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
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Higher than 30fps and or disable V-sync ??
i don't own it yet,but I think we have to create our own ide file? or is there an easier way?
In short.
We see in light, not fps, pilots were tested and could see planes appear on a screen at 1 single frame of a 1000.
We are all human beings, pilots or not. Which means in short: While the returnd get rapidly diminishing past 120fps from 30 - 120 fps there is such a difference when combined with a 144Hz refreshing monitor that it's insane.
Until you have sat in front of a high refreh monitor (120 / 144Hz) PLEASE for the love of God, do not try and say there is no difference.
You are literally doing the same as listening to a YouTube video showing you a high end sound system when you're only hearing it through your own headphones.
You literally, physically cannot reproduce what these monitors do at 60Hz. Which is entirely why most of you who have gone about 60 fps see no difference.
The second you swap over to a 120Hz monitor and swap between 60 fp and 120 fps you will notice a HUGE difference, and that difference is glorious. I've been on 120Hz+ for 4 years now. And I simply could not go back.
You know the reason film is at 24 fps right?
Back in the day film cost money to make, assemble etc... so when they were makng the format they found the LEAST amount of frames possible for the human brain to percieve as motion and went with it to save money.
THAT is why film is at sucha low fps NOT because it's actually better. BUT with that said we have all seen films at this rate for so long now that anything above it really does look strange.
HOWEVER the biggest difference between movies and games is that you PLAY a game, therefore it requires INPUT. That input has a delay / latency attached to it and also has faster screen movements.
The higher the framterate and refresh rate, the smoother the motion will feel, appear and actually be. The input latency will also decrease because of the amount of time it takes to display the frames. It's MUCH lower at higher fps etc.
Anyway, I imagine some absolute prick will shoot this down and flame me suggesting I know nothing about what I'm talking about.
But hey. I'm trying to educate you / share some factual information with you. Take that or leave it. If you want to leave it, I'd expect you to go read up on it first as you're literally disagreeing with fact.
check out 30vs60.com as well as 30vs60fps.com
Go check out the new 60FPS videos on YT (HD). Go watch a "The Last Of Us" in 60fps on YT and tell me you don't notice how much smoother it is...
Now imagine that level of imformation doubled AGAIN for 120Hz... you certainly can feel and see the difference. I know for a fact I'd still be capable seeing a difference between 144+ - 288Hz but we aren't there yet.
144 is great, but it's not perfect. I think utter perfection will probably be the 240Hz area (not TV ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, but actual 240Hz). Past that I think the returns will be pretty diminishing for the effort required to increase.
Maybe I'm fortunate enough to notice this stuff, maybe I'm an ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. Whatever. Bed time :D
Capcom and Sega are my Fav game companies,but fact is capcom has got very lazy with their PC games latley,All capcoms pc games used to push the newest pc tech,Like the lost planet series, now we get a so called lost planet 3 w/ only dx9.and shotty gameplay.. every RE title since RE5 is only dx9...Dark void had AMAZING hardware PHYSX, and now this quick port with 30 fps,fact is capcom is awesome,but not what they used to be just a few years ago... sad but true :(
http://www.crashwiki.com/unlock-framerate-dead-rising-3/
There. Took me less then a minute to find on Google. Simply have to create a text file and add a line to it. That's it. It's not rocket science.
Who are you talking to exactly? If you bothered to read my novel you'd have seen the first two parts were sarcasm and the rest goes into detail about WHY higher Hz and FPS is undeniably better... If you WERE directing what you said to me you're preaching to the converted mate, on the same side. Ignorance is a seriously bad trait when you do it through choice.
If it WASN'T directed at me.. Ok cool.
You've been drinking the fps kool-aid I see.
My PC is hardly "whimpy", but I'll happily trade off frame rate for more resolution (think triple wide) and higher image quality any day.
I wouldn't, fluidity of motion is far more important to me to feel immersed.
Different folks, different strokes. But there comes a point (which is much lower than many seem to think) with the FPS obsession where people are simply just self fellatiating.
That's an opinion founded on your own thoughts (obviously) but nowhere near founded in fact. I can 100% see and feel the difference between 100 and 140 fps, refresh rate wise I can easily see a difference between 60, 100, 120 and 144.
What is the "lower than many seem to thnk"?
As you said, different strokes, people are different and people learn, adapt etc. Which is why 30 / 60fps ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ is so standard to people.
60fps really isn't smooth to me at all, after trying out 144fps GSYNC'd to 144Hz monitor you can tell the second the frame rate drops out from 144 locked to below that because the input feels different.
It frustrates me to no end that people think 60Hz and 60fps is good enough. It isn't imo.
But the thing that annoys me more than that, is people will fight that it IS ok.. This is bizzare to me. moving from 60 to 120 is DOUBLE the information on screen.. you can DEFINITELY feel and see that difference.
It's like being stuck at 10 fps for years thinking that it's smooth because you used to get 3fps then someone tells you that 20fps is possible and everyone tells the guy to shut up because "you can;t see past 10fps".
We see in light, not fps and we feel in delays past a few milliseconds. So it make sno sense to me when people share the neauty of higher fps and refresh rates and people shoot it down like it's ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. It isn't.
60 to 120 is exactly the jump from 30 to 60 but BIGGER because to be comparable you'd have to play 30fps at 30Hz, but people don't. They play 30fps at 60Hz.
So imagine not only doubling your frame rate, but your refresh rate too! It's an AMAZING change.
I literally have NO idea why people think it's ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.
Hahaha not a problem man!!! :D
Yeah actually, it is. ~25ish years professional experience in computers, as well as a cert in electronics technology on top of 35 years of personal experience.
I understand why you might think you can, but i firmly believe you cannot, at least nowhere near as well as you think you can.
I challenge you to setup a proper blind comparision test and prove that you can accurately and consistently tell one from the other, then substantiate how you do that.
I know that I couldn't.
Probably 30-60. Beyond that, you're simply not seeing it. our eyes are just not fast enough to catch those find details, and our brains simply disregard unimportant information anyway.
higher ~might~ be able to take up any wrinkles, but that holds true ONLY if the system can manage to maintain a consistant frame rate, otherwise it breaks the effect.
It's true that input can feel "laggy" at lower framerates, but there can be other factors which play into that, such as a lower mouse input rate. If your frame rate goes too much higher than the mouse input can keep up with it's still going to feel laggy.
That's because in general it IS "good enough". But keep in mind that's what we're talking about here. "good enough" not "absolutely perfect".
more not necessarily = better
I'm sure there were some 15fps hold outs in ye olden days, but we both know why this logic doesn't hold up.
Because of how our eyes and brains work. Most of what we "see" we do not actually perceive or even commit to memory. Our brains fill in the blanks.
Which works to 30hz's favor. This is what interlacing is all about. But either way, beyond 60hz, the returns very quickly expotentially disappear. adding more and more and more framerates serves no purpose at alll, and is just an e-peen meter.
having a frame rater higher than the displays refresh rate is just wasted information that goes down the bowl. That is, imo, the real reason to have a 120-144Hz display. That assures it can keep up with the input. But again, that's only if the output device can maintain that frame rate, which, most simply cannot (this is the gap that G-Sync was designed to bridge. which by the by, i've seen it in action. it's interesting, but not enough for me to replace my 3 expensive U2410's yet.)
remember when 85-100hz CRT's were common and touted as high tech?
People everywhere were SURE that "zomg 100hz is SOOO much better", but yet, completely failed to understand that when their input rate is only 30-45fps, those extra refresh cycles really do nothing for gameplay smoothness. Which isn't what they were there for in the first place. It was all about reducing flicker, not actually speeding up framerates.
Now, we have the opposite problem - It's pixel response time (how fast a pixel can change in response to input changes) and g2g rates (how fast a pixel can turn on and off) that really matter. It doesn't matter if the input cycles 60 or 120 or 144 or 300 million times a second. If the display itself cannot change state quickly enough to keep up, then all of those extra cycles don't mean squat.
My point here is that talking about refresh rats is really only scratching the surface, a whole understanding and discussion goes much, much deeper.
Buck, as for your challenge about setting up a blind test, I actually have done that. At one point there was a website out there that would display a series of video clips twice each and then prompt you to select which one was 60fps. I was able to get a perfect score every time. For life of me I can't find the site anymore (I think the first time I found it was through a forum link), but hopefully someone else can because I would really like for you to take that challenge yourself.