| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Litti
Germany16 Posts
My question is - Is it normal that the game isn't running that properly and fluid with 40-90 fps than with >120? Most people say that 40 is good enough and should run well. I also saw people playing with 20 fps without problems, but I feel a difference between those very high fps. (The game responds best with around <120 fps) Are there settings to set the fps-max or something like that? Thank you. | ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
Edit: Looks like my info is a bit outdated. I learned some of this stuff in the time of CRT monitors. Might not be true anymore :D | ||
|
urashimakt
United States1591 Posts
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. FPS with motion blurring caps out pretty low. Movies, for example, are able to appear fairly seamless with only 18 fps. However, video games generally show crisp images without blurring. The human eye can catch "stuttering" in that kind of visual feed even at very high FPS, much higher than 36 FPS. So the answer is set it to whatever feels comfortable to you. This thread shows how to set a max FPS: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=122360 | ||
|
JackDragon
525 Posts
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. Actually the eye can catch a lot more then 36 fps. It is more that the eye can only catch certain frequences. That is 36 is a good number but maybe 45 or 16 isn't. I'm not an expert so I don't know good numbers, but basicly it is more important to have a good frequency then a high one. | ||
|
butchji
Germany1531 Posts
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. Tell me you don't see the difference of constant 125 FPS and 40 FPS in Quake 3 ... | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20285 Posts
On November 08 2011 00:56 Litti wrote: So i searched around in the internet for my issue and on TeamLiquid too, but i did not find any Questions/Problems that describes mine. My question is - Is it normal that the game isn't running that properly and fluid with 40-90 fps than with >120? Most people say that 40 is good enough and should run well. I also saw people playing with 20 fps without problems, but I feel a difference between those very high fps. (The game responds best with around <120 fps) Are there settings to set the fps-max or something like that? Thank you. There is a big delay between frames rendered, at 10fps there is 100ms between executing an action and having it shown to you, at 20fps for example it is half of that. 60hz is the standard refresh rate on monitors, so you can only display 60 whole frames per second, if you go above that you can see slight tearing between frame switches because your monitor cant keep up with the framerate, but it wont cause any damage to anything and should be almost unnoticable It is easy to feel laggy with low framerates in games as you are actually interacting with the game and noticing the input lag, where movies/streams often play at 24-30fps which appears smooth to the viewer, playing feels totally different. You should disable Vsync, it limits FPS to 60 and causes some more input lag in the form of already having a frame to display but waiting to display it until your monitor is done displaying the previous frame, it is designed to remove the visual tearing effect but limits your framerate to do so I play on low etc and float 200-500fps often, and it is REALLY noticable when your framerate drops hard during big battles, or lategame 4v4s etc when it is standard for cpu's to fail to keep up and drop to even 30-40fps | ||
|
Souljah
United States423 Posts
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. User was warned for this post | ||
|
ptrpb
Canada753 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20285 Posts
On November 08 2011 01:15 Souljah wrote: dumb. obviously you've never seen the game at 120hz. Its more a matter of interacting, not watching i think | ||
|
pksens
United Kingdom156 Posts
I can basically react more efficiently. Fluidic movement is choppier the lower the frame rate/refresh rate, that is simply not up for debate. | ||
|
Whirligig
United Kingdom77 Posts
Watch this and tell me you can't tell the difference 15fps vs 30fps vs 60fps Films look ok at 24fps because firstly everyone is used to films looking like garbage and because cameramen are excellent at avoiding any situation would would screw up the shot, ie fast panning. When it comes to fps more is generally better, up to a point. If you have an lcd monitor with a refresh rate of 60hz, then having 120fps is completely pointless as the screen won't be able to display it. You should configure your settings to give you a nice smooth consistent fps across the entire game. It doesn't matter if you're getting 60fps in the first minute of the game, only to have it crash down to 20fps in battle. At 60fps for example, screen updates are hitting every ~16ms, if your getting lousy fps in battle, again, say 20fps. That update rate plummets down to 50ms, all of a sudden, when you need information and responsiveness the most, you're almost 3x slower than your enemy pulling down 60fps. Also, if you're used to nice smooth consistent updates, then having your marines suddenly jerk around on screen is most unsettling and adds inconsistency as to where the units might be next. A good analogy would be have a dodgy internet connection with huge jitter, so sometimes your commands are executed immediately and sometimes with a huge delay. How horrible. | ||
|
r_con
United States824 Posts
| ||
|
Litti
Germany16 Posts
Now i tried this: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=122360 It works and I hope it will make the game more fluid - shall I tune on Vsync too or is it the same? | ||
|
lilodot
United States32 Posts
It may be true in some cases like when watching TV but it's definitely not when it comes to others. Back before LCD monitors came about I could look at any CRT and tell you the Hz it was set to easily. The key thing to look for consistent FPS when playing. 30 frames constant would be better than 60 frames dropping to 20 or lower in battle. | ||
|
ETisME
12387 Posts
I most certainly can feel the lag when it goes around mid 20 fps but somehow whenever the colossus beam starts shooting and the fps shows it drops to 25ish, I don't see any lag at all | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20285 Posts
On November 08 2011 01:51 Litti wrote: I thank for all the responses. I think too that 60 fps are enough (because my screen has 60 Hz). I admit you don't recognize the difference of lower fps (40-100) in replays because there you dont act. But when you play -actions like moving units or so have a small delay also when having around 70 fps. So I dont think fps tell the whole truth in sc2. (I think on non advanced settings, 40 fps is unplayable) Now i tried this: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=122360 It works and I hope it will make the game more fluid - shall I tune on Vsync too or is it the same? Dont set max FPS and dont enable vsync either... id remove that code, all it does is lock you at 60fps preventing you from going over ever, which could cause input lag etc Unless you dont like the tearing effect you can playing at super high FPS sometimes, which is almost unnoticeable in most situations, there is no reason to limit framerate (aside from overheating hardware due to bad cooling etc, which should never happen in the first place) | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20285 Posts
On November 08 2011 02:10 ETisME wrote: sometimes I feel the fps number isn't correct. I most certainly can feel the lag when it goes around mid 20 fps but somehow whenever the colossus beam starts shooting and the fps shows it drops to 25ish, I don't see any lag at all Use fraps to see FPS ingame, is always accurate edit: Forgot to mention OP, of course there is online latency delaying your commands in multiplayer games, usually ~50ms, but that doesnt exist for example on camera commands or jumping between hotkeys, where 60fps will add ~16ms input lag and anything lower even more (30fps double, 15fps 4x etc) | ||
|
Litti
Germany16 Posts
On November 08 2011 02:11 Cyro wrote: are you sure that this code isnt good? i dont know that but after my mind i would say that the code is preventing the system from working for frames which you dont needDont set max FPS and dont enable vsync either... id remove that code, all it does is lock you at 60fps preventing you from going over ever, which could cause input lag etc Unless you dont like the tearing effect you can playing at super high FPS sometimes, which is almost unnoticeable in most situations, there is no reason to limit framerate (aside from overheating hardware due to bad cooling etc, which should never happen in the first place) | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20285 Posts
On November 08 2011 02:42 Litti wrote: are you sure that this code isnt good? i dont know that but after my mind i would say that the code is preventing the system from working for frames which you dont need Its locking you at 60fps, if you finish rendering 1 frame when you have only displayed half of the previous one it will wait to start displaying it, potentially causing some lag. It prevents the system from working for extra frames, yea, but aside from extra system work and small tearing effects it potentially reduces the input lag you feel without a massive downside if you dont limit fps | ||
|
Talic_Zealot
688 Posts
When it comes to ho the game runs.. I wouldn't know my pc is fairly garbage and I was actually blown away by the IPL 3 finals stream and it's frame rate. P.S. Simplest way to test it: go to CS 1.6 and limit the frames to 30. It is unplayable.. | ||
|
Hundisilm
Estonia99 Posts
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. | ||
|
ZiegFeld
351 Posts
On November 08 2011 01:15 Souljah wrote: Aye, my m17x has a 120hz screen. Smooth as fuck. dumb. obviously you've never seen the game at 120hz. | ||
|
pecore
Germany62 Posts
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. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20285 Posts
On November 08 2011 03:21 ZiegFeld wrote: 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 | ||
|
BlackGosu
Canada1046 Posts
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? | ||
|
Mendelfist
Sweden356 Posts
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. | ||
|
Inex
Bulgaria443 Posts
| ||
|
socommaster123
United States578 Posts
 | ||
|
BlackGosu
Canada1046 Posts
On November 08 2011 03:53 Mendelfist wrote: 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 | ||
|
Litti
Germany16 Posts
Thx guys. | ||
|
Lothargr
Greece32 Posts
| ||
|
driftme
United States360 Posts
On November 08 2011 04:06 BlackGosu wrote: 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. | ||
|
r_con
United States824 Posts
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. 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 | ||
|
LoLAdriankat
United States4307 Posts
| ||
|
pecore
Germany62 Posts
On November 08 2011 05:07 r_con wrote: 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. | ||
|
Medrea
10003 Posts
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 | ||
|
r_con
United States824 Posts
On November 08 2011 05:37 pecore wrote: 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) | ||
|
Medrea
10003 Posts
| ||
|
pecore
Germany62 Posts
On November 08 2011 05:46 r_con wrote: 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. | ||
|
Kr1pos
Norway67 Posts
| ||
|
r_con
United States824 Posts
On November 08 2011 06:26 Kr1pos wrote: 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. Exactly. Screen tearing is not a big deal compared to input lag. But most people here run LCD's @60hz have mice running at 125hz, and dont have amazing frame rate. So that extra latency doesn't feel like much to them. But broodwar, or sc2 with 140 hz on a CRT with no input lag and a mouse clocked at 1000hz | ||
|
pecore
Germany62 Posts
Anyway all i wanted to say is there is no reason to tie the analysis of user input to the rendering of the display. They might have done it in old games (You're talking about Quake1 engine...) for reasons that are not valid today. And even if you do it the input lag is tiny. For me all this stuff is just big number voodoo (1000Hz mouse, CS running at couple hundred FPS) to sell hardware, nothing else. | ||
|
Medrea
10003 Posts
On November 08 2011 07:02 pecore wrote: Ok do whatever pleases you. Try it out and if the 'feeling' is off then just do what feels better. Anyway all i wanted to say is there is no reason to tie the analysis of user input to the rendering of the display. They might have done it in old games (You're talking about Quake1 engine...) for reasons that are not valid today. And even if you do it the input lag is tiny. For me all this stuff is just big number voodoo (1000Hz mouse, CS running at couple hundred FPS) to sell hardware, nothing else. Mouse polling rate is a very big deal actually. Pretty close to the number 1 aspect to a mouse in fact. | ||
|
Kr1pos
Norway67 Posts
On November 08 2011 07:02 pecore wrote: Anyway all i wanted to say is there is no reason to tie the analysis of user input to the rendering of the display. They might have done it in old games (You're talking about Quake1 engine...) for reasons that are not valid today. And even if you do it the input lag is tiny. How do you propose one does that? Input lag is the delay between the sampling of the input until you see the changes on the display, so they are very much related. The result of the input (say, how far the mouse moved) will be the same either way and is of course unrelated. And this isn't about engine implementation but the inherent implications of enabling vsync. Here's a comparison of the input lag in TF2 with and without vsync enabled (51ms average without compared to 79ms with on a LCD, 43ms to 84ms on a CRT. They're also testing Fallout 3, but there the input lag just plain sucks either way.). For anyone interested in the subject this is another great article from Anandtech on triple buffering which when enabled gives you vsync without the input lag. Too bad it's seems to be primarily OpenGL-only for the moment. (Loving having it enabled in Rage though.) | ||
|
pecore
Germany62 Posts
On November 08 2011 07:18 Kr1pos wrote: How do you propose one does that? Input lag is the delay between the sampling of the input until you see the changes on the display, so they are very much related. The result of the input (say, how far the mouse moved) will be the same either way and is of course unrelated. And this isn't about engine implementation but the inherent implications of enabling vsync. Here's a comparison of the input lag in TF2 with and without vsync enabled (51ms average without compared to 79ms with on a LCD, 43ms to 84ms on a CRT. They're also testing Fallout 3, but there the input lag just plain sucks either way.). Ok maybe my understanding of input lag is off. I viewed input lag as the latency between user input and when the input can be evaluated by the application which would effect the game state. And of course you could calculate that unrelated to the display. The display is always 'behind' the game state or an 'estimation' of the game state. This becomes even more complicated with multiplayer games over a network. Anyway I see now what you mean. The link seems interesting I will check that out. Although the results agree with me imho. You posted that the maximum measured difference in input lag was 40ms relating to the display. Nobody can 'feel' 40ms.. at least you'll have a hard time convincing methat you can. But this is not that important with feelings... if you're convinced then it's real for you and that is all that matters, so go ahead and do what feels best. | ||
|
Kr1pos
Norway67 Posts
| ||
|
Medrea
10003 Posts
| ||
|
Pwere
Canada1556 Posts
In SC2, there doesn't seem to be anything of the sort, so settings above 60 or 75FPS shouldn't change anything. However, I'm fairly confident that, at least in StarJewel, having over 80FPS is advantageous. 125 probably isn't any better than 90, but 80 is definitely better than 60. With that in mind, I try to keep my FPS at least at 80, maybe 60 very, very lategame. I think it's pretty noticeable and annoying whenever FPS dip below 60. *Vanilla, they might have changed it for Quake Live, but IIRC, it was still in at the time they released the source. | ||
|
Eppa!
Sweden4641 Posts
Does LCD or Plasma have a slower output (like time it takes for action to appear on screen from the pc or console) than a fat TV? I remember that you are supposed to use non LCD or Plasma (either both or one of them) for fighters. Is this true? | ||
|
Medrea
10003 Posts
On November 08 2011 08:13 Eppa! wrote: This is kind of offtopic but: Does LCD or Plasma have a slower output (like time it takes for action to appear on screen from the pc or console) than a fat TV? I remember that you are supposed to use non LCD or Plasma (either both or one of them) for fighters. Is this true? The response value for LCD monitors is often 2ms or sometimes even lower. 500 FPS is reality perfect since the human synapse isnt capable of processing information faster than that. Thus, a monitor with 2ms (1000/500 = 2) response should in theory make maximal use of the human eye. Perhaps that rule of thumb was written long ago, when response times of 25ms and so forth were common. Hertz being equal of course. Hertz matters too. Higher the better, and we have 120hz LCD now, once again though after about 60 the rules start to shift. I could be wrong though. | ||
|
ikona
Poland47 Posts
On November 08 2011 07:02 pecore wrote: Ok do whatever pleases you. Try it out and if the 'feeling' is off then just do what feels better. Anyway all i wanted to say is there is no reason to tie the analysis of user input to the rendering of the display. They might have done it in old games (You're talking about Quake1 engine...) for reasons that are not valid today. And even if you do it the input lag is tiny. For me all this stuff is just big number voodoo (1000Hz mouse, CS running at couple hundred FPS) to sell hardware, nothing else. There is one very important reason to tie analysis of user input to render loop. And that is synchronization, there is no point of reading input if frame is slow to draw because then you would still have to give time for render to catch up. So since quake 1 times game logic and input is done between drawing frames. There is no benefit to have it work in parallel but causes huge problems. | ||
|
Zombo Joe
Canada850 Posts
| ||
|
ZiegFeld
351 Posts
On November 08 2011 03:42 Cyro wrote: LOL sucks for you, my quad core CPU has never so much as hiccuped. Only downside is the graphics card that I haven't upgraded to 560m (460m atm), so I have to play on medium/low graphics to maintain 120fps in 200/200 battles. The R3 is damn near flawless. 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 | ||
|
Bizarro252
180 Posts
How is it advantageous to have more than 60FPS on a 60Hertz monitor? I am genuinely curious because I currently use vertical sync specifically because my thought process was to lock the FPS at the refresh rate of the screen since my computer can easily put out a constant 60FPS no matter how crazy the battles get. | ||
|
mindjames
Israel322 Posts
On November 08 2011 09:03 Bizarro252 wrote: I al reading through this and I must be missing something. How is it advantageous to have more than 60FPS on a 60Hertz monitor? I am genuinely curious because I currently use vertical sync specifically because my thought process was to lock the FPS at the refresh rate of the screen since my computer can easily put out a constant 60FPS no matter how crazy the battles get. It is not. However, if you had a CRT (which can go above 60hz) or a 3D-ready LCD (which works at 120hz), it would be advantageous. In any case vsync should always be off since it will add some input lag. Hope this helps  | ||
|
perestain
Germany308 Posts
On November 08 2011 09:03 Bizarro252 wrote: I al reading through this and I must be missing something. How is it advantageous to have more than 60FPS on a 60Hertz monitor? I am genuinely curious because I currently use vertical sync specifically because my thought process was to lock the FPS at the refresh rate of the screen since my computer can easily put out a constant 60FPS no matter how crazy the battles get. There might be a bit less input lag. Its worth a try, usually you will notice the difference, if there is any for SC2, right away if you are used to playing with the old settings. I feel the whole thing isn't that critical for SC2. Since you're only moving a cursor and not turning the whole screen, 60fps@85Hz are sufficient for me. I tried withouth framecap @100Hz and it felt smoother, but I think it is not really worth it to torture my CRT for it. CSS though I play at 160Hz and wouldnt accept a frame less, so unbelievably smooth and direct. | ||
|
Hundisilm
Estonia99 Posts
I al reading through this and I must be missing something. How is it advantageous to have more than 60FPS on a 60Hertz monitor? I am genuinely curious because I currently use vertical sync specifically because my thought process was to lock the FPS at the refresh rate of the screen since my computer can easily put out a constant 60FPS no matter how crazy the battles get. I might be repeating myself a bit, but it depends a bit on what the 60 fps is. Usually the framerate is far from constant during the game (unless it's capped to a lower value than the hardware can manage). So if the avearage fps is 60 it might mean that you actually have situations where the framerate drops to a lot lower value. Time between frames is actually the value humans should be able to sense or feel (choppy performance) not the amount of frames per second. So strictly speaking if your machine can maintain a constant framerate above 60 then there are probably no noticable benefits to having a higher framerate on a 60 hz monitor and VSync should work ok as well. According to my experience, Vsync sometimes becomes problematic at lower framerates so I like to usually turn it off because I've never seen any benefits of having it on (this might be a personal thing though and probably differs depending on the hardware). The refresh rate is more of a CRT issue actually as they are in some sense "blinking" all the time, so they start to flicker at lower refresh rates. I kind of doubt 60 vs 120 Hz gives much of a difference in user experience. You need higher refresh rates for 3D shutter glasses though, as they effectively halve the frame rate. From what I've read the 120 Hz displays are mostly about recreating the 24 fps movie format more smoothly (the 24 fps doesn't fit into 60 hz evenly unfortunately). | ||
|
perestain
Germany308 Posts
On November 08 2011 09:51 Hundisilm wrote: I kind of doubt 60 vs 120 Hz gives much of a difference in user experience. You need higher refresh rates for 3D shutter glasses though, as they effectively halve the frame rate. From what I've read the 120 Hz displays are mostly about recreating the 24 fps movie format more smoothly (the 24 fps doesn't fit into 60 hz evenly unfortunately). On a CRT there is a huge difference, and I am not talking about the 60Hz flickering. There is already an easily noticeable difference between 85 and 100Hz in SC2. It is smoother, and the mouse feels a little bit slower, although it has the exact same sensitivity. I believe that is because you feel comfortable controlling higher sensitivity at higher monitor frequencies. In CSS i would also undershoot all the time after switching from 85 to 120Hz, and then again after switching from 120Hz to 160Hz. I had to figure out my perfect sensititvity again (which takes quite a while of testing, if you are meticulous about it). It would be a bad thing if 120Hz (or 200Hz) LCDs wont be able to recreate that smooth feeling. Good CRTs are getting hard to come by, and 60Hz LCDs were always choppy in comparison, at least for CSS and Quake. | ||
|
Ranir
413 Posts
| ||
|
Hundisilm
Estonia99 Posts
On a CRT there is a huge difference, and I am not talking about the 60Hz flickering. There is already an easily noticeable difference between 85 and 100Hz in SC2. It is smoother, and the mouse feels a little bit slower, although it has the exact same sensitivity. I believe that is because you feel comfortable controlling higher sensitivity at higher monitor frequencies. In CSS i would also undershoot all the time after switching from 85 to 120Hz, and then again after switching from 120Hz to 160Hz. I had to figure out my perfect sensititvity again (which takes quite a while of testing, if you are meticulous about it). It would be a bad thing if 120Hz (or 200Hz) LCDs wont be able to recreate that smooth feeling. Good CRTs are getting hard to come by, and 60Hz LCDs were always choppy in comparison, at least for CSS and Quake. Yes I meant that in a LCD context only ofcourse (the frequencies on LCD's and CRT's have rather different meanings I'd say). Some people are probably more sensitive about such things unfortunately (my condolances to you), but I believe a majority of people wouldn't really be noticably happier if the refresh rates were higher. PS. I have very limited experience with higher refresh rates (opinion based more on differences between lower rates), but people seem quite happy with their higher rates generally. PS.PS. I did some internet surfing and it seems that it is generally accepted that CRT>120Hz LCD>60 Hz LCD for FPS's. Sad the 120 Hz LCD's are quite expensives still though. | ||
|
tuho12345
4482 Posts
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. Edit: Looks like my info is a bit outdated. I learned some of this stuff in the time of CRT monitors. Might not be true anymore :D When I play some shooting game, the difference between 36 fps and 60+ fps is quite big. Not sure about SC2 cuz I never check, but still need a high enough fps to drag or switching screen without taking too much time cuz SC is all about timing right. | ||
|
Litti
Germany16 Posts
EDIT: Maybe someone knows something about what blizzard said to this issue | ||
|
Whirligig
United Kingdom77 Posts
On November 09 2011 00:50 Litti wrote: Dudes, you have totally forgot about the Topic. It's not about FPS in general. Its about the problem which i described in my first post. Until now nobody gave a solution or an answer to that question. EDIT: Maybe someone knows something about what blizzard said to this issue The game runs fine at almost any fps, the best experiences are found from ~40fps and above. Perhaps you have background processes that keep fluctuating your fps, giving you a weird feeling as the fps cycles from 40-120. | ||
|
gillon
Sweden1578 Posts
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. Edit: Looks like my info is a bit outdated. I learned some of this stuff in the time of CRT monitors. Might not be true anymore :D You can _feel_ a difference. You cannot interpret each and every image fully, but you can notice the change between them, and the smoothness of this change. I can easily see difference between something moving at 120 and 100 fps. | ||
|
Litti
Germany16 Posts
On November 09 2011 01:51 gillon wrote: As I said I have an 60 Hz Monitor so there cannot be any Difference in the passive watching of the game. But when it comes to command delays and reacting of the game it gets better and better til 120 fps. You can _feel_ a difference. You cannot interpret each and every image fully, but you can notice the change between them, and the smoothness of this change. I can easily see difference between something moving at 120 and 100 fps. When I watch Replays as I mentioned you dont feel that because the Monitor ist only allowing 60 fps. But i think I mentioned that before. | ||
|
gillon
Sweden1578 Posts
On November 09 2011 01:58 Litti wrote: As I said I have an 60 Hz Monitor so there cannot be any Difference in the passive watching of the game. But when it comes to command delays and reacting of the game it gets better and better til 120 fps. When I watch Replays as I mentioned you dont feel that because the Monitor ist only allowing 60 fps. But i think I mentioned that before. Well, yeah, a 60 Hz monitor won't display anything more than 60 fps. But as you said, at least in CS1.6 the amount of fps you had affected things like spraying a lot, so you basically HAD to cap out at 100 fps constantly. As to what I said earlier, my monitor is a 120 Hz one and as such I can see the difference. | ||
|
oDieN[Siege]
United States2904 Posts
| ||
|
Trentelshark
Canada385 Posts
When there are fewer FPS, there are fewer gamestate/input updates, so you might notice it "feels" different, especially if mouse smoothing is on. I don't notice it on my system but my older rig I could even if I was a consistent 35/40FPS. | ||
|
Litti
Germany16 Posts
On November 09 2011 05:14 Trentelshark wrote: That's the point and I saw People playing with 20 fps but i dunno if they locked their fps. In my case 80 fps is bad to play.For people saying it doesn't make a difference, game engine design says otherwise. Optically you can't pick-up anything above ~40FPS (it physically is not possible) but when it comes to the input, it can. A typical game update will do input, sound, physics, etc. and then render the frame on a seperate thread and start the main thread (updates) all over again. When there are fewer FPS, there are fewer gamestate/input updates, so you might notice it "feels" different, especially if mouse smoothing is on. I don't notice it on my system but my older rig I could even if I was a consistent 35/40FPS. | ||
|
Trentelshark
Canada385 Posts
On November 09 2011 05:20 Litti wrote: That's the point and I saw People playing with 20 fps but i dunno if they locked their fps. In my case 80 fps is bad to play. There's a value you can put in the configuration to cap framerate, but I can't remember the value anymore. If you search the BNet forums when the game was first released, it is there. What's the polling rate on your mouse (ex. on my G9X I can set to up to 1000x per second)? Do you have V-Sync on if you're pushing 80+ to stay in sync with a 60Hz refresh rate? I'm kind of short on ideas here beyond that. | ||
|
Cronin
6 Posts
| ||
|
PanN
United States2828 Posts
| ||
|
Litti
Germany16 Posts
On November 09 2011 05:46 PanN wrote: U dont need it mostly in my opinion, because nearly all online-videos run on ~30 fps and there aren't much more things for which you could need it.I can't believe people still use 60 hz monitors when 120hz exists. There's a huge difference. | ||
| ||
|
|
OSC
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Online Event
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
Mihu vs QiaoGege
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs TBD
Online Event
Sparkling Tuna Cup
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
Bonyth vs TBD
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
