There is a lot of incorrect information, and many half-truths in this thread. None the least of which are coming from Streeteh & Kreeeee.
First an understanding. XIM only works as well as the game allows. It DOES NOT allow any more, or less movement than is accomplished by a controller.
Certain things are given to joysticks to make them more useable in a FPS settings:
1) Deadzone - because no joystick can center itself completely. especially the 5 cent ones use on gamepads.
A) The deadzone is exactly as it says. An area of the joystick's throw which equals zero screen output. This is huge because it is common for console game's to throw out 30% or MORE of the entire joystick's physical range.
B) What shape is the deadzone? Circle is best! Unfortunately on COD4+ are known to use a circular deadzone. Most games are square, several are rectangular!? Anything beyond circular provides awkward movements outside of vertical & horizontal. Diagonal movements are stacked together un-evenly.
2) Acceleration - Stick throw does not have a linear relationship with game response. 25% is great. Unfortunately many games wind up using 40%+. Think using a mouse with 1.1:1 movement acceleration is a pain? Try learning every flipping console game has a different acceleration curve & most of them are over 1.4:1. Ugh! And that's crappy with a joystick, let alone a mouse adapter (luckily xim's all provide an exponential growth rate if you want to use it. You do!)
3) Different ratios of movement between vertical & horizontal - again, combied with non-circular deadzones make for vastly incorrect movement. ESPECIALLY for mouse adapters of all types!
(XIM's are included... They simply deal with it vastly better.)
If every game defaulted into:
1) circular deadzone which took up 20% of total stick travel
2) HIGH maximum movement rates
3) LOW exponential rate increases, 10-25%
4) LOGICAL YX ratio values. (You'd think 1:1, 1.5:1, 2:1 would be popular, which in fact most games have extremely odd rates...)
Finally, the joysticks were anything more than a total cost of 5 cents for the Chinese makers to make. Again, unfortunately, they are not!
I've flown R/C aircraft for nearing 2 decades now. If console controllers neared the quality of even $50 computer radios from 10 years ago, there would be no need for anything else.
Software "Aiming Help".
This is a vast topic that will change for every game based on a case by case basis.
I am going to cover, IN DETAIL modern COD titles as it is the same for all. COD4, W@W, MW2 & BO.
1) Absolutely every shot in COD, both PC AND CONSOLE when using a joystick is processed through the Auto-Aim system. The auto-aim system is massive. It takes up a full 25% of the screen both vertically & horizontally on console.
aim_aimAssistRangeScale "1"
aim_autoaim_debug "0"
aim_autoaim_enabled "0"
aim_autoaim_lerp "40"
aim_autoaim_region_height "120"
aim_autoaim_region_width "160"
aim_autoAimRangeScale "1"
aim_automelee_debug "0"
aim_automelee_enabled "1"
aim_automelee_lerp "40"
aim_automelee_range "128"
aim_automelee_region_height "240"
aim_automelee_region_width "320"
The region's are specified in pixels, where the entire screen is overlayed 640*480
regardless of your chosen resolution.
Now, The larger melee auto-aim is always active. Even for
How big is this?
This begs several questions to be asked:
Q) If the aim-bot is ALWAYS running, is it really a full-out auto-aiming aimbot?
A) No. In short there are several coding difference, but one primary difference. The LERP value.
LERP controls the strength & is a non-linear scale that runs from 0 to 100. By default auto-aim runs Lerp=40.
Q) How does the auto-aim effect shooting in regards to control devices?
A) At lower LERP settings the wilder the movement. The less effect it has.
Q) In relation to an XIM?
A) The majority of the time it does NOTHING. Understand that all XIM update movement
when movement updating is needed. For example. A PC HID device (mouse, keyboard, etc.) TELLS your computer when it is doing something. Xbox 360 works in reverse. The 360 ASKS the controller what it is doing. Because XIM's produce unstable and WILDLY varrying joystick throw changes; the input in COD simply doesn't settle down enough for auto-aim to connect anything for you. For XIM 1 & XIM 2 you take your chances with your own sync rate. XIM 3 syncs the same as the controller.
The joysticks provide rarely fluctuating movement inputs Auto-Aim (Tho TOO STRONG) works for them.
In console COD with a joystick, when missing you simply dont have to HIT the target. With an XIM, you MUST ACTUALLY SIGHT the target.
Sure, there are times when you get kills without ever having your sight on the target with XIM. The rate per 1000 kills is fairly low where-as the joystick users is stupidly high!
Why do you think quick-scoping even WORKS on console COD, where-as even with native mouse support it is far more risky on PC?
Q) What does the XIM input actually look like VS a joystick?
A) I can, to a POOR extent, show this via this video.
Understand when watching. Had I been using a controller, right off the bat the first group of people I shot at I would VERY LIKELY have gotten that last kill simply by holding a perfectly steady sight & letting auto-aim take care of it. XIM rarely works that way...
There is no input lag. Understand that it is very difficult to sync a 59fps recording with a 12-20fps screen capture. That also, the screen capture can't possibly record something at 12-20fps that is happening 125 times a second +/-.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4Ba4jdsrrI
Q) What about "Sticky Aim". Well first get your definitions correct! What we are talking about is LOCK ON AIM DEFLECTION and AIM SLOWDOWN! Governed by this code:
aim_lockon_debug "0"
aim_lockon_deflection "0.05"
aim_lockon_enabled "1"
aim_lockon_region_height "90"
aim_lockon_region_width "90"
aim_lockon_strength "0.6"
aim_scale_view_axis "1"
aim_slowdown_debug "0"
aim_slowdown_enabled "1"
aim_slowdown_pitch_scale "0.4"
aim_slowdown_pitch_scale_ads "0.5"
aim_slowdown_region_height "90"
aim_slowdown_region_width "90"
aim_slowdown_yaw_scale "0.4"
aim_slowdown_yaw_scale_ads "0.5"
aim_turnrate_pitch "90"
aim_turnrate_pitch_ads "55"
aim_turnrate_yaw "260"
aim_turnrate_yaw_ads "90"
At 5% & greater stick deflection, Aim Lock can control 60% of your movement rate to get to the target.
Aim slowdown is self-explanatory. When a target is inside a box 15% wide & 19% tall, your aim speed is cut to 60%.
This plays havok with mouse adapters. MANY of your non-lag, non screwing-around deaths are simply because a joystick user's auto-aim pegged you, while you never get enough bullets on a target to kill them.
Only because the game pushes your sight in odd directions & your sight becomes much slower. Like dragging it through sand as it were.
NOT GOOD considering the very low time-to-kill in COD games.
So no, using an XIM AFA COD games go is easily NOT running around at all times with a built-in aim bot.
Now, let's address what is & is not possible with an XIM.
1) XIM's do NOT breech your XBL TOS. Even the current, revised TOS.
The TOS clearly states that macros are not allowed & XIM took an early & hard stance against this.
XIM1, XIM2 and now XIM3 software simply does not allow button state changes in under 30ms. (This doesn't mean 30ms worth of lag. It literally means if you try to send an input UNDER 30ms. It simply locks out & skips the input).
Which is an odd stance by Microsoft, considering you can by officially licensed Microsoft controllers with macro & turbo functionality Lawlz!!!!!!!
XIM's on their own do not support macros in any ways. Tho many of us, including myself have written their fare share. (Operation Flash Point, Dragon Rising is a perfect example of an un-enjoyable console game. The menu system on console is atrocious & takes all the fun out of it).
RE5 is another good example.
2) XIM movement:
A) An XIM is bound to the exact same settings & limitations as the 0.1 cent potentiometers found inside a controller. It can not move any MORE or LESS than the game specifies for the controller
B) As with center deadzone, most games also have a maximum deadzone cut-off near full stick deflection. Case on, Case off. It's regardless.
C) What gives XIM, and a mouse in general an advantage is that you can preserve some sibilance of fine accuracy while maintaining high maximum movement rates.
This is NOT any less possible with a controller. In a game like COD where the movement rates can be exceedingly high (10 sensitivity & in some cases hex edited higher to 11-12/). This can be hard on the poor quality shipped equipment.
As any R/C flier can attest, if you want more RESOLUTION, all you need is more TRAVEL. This is easily accomplished by simply making the level longer.
Better aftermarket controllers have taller joysticks.
Ever wonder why "Control Freak" joystick extensions are so damn popular???
Now you know...
I've had an XIM 1 and an XIM 2. It's nice. Am I any better? Not really. Not once given a warm-up with a joypad. Obviously I rarely use them at this point in any FPS game XIM's work well with. M&KB is simply more natural for me as I spent so long playing.
That statement comes from a former #1 overall player in the world for UT3-Xbox 360. Done with a controller... (#1 in Warfare, #1 in CTF, highly ranked in DM.)
Former top 100 player in kills, top 200 in wins & points in MW2.
Was one of the first 300 people (220-230) to prestiege in BO.
At some point, you're simply better than 95% of everyone you run across.
Christmas morning, 1987. Hip-firing away at Duck Hunt @ 4yo.
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v414/Toysrme/?action=view¤t=1016091105.flv
![[SKR]Phoenix](/styles/overclockers/avatars/4.png){kind=avatar}
