 = 62.5

If the default was an exponent of 2.25 then you'd need:

2.25x25 = 56.25

Of course this is assuming the aim ease slider changes the exponent linearly

Game Support / Re: OVERWATCH Linear Fix
« on: 04:01 AM - 08/16/17 »
From the overwatch official forum:

Linear Ramp and Aim Curves
 Tim Ford Lead Engineer
I’d like to clear up some confusion about the difference between Linear and Exponential Ramp as well as announce some new options you can leverage to fine tune your aim. I’ve read a few posts that assume Exponential Ramp yields a exponentially higher turn rate than Linear when the aim stick is fully deflected. This is a reasonable assumption, since an exponential curve will yield a higher result than a linear curve for values greater than 1. However, the goal of Exponential Ramp is to map a sensitive aim stick to a restrained aim value. We achieve this goal by mapping linear input to exponential values over the range from 0 to 1. The exponential ramp values we are concerned with fall into the region of the curve boxed in the following image:
Your input is constrained from 0 to 1 where 0 is the value at the tip of the dead zone (usually about 20-25% stick deflection) and 1 is fully deflected. The dead zone is computed with the scaled radial technique explained here (http://www.third-helix.com/2013/04/12/doing-thumbstick-dead-zones-right.html). Linear Ramp uses this value to compute your aim turn rate. Exponential Ramp scales this value (roughly) by a power of 2.5. So, a Linear Ramp input of 0.25 will map to an Exponential Ramp input of 0.03125. A Linear Ramp input of 0.75 will map to an Exponential Ramp input of 0.4871. Naturally, a Linear Ramp input of 1.0 will map to an Exponential Ramp input of 1.0. Incidentally, Exponential Ramp is “roughly” a power of 2.5 because it’s actually a hand drawn curve we borrowed from our generous friends on the Call of Duty team.
Today, we give you two choices for input curve mapping, Linear and Exponential Ramp (Dual-Zone is technically linear as well). Of course, there are a whole family of possible curves between linear and our current exponential (and beyond). In an upcoming patch, we will add an option called Aim Ease In. This is a slider option from 0 to 100 that corresponds to an exponent from 1 to 5 respectively. Combined with Linear Ramp, this option will allow you to select a wide range of curves to map your aim input to your taste.
Aim Ease In is compatible with Exponential Ramp and Dual Zone, although you should expect a fairly compressed aim curve if you crank this option with Exponential Ramp.

Link: https://us.battle.net/forums/en/overwatch/topic/20758657839?page=1

This is all very strange to me. It's clear that Blizzard doesn't really have a grasp about what makes a good aiming system on consoles. They do know something is wrong -- they are researching it and getting advice, but, they still don't have a good solution. So, as developers, it's an easy trap to fall in to when you don't know how to solve something you expose more settings and push the problem down to the user. It's up to them to figure out what feels "right". Another example of this (to an extreme) is Valve and the Steam controller.

They've concentrated specifically on the exponent of the curve and got feedback from COD developers. This is all very basic -- circular deadzones, stick deflection-based acceleration. That's all fine, but, notice they haven't talked about the most important thing they haven't yet addressed -- that is what "1" means on all their charts they shared.

They want gamers to be able to change the way the game aims by adding another setting their customer-base won't understand. But, why is it that COD and BF feel so good without these confusing settings? That's because they don't ignore turn speed.

This is what I don't understand. There is nothing good about adding another setting (increasing parameterization) to change the exponent on their curve. What they should have done for OW -- which COD and BF already do -- is allow the gamer to choose which *part* of the curve they operate in with a significantly higher turn speed limit. This way, with the same curve, fine aim response can be adjusted just by modifying turn speed (which people do understand).

But, COD wasn't completely forthcoming with Blizzard. There is quite a bit more going on with CODs aiming system than just the "2.5" factor they shared which makes it feel great. XIM's smart translator trainer sees it and shows us. But, just increasing maximum turn speed and removing all time-based acceleration will result in an aiming system that is at least closer to COD.

What does the cod aim ramp look like in your smart translator?

Theres currently a massive thread on this that might help you


The last 10 pages would be the most relevant I think

I think they might have changed the deadzone to circular, or square if it was already circular. That would explain why I only notice the inaccuracy when performing micro adjustments, but seems fine with faster tracking.

Edit: I'm using exponential ramp, before you ask.

I can describe it in more detail, it feels as though for small adjustments some movement gets ignored while sometimes it gets sped up, especially when try to draw tiny shapes with the cross hair. When I used to warm up as widow, I'd trace the shapes of buildings with my cross hair in training mode. Now when I try it, it feels incredibly clunky.
Before you ask, yes, everything else such as settings and mouse remained the same. I was playing overwatch when the patch came out, downloaded it and was playing again within an hour. I noticed something was wrong so I double checked the overwatch settings first, then the XIM settings.

Pages: [1] 2