theoritaclly yes, but practically its not always that optimal, lol but how you optimize what you have in your hand at that moment is what makes you better player than other
Not really, you can only use this strat to confused casual players, if you against people who already knew this you just actually wasting time jumping , reposition and missed shots. It only useful when you get enough information and some niche scenario
if third person los and gun los convergence is coordinated with a hitscan from third person los, then conclusion should be smaller variations of convergence would be easier more predictable to lead aim, i.e. the one near the wall is easier to aim and kill, exactly the opposite of his conclusion
Wrong. Near the wall the triangle converge at the aim point allowing little compensation region. While at the middle of the triangle the compensation region is wider.
@@knightdirt2761 what does the "triangle" concept have to do with chance to hit other than there is a angle between gun and view los? it's not like bullet hit detection suddenly becomes an area? you are mixing easier to hit due to bigger target and convergence switching, define your problem
@@knightdirt2761 it basically means when convergence is set farer than actual intended target, projectile los is offset by a little amount, so when a target is large enough and your aim is not offset too far away, the target will mask projectile los both on offset and when directly aimed at(which then changes convergence closer). that require target close enough to mask any variation in exact los position, and slow enough so directly aimed at is still able to hit thus in sum better than the alternative of precise tracking.
stupid theory, logical analysis did not produce a theory that is proved by experiment, he essentially see a correlation, make a bunch of conjecture, then based conclusion on unproven conjecture.
great video super informative
Man can't just drop this BOMB and leave saying "OK this is the video"😂❤
That was so informative man, thank you for uploading really !
OK, just don't miss, understandable sir. 👍
YES! NEW VIDEO! WE GON WIN THESE
So... we have to stay close to walls?
theoritaclly yes, but practically its not always that optimal, lol
but how you optimize what you have in your hand at that moment is what makes you better player than other
Not really, you can only use this strat to confused casual players, if you against people who already knew this you just actually wasting time jumping , reposition and missed shots. It only useful when you get enough information and some niche scenario
very informative goddamn
yooo this is some kind of information that will get you burned at the stake on the old time haha
thank you!
Nice video keep it up
lets go!!!
冲刺！
So ADS is actually pretty bad
Depends, up close yeah mid mid to longer ranges is accurate
After this vid, it only seems viable at long range. Even at mid range you get the hit triangle
@ yeah ads is situational, but I would say Audrey needs it the most because it gives her the shield still viable to ads just not very up close
if third person los and gun los convergence is coordinated with a hitscan from third person los, then conclusion should be smaller variations of convergence would be easier more predictable to lead aim, i.e. the one near the wall is easier to aim and kill, exactly the opposite of his conclusion
Wrong. Near the wall the triangle converge at the aim point allowing little compensation region. While at the middle of the triangle the compensation region is wider.
@@knightdirt2761 what does the "triangle" concept have to do with chance to hit other than there is a angle between gun and view los? it's not like bullet hit detection suddenly becomes an area? you are mixing easier to hit due to bigger target and convergence switching, define your problem
@@knightdirt2761 it basically means when convergence is set farer than actual intended target, projectile los is offset by a little amount, so when a target is large enough and your aim is not offset too far away, the target will mask projectile los both on offset and when directly aimed at(which then changes convergence closer). that require target close enough to mask any variation in exact los position, and slow enough so directly aimed at is still able to hit thus in sum better than the alternative of precise tracking.
stupid theory, logical analysis did not produce a theory that is proved by experiment, he essentially see a correlation, make a bunch of conjecture, then based conclusion on unproven conjecture.