Thanks for the information. I also like to tinker with all my sensitivity settings and this is the one setting I have yet to touch as I was absolutely clueless on what coefficient even did. I play on console without aim assist so finding that perfect sensitivity is extremely important. Looks like I have my mission for the day haha. Once again, thanks for the details.
Most players have it on but you can try sth different
It’s “off” by default so I’d say that is the way most people have it.
On the Uniform soldier slider i cant get it to 178% its either 177% or 179% so i stuck it on 177% and cant say i really notice a difference between 133% and 177% il keep it on the new setting for abit see how things play out.
I play with USA on and kept the default value at 1.33.
Here is a thread explaining how USA works and why it’s not a bad idea to keep it at 1.33, even if you obviously play on a different ratio.
Important Guide to Uniform Soldier Aiming.
Anyway, seems like an never ending debate from the research I did.
Although, I’m really comfortable with my current settings, I might give 1.78 a shot.
I referenced this thread in my longer post (see my replies above) and I want to note that that page actually indirectly tells you why you should not use 133%.
I quote:
So you must be wondering why the default coefficient is 1.33
First, because 1.33 seemed to work best, second, because that’s what CS:GO used and compatability is awesome, and third, because when you times your vertical screen height by 1.33, you would get your horizontal screen width if you were using a 4:3 screen, which is the smallest aspect ration screen people use for games.
‘Seemed to work best’ is dodgy logic at best, because if you know the guy who made the calculation, then thát guy should know. Perhaps the guy who wrote this write-up never bothered to ask.
Second; the definition of what 90 degrees FOV is, changes as your aspect ratio changes. 90 degrees on a 21:9 screen looks different than on a 16:9 screen. So the calculation needs your aspect ratio to actually work correctly. Seeing as this coefficient stands for your aspect ratio, it is only likely that you should change it according to your aspect ratio.
Third and last, the comparison with CS:GO is a very stale one because CS:GO only has a couple of different zoom levels available in certain weapons and it doesn’t even support ADS (thus having a low zoom level for ADS). So in CS:GO it’s a lot less important than in this game, where there’s literally like 20 different options between 1x and 10x. Using CS:GO to validate this setting, is therefore not a very good point.
To add some anecdotal evidence to the thread, I’ve been playing extensively with 233% (the ‘correct’ one for my aspect ratio) and it feels a lot better than the standard setting. But do with this information what you will 
Yeah in that case use 177. The difference between 177 and 178 should be minimal, if you can tell at all even.
you seem to firmly believe in what you say.
I trust your judgement, and will give it a shot.
So you said that you played with the default coefficient of 1.33 before switching to the correct one for your aspect ratio?
Did you notice that you had to change your sensitivity after that change?
That’s actually reassuring.
Yep, since launch of BF1 I was on 133%. I switched to 233% this weekend and yes, base sensitivity seems rose a little bit (hence I went from 11% to 9%). After getting my sensitivity back in the same ballpark, I was doing great with 2x ironsights even though before I was vastly inaccurate with it! Always overshot targets slightly when snapshooting.
Thanks for sharing your experience @Foodie88
I’ll be going with 177 and give it a shot for the week-end (4k monitor).
Cheers!
@Foodie88 Actually, that’s completely incorrect and you should probably edit your other thread / posts if you’re interested in accuracy / fact.
I helped test and develop the maths behind this when Dark Etheeral, DICE dev Julian Manolov and a few other contributers developed it during BF4 CTE.
The coefficient isn’t a setting of what aspect ratio you have, it’s a mathematical modifier for mouse velocity synchronisation to a specific distance of screen space as a percentage of the vertical FOV.
In order to understand this, you first need to realise that it is impossible to have equal sensitivities at different zoom levels due to the way 3D/2D conversion happens on screen. This is pure physics and can’t be worked around with existing technology.
At any given zoom level in a 3D game (i.e an FOV level, remember zoom and FOV are in-effect the same thing) the images in the pixels at the edge of the screen move faster as you turn than the images in the pixels in the centre of the screen. The higher the FOV (i.e lower zoom level) the more difference there is due to the fact that a 3D image has to be projected onto a 2D screen (i.e distorted) in order to for us to see it on our monitors.
This means, that at any senstivity, there are actually a whole curve of sensitiities going on in front of your eyes. Our brains compensate for this and give us an “average sensitivity” feeling. The problem occurs in that as FOV decreases (i.e zoom increases) the amount of variance across the screen also decreases. This is why low FOV’s look “flatter,” and high FOV’s look more “curved”. It’s also why it’s harder to get consistent zoom sensitivities across all scopes when you have a higher base FOV.
The first ADS formula we tried was this:
SensFactor = tan(ZoomFov/2)/tan(HipFov/2)
This is the same as now having the coefficient setting at 0%. What this does is match the velocity of the mouse movement to the speed of images moving that are right underneath your crosshair at any zoom level.
This looked fool-proof and simple on paper, but it became apparent as zoom increased with sniper scopes that they felt too slow. This was initially baffling, but we realised our brains don’t give us a sensitivity sensation based on one part of the screen, rather an average across the screen, and this might be different for different people.
So we then moved on to the idea of using a coefficient (i.e a mathamatical modifier) to change the approach. When the coefficient is set to anything great than 0%, the maths change to this:
SensFactor = atan(tan(ZoomFov/2)*C) / atan(tan(HipFov/2)*C)
where “C” is the coefficent value, of course.
What this does, instead of matching the velocity of mouse movement to the speed of images moving under the crosshair, it matches it to a point at a specific distance as a percentage of the vertical FOV distance.
If you set the coefficient at 178%, then the mouse movement distance will be synchonised to a screen space distance which is right at the horizontal edge of a 16:9 monitor at ANY zoom level BUTaiming at less than that distance (e.g aiming to 2/3rds width of your screen) will actually be less uniform as you change through different scopes.
Since you are very rarely snapping to target right at the edge of your monitor, a 178% coefficient will likely make high zoom scopes feel too fast during the *majority *of your aiming relative to hipfire on a 16:9 screen.
Since most “snapping to target” happens in the centre 2/3rds of the screen, this is why the default of 4/3 was used. In extensive testing with multiple players, it made all different zoom levels from hipfire right up to 10x zoom etc feel the most uniform. The bottom line though, is that different peoples brains create the “average sensitivity sensation” differently and this is impossible to measure.
TL:DR Some very smart people have created the USA formula, the default of 4/3 (133%) is there for a reason and we were all aware that most people are playing on 16:9 screen. The only argument for setting the coefficient distance higher would be if you’re playing on a 21:9 or wider screen setup.
No problem man. Just try to play through the first 30 minutes, you’ll need to get used to the changed settings a bit but as for me, it will probably feel natural quite fast! Good luck.
Holy moly dude. Thanks for this reply and this is exactly what I was looking for. I overlooked the effect of the stretching nature of the FOV on the ‘perceived sensitivity’ and that’s probably what makes it so finnicky too.
Let me first say (No, I don’t support Trump 
) is that this kind of information is almost imperative to have a good understanding of how this feature works. The inner workings are probably too complex for a lot of people to understand so I guess that’s why it is hidden in the advanced control menu.
The big question that remains is, if 133% is actually the ideal value for a 16:9 screen:
What are the ideal values for a 4:3 and for a 21:9 screen?
If a calculated aspect ratio of 1.78 has an ideal coefficient of 1.33, then in this case the calculated aspect ratio is multiplied by 0.75 to get 1.33. Could I apply that to my 2.33 (21:9) ratio too and get 1.75 as ‘correct’ coefficient? I understand it is still dependent on the specific user but a ‘ballpark’ value should help.
Once you answer I’ll edit my topic accordingly. Then it wouldn’t apply anymore for people using 16:9 but rather for people using a different aspect ratio like 4:3 or 21:9.
Woah, thanks for jumping on board of this conversation to clear some things up @TheNoobPolice !
@Foodie88, still much appreciate the help you have thrown in here. Although some of the info might of been wrong, it made a lot of sens. I also read the same thing elsewhere. Anyway, big Kudos for sharing your experience /knowledge and wanting to help!
You guys, both deserve a 
!
No no no, this was a terrible thread. It was both polite AND informative.
The first thing to realise is that USA is not perfect, but it’s a better solution than the previous one (i.e random DICE designed modifiers per zoom level, some of which were/ are all over the place) and it’s currently the best solution in ANY FPS game that uses different ADS levels. I truly believe that. Much credit needs to go to Dark Etheeral and Julian Manolov who did the majority of the work.
After finding that 133% felt the best for all of us when testing, I personaly didn’t even want the value included in the menus for the very reason of confusion. But since we can’t prove that other peoples brains don’t take the whole curve of sensitivities across the screen differently and create a different “average sensitivity feeling” , and that some people will be using 16:10, 21:9 and rarely 4:3 screens…it was decided to give people the option to change it.
The best way to think of the coefficient, is a “circle of uniformity” of Vertical FOV. 100% is easiest to visualize i.e the top of your screen. Any aiming to a point within the circle will be more and more sensitive as you go through higher zoom scopes, and any aiming to a point out of it (wider than it) will feel less and less sensitive as you go through higher zoom scopes, due to the aformentioned stretch nature of FOV / zoom changes. As you increase the coefficient past 100% , that “circle of uniformity” gets wider, (so in-effect higher than / outside the top of your screen) but the same thing applies, more sensitivity within the circle, less sensitivity outside the circle. Only at 0% does it change from a distance sync to mouse velocity sync as mentioned in my previous post.
What I’m trying to say, is that there is no perfect /correct modifier to use, since no one has any idea how your brain looks at the curve of sensitivities on the screen and creates your “sensitivity sensation”. We only know that 133% at 16:9 felt the best for all of us (about 10 players were actively testing) through all different scopes at 16:9, and would likely still feel the best at 4:3, since you are still probably “snapping to target” in the same areas of screen space. Maybe 100% feels the most even for you, or maybe 178% on a 21:9 screen etc where you are more likely to be aiming at wider distances perhaps etc. As far as I knew, no one was testing on a 21:9 screen.
So yes, we are indeed looking at “ballpark” numbers, but my advice still remains the following:
Set base mouse sensivitiy (hipfire) to preference
Set base FOV to preference
leave all ADS sliders at 100%
Turn USA ON
compare hipfire sens to highest scope zoom sens in the game and adjust only the coefficient for the least amount of variation /most similar sensivitiy as *you *percieve it.
Doing this will probably leave you anywhere from 100% to 150% - hence the default value of 133%! Remember the coefficient has less and less of an effect at low zoom levels, so if you only ever rock irons at 1.25x zoom you will probably not even detect any change from the coefficient.
If you are completely baffled by now, just turn it on USA, leave it all at default and trust that we knew what we were doing
I should add there is another advantage to using USA vs not that a lot of people overlook.
When USA is OFF, the pre-designed ADS sensitivity modifier kicks in immediately at the moment you press the ADS button, but before you have completely zoomed in yet.
When USA is ON, the ADS sensivitiy gradually and proceedurally adapts according to the current FOV space during the course of the zoom animation /transition.
Why is this important? Well, people don’t ADS, then turn to target, they ADS *and *turn to target simultaneously. WIth USA off, there is a half-second moment where your sensitivity is way too slow for the current FOV. This is not a good thing for muscle memory when snapping to target.
Thanks for adding to the thread man. I’ll think about how to edit my thread so it’s better informed.
I’m gonna try 156% for my 21:9 screen. I come to that because as you say you do not want to tune your snap aiming to the absolute outside of the screen but rather to two thirds of the width of your screen. So I take 2560, which is the width of my screen, and multiply it by 0.66. Divide the resulting number by 1080 (the height) and I get 1.56.
I’ll take that as a ‘ballpark’ starting number and experiment a bit next week.
I’m a console player (Xbox One).
Do you recommend that I play with it on or off?
Not sure if it works the same way with analog sticks.
@TheNoobPolice
If i choice 133% and i have 16 / 9 (1920x1080), what will C in next expression be equal to? SensFactor = atan(tan(ZoomFov/2)*C) / atan(tan(HipFov/2)*C) Won’t be it 0.75?