calculator had a update see first post

ok, now thats what i call confusing

why then it have matched the pixel step with Yours previous formula? I have measured the pixels according to what u did written in previous post and all was correct

<removed wrong calculation>

i did mistake thats how it was possible the proper count is 1856px in cgfov120 map

how i do measure:
m_yaw 90, one mouse thick to the right
m_yaw 1.5506, 58 mouse thicks to the left

58*8*4=1856px

now it only shows that the ruler is no good way to be a prove since in both methods it confirms them as proper

I am still not getting this, how u did made those rulers, if they would be proper it cloud be in fact a prove of what we trying to show but if u say they ware the rendition of the formula there was not even a point to made them... anyway the ruler illustrates perfectly how the net of VA looks a like.

Damn u, i thought the ruler is independed from the formula

If i cloud feel something wrong? of course in both formulas i feel they are wrong, i never did played on such a high sensitivity and when i clearly see 8 pixels are skipped at once it is damn wrong
____________
have loaded the dm17 now and did set the cg_fov to 60 i obviously see crosshair jumps on both settings 0.06766 and 0.06464, crosshair started to move super smooth if i use 0.01, by smooth i mean i stooped to notice the crosshair jumps any more on this settings

The pixel precise sensitivity is commonly used to describe the lowest mouse CPI or the fastest sensitivity that will be guarantee pixel precise accuracy, but hey nobody have said thats end of the precision we can get. Some people don't even noticing if their crosshair jumps over 2px at once, but if u really do focus u can clearly see jumps of the crosshair that are half of the pixel small.