devs should prioritize 144hz fps otimzation not 60 still

[REALiNSaNgAMingGODPrODIgY]

legit who cares if the game looks good at 60, everyone has 144hz monitors now a days and rather have high fps than play at the horrible 60 fps. people lie a lot and say the eye thing but you can legit feel the smoothness of higher fps. i can't believe devs think people care about 60 fps now a days but think its for 4k players.

[Stellar Remnant]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Yujah:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Muppet among Puppets:

If that is a problem for you, is a question you need to answer for yourself.

I just got nauseous and now have a motion-sickness headache from MiniHerc's link (at 165Hz) so for me the answer is that I'm fine with keeping things down a bit...

Eesh, sorry to hear that. Just from the UFO frame rate test, or one of the others?

[Yujah]

The UFO-one. Did also try a few of the others but was already feeling it by then.

Yes, the difference also between 165FPS and the then 83FPS next one is significant -- in the sense of sharpness of the UFO at those speeds but said speeds are exactly what give me the nausea and headache (actual, not lying...) in the first place.

When I lower the speed from 960 to 480 PPS, both the discomfort and the difference (almost) disappear. At 240 I'm golden and the difference does not exist (it does still with the then third 41FPS UFO). 1920x1080 screen.

[Muppet among Puppets]

The mouse "move in circle" test is enough for me.
Or scrolling a text. Like a piece of paper.

[Yujah]

Decided to take advantage of my headache in the sense of it now being there anyway, and tested a bit more.

Unfortunately my monitor allows only 165, 144, 120 and 60 Hz. Specifically I'd have liked 90 or maybe 100 Hz -- and judging from the 83FPS result 100 does indeed seem to be about the maximum FPS at which I'd still see a difference between the UFOs at 480PPS, the fastest there settable speed I'm still (mostly) comfortable with in the first place.

As said at 960PPS the difference between 165 and 83 is big enough that I'd see the difference between 165 and 100 easily, probably between 165 and 120 -- but that's assuming my dinner would not be blocking too much of the screen already...

[Muppet among Puppets]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Yujah:

Decided to take advantage of my headache in the sense of it now being there anyway, and tested a bit more.

Unfortunately my monitor allows only 165, 144, 120 and 60 Hz. Specifically I'd have liked 90 or maybe 100 Hz -- and judging from the 83FPS result 100 does indeed seem to be about the maximum FPS at which I'd still see a difference between the UFOs at 480PPS, the fastest there settable speed I'm still (mostly) comfortable with in the first place.

As said at 960PPS the difference between 165 and 83 is big enough that I'd see the difference between 165 and 100 easily, probably between 165 and 120 -- but that's assuming my diner would not be blocking too much of the screen already...

Set your fps to 90 or 100 in grafic driver settings.
That way you can not see more than 100 frames. Led do not create new images for each hz, if fps is lower.

[Yujah]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Muppet among Puppets:

Set your fps to 90 or 100 in grafic driver settings.

That's not in fact an option (other than in a 3D-application only sort of way). But anycase never mind please; not looking for advise.

[SilverPigtail]

I think that is too soon. The 60Hz standart is still very common for people.

[crunchyfrog]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Muppet among Puppets:

Oprindeligt skrevet af crunchyfrog:

None of that changes the point that you said it wasn't niche. There's no evidence of that. Quite the opposite.

I did not talk about niche,
without numbers every side is speculative.

If someone wants a game that runs with 144fps, they can reduce settings.
Frame locked games are not that common.
Thats why i dont even know what we discuss about.
I give recommendations, along the way.

I initially asked, what the headline even means. In two ways:
What does the headline mean?
and
What does that mean for games?

Yes but I did. That's what I was answering. That's the point.

I don't care whether you can do it. I only care the fact that it can't be standard yet as it's remarkably niche.

[Muppet among Puppets]

Oprindeligt skrevet af crunchyfrog:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Muppet among Puppets:

I did not talk about niche,
without numbers every side is speculative.

If someone wants a game that runs with 144fps, they can reduce settings.
Frame locked games are not that common.
Thats why i dont even know what we discuss about.
I give recommendations, along the way.

I initially asked, what the headline even means. In two ways:
What does the headline mean?
and
What does that mean for games?

Yes but I did. That's what I was answering. That's the point.

I don't care whether you can do it. I only care the fact that it can't be standard yet as it's remarkably niche.

The topic claimed it should be a standard, we still dont know what that even meant.
It is absurd to assume 144hz should be standard for games.
How should a game even tell?

[Yujah]

Well, it can tell; time v-sync callbacks. Your question was still a good one though, because what would it mean to optimize for 144Hz over 60? That's not at all easily answered.

[crunchyfrog]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Muppet among Puppets:

Oprindeligt skrevet af crunchyfrog:

Yes but I did. That's what I was answering. That's the point.

I don't care whether you can do it. I only care the fact that it can't be standard yet as it's remarkably niche.

The topic claimed it should be a standard, we still dont know what that even meant.
It is absurd to assume 144hz should be standard for games.
How should a game even tell?

By being written for that standard. That's how standards work.

Games are often written for hitting certain bars as standard becnhnarks.

That's well known.

So it's not difficult to extend the same to 144Hz. And that's why it's unattainable yet. Because the Valve Steam figures demonstrate most wouldn't hit that or use that yet.

That's the point.

[Muppet among Puppets]

There is no point in making 144hz monitors standard for games.
At all.

Thats why we discuss about nothing.

Also there is no parameter that can be seen as "equivalent" for this.
Every game can run on a 144hz monitor, even if it runs on a 60hz monitor. But not every computer can equaly run 144fps.
It does not make sense to talk about if 144hz should be a standard, if there is no frame where this makes sense.
You either have a 144hz monitor, or not.
If your game does not run with 144fps, its your computer not able to output that.
If a developer wants to make you play with 144fps though, the game would look worse. Thats the optimization they could do for you, beyond real code optimization.

This topic is mostly nonsense.

[Shaggin'Wagon]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Muppet among Puppets:

This topic is mostly nonsense.

You're just salty that you're still a 60-hz monitor pleb and can't afford a real monitor. That's the actual problem here.

[Muppet among Puppets]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Shaggin'Wagon:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Muppet among Puppets:

This topic is mostly nonsense.

You're just salty that you're still a 60-hz monitor pleb and can't afford a real monitor. That's the actual problem here.

Ehm, i have a 144hz monitor, and never had below 100hz.
You probably misunderstood what i said.

[crunchyfrog]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Muppet among Puppets:

There is no point in making 144hz monitors standard for games.
At all.

Thats why we discuss about nothing.

Also there is no parameter that can be seen as "equivalent" for this.
Every game can run on a 144hz monitor, even if it runs on a 60hz monitor. But not every computer can equaly run 144fps.
It does not make sense to talk about if 144hz should be a standard, if there is no frame where this makes sense.
You either have a 144hz monitor, or not.
If your game does not run with 144fps, its your computer not able to output that.
If a developer wants to make you play with 144fps though, the game would look worse. Thats the optimization they could do for you, beyond real code optimization.

This topic is mostly nonsense.

You can make it a standard. Absolutely.

But again it does not mean it's attainable and certain is nowhere near as I said clearly. That's the point.

Only a few percent run games up there, so it'd be foolish for dev budgets to go for that.