Proof that AimLab works

[Archie]

So I'm just average at best when it comes to aiming on pc. I'm not ashamed to admit that I played console all of my life, simply because that's always been the cheaper platform. But ever since one of my friends gifted me one of his 'outdated' laptop with an i7 processor, I finally was able to play CSGO at home. I love that game. I think it's the best shooter ever made and since I spent more time watching CS than actually playing it, I needed to work on my aim. AimLab is the best tool you can find. And it's FREE! Of course every gamer inherently knows that if you want to return to a game, any game, you have to see improvement. I've noticed with AimLab that when I come back to a task after a while, I often get these insane scores right off the bat. In this case I thought I'd go back to SPEED Microshot. A task that I did well with in the past. Since I felt that there wasn't much progress I could make with that task, I focused on other tasks. Now, I just finished the Microshot task and my AAR (after action report) totally lit up with positive feedback. There actually was a lot of progress to be made still. Unfortunately I can't just paste my screenshot here, but honestly that's not even relevant. You probably did way better than me anyway. Point I guess I'm trying to make is that AimLab, to me, is so much more than just a game to practice your aim. AimLab has more video game core mechanics than meets the layman's eye. Even when you don't really feel like playing AimLab, just ignore that initial idea and remember: Even if you only play it for 5 minutes, you will benefit from it.

[Gökyüzü]

I started aimlab on 380 point which it was terrible after 2 month im now 630 it definitely works. Imagine after 1 year i could become a monster

[♥ Rox/geo ♥]

master flick start 13 % hit slow speed afther 2 h 25% hit afther nother 4 47% hit
you dont nead nothing else the numbers speak for them self

[SamGamll]

I'm still only on a 60hz monitor and up until now I've not seen anything wrong with sticking to that yet playing this 'game' has made me realise that 120hz+ is probably the way to go for this

[711]

Originally posted by SamV8:

I'm still only on a 60hz monitor and up until now I've not seen anything wrong with sticking to that yet playing this 'game' has made me realise that 120hz+ is probably the way to go for this

Can you elaborate on that idea? I kind of suck at this game atm but I dont think that a 120hz monitor would help. Or woiuld it?

My aiming sucks hard when I crank up the mouse sensitivity (which is obviously the way to get from A to B faster) and I think that I need to work on my muscle-memory.

[Gökyüzü]

I dont think monitor's hz does much more of a diffrence. There are alot of aspects of this equation. Such as ping, hardware, fps, sensivty, game's optimization, servers stabilty. And getting more then 60 fps in many games requires all most 1000-2000$ pc. Not many people has that kind of hardware. But if you look at many online games in this days you'll see most of the bad hardware pc players are plays better then good hardware pc players.
But of course you will reach some limit one way or another, and for break that limit you will need alot of upgrade on your pc.

[SamGamll]

Originally posted by 711:

Originally posted by SamV8:

I'm still only on a 60hz monitor and up until now I've not seen anything wrong with sticking to that yet playing this 'game' has made me realise that 120hz+ is probably the way to go for this

Can you elaborate on that idea? I kind of suck at this game atm but I dont think that a 120hz monitor would help. Or woiuld it?

My aiming sucks hard when I crank up the mouse sensitivity (which is obviously the way to get from A to B faster) and I think that I need to work on my muscle-memory.

when I was moving between objects with some distance between them it didn't feel like smooth/fluid movement, kinda like if you watch those 30fps vs 60fps feels like that

[IloveKei]

Originally posted by Gökyüzü:

I dont think monitor's hz does much more of a diffrence. There are alot of aspects of this equation. Such as ping, hardware, fps, sensivty, game's optimization, servers stabilty. And getting more then 60 fps in many games requires all most 1000-2000$ pc. Not many people has that kind of hardware. But if you look at many online games in this days you'll see most of the bad hardware pc players are plays better then good hardware pc players.
But of course you will reach some limit one way or another, and for break that limit you will need alot of upgrade on your pc.

It’s definitely the opposite people with a $800 PC are usually worse than someone with a $4000 PC that’s should be quite obvious because the people with more tech have a massive advantage but that doesn’t mean people with an $800 PC can’t beat people with a $4000 PC also achieving 60 FPS in pretty much any pvp game does not require a 1-2000 dollar PC you can achieve well over 60 FPS in many many many games with a PC under 1000 dollars

[IloveKei]

Originally posted by 711:

Originally posted by SamV8:

I'm still only on a 60hz monitor and up until now I've not seen anything wrong with sticking to that yet playing this 'game' has made me realise that 120hz+ is probably the way to go for this

Can you elaborate on that idea? I kind of suck at this game atm but I dont think that a 120hz monitor would help. Or woiuld it?

My aiming sucks hard when I crank up the mouse sensitivity (which is obviously the way to get from A to B faster) and I think that I need to work on my muscle-memory.

I started with a 60hz laptop before building my first PC then moved on to a $1500 PC and a 144hz monitor and there is an absolutely massive difference in the way games play if you’re able to achieve 144 FPS and for something like aimlabs this will be noticeable. After selling my last PC I built a new one at a price of around $4000 and I upgraded my monitor to a 240hz and I was still able to see a pretty large increase in my performance. Just make sure that if you’re using aimLabs as a way to improve at a certain game that your specs can handle the game you are trying to play and be able to match the FPS with the hz of the monitor you are thinking of getting otherwise it would be a waste of money. But I can guarantee you that if you switched from 60 to 120 or 144 hz you would improve

[Saatana]

Originally posted by 711:

Originally posted by SamV8:

I'm still only on a 60hz monitor and up until now I've not seen anything wrong with sticking to that yet playing this 'game' has made me realise that 120hz+ is probably the way to go for this

Can you elaborate on that idea? I kind of suck at this game atm but I dont think that a 120hz monitor would help. Or woiuld it?

My aiming sucks hard when I crank up the mouse sensitivity (which is obviously the way to get from A to B faster) and I think that I need to work on my muscle-memory.

I think moving down with the mouse DPI setting makes a person more accurate and a better in the long run. 800 dpi would be a good place to start with some people thinking that 400 is even better. I've started using 600 after using 800 or 1000 with the hopes of getting used to it and maybe in the future using 400.

[Archie]

Originally posted by Saatana:

Originally posted by 711:

Can you elaborate on that idea? I kind of suck at this game atm but I dont think that a 120hz monitor would help. Or woiuld it?

My aiming sucks hard when I crank up the mouse sensitivity (which is obviously the way to get from A to B faster) and I think that I need to work on my muscle-memory.

I think moving down with the mouse DPI setting makes a person more accurate and a better in the long run. 800 dpi would be a good place to start with some people thinking that 400 is even better. I've started using 600 after using 800 or 1000 with the hopes of getting used to it and maybe in the future using 400.

I feel most comfortable with 400 DPI. I have an average laptop and I get around 100fps on CS:GO.

There shouldn't be any stutter or something like that with AimLab. My sens I always try to lower instead of increase. I settled at 1.9 at one point, but lowered it just slightly to 1.85 and I did a bit better. You should feel comfortable, is the most important thing.

[711]

Originally posted by Ashes:

Originally posted by 711:

Can you elaborate on that idea? I kind of suck at this game atm but I dont think that a 120hz monitor would help. Or woiuld it?

My aiming sucks hard when I crank up the mouse sensitivity (which is obviously the way to get from A to B faster) and I think that I need to work on my muscle-memory.

I started with a 60hz laptop before building my first PC then moved on to a $1500 PC and a 144hz monitor and there is an absolutely massive difference in the way games play if you’re able to achieve 144 FPS and for something like aimlabs this will be noticeable. After selling my last PC I built a new one at a price of around $4000 and I upgraded my monitor to a 240hz and I was still able to see a pretty large increase in my performance. Just make sure that if you’re using aimLabs as a way to improve at a certain game that your specs can handle the game you are trying to play and be able to match the FPS with the hz of the monitor you are thinking of getting otherwise it would be a waste of money. But I can guarantee you that if you switched from 60 to 120 or 144 hz you would improve

I have to admit that i do not use AimLab as a means to get better at a certain game (I am more into singleplayer boomer shooters) but rather just for the fun. I see it more like an abstract version of "crazy chickens" :)

Quite frankly, I do not undestand that whole "more hz is always better" thing. Stuttering sucks, espc if the game is about precise aiming, but personally I dont see (like with my eyes) any difference: My old console runs on 30hz, my PC runs on 60hz and the PC at my friends place runs on 144hz - it is all the same to me. As long as the framerate is constant it feels fluid to me.

Theoretically more hz may even mean a disadvantage. If I remember right, effects in fighting games are calculated in frames. If SubZero´s suckerpunch stuns the opponent for 15 frames, that would mean half a second on a 30hz-console but only 1/10 of a second on a 144hz-system.

Please keep in mind that I talk about singleplayer experience - I have no idea how that all plays out in a competitive online-enviroment.

[Whomst]

Originally posted by Archie:

So I'm just average at best when it comes to aiming on pc. I'm not ashamed to admit that I played console all of my life, simply because that's always been the cheaper platform. But ever since one of my friends gifted me one of his 'outdated' laptop with an i7 processor, I finally was able to play CSGO at home. I love that game. I think it's the best shooter ever made and since I spent more time watching CS than actually playing it, I needed to work on my aim. AimLab is the best tool you can find. And it's FREE! Of course every gamer inherently knows that if you want to return to a game, any game, you have to see improvement. I've noticed with AimLab that when I come back to a task after a while, I often get these insane scores right off the bat. In this case I thought I'd go back to SPEED Microshot. A task that I did well with in the past. Since I felt that there wasn't much progress I could make with that task, I focused on other tasks. Now, I just finished the Microshot task and my AAR (after action report) totally lit up with positive feedback. There actually was a lot of progress to be made still. Unfortunately I can't just paste my screenshot here, but honestly that's not even relevant. You probably did way better than me anyway. Point I guess I'm trying to make is that AimLab, to me, is so much more than just a game to practice your aim. AimLab has more video game core mechanics than meets the layman's eye. Even when you don't really feel like playing AimLab, just ignore that initial idea and remember: Even if you only play it for 5 minutes, you will benefit from it.