Posted on May 4th, 2026.

The following text should be considered to be public disclosure of information that was not previously known to the general public. This info has not been shared before today.

Nothing in this notice or in the following text shall be construed as the grant of a license, either express or implied, with respect to any patent, copyright, trademark, trade name, trade secret, or any other proprietary or intellectual property now or hereafter. No one may use any related patent, copyrightable materials, trademark, trade name, trade secret, or other intellectual property right except in accordance with the terms of a separate written license agreement with the rights holder granting such rights.

Setting the stage

There is a well-known quote from Mike Tyson that "everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face". Simply stated, to prepare for difficult and chaotic situations, you must build and practice a plan that is flexible and allows you to "fall back on muscle memory" when under pressure. In the world of competitive 3D games that use a mouse for input, this idea directly applies to the challenge of maintaining accuracy under intense pressure and when situations become chaotic.

When it comes to consistent mouse accuracy, I believe that the performance of the "best aimers in the world" is generally pretty underwhelming. If reviewed from a critical perspective, these players frequently miss shots that seem like they should have been easy to hit. The argument could be made that the situations in which these missed shots occur are just so stressful that there is no reasonable way for anyone to overcome the intense pressure, so accuracy should just be expected to suffer.

Time and time again, I watch videos from "aim experts", aim coaches, or pro players that outline all of the steps that you need to achieve "perfect aim". While they speak, clips play in the background that showcase small windows of incredible accuracy, trying to convince you that this expert is achieving the "perfect aim" that they are instructing you on. If you then go find their livestreams and watch their gameplay over long periods of time, their average performance turns out to be hugely different from what their clips show off. Without exception, their aim performance turns out to be not that incredible.

Computer mice being produced today are touted by their manufacturers as having near perfect accuracy. The Razer Viper V2 Pro was released in 2022, and Razer claims that it has an accuracy percentage of 99.8%. As of the time of this writing, there have been two newer versions of this mouse model released and both featured upgraded internal components. Tons of professionals are using these mice, and no one ever produces absurdly good accuracy in a consistent fashion. How can that be?

Gamers have never had more mouse pads options than they do now, and many have been reported to have very consistent friction for many months of significant use. High end monitors have much better visual clarity and refresh rate options compared to even a few years ago. Computers are producing higher frame rates at higher resolutions which should lead to increased in-game performance.

If the world's top performers are using the most optimal equipment and are still unable to consistently produce laser beam accuracy, at least one of the following statements has to be true...

- Consistent and highly accurate mouse performance is basically just impossible to achieve, and we have to set lower expectations for what can be accomplished
- Today's best computers and mice have just not reached the point where their quality can allow for ridiculously good aim all the time, but it will become possible later as hardware improves
- No one has the mental fortitude to be "a machine" that can consistently be highly accurate when tough situations present themselves
- There are factors in play that are not general knowledge and that are not being addressed when it comes to how mouse accuracy actually works

I intend to prove that only the last one is a true statement.

A few years ago, I decided that there had to be more to mouse aim than what the aim experts were describing... a great computer, a great mouse, a great mousepad, and tons of hours in aim training or the game that you are playing. Lots of people have put all of those ingredients together, and they still never produce incredible and consistent mouse accuracy.

I wanted to see if I could discover any additional factors on my own that influence aim. It seemed to be an interesting challenge, and I figured it would probably take at least a few weeks to complete (ha!). If, at the end of it, nothing of value were to be found, I could always just try spending a few hundred (or thousand) hours in aim training to see if that produced positive results.

I decided to focus on figuring out what was needed to be a great generalist aimer.

There are plenty of players that can produce somewhat consistent accuracy when using the same aim style over and over, but only in one specific range category. Many people appear to be close range specialists that are great at hitting the same sort of flick shots or the same sort of tracking shots day in and day out, but it seems like they just can't be really great at both. And all of these players suck at being able to regularly hit moving targets at the farthest ranges.

The players that seem to be consistent at long range shots basically have the wheels fall off of their aim whenever fights turn into up-close brawls. This is because they set a super low total in-game sensitivity, which forces them to have to do extremely large swipes with the mouse when opponents are pushing them. Producing accuracy in this situation is way outside of their normal aiming style.

I believe that without exception, almost all top players in the world today would say that if they never had to deal with short range engagements, that they would use a lower sensitivity than they currently do. I wondered if there was a way to keep the improved long-range aim benefits of lower sensitivity without keeping all of the brutal challenges that it brings when fighting opponents up close.

This particular facet of mouse aiming performance became my focal point. It seemed like there should be a sensitivity that you could set that was low enough to produce great accuracy, but was also high enough that you could navigate close range skirmishes without feeling like you were moving the mouse through mud. Specifically, I believed that at all ranges, there should be just one single sensitivity that would be optimal for a player when playing any specific character in a hero shooter. Once dialed in completely, that sensitivity should produce better results than what was already being accomplished by the top players, at all ranges.

After tons of testing, it just seemed to be impossible to find a single sensitivity that could reliably do it all. I always found super odd inconsistencies when I got close to what should have been the sweet spot "middle ground" sensitivity. This seemed to particularly occur when aiming at targets at a differing vertical position than my own in stressful situations. The mouse cursor frequently just seemed like it wasn't going exactly where I was attempting to position it... it felt as if I was often having to lightly fight against the mouse to get it to do what it was supposed to.

Trying other things, I found that there were some interesting outcomes when setting the sensitivity high, and then locking your wrist to different degrees depending on ranges, but I also found this to be physically demanding and still produced mixed results. As mentioned previously, setting the sensitivity low and doing huge swipes at close range just felt like too much work for a terrible result in the most stressful situation... when enemies are on top of you and, like the quote says, you are getting "punched in the face".

To wrap this part of the story up, after a ridiculous amount of time was spent researching and testing, I found that there needed to be adjustments made to the angle of the surface that the mouse sits on. Once the angle was dialed in to be its most optimal, I could use one sensitivity at all ranges and produce better and more consistent accuracy results than I ever could if I were not making adjustments to those angles. I have previously documented at length how this works and what the manual steps required to do it are. This information is a huge wall of text, so I will not repeat it here, but it's out there if you go looking for it.

Background information

In 2024 I had a patent granted and then I shared information online about how the mouse accuracy optimization prototype that I have been developing works. Because the instructions detailing the steps required to calibrate the prototype concept were complex, because the process required a significant amount of time and attention to detail, and because the physical factors being instructed to adjust were so outside of what was widely believed to be relevant, this information was largely overlooked or dismissed.

Around this time, I spoke with many major manufacturers about the possibility of having them further develop the concept into a full product. After having introductory calls to discuss the concept with their subject matter experts, I consistently received one of two responses.
Either...
That they believed that there were additional technical considerations beyond what I was describing that needed to be addressed to have the device fully optimize mouse accuracy
Or...
That they would be interested in having further discussions about development whenever I was able to definitively prove that the concept worked.

For the companies that said they needed further proof, I suggested that they could provide a tester for an hour or two and that I would guide them through the calibration process. Of all the companies that I offered this to, no company was willing to dedicate this small amount of resources to complete the testing themselves. All of them wanted the process to be externally proven to work before they would discuss further.

In late 2024, I worked with two content creators that were both new to streaming and that were working to build their audiences. I guided both through the calibration process, and both were excited to realize immediate performance results. Using differing copies of the prototype, both found significant accuracy improvements in each new game that they tested, and both provided testimonials that I added to frybeam.com

Unfortunately, because I didn't have a solid messaging strategy in place to help create and promote interest, their successful testing didn't do very much to attract widespread attention to the project. I also had doubts that their testimonials on their own would be enough to sway the companies that I had been speaking with.

At this point, although I wanted to immediately focus on getting additional neutral third parties to confirm that the concept actually produced the benefits that were being stated, I decided that time needed to be spent on the other concern that some companies were expressing. I needed to find out whether there were other factors that needed to be adjusted to maximize accuracy beyond what was spelled out in the original patent.

That side road ended up being significantly longer than originally expected. Before detailing what I found, I would like to plainly point out something about the original patent details...

The process outlined in the patent and the original prototype disclosures are still basically all that you need to dial in your mouse accuracy for most any game that doesn't have super fast movement and that doesn't have an excess of visual clutter. For a game like Counter-strike 2 or Valorant, a mousing surface that has been properly friction balanced and a highly customized optimal total input sensitivity should be all that is needed to achieve accuracy results far beyond what would be possible for a player to achieve without these things.

The information that follows will detail what was found after the extended additional research was undertaken. Similar to the info that I had shared previously... because the processes described require a significant amount of time and attention to detail, and because the physical factors being instructed to adjust are so outside of what is widely believed to be relevant, I expect this information will be largely overlooked or dismissed. We'll see what happens.

Results of 18 months of additional research and testing

In 3D games, there are often significant visual effects related to in-game environments and character abilities that do not relate to the process of aiming a mouse. These graphical effects are often referred to as "visual clutter". When games require precise input precision for in-game aim, visual clutter can cause maintaining target accuracy to be extremely difficult. Considering that many games have rules (or sometimes just technical limitations) that prevent players from adjusting some of the settings that actually cause the visual clutter, workarounds and solutions that are allowable within the rules that can improve accuracy and aim consistency to a significant degree would be valuable.

The text below outlines steps that would be considered allowable in most (if not all) games and they also improve target acquisition and mouse accuracy a measurable amount.

In games that provide robust adjustments for in-game crosshair configuration, very particular and specific adjustments to combinations of crosshair settings will be found that provide improved accuracy for users. Unfortunately, these specific crosshair settings will not be universal and will need slight adjustments when switching between computers, when changing out computer input devices, or when changes are made to the desk configuration. Changing input sensitivities will also often require small adjustments to be made to the crosshair settings. Different players taking turns on the same computer setup would probably find that small adjustments need to be made to find the crosshair that is most optimal for each player.

Different colors used in crosshair components have a larger impact on accuracy than what appears to be generally understood today. Most would consider color choices to be "personal preference", but if testing for accuracy over long periods of time, you will certainly find that certain very specific color combinations produce better and more consistent accuracy results than other color settings that many players would describe to be "basically the same".

All combinations of shapes, colors, and other various crosshair settings should be tested to find core combinations that are reliable starting points for players to start dialing in the crosshair for their specific environment. Since there are millions of combinations that should be tested, these combinations should be generated by software, and a large testing audience should test a small sample of initial combinations. Those settings combinations that consistently produce the best accuracy performance should be set aside by the software and noted as possible baselines for future testing. No such software exists today.

An adjustment to any particular crosshair setting, even in the smallest increment allowed, may have an outsized effect on accuracy. As such, all variations of possible settings that can be reasonably tested should be. Using baselines mentioned previously will greatly reduce the time required to do this.

An example that has been found by manual trial and error... players may often find that adding a small thin dark circle around a dot or around a standard plus-shaped crosshair will improve target acquisition time. The distance of the circle to the rest of the crosshair has a huge effect on the way moving the full crosshair feels, so different values should be tested until one is found that feels intuitive and unrestrictive.

The thickness of this circle can be adjusted to increase or decrease the "visual weight" of the crosshair. If moving the crosshair seems sluggish and heavy, the circle can be made slightly thinner to speed up the movement. If moving the crosshair seems jumpy and quickly erratic, the circle can be made slightly thicker to add additional stability. Very tiny adjustments will have significant effects on the perceived motion of the crosshair.

Changing the circle thickness (or distance to the rest of the crosshair) does not actually change anything about the movement speed of the cursor/crosshair or the mouse input itself. These changes adjust the way that the player perceives the reference point for aim. When these adjustments are fully optimized, they make it easier for the player to reliably acquire targets and track or flick to the target accurately.

In games that do not provide robust adjustments for in-game crosshair configuration, a monitor could have this functionality built in to provide similar or equal benefits to what was described above. The user would then turn off the in-game crosshair and use just the one that the monitor generates. If this sort of monitor crosshair configuration is not allowed in a specific game, then players should not use it, or should expect to suffer the penalties of breaking the code of conduct for the game.

Even in games that are not considered to have significant visual clutter, players will find that very particular and specific crosshair settings provide increased accuracy as compared to other very similar settings. Testing will need to be done to find the exact optimal values of these settings, and as explained above, software should be used to help reduce the time required to find them.

(While it will be considered overkill in most situations and would be cumbersome to manage when switching between games, players will often find that a very particular and specific combination of brightness, contrast, and color settings will result in clearer targets and improved mouse accuracy compared to other very similar settings. Considering the amount of time that would be required to test all of the possible combinations, software should initiate the changes as the player plays a game, and it should also keep track of the most optimal results found so that they can be locked in and used later. No such software exists today.)

For all of the settings mentioned above, the user should be guided by software through a calibration process. The software will have the user test their accuracy over a duration, then make tiny adjustments to a relevant setting, then test accuracy again. This will repeat until the best and most consistent accuracy is obtained.

This process will need to be done for each relevant setting. If anything changes about the mouse or computer setup, or if a different user begins to use the computer, the calibration process will need to be completed again.

Once a computer and the mousing surface are completely and fully optimized, and if the person using them has the requisite ability, experience, and skill, they should be able to swap between a variety of characters in a hero shooter even if they have dissimilar aiming styles, and should be able to produce amazing aim results with virtually no warm up period. Being able to do this would be a huge advantage in crucial competitive situations.

To spell out how all of the components work together to achieve this result...

A friction balanced mousing surface would allow for mouse movement to be consistent and intuitive even in the most stressful of situations.
Sensitivities would be set per character as appropriate beforehand. (For example, characters that are only effective at close range might use a slightly higher sensitivity if it is determined to produce higher accuracy.)
Crosshairs would be configured so that they accomplish many jobs at once. They would be adjusted in such a way that they...
• produce consistent accuracy across all relevant ranges
• Normalize the feeling of the mouse input, so that it feels approximately the same at all times, even when swapping to different heroes using different sensitivities
• Cut through any visual clutter
• Provide stability when a more simple crosshair would be shown to cause shaky aim

Once a player has fully optimized their setup as described above, the expectation would be that they could perform their normal activities in-game without ever actively thinking about the process of aiming. They could swap between a range of characters or weapons, even those that require intense specific mechanical ability, and immediately produce their best performance without needing time to adjust.

This would allow the player to free up mental bandwidth which could be put towards team communication, strategy, or other forms of decision-making. This would confer a huge advantage over players that were having to consciously think about their aiming processes.

Regardless of all this text that has been laid out, I believe that no combination of words is going to persuade anyone that what is being claimed here is true. I said above that I intend to prove that there are factors in play that are not general knowledge and that are not being addressed when it comes to how mouse accuracy actually works... and I do still intend to do that. But that won't happen here.

Like a high refresh rate monitor, you must experience the optimized aiming setup hands-on before you will be able to understand the actual benefit that it conveys. It is now time to focus on getting this concept in front of more people to test so that it can possibly be widely available one day for everyone to try.

Once you have personally experienced 3D games with a fully optimized computer and mousing setup, you will never want to play a competitive game without it again.