Another Amnesia, another 60 FPS cap...

[Josh Has Worms]

Seriously? This archaic standard is dying a slow and painful death. Even our phones and handhelds have ditched 60 FPS at this point. Here's another Amnesia I will sadly not purchase because of laziness.

Edit: Someone posted a fix that works, with some quirks. So far, capping to 120 and using a DPI clutch on the mouse for wheels, handles, and doors, seems to be fine. More bugs may be discovered, but the demo can be completed with the change.

Also, if I'm going to complain, I may as well praise the good things too. The support for high FOV with a slider is fantastic. The game looks good and has plenty of options. The performance seems great, but my PC is kind of insane, so YMMV.

Maybe I will buy it after all.

[breadman]

Originally posted by Terepin:

It sounds like you have no idea how monitors work.

if 60 fps looks like "blurry, smearing mess" then your monitor is trash

[Terepin]

Have you seen 240 FPS on a 240 Hz monitor? Because once you'll get use to it, going back to 60 FPS will look exactly like that.

[breadman]

Originally posted by Terepin:

Have you seen 240 FPS on a 240 Hz monitor?

yea, that's how i know it's completely useless in a game like this

[Terepin]

Again: it's irrelevant what game it is. How the movement looks depends on the monitor.

[breadman]

Originally posted by Terepin:

Again: it's irrelevant what game it is. How the movement looks depends on the monitor.

case in point, that's why i'm saying your monitor is trash if it's a blurry smearing mess at 60 fps

thanks for proving me right

[Terepin]

Have you seen 240 FPS on a 240 Hz monitor?

[breadman]

Originally posted by Terepin:

Have you seen 240 FPS on a 240 Hz monitor?

i see you trolling

[Terepin]

So let me get this straight: you never saw the technology, you never used the technology, but somehow you know for a fact that it is useless. That's like as if a blind person would be arguing that colors are a myth and everything is just black and white. That's the level of intelligence you're putting on display in this discussion.

[567657544]

Originally posted by Terepin:

Originally posted by EEddiii323:

but you hardly notice a difference between 30 and 60 ?!

No, YOU hardly notice the difference. Me, on the other, have a healthy brain and can see the difference just fine.

If you have a healthy brain, you wouldn't even care about this silly thing called "high fps"!

[Murge]

Originally posted by Terepin:

Have you seen 240 FPS on a 240 Hz monitor? Because once you'll get use to it, going back to 60 FPS will look exactly like that.

I have seen 360fps on 360hz monitor, yet my game doesn't look like "blurry, smearing mess" on my current 1440p 240hz monitor on 60 fps.
Any new excuses now?
Your monitor seems to be bad, I'd recommend getting a better one.

[v00d00m4n]

When you play 60 fps locked game on 120 or 144 hz display - it looks stuttery almost like 30 fps.

But there is a trick to fix this - alway set your display refresh rate to match fps lockin game. If game is 30 fps locked set display to 30 hz before starting game or in game, if game is 60 fps locked set 60 hz. This way fps lock will look smoother and will have lesser input lag.

But this does not change the fact that it seems like devs totally ignored every bit of criticism of Amnesia Rebirth and repeated every mistake people complained about - 60 fps lock, low res 512x512 textures, lack of option to disable interactive object highlighting, ugly graphics that looks like something from Xbox 360, and so on.

And we got same or even worse things. The only thing they improved is amount of short living matches, which is now endless flashlight but with a catch like in Metro series where you need to pump up flashlight to work... but it works as short as matches in rebirth.

And they also added god awful ugly grey color grading that you cant disable!

[Murge]

Originally posted by v00d00m4n:

When you play 60 fps locked game on 120 or 144 hz display - it looks stuttery almost like 30 fps.

Oh damn, I actually didn't realize but the person had a point when he said that games look bad on higher refresh rate monitors earlier.
If the refresh rate isn't divisible by the FPS, some frames are shown two times and others three times, causing it to look like "stuttering"
I just don't have this issue since I have high quality, 1440p 240hz monitor, each frame in 60fps game gets shown four times, no switching frame times.

And yeah, locking the monitor to 60hz would fix all of the issues if you have one of those 144hz or 165hz monitors, 120 should be fine.

[60mph gorilla]

Originally posted by Murge:

Originally posted by v00d00m4n:

When you play 60 fps locked game on 120 or 144 hz display - it looks stuttery almost like 30 fps.

Oh damn, I actually didn't realize but the person had a point when he said that games look bad on higher refresh rate monitors earlier.
If the refresh rate isn't divisible by the FPS, some frames are shown two times and others three times, causing it to look like "stuttering"
I just don't have this issue since I have high quality, 1440p 240hz monitor, each frame in 60fps game gets shown four times, no switching frame times.

And yeah, locking the monitor to 60hz would fix all of the issues if you have one of those 144hz or 165hz monitors, 120 should be fine.

I am curious how valid this is. If this really were the case then why are there so many 144/ 165 hz monitors out there on the market? Wouldn't this in a way be defective?

[v00d00m4n]

Originally posted by Barf:

Originally posted by Murge:

Oh damn, I actually didn't realize but the person had a point when he said that games look bad on higher refresh rate monitors earlier.
If the refresh rate isn't divisible by the FPS, some frames are shown two times and others three times, causing it to look like "stuttering"
I just don't have this issue since I have high quality, 1440p 240hz monitor, each frame in 60fps game gets shown four times, no switching frame times.

And yeah, locking the monitor to 60hz would fix all of the issues if you have one of those 144hz or 165hz monitors, 120 should be fine.

I am curious how valid this is. If this really were the case then why are there so many 144/ 165 hz monitors out there on the market? Wouldn't this in a way be defective?

They are on market because of progress, but not all games following progresse. So for such games you have to always match refresh rate HZ to game FPS.

Actually what i told about is even good for 30 fps locked games.

If you play 30 fps games on 60 hz or higher hz display it lags and stutters like hell, but if you set system refresh rate to 30 hz, you will notice that 30 fps is not that bad, not as smooth as 60 fps or 120 fps, but not as bad 30 fps on 60 hz.

And worst thing - developers of games and even modern hardware manufacturers not aware of this. Old school programmers are dead or too old to remember times when game fps needed to match refresh rate strictly, and new school progers never knew about that.

This is why we dont have per game profiles that allows to set system refresh rate for each game individually. Nvidia, Ati, Microsoft and Sony does not allow to do that on PC or Console , but it really needed option to avoid manual switch of refresh rate befor playing specific games that has fps locks. Majority of users simply set maximum refresh rate of display both on PC and Consoles (xbox and playstation and anything else) which is 60 fps in most cases, and when they play games that are locked to 30 fps, they are getting stuttering and input lag that should not be there.

Portable consoles even worse - you dont have system settings for refresh rate, and hz could be higher than fps... so you are getting horrible input lags and stutters!

Only steam deck actually allows per game refresh rate settings... but... VALVE limits refresh rate minumum value to 40hz!!!
And most of games run at 30 fps on steam deck! And guess what you get when you divide 40 by 30 or 30 by 40? Stutter and input lag!!! So even Valve not aware of this issue!

Microsoft made things worse when they killed real fullscreen and replaced it with fake fullscreen, many games does not allow to set up refresh rate in such mode and following system refresh, so you cant solve it in game in many cases. Console games does not always set up refresh rate that matching their fps lock and sometimes fps drops bellow refresh rate and you getting problems because of that.

Nvidia profiles has semi working solution, but it works in opposite direction - nvidia profile allows to set up maximum display refresh if game does not allow that. For example game settings has only 30 hz or only 60 hz modes, and your display allow higher refre rate - nvidia settings allow to override that and set maximum possible, but it may brake games internal timer still tied to FPS... because some coders dumb enough to do this thing, and in result you are getting faster animations, faster or buggy physics, failing QTE or combo because timings got 2x shorter and even async in MP sometimes. But there is a way to utilize this feature in opposite direction and actually lower refresh rate override to match game's own fps lock - you can change this setting via third party tool Nvinspector per game profile. However i did not test it recently, could be that Microsoft broke this and you still have to manually change system wide refresh rate before running fps locked game.

Thing such as VRR or G-sync\Freesync is supposed to be solution of problem which is basically dynamically matching Refresh rate to FPS in game, so they always on pair. But as far as i remember Freesync has lower fps value 48 so anything lower than this would not work and 30 fps games are not going to get 30 hz automatically, as for g-sync and vrr i think they allow to set up any lowest point and its based on display edid value. I have to test it by editing edid and setting 30 or even 20 fps as lowes VRR value to see how it will work.

But in general this setting works in properly coded games that has no fps lock and no timers tied to fps. On PC is should work in almost every game where Vsync is set to on or if system override set to on. On consoles its hit and miss, depends on game.

And sadly its not universal solution for older games.

What is needed is system settings with profiles per each game that allows to override system refresh rate when game is running, with ability to set up every refresh rate ever existed in history of gaming, even such a low as 15hz and such a less common hz such as 14.99 24.99 29.99 49.99 59.99 because some systems and games internal timing supposed to match them.

We need to rise awareness of this problem and force every hardware and system vendors (i mean on every PC os with every display driver and also on every console!!!) to add per game settings that will set system refresh rate overrided to match game's fps lock and refresh rate list should go as low as 14.99 hz (for smoother classic games from 90th, i remember some PS1 era games like Heart of Darkness has been using 15hz and got internal fps locked to 15 fps). This will solve this problem.

[v00d00m4n]

Originally posted by Murge:

Originally posted by v00d00m4n:

When you play 60 fps locked game on 120 or 144 hz display - it looks stuttery almost like 30 fps.

Oh damn, I actually didn't realize but the person had a point when he said that games look bad on higher refresh rate monitors earlier.
If the refresh rate isn't divisible by the FPS, some frames are shown two times and others three times, causing it to look like "stuttering"
I just don't have this issue since I have high quality, 1440p 240hz monitor, each frame in 60fps game gets shown four times, no switching frame times.

And yeah, locking the monitor to 60hz would fix all of the issues if you have one of those 144hz or 165hz monitors, 120 should be fine.

Even on 120 hz you should set 60hz for 60 fps locked games and 30 hz for 30 fps locked games!

Always match refresh rate hz to fps to get the most smooth and less laggy expirience.

I do have 120 fps tv for display, until i set 60hz all 60fps games look stuttery. Also if fps goes above refresh rate it also look stuttery.