Jump to content

worth getting more than 60fps for fallout 3?


Dude500X

Recommended Posts

Posted

new laptop arrived, game runs flawlessly... no HD mods yet but its all on highish settings. 4x aa and 4x aa (both things) max res (1600 x something) blah blah.

 

Ive got the stutter remover limiting my fps at 60 which is great, runs great etc, also I have vsync on.

 

Just wondering is it worth screwing with my current formulae to try get a higher fps?  is there any real tangible advantage to having a higher fps than 60?

Posted

Well for anything other than bragging about the size of your e-dick, no.

 

Also, it would not be noticeable at all if your monitor doesn't have a refresh rate above 60hz at your preferred resolution.

Posted

so far its locked between 50-60fps on reasonably decent graphic settings.  Only so far has dropped to 40-50 during rain with project reality, but that also could of happened because I was recording at the same time which I think drops the fps too

Posted

@Symon and Cocaine Cobra

Here a little lesson on fps and how useless that unit is. To get a fluid motion, every pictures must be on the screen in at least 40-50 ms, 40-50 ms is a really small noticeable stuttering (24fps on lcd with progressive or 48hz on old crts) (most people don't see it), at 60 ms you have a really noticeable stuttering. Also movies have a "constant" time between "pre rendered" frames, that means if you see stuttering you are a more sensitive person or your player/monitor/tv is shitty. Games have to render the frames in realtime and because frames of a motion have different time to render it results in a variable time between frames, and if the time goes near/beyond 60 ms you have stuttering. So if you have 60 you could still get stuttering for example if you have a motion of 1 sec you  have 118 frames in 0,5 sec and 2 in the second 0,5 second but still have 60 fps with huge stuttering.

 

So don't compare movie fps with game fps.

 

@lord_dweedle

60 fps, less or more can be answered with both yes and no, "normally" 30-60 fps is enough if you have a constant time between frames, "perfectly" recommended would be (constant timed) 120 fps on a 60 Hz screen (240 fps on a 120Hz screen, 2 times the receiver's rate) to have a high chance to have the currents game state/newest picture on the screen. More than 60 fps is more to get the maximum out of your monitor rather than getting a fluid motion and is more recommended for e-sport games where every second counts rather than single player games.

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

so far its locked between 50-60fps on reasonably decent graphic settings.  Only so far has dropped to 40-50 during rain with project reality, but that also could of happened because I was recording at the same time which I think drops the fps too

 

Yes FPS drop when using recording on many machines this is true. On your laptop it may be especially true since most laptops only have one hard drive.

 

FPS isn't as important to me as flow of the screens are. Constant steady flow of screens without "microstudder" can give a better overall experience and less eye strain than having bragging rights to 200+ frames. A nice steady constant frame rate in my opinion is the best.

 

I have a great graphic card (GTX670) and I use the stutter program (FNV)  and lock the frame rates depending on the game between 30 and 60 FPS. Yes 30 FPS on some games. One such game is FNV. I can easily exceed 60 frames per second. I don't need it. I want clean constant reliable flow of frames. I also start out using vsync unless the game gives me some issues then I turn it off.

 

Keep in mind when you start adding various texture mods to the game the FPS can drop. Some of the textures are quite intensive and can take more resources to create.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...