FPS Cap I can't seem to get rid of.

[vossiewulf]

I come from a generation where we learned to play flight simulators and racing sims when 15fps was excellent. The real point at which you have zero reason to complain about frame rate affecting gameplay is 30fps. Actually my real opinion is anything faster than 24fps or so is making excuses.

That is after all the traditional fps of every movie shot on film, and I don't recall anyone coming out of a theater complaining about blurriness or choppy motion. The film industry had an obvious need to cut the frame rate to the minimum to save huge costs on film, and they decided that 24fps was the number at which the human eye still does not notice the jump in frames, even in fast action.

With TV, NTSC is 30fps in the US, PAL is 25fps. Back in the pre-integrated circuit days engineers were pretty much limited to using the AC power frequency as the basis of any timing system, and it's 60hz in the US and 50hz most everywhere else.

That's not to say you can't see a minor difference in smoothness if you compare 60fps to 30fps, and if for some reason that really bugs you visually, ok. Still would place it in the "being overly picky" bin though.

But regularly I see people in DCS World complaining about being shot down because they "only" had 50fps and it's absurd. If you can't fly a plane smoothly or track a moving target smoothly at 50fps, that's because you suck, not because you didn't have enough frames.

Same thing when I played MWO. At a time when I was somewhat rarely outside the top 5 in a match, I'd see people complaining that their fps/ping numbers were totally unplayable when they were better than what I usually saw, which was mid 30s fps and a ping of 150-200ms.

[Jeston]

Originally Posted by vossiewulf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I come from a generation where we learned to play flight simulators and racing sims when 15fps was excellent. The real point at which you have zero reason to complain about frame rate affecting gameplay is 30fps. Actually my real opinion is anything faster than 24fps or so is making excuses.

That is after all the traditional fps of every movie shot on film, and I don't recall anyone coming out of a theater complaining about blurriness or choppy motion. The film industry had an obvious need to cut the frame rate to the minimum to save huge costs on film, and they decided that 24fps was the number at which the human eye still does not notice the jump in frames, even in fast action.

With TV, NTSC is 30fps in the US, PAL is 25fps. Back in the pre-integrated circuit days engineers were pretty much limited to using the AC power frequency as the basis of any timing system, and it's 60hz in the US and 50hz most everywhere else.

That's not to say you can't see a minor difference in smoothness if you compare 60fps to 30fps, and if for some reason that really bugs you visually, ok. Still would place it in the "being overly picky" bin though.

But regularly I see people in DCS World complaining about being shot down because they "only" had 50fps and it's absurd. If you can't fly a plane smoothly or track a moving target smoothly at 50fps, that's because you suck, not because you didn't have enough frames.

Same thing when I played MWO. At a time when I was somewhat rarely outside the top 5 in a match, I'd see people complaining that their fps/ping numbers were totally unplayable when they were better than what I usually saw, which was mid 30s fps and a ping of 150-200ms.

Ok Boomer

[Draulius]

Originally Posted by vossiewulf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I come from a generation where we learned to play flight simulators and racing sims when 15fps was excellent. The real point at which you have zero reason to complain about frame rate affecting gameplay is 30fps. Actually my real opinion is anything faster than 24fps or so is making excuses.

That is after all the traditional fps of every movie shot on film, and I don't recall anyone coming out of a theater complaining about blurriness or choppy motion. The film industry had an obvious need to cut the frame rate to the minimum to save huge costs on film, and they decided that 24fps was the number at which the human eye still does not notice the jump in frames, even in fast action.

With TV, NTSC is 30fps in the US, PAL is 25fps. Back in the pre-integrated circuit days engineers were pretty much limited to using the AC power frequency as the basis of any timing system, and it's 60hz in the US and 50hz most everywhere else.

That's not to say you can't see a minor difference in smoothness if you compare 60fps to 30fps, and if for some reason that really bugs you visually, ok. Still would place it in the "being overly picky" bin though.

But regularly I see people in DCS World complaining about being shot down because they "only" had 50fps and it's absurd. If you can't fly a plane smoothly or track a moving target smoothly at 50fps, that's because you suck, not because you didn't have enough frames.

Same thing when I played MWO. At a time when I was somewhat rarely outside the top 5 in a match, I'd see people complaining that their fps/ping numbers were totally unplayable when they were better than what I usually saw, which was mid 30s fps and a ping of 150-200ms.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[vossiewulf]

Originally Posted by Jeston [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ok Boomer

If you can't fly a plane, or a car, or a mech, or an elf smoothly or track a moving target smoothly at 50fps, that's because you suck, not because you didn't have enough frames. Science on my side.

And it shows you're someone who looks for excuses when you fail.

[vossiewulf]

Originally Posted by Draulius [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

---

Oh yeah good one! Hang on, will go wave at the FBI van outside again.

[Veeshan31]

Originally Posted by vossiewulf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you can't fly a plane, or a car, or a mech, or an elf smoothly or track a moving target smoothly at 50fps, that's because you suck, not because you didn't have enough frames. Science on my side.

And it shows you're someone who looks for excuses when you fail.

Ok boomer

[aaezil]

Run windowed, full screen can be ultra laggy with certain resolutions

[Draulius]

Originally Posted by aaezil [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Run windowed, full screen can be ultra laggy with certain resolutions

I tried both with no luck. I fixed the problem back on Page 2 though.

[modestlaw]

Originally Posted by vossiewulf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I come from a generation where we learned to play flight simulators and racing sims when 15fps was excellent. The real point at which you have zero reason to complain about frame rate affecting gameplay is 30fps. Actually my real opinion is anything faster than 24fps or so is making excuses.

That is after all the traditional fps of every movie shot on film, and I don't recall anyone coming out of a theater complaining about blurriness or choppy motion. The film industry had an obvious need to cut the frame rate to the minimum to save huge costs on film, and they decided that 24fps was the number at which the human eye still does not notice the jump in frames, even in fast action.

With TV, NTSC is 30fps in the US, PAL is 25fps. Back in the pre-integrated circuit days engineers were pretty much limited to using the AC power frequency as the basis of any timing system, and it's 60hz in the US and 50hz most everywhere else.

That's not to say you can't see a minor difference in smoothness if you compare 60fps to 30fps, and if for some reason that really bugs you visually, ok. Still would place it in the "being overly picky" bin though.

But regularly I see people in DCS World complaining about being shot down because they "only" had 50fps and it's absurd. If you can't fly a plane smoothly or track a moving target smoothly at 50fps, that's because you suck, not because you didn't have enough frames.

Same thing when I played MWO. At a time when I was somewhat rarely outside the top 5 in a match, I'd see people complaining that their fps/ping numbers were totally unplayable when they were better than what I usually saw, which was mid 30s fps and a ping of 150-200ms.

CRT monitors handle unusual frame rates and resolutions far better than Flat panels. It's just the nature of modern displays. I have no problem playing something like Star Fox at 15 fps on a CRT, but on a flat panel, it's darn near unplayable

Modern displays can stutter, tear and have delayed inputs when a game's frame rate fall between 31 and 40-ish FPS (unless you are driving a high end gsync display).

I'd take a unbuffered, locked 30 FPS over a game that is wavering in the 40s and 50s FPS any day.

[kgallowaypa]

Best fix for me was to follow an Intel UHD graphics video..it seems this is all related to undervolting / power being sent to eqgame.exe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOtHis2T9f8