Limiting FPS, Important?

loanb

Limiting FPS

EDIT: Maybe I was thinking of some other year in CF history, but the FPS definitely has some kind of limit doesn't it? 300 possibly? Someone PM or post the details please.

Another big issue from my point of view is the FPS limit in the game. Currently from what I've seen it is locked at a maximum of 200. 200 sounds great doesn't it? Everyone loves more FPS! The thing is it isn't as great as you think. When you don't have a stable FPS in-game you run the risk of; screen tearing, bad recoil, bad shots, mouse lag, monitor lag, and general discrepancies. THIS DOESN'T WORK FOR COMPETITIVE PLAY. From my point of view we should be able to lock the FPS ourselves, or at least lower the limit down to 100 FPS.

Why you might ask? Well if you configure the FPS to work very stable for your system, you will find your gaming experience to become much better for lower-end systems and even some high -end systems. Your CPU and video card wont be trying to make out the FPS to 200 constantly, keeping your system cooler and lasting longer.

Another example is that if your regular FPS can run to about 170, and you limit it to 100, when your running through smokes or getting a lot of gunfire you wont receive that seemingly unnoticeable spike in your system that causes you some GRIEF. Think of that extra 70 FPS being stored as a backup for when the time comes.

Thoughts?

TL;DR : Not having a stable FPS causes discrepancies in-game, is it important to fix?

DusteR977

loanb2g wrote: »

Limiting FPS

Another big issue from my point of view is the FPS limit in the game. Currently from what I've seen it is locked at a maximum of 200. 200 sounds great doesn't it? Everyone loves more FPS! The thing is it isn't as great as you think. When you don't have a stable FPS in-game you run the risk of; screen tearing, bad recoil, bad shots, mouse lag, monitor lag, and general discrepancies. THIS DOESN'T WORK FOR COMPETITIVE PLAY. From my point of view we should be able to lock the FPS ourselves, or at least lower the limit down to 100 FPS.

Why you might ask? Well if you configure the FPS to work very stable for your system, you will find your gaming experience to become much better for lower-end systems and even some high -end systems. Your CPU and video card wont be trying to make out the FPS to 200 constantly, keeping your system cooler and lasting longer.

Another example is that if your regular FPS can run to about 170, and you limit it to 100, when your running through smokes or getting a lot of gunfire you wont receive that seemingly unnoticeable spike in your system that causes you some GRIEF. Think of that extra 70 FPS being stored as a backup for when the time comes.

Thoughts?

TL;DR : Not having a stable FPS causes discrepancies in-game, is it important to fix?

There isn't a limit of 200 fps. However, I do think this is a good idea if we have a choice if we want to or not, like you said.

loanb

sGosNitcheZ wrote: »

There isn't a limit of 200 fps. However, I do think this is a good idea if we have a choice if we want to or not, like you said.

Yeah I made a small edit, my mistake.

EDIT: Maybe I was thinking of some other year in CF history, but the FPS definitely has some kind of limit doesn't it? 300 possibly? Someone PM or post the details please.

Mad3a

loanb2g wrote: »

Limiting FPS

Another big issue from my point of view is the FPS limit in the game. Currently from what I've seen it is locked at a maximum of 200. 200 sounds great doesn't it? Everyone loves more FPS! The thing is it isn't as great as you think. When you don't have a stable FPS in-game you run the risk of; screen tearing, bad recoil, bad shots, mouse lag, monitor lag, and general discrepancies. THIS DOESN'T WORK FOR COMPETITIVE PLAY. From my point of view we should be able to lock the FPS ourselves, or at least lower the limit down to 100 FPS.

Why you might ask? Well if you configure the FPS to work very stable for your system, you will find your gaming experience to become much better for lower-end systems and even some high -end systems. Your CPU and video card wont be trying to make out the FPS to 200 constantly, keeping your system cooler and lasting longer.

Another example is that if your regular FPS can run to about 170, and you limit it to 100, when your running through smokes or getting a lot of gunfire you wont receive that seemingly unnoticeable spike in your system that causes you some GRIEF. Think of that extra 70 FPS being stored as a backup for when the time comes.

Thoughts?

TL;DR : Not having a stable FPS causes discrepancies in-game, is it important to fix?

I do get screen tears here and there but it doesn't bother me much, I run a 4550 and I get 170 fps normally and 90 in smoke. I wouldn't limit myself to only 90 fps for smokes which I only see in about 10% of the game now would I? What about other the other 90% ? Only thing I can say is this, save up all the money you can and buy this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814129187 stable 200. Next issue?

Giggletron

You tell me that you would notice a difference from 170 to 100 in terms of smoothness? You shouldnt when most people refresh rates are usually 60-75hz

loanb

2arrows1knee wrote: »

I do get screen tears here and there but it doesn't bother me much, I run a 4550 and I get 170 fps normally and 90 in smoke. I wouldn't limit myself to only 90 fps for smokes which I only see in about 10% of the game now would I? What about other the other 90% ? Only thing I can say is this, save up all the money you can and buy this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814129187 stable 200. Next issue?

So you would take more FPS, doesn't matter if it's stable? I've been used to having a nice stable FPS for the past few years so maybe there is something special I haven't experienced with an over-abundance of FPS. I have never heard much good about it, and my CF experience proves my point.

Giggletron wrote: »

You tell me that you would notice a difference from 170 to 100 in terms of smoothness? You shouldnt when most people refresh rates are usually 60-75hz

There is a difference in game play, but this is tested on Valve games like CS, TF, DOD. I can't say CF even shows you the correct FPS, and the engine itself is unpredictable. Best option would be to allowed people the option of setting their own FPS limit or choose from pre-set options.

Mad3a

Giggletron wrote: »

You tell me that you would notice a difference from 170 to 100 in terms of smoothness? You shouldnt when most people refresh rates are usually 60-75hz

I run 75hz and I actually do notice the difference, play with 100 and then 200-170, the game is weird, In css I don't notice a thing actually.

Giggletron

2arrows1knee wrote: »

I run 75hz and I actually do notice the difference, play with 100 and then 200-170, the game is weird, In css I don't notice a thing actually.

How can you notice a difference when the max youre being shown is 75hz anyway... that doesnt make sense

Mad3a

loanb2g wrote: »

So you would take more FPS, doesn't matter if it's stable? I've been used to having a nice stable FPS for the past few years so maybe there is something special I haven't experienced with an over-abundance of FPS. I have never heard much good about it, and my CF experience proves my point.



There is a difference in game play, but this is tested on Valve games like CS, TF, DOD. I can't say CF even shows you the correct FPS, and the engine itself is unpredictable. Best option would be to allowed people the option of setting their own FPS limit or choose from pre-set options.

Well if you actually play with 125.2424242424289231 for 20 years, spikes up and down are going to be noticeable, not like many people in the community come from css where there is a stable fps cap and the fps cap here is appearent, you just need a computer with an above entry level gpu and you'll reach it even with 4xAA and 16xAF on like I do.

loanb

2arrows1knee wrote: »

I run 75hz and I actually do notice the difference, play with 100 and then 200-170, the game is weird, In css I don't notice a thing actually.

Yes there is a difference like you said.

Giggletron wrote: »

How can you notice a difference when the max youre being shown is 75hz anyway... that doesnt make sense

I wish I was smart enough to tell everyone how monitors really work down to specifics. I can't tell you everything about CRT's, LED's, LCD's, different resolutions, 60, 75, 100, 120 hertz, ati, nvidia, amd, intel, etc, but IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE. I did have a guy from ESEA explain a bit to me, but it's not something I can remember easily. It's also based on your experience with your gear.

Mad3a

Giggletron wrote: »

How can you notice a difference when the max youre being shown is 75hz anyway... that doesnt make sense

loanb2g wrote: »

I can't say CF even shows you the correct FPS, and the engine itself is unpredictable.

It feels like crossfire sk1ps frames sometimes, idk, but I notice it.

loanb

2arrows1knee wrote: »

It feels like crossfire sk1ps frames sometimes, idk, but I notice it.

Yeah, CF does a lot of unexplained things.

uK__Swag

Most of my friends get 50-200
As where i get a max of 50.. And i'm using a 2 yr old HP notebook

loanb

One point to make, like I said in the first post, your system is constantly putting out to get you the maximum FPS in CF. This is a huge issue for some people who play CSS on good machines, causing hardware to overheat and issues in the long run. In CSS it's an easy fix with a single cvar, and it's much easier to watch. In CF people just accept it, not realizing that both low/high-end machines could be running hot for hours while they play.

Also this isn't even close to the biggest issue, but you guys seem to have missed a few of my points from the first post about recoil, shooting, lag, etc. It doesn't matter as much about what you are seeing on whatever hertz or monitor you have, its about how your system handles it and how it affects your game.

loanb

over night bump

loanb

over night bump

Smagjus

loanb2g wrote: »

One point to make, like I said in the first post, your system is constantly putting out to get you the maximum FPS in CF. This is a huge issue for some people who play CSS on good machines, causing hardware to overheat and issues in the long run.

These problems don't exist. I don't know who told you that but it is definetely wrong.

And the cap in CF is 200 FPS although it is a little buggy. As far as I know it is possible to get rid of the limit while using an NVidia card.

loanb

Smagjus wrote: »

These problems don't exist. I don't know who told you that but it is definetely wrong.

And the cap in CF is 200 FPS although it is a little buggy. As far as I know it is possible to get rid of the limit while using an NVidia card.

Also this isn't even close to the biggest issue, but you guys seem to have missed a few of my points from the first post about recoil, shooting, lag, etc. It doesn't matter as much about what you are seeing on whatever hertz or monitor you have, its about how your system handles it and how it affects your game.

FPS that constantly spikes and drops does change your game. It can make your game play slower or faster and it is never really stable. I worded what I said wrong, but right or wrong there have been threads about FPS issues and and threads about how it changes game play for QL, CS, CSS for so many years now.