🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 8 Sep 2016 08:48:10 +0100, Toby Newman <goo...@asktoby.com>
wrote:

>On 2016-09-07, Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>> On Wed, 7 Sep 2016 09:06:02 +0100, Toby Newman <goo...@asktoby.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2016-09-06, Rin Stowleigh <rstow...@nevrhadgmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 14:28:31 +0100, Toby Newman <goo...@asktoby.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2016-09-06, Spalls Hurgenson <spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Sep 2016 10:52:01 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
>>>>>>> <rstow...@nevrhadgmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Buttery framerates are one of the most overlooked aspect of gaming, a
>>>>>>>> lot of folks don't realize how much the subpar framerates of
>>>>>>>> underpowered GPUs detract from immersion, until they get accustomed to
>>>>>>>> high framerates and then try to go back.  There seems to be the need
>>>>>>>> for a reference point for comparison.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In my experience it's less /high/ framerates and more an issue of
>>>>>>> /stable/ framerates. If the game is jumping from 15 to 30 to 60fps, I
>>>>>>> notice it far more than if it's a rock-steady 30 (or even 20) fps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 20fps? What is this, Powerpoint?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Age probably helps too; them youngsters swear there's an amazing
>>>>>>> difference between 30 and 60fps, but I can't see it at all. And don't
>>>>>>> get me started on the whole waste-of-money ultra-HD thing; 1024x768
>>>>>>> should be enough for anyone ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 60 is OK, it gets much better the faster you go. And I'm in my late
>>>>>> 30s. Anything less than 60 bothers me greatly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Same here, a consistent 60 is minimum acceptable.  I do find that
>>>>> beyond about 90-100fps there are somewhat diminishing returns.
>>>>>
>>>>> It really depends on the game though.  Something like Battlefield or
>>>>> Doom really benefits from the smoothest mouselook you can get out of
>>>>> it.  I find this to be much less the case with certain games, like
>>>>> slower-paced stealth games, third person shooters, or just first
>>>>> person games which typically don't involve as much twitch movement.
>>>>>
>>>>> An example of the latter is the Rainbow Six games.  Usually the action
>>>>> is so focused and intense that the player doesn't find themselves
>>>>> panning all around the room at rapid speed with the mouse.  Its more
>>>>> like you set up position to guard a hostage or control point, and be
>>>>> prepared to cover one or more choke points.  Or, you're infiltrating a
>>>>> building by rappeling up the side, then swinging in via a window, and
>>>>> proceeding slowly/carefully down a hallway with your sights staying
>>>>> aimed at a relatively narrow angle.  I typically don't enable heatmaps
>>>>> for my Razer mouse, but if you examined the difference between the
>>>>> typical mouse movement heatmap for Doom vs. Rainbow Six games, the
>>>>> difference in the type of game becomes much more measurable.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is kind of nice that the game supports high framerates, but they
>>>>> aren't a dealbreaker in that particular game simply because of the
>>>>> nature of the contest at hand.
>>>>
>>>> I find that polygons feel more solid at higher framerates. Something
>>>> snaps in my head and my perception goes from "animation" to "object",
>>>> above a certain FPS threshold.
>>>
>>> Yes, I think that's a big part of it.  When my eyes pan or look
>>> quickly around whatever my environment is, there is no blurrying,
>>> jerkiness, or similar issues, so the closer that fluid real life
>>> movement is replicated on the screen, the more convincing everything
>>> on the screen will be to me.
>>>
>>> I never even understood the "motion blur" effect in many games,
>>> supposedly it is to mimick some visual characteristic of eye movement,
>>> but real life objects either don't blur with my vision (*) no matter
>>> how fast I pan my eyes, or the blurring effect occurs so quickly I
>>> can't see it.
>>>
>>
>> Actually it mimics film movies. Our eyes don't see like that, but the 
>> blur within cels makes the 23 fps of movies look more like movement 
>> instead of single pictures. If your game isn't stuck at 23 fps (or 30 
>> perhaps) then there's no reason to use it.  It tends to be way overdone 
>> in games too, it should be blur between the two frames to either side 
>> time wise of the frame it's playing, but they make it blur over an 
>> entire second or so usually (i.e. 22 or more frames too much).
>
>In new Doom you can adjust the blur length. I spent a little time
>playing with it and found I preferred having it on, on it's lowest
>setting, despite already being pinned at 120fps. On fast pans you can
>still see discrete frames at 120fps, and it mitigated that a little.

Have you thought about a GSync monitor?  Life is pretty much perfect
with adaptive sync, at all framerates.  I don't think you'll see
discrete frames or other issues on one paired with a good vid card.

There is definitely something about the ID Tech engine's relationship
with vid drivers that is (or was) a little behind the curve upon
release, because prior to Dooms release I had my desktop driver set to
60hz[*].  Pretty much every title, new or old worked fast and
flawlessly after the monitor purchase except Doom, which was not
switching out of the desktop resolution, and was locking everything to
60hz until I figured out the issue and addressed it by upping the
desktop rate.

[*] I don't even remember why I originally did this, but I think it
was when I was running dual monitors on my gaming rig, primary was the
144hz Gsync monitor and secondary was a 10 year old Viewsonic that was
limited to 60hz, and I had set them both to 60hz to eliminate some
other issue.  The early versions of Gsync drivers did not play well
with 10 year old fixed-sync monitors, something I'm sure they've
worked out by now, I'd guess.