How can I lock Skyrims FPS To 144

[Invader Shock]

Im trying to find a way to lock skyims fps to over 144 if i dont my game runs over 400fps which causes major issues im not trying to lock it at 60fps I want to lock it at 144ps

[Lathanx]

Everyone should be running display tweaks even at 60hz, especially if running gsync. I had weird stutteres before i used it even though rivatuner was telling me i was at a locked 60, installed it and those hitches and weird frametime spikes wen't away.

It allowing you to go higher than 60fps is just icing.

[Lathanx]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Altbert:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από sdack:

It does not calculate the fps value. It allows you to set a fixed framerate for different situations. What it can do, but what is also disabled by default is that it can adjust the physics timing dynamically depending on the framerate. I do not use the feature myself as it is only a work-around and may or may not help with some problems. The dynamic adjustment can only reduce problems but does not eliminate the core problem obviously.

If you set a fixed framerate but see the actual framerate drop below your self set limit then you are going to have problems one way or another as your hardware is obviously not capable to always reach your desired framerate. If this is caused by your CPU being the bottleneck then you should expect problems with the game. If the GPU is the bottleneck then less so. If you want higher framerates do look out for it.

Just take a closer look at the various C++ functions in the source code of Display Tweaks. Various functions use standard MS C++ functions to read FPS from consecuting frames and use it to determine FPS for the next frame. You don't set a fixed framerate, but a preferred framerate. If someone can maintain a continuous consistent 60+ FPS during script intensive quests, I will rest my case. Of course with FPS displey on screen, and not a 2 minute playthrough!

Potential of risk does not equal risk. It just simply is, yes you run the risk of ♥♥♥♥ breaking with display tweaks.

"Risk" is the nature of the beast when it comes to modding, and i will be the first to tell you as someone who has used display tweaks for years, you'll encounter way more bugs and quest breakages from simple conflicts and user error long before you encounter issues by unlocking your framerate with the mod in question by the sheer stupidity of most end users.

If you don't do what i like to call "kitchen sink" modding and actually take care of your load order, skyrim is at the point where most issues have been ironed out and to cite "potential" risks as detraction's is ludicrous.

Of course this forum has done this song and dance for as long as i can remember and no matter how many people cite forum posts, developer blogs and actual playthrough evidence, you'll still just call it anecdotes and continue to live in ignorance.

[StreamWhenGuy]

Oh yeah comments under this topic are always very entertaining to read.

[Bob Obo]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Davaeorn:

Potential of risk does not equal risk. It just simply is, yes you run the risk of ♥♥♥♥ breaking with display tweaks.

"Risk" is the nature of the beast when it comes to modding, and i will be the first to tell you as someone who has used display tweaks for years, you'll encounter way more bugs and quest breakages from simple conflicts and user error long before you encounter issues by unlocking your framerate with the mod in question by the sheer stupidity of most end users.

If you don't do what i like to call "kitchen sink" modding and actually take care of your load order, skyrim is at the point where most issues have been ironed out and to cite "potential" risks as detraction's is ludicrous.

Of course this forum has done this song and dance for as long as i can remember and no matter how many people cite forum posts, developer blogs and actual playthrough evidence, you'll still just call it anecdotes and continue to live in ignorance.

This. Exactly this. Pretty much the only way of guaranteeing Skyrim is stable is to never run it at all. And even then - Bethesda might send in a patch to break things ;).

Everyone who mods their game does so knowing they'll potentially be affecting stability, but the standard advice isn't just "Never mod your game!". Lots of people have used Display tweaks to run at higher frame-rates with no issue. If your PC explodes and burns down your house, disable it and chalk it up to experience. Also go to hospital, you're probably severely injured.

[Sgt. Flaw]

https://www.escapistmagazine.com/want-60-fps-in-skyrim-se-but-dont-want-broken-physics-heres-a-fix/

[Vlad 254]

Gentleman - the OP has long left this thread. They got the answer they were looking for at least for now, long term who knows.

I would never advise a new player or a relatively new mod user to exceed 60fps because to me i want to make sure they learn to mod first. I'm not a proponent of over 60 fps in Skyrim for many reasons which we have gone over ad nauseam in many other threads over the years. We seem to have some people who throw out "Use SSE Display tweaks" or "Downgrade your game" everywhere they get a chance, just to make their case. This is not helping anyone. Again, can we help users learn to mod properly first?

As BA once said in relation to this very topic - "just because someone crossed the street without looking both ways without incident is no reason to do the same".

People who have a long track record of successfully helping users in this forum for the past 6 years (10+ if you count oldrim) have already spoke on the issue and I'm with them on this. btw, I have a 144Hz monitor, so what, I lock my fps at 60 for SSE.

As for SSE Display Tweaks one only needs to read thru the comment section on it's mod page to see that many use the mod strictly to achieve 60fps, not exceed it.

But one is free to do with their game as they please so we give our advice and in the end it's up to them.

All too often we have the same posters who throw ad hominem into the mix. This is not helpful.

My recommendation is leave the game at 60fps or lower but like i said - in this particular thread the OP is long gone. let it rest.

[Liquid Inc]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από sdack:

Typical troll. You mean you have never tried. Others have and have confirmed it. Get back on topic.

No, i don't deny I have not tried said mods, but i don't deny i am not interested in seeing my game run smoother. So far i will not use said mods, mainly because:
A) There is conflicting opinions (such as your supposed "facts") both for and against it. My personal opinion is to remain on the cautious side where i know my game will work, than rashly follow a few loudmouths saying it works "fine" for "them" and presenting it as a fact.
And:
B) My game is actually working as i want it to, and i have no desire to fiddle with it on a whim of some random.
Unless the general consensus changes on it, and i can be more sure about the mods i personally use will work just fine, that will not change, no matter how much you parrot your "facts". (no, your "facts" are not good enough to convince anyone (see, now who was doing the convincing did you say?))

Im not asking other people, im asking *you*. Prove it, with your own work.
Otherwise you have as much credibility as you claim i do. (Hint: none at all)

[Altbert]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από sdack:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Altbert:

SSE Display Tweaks uses a method to calculate the appropriate FPS value based on game situations. I'd rather have a stable and consitent 60 FPS than FPS fluctuating between 144 and 60 FPS.

It does not calculate the fps value.

I don't think that you actually did some research on the source code of SSE Display Tweaks! It's free to research, at least if you have some knowledge of C++. I agree, that several functions in the code do not directly calculate FPS values, but it does calculate various values needed to prevent inexperienced users to use higher FPS then their systems is capable of. Other values calculated are related to the Havok, Papyrus and Render engine. For this purpose SSEDT uses a C++ function called QueryPerformanceCounter (QPC), which returns the current performance-counter value in counts, and is used to acquire a high-resolution time stamp. The QPC function is executed in succession, to calculate delta time. But does it actually measure delta time from the end of one frame to the end of the next frame? In my opinion, reading MS documentation, it only measures execution time of the two consecutive function executions. There is a property (System.Video.Framerate) which measures frame rate as frames per 1000 seconds (a frame rate of 60 FPS would result in an integer value of 60000). I wonder why that is not used, but probably because other methods suffer from truncation errors.

It allows you to set a fixed framerate for different situations. What it can do, but what is also disabled by default is that it can adjust the physics timing dynamically depending on the framerate. I do not use the feature myself as it is only a work-around and may or may not help with some problems. The dynamic adjustment can only reduce problems but does not eliminate the core problem obviously.

Yes, the INI file has already defined a fixed frame rate (60 FPS), but any user (experienced or not) can change it at will. I wouldn't call that fixed, but desired. What if I wanted it set to 50 FPS? I can't as the source clearly sets 60 FPS as the minimum value. So, yes the minimum value is a fixed value, and so it the maximum value of 300 FPS.

If you set a fixed framerate, whether it is 60fps or any other value, but see the actual framerate drop below your self set limit then you are going to have problems one way or another as your hardware is obviously not capable to always reach your desired framerate. If this is caused by your CPU being the bottleneck then you should expect problems with the game. If the GPU is the bottleneck then less so. If you want higher framerates and less problems do look out for it.

Any other value is above 60 and below 300 FPS. You can't set a "fixed" framerate below 60 FPS. I don't want to see frame rate dropping when needed and rising again when it can! I want a stable frame rate without issues, and sofar I have managed that over the years since the release of Skyrim in 2011 up to Skyrim SE 1.6.640, without issues.

Sofar, in this thread and other threads I have seen you arguing just for the sake of arguing, often insulting other posters, and always wanting to have the last word! Since you're not "using the feature yourself" why even bother to respond? Bottomline is "when you don't know what you're doing, stay away from it" and otherwise, well "your game, your way".

[sdack]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Altbert:

You can't set a "fixed" framerate below 60 FPS.

You mean with the SSE Display Tweaks? If so then you have done something wrong. I already used it to set the framerate for the game menu to 25fps. It works as described, try it.

The feature I am not using is the one where it sets the values dynamically and I have explained why I am not using it. Take it or leave it.

[Lathanx]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Altbert:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από sdack:

It does not calculate the fps value.

I don't think that you actually did some research on the source code of SSE Display Tweaks! It's free to research, at least if you have some knowledge of C++. I agree, that several functions in the code do not directly calculate FPS values, but it does calculate various values needed to prevent inexperienced users to use higher FPS then their systems is capable of. Other values calculated are related to the Havok, Papyrus and Render engine. For this purpose SSEDT uses a C++ function called QueryPerformanceCounter (QPC), which returns the current performance-counter value in counts, and is used to acquire a high-resolution time stamp. The QPC function is executed in succession, to calculate delta time. But does it actually measure delta time from the end of one frame to the end of the next frame? In my opinion, reading MS documentation, it only measures execution time of the two consecutive function executions. There is a property (System.Video.Framerate) which measures frame rate as frames per 1000 seconds (a frame rate of 60 FPS would result in an integer value of 60000). I wonder why that is not used, but probably because other methods suffer from truncation errors.

It allows you to set a fixed framerate for different situations. What it can do, but what is also disabled by default is that it can adjust the physics timing dynamically depending on the framerate. I do not use the feature myself as it is only a work-around and may or may not help with some problems. The dynamic adjustment can only reduce problems but does not eliminate the core problem obviously.

Yes, the INI file has already defined a fixed frame rate (60 FPS), but any user (experienced or not) can change it at will. I wouldn't call that fixed, but desired. What if I wanted it set to 50 FPS? I can't as the source clearly sets 60 FPS as the minimum value. So, yes the minimum value is a fixed value, and so it the maximum value of 300 FPS.

If you set a fixed framerate, whether it is 60fps or any other value, but see the actual framerate drop below your self set limit then you are going to have problems one way or another as your hardware is obviously not capable to always reach your desired framerate. If this is caused by your CPU being the bottleneck then you should expect problems with the game. If the GPU is the bottleneck then less so. If you want higher framerates and less problems do look out for it.

Any other value is above 60 and below 300 FPS. You can't set a "fixed" framerate below 60 FPS. I don't want to see frame rate dropping when needed and rising again when it can! I want a stable frame rate without issues, and sofar I have managed that over the years since the release of Skyrim in 2011 up to Skyrim SE 1.6.640, without issues.

Sofar, in this thread and other threads I have seen you arguing just for the sake of arguing, often insulting other posters, and always wanting to have the last word! Since you're not "using the feature yourself" why even bother to respond? Bottomline is "when you don't know what you're doing, stay away from it" and otherwise, well "your game, your way".

I have 1200 hours in skyrim special edition barring LE and 950 of those hours are playing nolvus and nordic souls and guess what both of them have display tweaks and both of them i play at 90+ fps unlocked at 1440p.

All of this BS could be solved if any of you actually bothered to test, read or actually use it. Or better yet just read the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ documentation that came with the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ mod in the first place.

You don't want to use it because of some deep seeded paranoia? Fine. That's your right and i have every right to call you a fool because of it.

It's literally stability and frames you're throwing away because of something that "might happen 900 hours from now" Lmao.

My oldest save clocked in at 300 hours is still kicking, in nolvus, with over 2000 mods, at 80+ fps, not a single issue to speak of.

Next you'll tell me mods like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqzf0pAn3O4&t=312s that can allow higher frames and stable borderless windows are useless.

I guess all those hundreds of thousands of people are just delusional? Right YOU'RE the sane one, you're the correct one. We're all just npc's in your mind.