Steamをインストール
ログイン
|
言語
简体中文(簡体字中国語)
繁體中文(繁体字中国語)
한국어 (韓国語)
ไทย (タイ語)
български (ブルガリア語)
Čeština(チェコ語)
Dansk (デンマーク語)
Deutsch (ドイツ語)
English (英語)
Español - España (スペイン語 - スペイン)
Español - Latinoamérica (スペイン語 - ラテンアメリカ)
Ελληνικά (ギリシャ語)
Français (フランス語)
Italiano (イタリア語)
Bahasa Indonesia(インドネシア語)
Magyar(ハンガリー語)
Nederlands (オランダ語)
Norsk (ノルウェー語)
Polski (ポーランド語)
Português(ポルトガル語-ポルトガル)
Português - Brasil (ポルトガル語 - ブラジル)
Română(ルーマニア語)
Русский (ロシア語)
Suomi (フィンランド語)
Svenska (スウェーデン語)
Türkçe (トルコ語)
Tiếng Việt (ベトナム語)
Українська (ウクライナ語)
翻訳の問題を報告
It isn't really a problem for me at the moment because i'm playing at 55 fps (165 Hz).
Edit: well, that's interesting. My game was capped at 30 fps (in-game cap) when I alt-tabbed to write this, and when I went back to the game, it was running at 82 ~ 83 fps (1/2 of 165 Hz). Resetting the cap to 60 and back to 30 capped the framerate to 42, so something is really wrong
Edit 2: Ok, steps to reproduce this:
1. set the game to 60 fps and the monitor to 165 Hz;
2. set the monitor to 60 Hz from 165 Hz. The game is now locked to 20 fps;
3. set the game to 30 fps from 60 fps. The game is now locked to 30 fps;
4. set the monitor to 165 hz from 60 Hz. The game is now locked to 82.5 fps.
I'm more confused of why devs implemented it in the first place. The game can run perfectly without a frame cap. Why do you want to hinder user experience by limiting fps? Or forcing Vsync while there are many VRR display users? It just seems lazy.
It's the opposite of lazy. They already tried implementing a solution that automatically makes the experience great for most players, even though it doesn't work correctly atm. If they did nothing, you'd just have a unlocked framerate. Can they do more and provide even more options? Sure, but perhaps they just thought this was good enough, which is different from being lazy.
Also, after testing a little bit, using that form of half-refresh vsync breaks Variable Refreshrate (like Gsync) and causes it to not work, leading to choppy gameplay.