Re: 30 vs 60 FPS

by **R93_Sniper** September 28th 2016, 3:41 pm

While i generally agree with that, also gotta mention that things are going to cause frame drops regardless if you want some sort of quality. We'd be playing on blockouts otherwise

by Classyham September 28th 2016, 3:54 pm

Nothing wrong with bsp levels ;)

by DreuxPhoenix September 28th 2016, 5:18 pm

I think frame rate is kinda obselete. Sure it may make the game feel a little bit different, but as long as it doesn't act like the game is glitching out and you only see like 10 FPS, then I'm okay with it.

by Deadmeat September 28th 2016, 5:48 pm

DreuxPhoenix wrote:I think frame rate is kinda obselete. Sure it may make the game feel a little bit different, but as long as it doesn't act like the game is glitching out and you only see like 10 FPS, then I'm okay with it.

Dreux, 10 FPS, oh you are extracting the urine here for sure! Guess why 24 fps was set as a minumum for films, - because people can detect the flicker if the frame rate is less than this ( for most people ) some can detect flicker above this threshold by quite some margin. So your guess of people seeing at 10fps is wide of the mark also your suggested 10 fps is more likely than not going to cause epilepsy in those that suffer from this.

a brief para to educate you on this is below.

For Dreux:

by Heatguts September 28th 2016, 6:04 pm

My 2 cents:

Higher framerates are better. But as long as you get enough frames to have a decent time window for reacting to things and enough to not affect the physics/controls of your game, you should be fine. For some games this is probably higher (especially ones where your mouse look speed is dependent on framerate) but mostly you should be ok.

Fun fact - I was screwing around with ragdolls earlier with a script that forces them to follow animations (because you can't have both ragdoll physics and animations natively for some reason) and anything below 100 or so fps causes them to bug out and act like they're throwing up.

by TheAandZ September 28th 2016, 8:21 pm

frame rate is as important to a game as much as the visuals are, if not even more so. We should also consider that this 30 v 60 debate exists only on consoles for the most part. As I am not a console gamer I think it's obvious to have 60fps as the standard on computers, but it's far less obvious for console gamers.

by Classyham September 28th 2016, 9:06 pm

TheAandZ wrote:frame rate is as important to a game as much as the visuals are, if not even more so. We should also consider that this 30 v 60 debate exists only on consoles for the most part. As I am not a console gamer I think it's obvious to have 60fps as the standard on computers, but it's far less obvious for console gamers.

Even then 60fps is old hat for pc gamers with 100fps plus becoming more of the norm. 144 or 165 being the top end but 120 should be a good benchmark on a medium system.

by **R93_Sniper** September 29th 2016, 1:48 am

getting 100+FPS on a medium system is absurd. I have what for this generation could apply as a medium/low system and hitting that high is impossible. That kind of stuff is reserved for sheer top-end systems undoubtably. Getting 60 FPS on a medium system sounds reasonable at the very least. There's way too much corner cutting required to get higher.

by Neesy September 29th 2016, 5:11 am

getting 100+FPS on a medium system is absurd

I disagree I have a medium-end rig (about £500 2 years ago when I built it): GTX 760 and FX-8320 and I expect min 120fps standard when I'm playing games for performance (e.g: turning all the graphics settings to minimum).

by Jaing September 29th 2016, 5:22 am

@heatguts

abosolute dogshit pc's such as ours are superior. reason: because there are less frame rates, your brain has to process less. less processing = faster proccessing = faster reflexes = faster ttk.

by Neesy September 29th 2016, 5:29 am

Jaing wrote:@hatguts

abosolute dogshit pc's such as ours are superior. reason: because there are less fram rates, your brain has to process less. less processing = faster proccessing = faster reflexes = faster ttk.

You'd think that le funi eyes cant c moar than 30 frames-esque jokes would be dead by now

by Jaing September 29th 2016, 5:39 am

except i was referring to the shit quality of me and heatgut's pc that we both regularly complain to each other and satirize about and not making a le funneh may may fps joke

dont @ me like we bruddas. u knah dat.

by Neesy September 29th 2016, 5:51 am

esque

Keep up

by **R93_Sniper** September 29th 2016, 2:09 pm

I have an overclocked 580 and its nigh impossible to get even 100 fps on anything when going for max preformance. For the current gen i have a medium-low end card but hell if its not around average otherwise

by Heatguts September 29th 2016, 9:07 pm

Jaing wrote:@heatguts

abosolute dogshit pc's such as ours are superior. reason: because there are less frame rates, your brain has to process less. less processing = faster proccessing = faster reflexes = faster ttk.

You know it bro

Neesy wrote:
Jaing wrote:@hatguts

30 vs 60 FPS - Page 2 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRtRN9CTZnMw0BxRXHe5y9QY3WR9zKWouVDiR53hzjjN4ZclYQg6w

by Jaing September 30th 2016, 10:38 am

Do u have beef with everyone here bro

by deadofmind October 1st 2016, 8:04 pm

Well I think this is the perfect time for me to ask, R93_Sniper are there plans for the team to add DX12 and Vulkan support once it's integrated into UE4? What about Freesync and Gsync? I think working to implement these new technologies and APIs would largely solve much of these problems when combined with a comprehensive graphical settings menu.

On the actual topic of 60 vs 30, idk about everyone else's experience but the majority of monitors, and TV's have supported 60 Hz for a while, they're super cheap and, aside from the consoles, 60 fps seems to be becoming the standard. The game should never be frame limited, this pushes away enthusiasts. Anyone playing on PC is well aware of the fact that they may need to lower settings to achieve an fps that is playable for them.

That being said, if the graphics menu is detailed enough there should be few issues achieving as least 30 fps on hardware post 2005.

by **R93_Sniper** October 1st 2016, 10:08 pm

This thread doesn't actually pertain to contingency though?

As for DX12, Vulkan, Freesync, Gsync, etc, I honestly don't know. We don't even know our current minimum graphical target so its hard to say what we'd allow as it is

by Abdul Fatir October 2nd 2016, 3:42 am

Consider RX 460 for your minimum graphical target !?

by **R93_Sniper** October 2nd 2016, 4:44 pm

I would say that, if anything, I'd be at or below minimum spec with my 580. I seem to have a hard time getting the builds to run at a proper 60FPS (or 62, as it seems is the max) without dialing stuff down in one form or another.

by deadofmind October 3rd 2016, 4:30 am

Only my first paragraph was really specifically about P:C, the other two are my basic view on modern games.

No game should be frame rate limited in engine unless user selected. In this day and age 60 fps should be a minimum target. Especially on consoles i don't understand why they push 4k instead of steady 60 or hell, even 30 fps. It's hard to believe they have to bring out a half generation to guarantee steady 30.

On PC I'll drop all my settings down as long as it gets me 1080-60.

There is nothing wrong though with 30 as long as it's rock solid.

by Neesy October 3rd 2016, 4:21 pm

On PC I'll drop all my settings down as long as it gets me 1080-60.

I'm probably part of the minority who has no problem dropping everything to min for >144 fps

by Heatguts October 3rd 2016, 5:06 pm

I'll drop all my settings down as long as it gets me a 16:9 resolution and at least 10 fps in low traffic areas

by Abdul Fatir October 3rd 2016, 6:28 pm

Error 404: Heatguts and Abdul on a same sinking boat. :D

by deadofmind October 5th 2016, 7:28 pm

Neesy wrote:
On PC I'll drop all my settings down as long as it gets me 1080-60.

I'm probably part of the minority who has no problem dropping everything to min for >144 fps

I'd do that too, but i play on a TV not a monitor. Only goes to 1080-60 so no point in trying for more right now. Plus I'm on a 7850 2gb so it's all i can really try for.

Hopefully I'll be able to upgrade sometime in 1h2017.

by Sponsored content