Discussion in 'PC Games' started by kilebantick, Dec 17, 2011.
You can react to things you can't see?
I thought the question was would there be a lag.. ie close ur eyes move the mouse the end result should be the same on both pc's..
I've got no science to back this, but i know its wrong as my bf3 framerate dips just into too low territory and when it does my mouse does FEEL sluggish and I can't track enemies left to right well at all.
Do you game with your eyes closed?
Lower output leads to longer input turnaround time.
Your eyes can't process anymore then 30somethibg FPS.
However at 20-30fps I this k would fine for every game if it were consistent.
Usually low FPS like that points to a struggling system meaning everything is delayed a bit.
Well if anyone wants to test this and has Battlefield 3 put this command in the console (`)
"GameTime.MaxVariableFps" at 30 for a couple of rounds and then at 60. Then tell me which one feels more accurate? (assuming you can get 60fps Lol's)
Can be done with Counter Strike Source also with fps_max or max_fps can't remember which one.
As long as my FPS match my monitor refresh rate it's spot on for me any thing less is annoying.
Dude, I'd need to be able to hit 60FPS first... Sitting mid 30's, drops to high 20's during explosions... Played on someone else' machine, with more pixels, and more FPS (60+), and it is far easier...
I call bs on that, just because movies run at 24/25 fps and you cant tell they are choppy is because they use motion blur, however a game wont look that smooth at 30.
Then why are they spending money working on 72p video?
Because your seeing less frames, doesn't mean the movements of the mouse are being affected.
But the number of updates to correct those movements is.
I mentioned this earlier.
walker is right
It's just with lower fps your reaction speed will be lower simply because you're not seeing updates fast enough.
Just wanted to chime in here, my 4870 was giving me around 30fps during the BF3 beta and it was insanely hard to aim accurately (compared to CSS/TF2) as I often overcorrected due to the FPS drops. Also the mouse input was a lot slower (something to do with triple buffering?). When I upgraded my gfx card it was a LOT easier to aim.
Some games are done differently.
Consoles use 30FPS
PC Games (Majority of them) use 60 FPS+
I noticed L.A. Noire & Need For Speed The Run sit on 30 FPS (Can't change a thing..) now that's shitty console port. But its playable.
But FPS Games (eg. BF3, MW3, CS:S, etc) require to have 60FPS+ To have a full smooth gameplay. Anything less and you will have inaccurate mouse input/response.
60FPS minimum unless its an RTS or sidescroller. I can tell the difference between 100FPS and 120FPS easily so don't anyone tell me the human eye can only see x amount of FPS bullshit.
Here we go, this will clear it up.
Summarise, the eye can process far more then 30 fps it has more to do with how similar the images are to each other, disimilar images (like turning quickly in a game) require higher FPS for the brain to process them as a fluid movement.
Generic First Person Shooter, your running down a hall 30ish fps is fine here the images are very similar, you hear something and you turn into a room with rapid mouse movements you may need 60+ fps for your brain to process these as a fluid movement and not a series of different images.
Note: U.S. pilots have been shown an image of a plane for 1/220 of a second and could see the plane and even identify it.
So it's more circumstantial then anything else.
Still my previous point still stands, the "input lag" is caused by the same old/bad hardware causing the low 30fps because it's likely overworked and any "input lag" is only noticeable due to inconsistencies in the frame rate I.E goes down to 20fps when a bomb goes off or there is some snow, whereas a 60-100fps machine may drop to 50-80 fps when the bomb goes off resulting in less overall system lag.
Damn it voted no by mistake.
I know bf3 is awful at 30fps. Needs ~60fps.