That's great and all, but it still doesn't amount to anything proving this is the case. I get that it's beyond his means, but I don't really trust 'it might be possible and I just [I]feel[/I] it' without him doing a study on multiple people that actually shows whether or not this impacts player performance in a game.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;50054252]That's great and all, but it still doesn't amount to anything proving this is the case. I get that it's beyond his means, but I don't really trust 'it might be possible and I just [I]feel[/I] it' without him doing a study on multiple people that actually shows whether or not this impacts player performance in a game.[/QUOTE]
This, and this only applies to CS:GO anyway so i don't know why you worded the title like it's applicable to all games
144 future proof master race represent
"It just [I]feels[/I] better" reminds me of audiophiles who spend $2000 on gold plated cables with shock-absorbing casing made from the bones of ancient Incans because "It just [I]sounds[/I] better".
[QUOTE=Starlight 456;50054304]"It just [I]feels[/I] better" reminds me of audiophiles who spend $2000 on gold plated cables with shock-absorbing casing made from the bones of ancient Incans because "It just [I]sounds[/I] better".[/QUOTE]
It's well explained why it makes sense in this context.
Actually I remember seeing someone talk about this a few months ago. He did a study keeping score of himself at different framerates in CS:GO across multiple matches and found that the results were strange; he did better at a low framerate, then took a dive at a higher framerate, then did better at an even higher framerate. I'd love to share it but I frankly don't remember who did it. I feel like it was Ross Scott, or LGR, but that's not really their thing. Totalbiscuit maybe? If anyone knows what I'm talking about feel free to share.
[QUOTE=paul simon;50054324]It's well explained why it makes sense in this context.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying he doesn't explain his point, just nobody but the biggest meganerds are going to notice the difference between 200 and 400 FPS.
I can't tell the difference above 45 or so
I will admit you notice a difference between low <100 FPS on CSGO and ~200 FPS.
This makes sense though as i'm using a 144hz monitor so anything under 144 looks choppy. But still it does have an effect on my mouse movements and a higher framerate feels smoother overall.
Personally I do not notice a difference between something like 200 and 400 fps in CSGO.
As this is a 3klicksphilips video its only going to really apply to CSGO so dont take his results and apply them to other games.
[QUOTE=Yahnich;50054394]i'm pretty sure the absolute lowest discrete series of images the human eye can perceive is around 255fps and that was in trained jet fighter pilots, anything above and we can't make out differences; the 200 to 400 jump is most likely placebo[/QUOTE]
Well that's unrelated in this context anyways.
This is about response times and fluidity, not frame perception.
At least 60 or I start turning into TotalBiscuit.
60 feels great to me, under 45 and the game feels super choppy.
I was used to playing at sort of under 100 fps. At my birthday lan party, my friend brought over a fucking giant machine with tactical bags for cables and shit. We joined a TF2 MGE server, and playing on my computer against friend #2, I was doing okay. As soon as I had a go on friend #1's beast of a machine, everything felt so goddamn smooth and responsive I was able to hit airshots without much forethought. It felt so good, I had to ask how many FPS it was running at- around 250.
Maybe not from 200 to 400 fps, but at least from 100 to 250, there is a difference. It's so much more intense.
60 is great, but it feels like eye cancer since my everyday pc is 144hz.
And there's not much point beyond 255hz, but it should be made, so we can at least say that the screen is better than our mortal eyes can actually observe.
The video is so unscientific, but there's a sort of truth to it. On a 60hz monitor, there's not much point playing above 60fps in regards to smoothness, but input delay decreases independently of monitor refresh rate. So of course it'd result in smoother gameplay, having input matching output more precisely. Of course this is most effectively achieved by the brute force approach he suggested. Of course there's diminished returns as doubling your fps doesn't necessarily mean you're halving your frame latency.
im spoiled rotten and cant use 60 fps anymore. now that im used to 144hz, i can actually spot games locked to 60 fps instantly, because they look like [I]weird[/I] to me.
[QUOTE=Anti Christ;50054527]im spoiled rotten and cant use 60 fps anymore. now that im used to 144hz, i can actually spot games locked to 60 fps instantly, because they look like [I]weird[/I] to me.[/QUOTE]
I'm used to my 120hz display, but I've no problem with playing 30fps games now and then.
[QUOTE=paul simon;50054534]I'm used to my 120hz display, but I've no problem with playing 30fps games now and then.[/QUOTE]
i mean yeah i can do it too, but i certainly dont enjoy it as much as i used to. its not like i've lost the ability to see sub-optimal fps, but like i said, i've spoiled myself. if i have the choice, i'll choose 144fps every single time.
I'm not listening to some fucker who calls it a 'jif'
Perhaps input should be separated from frames? There should be a hierarchy with a parent that schedules frames and takes care of mouse input and frame displaying.
But eye can't see over 21fps?
[QUOTE=Yahnich;50054394]i'm pretty sure the absolute lowest discrete series of images the human eye can perceive is around 255fps and that was in trained jet fighter pilots, anything above and we can't make out differences; the 200 to 400 jump is most likely placebo[/QUOTE]
You can only see about 20 discrete different images per second at most due to reaction time of rods and cones in your eye (it takes a while for them to discharge, so the previous image will fade out in 1/20th of a second or longer).
At the same time, it's not just the raw brightness value from each cone/rod that matters, but also the first derivative (rate of brightness change).
The brightness change in each pixel is used by brain to build up a motion field, which in simple words tells direction of motion of each point on the image. The motion field is the perception of motion, and quality of motion field considerably improves when going from 30 to 60+ FPS.
The magnitude of derivative of brightness that cones/rods can sense falls due to same effects which give it overall slowness, which is where the values of "255 fps" and such come from. At rates over 20-30 FPS it becomes impossible to distinguish patterns/shape of fast moving objects, only their motion (direction, velocity), which is what feels 'smooth'.
[QUOTE=Zantze;50054586]But eye can't see over 21fps?[/QUOTE]
It can't see shapes and patterns of shapes at over 21 FPS, but it can see motion of even very fast moving objects. Those might not energize the rods/cones enough to produce a clear picture of the object, but the momentary sharp rise of brightness is processed by brain into feeling that it moves.
[QUOTE=Yahnich;50054602]thats what im talking about too, once the frame latency drops under 1/255th of a second there is literally no difference any more because you literally can't distinguish the draw delay any more[/QUOTE]
I'd love a source on this.
I can't tell any difference after 60fps. 60 is nice, but I'm usually fine with 30 as long as it's consistent.
It doesn't have much to do with the actual video framerate, the issue has to do with that CS:GO only gets input from the mouse once for every frame. This is [I]very[/I] noticeable if you have mouse acceleration on for some godforsaken reason, as your sensitivity will become FPS dependent until you go over >125 FPS, which is Window's default sample rate.
[QUOTE=Zantze;50054586]But eye can't see over 21fps?[/QUOTE]
it's actually 22 fps, considering each eye sees at 11 fps
It depends on the game. I can settle for 30 in, say, Dead Rising, but I need 60 in things like CSGO and CoD because those are twitch shooters where everyone generally also has 60 fps at least going. As soon as I got a new CPU that could get me up to a constant 60 in Black Ops 3 I've been constantly topping the leaderboard, whereas that never happened back when I was running at a massively fluctuating 25-40 constantly.
[QUOTE=gk99;50054761]It depends on the game. I can settle for 30 in, say, Dead Rising, but I need 60 in things like CSGO and CoD(...)[/QUOTE]
Switching from Dark Souls II: Scholar of the First Sin (60) to the Bloodborne DLC (30) nearly tore my retinas apart.
The difference was so massive and jarring. I had to stop playing games over 30 for a few days just to stomach BB without getting nausea or a headache.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;50054367]Actually I remember seeing someone talk about this a few months ago. He did a study keeping score of himself at different framerates in CS:GO across multiple matches and found that the results were strange; he did better at a low framerate, then took a dive at a higher framerate, then did better at an even higher framerate. I'd love to share it but I frankly don't remember who did it. I feel like it was Ross Scott, or LGR, but that's not really their thing. Totalbiscuit maybe? If anyone knows what I'm talking about feel free to share.[/QUOTE]
Super Bunnyhop
[url]https://youtu.be/LCbTRSv9sQ8?t=5m9s[/url]
[media]https://youtu.be/LCbTRSv9sQ8[/media]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
