|
Strictly speaking, frames per second is unfortunately a bit bad measurement for smoothness and responsiveness, as a second is a terribly long time. For example if you have a smooth framerate of 60 fps and have it drop to 40 fps for a second, you can theoretically have 300 ms hole in there where nothing happens (rest of the second is displayed at normal rates). If the framerate is smooth, without spikes, I would guess 25-30 would be quite ok for RTS games (they usually feel a bit better at lower framerates).
Strictly speaking you would want smoothness (a drop from 120 fps to 60 fps can be very terrible if the framerate isn't smooth).
PS. I've found V-sync to be quite bad thing to have. I wouldn't suggest having it on unless shearing starts directly bothering you.
|
On November 08 2011 01:15 Souljah wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 00:59 -Archangel- wrote: Trust me you cannot feel the difference and the eye cannot catch more then 36fps (or something around that). Maybe you are talking about a refresh rate of your monitor. What you might be feeling is drops in fps on your computer (some computers can have big average fps but can have drops). Try to turn on vsync to avoid those. dumb. obviously you've never seen the game at 120hz. Aye, my m17x has a 120hz screen. Smooth as fuck.
|
Always use vertical sync! If you don't it will cause artifacts called tearing and you can not see more anyway because of the refresh rate of your monitor. Big numbers don't mean anything, use vertical sync. If you are below vertical sync with 40 or even 20 FPS you should definitely use lower settings or upgrade your hardware for optimal experience.
On November 08 2011 00:59 -Archangel- wrote: Trust me you cannot feel the difference and the eye cannot catch more then 36fps (or something around that). Maybe you are talking about a refresh rate of your monitor. What you might be feeling is drops in fps on your computer (some computers can have big average fps but can have drops). Try to turn on vsync to avoid those.
With turning on vertical sync you will not eliminate drops if you can not render the frames per second needed. This is purely a framerate limiter, not a magical framerate accelerator.
|
United Kingdom20278 Posts
On November 08 2011 03:21 ZiegFeld wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 01:15 Souljah wrote:On November 08 2011 00:59 -Archangel- wrote: Trust me you cannot feel the difference and the eye cannot catch more then 36fps (or something around that). Maybe you are talking about a refresh rate of your monitor. What you might be feeling is drops in fps on your computer (some computers can have big average fps but can have drops). Try to turn on vsync to avoid those. dumb. obviously you've never seen the game at 120hz. Aye, my m17x has a 120hz screen. Smooth as fuck.
I bought an m17x like 2.5 years ago... they only had "i7" cpu's avalible which were 1.6 and 2ghz, it chokes out and cant maintain 60fps in 1v1s on lowest settings with sli gtx260m's.
They even removed the sli option because of heat issues that cause the laptop to go from cold boot to thermal shutdown in 2-3 minutes or so unless you explicitly limit the framerate in every single game you play
|
hey i got an important question, hope someone can answer.
a year ago, when sc2 was released, many computers overheated and blizzard responded to the issue with putting this in your variables.txt
frameratecapglue=30 frameratecap=60
is that still needed or have blizzard patched and fixed the overheating bug?
|
On November 08 2011 03:46 BlackGosu wrote: hey i got an important question, hope someone can answer.
a year ago, when sc2 was released, many computers overheated and blizzard responded to the issue with putting this in your variables.txt
frameratecapglue=30 frameratecap=60
is that still needed or have blizzard patched and fixed the overheating bug? This is just a stupid myth. There is no bug. Games are usually not framerate capped and high framerates do not kill your computer. When I start Quake 3 I get 1800 fps in the menus, and I'm not kidding.
The fix is useful for computers with bad cooling. It's not a bugfix, and none is needed.
|
The difference between 60fps and 120fps is not a huge one, but is noticeable. The biggest problem I have is slowdowns during certain parts of the map, especially on Xel'Naga in the center and on the edges, which are not registered as drops in fps, yet my mouse drags around as if I am playing at 20fps. I maintain a stable 60-80 fps, except for the very busy 3x3,4x4 battles.
|
Sorry a little off topic but did anyone come in here thinking there was an announcement of a starcraft 2........ first person shooter
|
On November 08 2011 03:53 Mendelfist wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 03:46 BlackGosu wrote: hey i got an important question, hope someone can answer.
a year ago, when sc2 was released, many computers overheated and blizzard responded to the issue with putting this in your variables.txt
frameratecapglue=30 frameratecap=60
is that still needed or have blizzard patched and fixed the overheating bug? This is just a stupid myth. There is no bug. Games are usually not framerate capped and high framerates do not kill your computer. When I start Quake 3 I get 1800 fps in the menus, and I'm not kidding. The fix is useful for computers with bad cooling. It's not a bugfix, and none is needed. cool can anyone else confirm before i take out the txt? dont want to try to fry my gpu that fast T_T
|
OK well seems like nobody knows exactly why there are feelable differences between 80 fps and 120 fps but I can live with that. Thx guys.
|
I've heard the 30fps argument before and went ahead and tested it (not in SC though). I set the max FPS to 30 and 60 and there was a HUGE difference between the two. 60 fps looked smooth and comfortable, 30 fps looked and felt A LOT worse, the motion was not natural or comfortable at all. So I can confidently say that the 30fps cap is a myth. Also some friends of mine who were playing CS relatively competitively were always setting the max fps to 60.
|
On November 08 2011 04:06 BlackGosu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 03:53 Mendelfist wrote:On November 08 2011 03:46 BlackGosu wrote: hey i got an important question, hope someone can answer.
a year ago, when sc2 was released, many computers overheated and blizzard responded to the issue with putting this in your variables.txt
frameratecapglue=30 frameratecap=60
is that still needed or have blizzard patched and fixed the overheating bug? This is just a stupid myth. There is no bug. Games are usually not framerate capped and high framerates do not kill your computer. When I start Quake 3 I get 1800 fps in the menus, and I'm not kidding. The fix is useful for computers with bad cooling. It's not a bugfix, and none is needed. cool can anyone else confirm before i take out the txt? dont want to try to fry my gpu that fast T_T
There is no such bug, and if there are problems, theyre on an individual basis, probably due to bad cooling, or clumped dust in the computer. I've never put that in my variables and I've played religiously since beta. The temperature on my gpu never really goes up while playing starcraft, less than any other game. And I play on the absolute highest possible settings.
|
On November 08 2011 03:37 pecore wrote:Always use vertical sync! If you don't it will cause artifacts called tearing and you can not see more anyway because of the refresh rate of your monitor. Big numbers don't mean anything, use vertical sync. If you are below vertical sync with 40 or even 20 FPS you should definitely use lower settings or upgrade your hardware for optimal experience. Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 00:59 -Archangel- wrote: Trust me you cannot feel the difference and the eye cannot catch more then 36fps (or something around that). Maybe you are talking about a refresh rate of your monitor. What you might be feeling is drops in fps on your computer (some computers can have big average fps but can have drops). Try to turn on vsync to avoid those. With turning on vertical sync you will not eliminate drops if you can not render the frames per second needed. This is purely a framerate limiter, not a magical framerate accelerator.
no, vsync causes input delay, the only thing it solves is screen tearing
|
Would anyone say that it's better to have a constant 60 fps (without vsync of course) than to bounce around 60-100 fps? When I play shooters with fluctuating FPS, I seem to miss shots with weapons like the AWP and rail gun more often. Is it placebo or does having a constant FPS actually help with sensitive things like marine micro and long distance hitscan shots?
|
On November 08 2011 05:07 r_con wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 03:37 pecore wrote:Always use vertical sync! If you don't it will cause artifacts called tearing and you can not see more anyway because of the refresh rate of your monitor. Big numbers don't mean anything, use vertical sync. If you are below vertical sync with 40 or even 20 FPS you should definitely use lower settings or upgrade your hardware for optimal experience. On November 08 2011 00:59 -Archangel- wrote: Trust me you cannot feel the difference and the eye cannot catch more then 36fps (or something around that). Maybe you are talking about a refresh rate of your monitor. What you might be feeling is drops in fps on your computer (some computers can have big average fps but can have drops). Try to turn on vsync to avoid those. With turning on vertical sync you will not eliminate drops if you can not render the frames per second needed. This is purely a framerate limiter, not a magical framerate accelerator. no, vsync causes input delay, the only thing it solves is screen tearing
It might cause input delay, but that depends completely on the implementation... meaning it doesn't have to cause input delay. I actually don't know if it causes input delay with StarCraft 2 to be honest so.. you might be right. That doesn't mean you shouldn't activate vsync though. I think the minimal amount of input delay vsync might cause is tiny (in fact so tiny it shouldn't even matter when humans are playing the game) in comparison to artifacts while panning the camera (especially), but that's just for me personally.
|
500 FPS is reality perfect for the human eye, more or less anyway.
www.100fps.com
Good reading. Visual Sync is desired once you can render something stable above 60. But watch out because if the performance isnt WELL above 60 frames you will get problems.
Don't run SC2 with vsync on. Even powerful computers dip below 60 very often, even in 1v1.
On November 08 2011 04:09 Litti wrote: OK well seems like nobody knows exactly why there are feelable differences between 80 fps and 120 fps but I can live with that. Thx guys.
It is not a simple answer as the human eye is not very direct. Please read linked source to its fullest. including...
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
|
On November 08 2011 05:37 pecore wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 05:07 r_con wrote:On November 08 2011 03:37 pecore wrote:Always use vertical sync! If you don't it will cause artifacts called tearing and you can not see more anyway because of the refresh rate of your monitor. Big numbers don't mean anything, use vertical sync. If you are below vertical sync with 40 or even 20 FPS you should definitely use lower settings or upgrade your hardware for optimal experience. On November 08 2011 00:59 -Archangel- wrote: Trust me you cannot feel the difference and the eye cannot catch more then 36fps (or something around that). Maybe you are talking about a refresh rate of your monitor. What you might be feeling is drops in fps on your computer (some computers can have big average fps but can have drops). Try to turn on vsync to avoid those. With turning on vertical sync you will not eliminate drops if you can not render the frames per second needed. This is purely a framerate limiter, not a magical framerate accelerator. no, vsync causes input delay, the only thing it solves is screen tearing It might cause input delay, but that depends completely on the implementation... meaning it doesn't have to cause input delay. I actually don't know if it causes input delay with StarCraft 2 to be honest so.. you might be right. That doesn't mean you shouldn't activate vsync though. I think the minimal amount of input delay vsync might cause is tiny (in fact so tiny it shouldn't even matter when humans are playing the game) in comparison to artifacts while panning the camera (especially), but that's just for me personally.
vsync is a buffer, this buffer will cause input lag, there is nothing that you can do about it. And yes, it is noticable, but you have to be really acute to the change to notice it.(QuakeWorld with vsync feels unplayable)
|
Yes competitive gaming with vsync is a bit of a conundrum.
|
On November 08 2011 05:46 r_con wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 05:37 pecore wrote:On November 08 2011 05:07 r_con wrote:On November 08 2011 03:37 pecore wrote:Always use vertical sync! If you don't it will cause artifacts called tearing and you can not see more anyway because of the refresh rate of your monitor. Big numbers don't mean anything, use vertical sync. If you are below vertical sync with 40 or even 20 FPS you should definitely use lower settings or upgrade your hardware for optimal experience. On November 08 2011 00:59 -Archangel- wrote: Trust me you cannot feel the difference and the eye cannot catch more then 36fps (or something around that). Maybe you are talking about a refresh rate of your monitor. What you might be feeling is drops in fps on your computer (some computers can have big average fps but can have drops). Try to turn on vsync to avoid those. With turning on vertical sync you will not eliminate drops if you can not render the frames per second needed. This is purely a framerate limiter, not a magical framerate accelerator. no, vsync causes input delay, the only thing it solves is screen tearing It might cause input delay, but that depends completely on the implementation... meaning it doesn't have to cause input delay. I actually don't know if it causes input delay with StarCraft 2 to be honest so.. you might be right. That doesn't mean you shouldn't activate vsync though. I think the minimal amount of input delay vsync might cause is tiny (in fact so tiny it shouldn't even matter when humans are playing the game) in comparison to artifacts while panning the camera (especially), but that's just for me personally. vsync is a buffer, this buffer will cause input lag, there is nothing that you can do about it. And yes, it is noticable, but you have to be really acute to the change to notice it.(QuakeWorld with vsync feels unplayable)
No vsync is not a buffer... it is a synchronization pulse in the video raster and marks a new frame. Vertical sync with a framerate of 60 is about 16ms, so that is the maximum amount of input delay this could possibly cause.
Vsync has nothing to do with professional gaming. This is the problem I have with game companies even putting that in as an option. There is no reason to ever not activate vertical synchronization. Writing into a buffer while it is being scanned out is simply bad.
|
Whoever thinks enabling vsync (when not in conjunction with triple buffering) doesn't have a tangible impact on input lag must never have tried it in a twitched-based game like Quake or CS. Q3 with vsync is to me unplayable. It's probably not nearly as much of an issue in RTSes though, so I can see the argument for it there -- though I've never compared it myself.
|
|
|
|