Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Why the hell would you need more than even 75 fps on a overhead game like this?
when you have a setup where you can enjoy the fluidity of 240fps, you will get it.
Nah we can see 29.5, but that's it!
The whole "your eyes can't see more than blah blah blah" is a zombie lie, and has always been nothing more than copium for people who can't do more than 60FPS.
I even use to say that ♥♥♥♥ until:
#1. I read about it. #2. I got a 120FPS+ monitor and saw for myself. 240 is less of a noticeable jump from 120, but it still something you can perceive.
New in depth studies have shown it's actually 23.
For real. Trust me bro.
For those of us who can, has anyone found a way to uncap the random 133ish frame cap in the game? What an odd number to choose for a frame cap. Most Unreal engine games are capped at 60 from the clueless devs who keep the "smooth" FPS frame cap enabled by default when working in the editor, because it's called "smooth". And smooth is good, right? But in this case we see around 133, which means someone had the awareness to raise the default cap, but somehow thought 133 would be some kind of compromise between smooth and not smooth? lol
These are the kinds of reminders we get that not all game devs are actually gamers.