"MAX RENDER QUEUE FRAMES" setting question.

[NO REGRETS]

The description says that the lower the value, the lower the FPS, but in turn, the lower the latency (which is irrational for me).
Of course, I saw a similar discussion

( https://steamcommunity.com/app/493520/discussions/0/2659871632528620263/?ysclid=m6dlw0ub83141652532 ) where a person was simply interested in the "best" setting for this parameter.
But as I understand it, no one really knows how this setting actually works, at least I haven't found any precise information on this matter.
It would be nice if someone explained it more specifically.
I personally understood three things:

The value "2" is the maximum possible increase in frames, the highest latency of the three(?).

The value "1" is the golden mean (?).

The value "0" is less latency (?) and less FPS, but also poor stability (?).

As I understand it, this setting is something like the one used by the "Source" engine (cl_interp_ratio), or the "Pre-prepared virtual reality frames" parameter from the Nvidia control panel, roughly speaking, an interpolation multiplier?
Well, as a person who doesn't understand this, this is the closest I can personally say.

[Artek [General]]

Basically: you allow your PC to prepare frames before-hand before showing them to you.

At minimal setting of 0 your PC renders things in real time and attempts to give frames to you as soon as they are done, fresh out of the oven.

At increased settings you give your PC some buffer time where it basically feeds you a backlog of prepared frames while it is busy generating future ones.
Of course this introduces latency between your actions and the picture since you are being fed outdated frames.
Allegedly this settings is pretty vanilla and comes pre-build into most modern games.
+1 frame is more or less optimal: it increases FPS very notably yet at minimal latency.
Personally i think i've played with +2, wasn't a problem.

[NO REGRETS]

Originally posted by Artek General:

Basically: you allow your PC to prepare frames before-hand before showing them to you.

At minimal setting of 0 your PC renders things in real time and attempts to give frames to you as soon as they are done, fresh out of the oven.

At increased settings you give your PC some buffer time where it basically feeds you a backlog of prepared frames while it is busy generating future ones.
Of course this introduces latency between your actions and the picture since you are being fed outdated frames.
Allegedly this settings is pretty vanilla and comes pre-build into most modern games.
+1 frame is more or less optimal: it increases FPS very notably yet at minimal latency.
Personally i think i've played with +2, wasn't a problem.

Thank you, but for me the topic with "buffers" is generally clear. I just don't understand what the point of this setting is if its purpose is exactly the same as in the Nvidia control panel, probably to just allow people to change the parameter without hassle.

Well, speaking about reducing the delay, here I have a misunderstanding.
Maybe I'm not looking in the right place, but sometimes I get the feeling that regardless of the values, the delay is equally high, this is especially expressed online when trying to dodge attacks, sometimes it's annoying that opponents get you with their attack even when standing with their back to you, well, I think this is a "Peer to Peer" problem.
The game is already very demanding on PC components despite the corridor nature of the levels, and then you die time after time because of the delay, which is normal for this game... That's sad , of course, that there is no registration system on the client side, the game is PVE, and such a change could have greatly simplified people's lives.

Okay, apparently I just slightly overestimated the capabilities of this setting, in any case, thanks for deciding to express your opinion.

*
Just in case, I would like to correct myself in some points.

Regarding the "strong delay in online" I probably exaggerated. This is more of an exception than a rule, so it happens quite rarely, but that doesn't make it more tolerable.

Now I decided to try setting the default value ("2"). And maybe you were right, probably this value is the most optimal in everything, maybe of course I'm lying to myself, but I can't check what is in fact, so I will just hope that I am not deceiving myself.

[Stormer]

The “Strong delay online” is because your not near the host, even if your filtering by region in the discord it’s fairly common for people to post in multiple regions to fill slots faster despite being on the opposite side of the planet

[NO REGRETS]

Originally posted by Stormer:

The “Strong delay online” is because your not near the host, even if your filtering by region in the discord it’s fairly common for people to post in multiple regions to fill slots faster despite being on the opposite side of the planet

Well, I think that such things are not even worth explaining, it is obvious that the main problem with latency is the distance from the server/host.
I do not want to say that you decided to explain in vain, I just did not think that I would seem such a "short-sighted" person.

In any case, thank you for deciding to speak out, what can I say.