Fallout 76 is Locked at 63FPS and Has a Dynamic FOV

Domingo said:
63fps? That seems like an odd choice, rather than 30,50, 60,120, etc.
Click to expand...

Yeah I thought 63 was a very specific but odd number. I mean if you're just going to pull a number out of thin air, how about .... wait for it..... 76?

(never mind that the stupid gamebyro engine probably can't get there).

And I know why they're still using gamebyro... because it's done and it (mostly) works. They just take the Fallout 4 tuned engine version and run with it. Why reinvent the wheel if they don't have to?

OTOH.... they probably should be trying to invent a new wheel for the next gen engine. This thing has been around since Oblivion, right? Over 12 years and counting. Thats a ton in dog years, and that engine is a total dog. (har har)
 
Last edited:
misterbobby said:
You are not understanding. If you're oblivious to something then of course you don't think that you're oblivious to it because you don't know any different. Again some people just don't notice certain things and you clearly don't notice the little stutters and jitters that this game engine has.
Click to expand...

If that what you want to hide behind, so be it.
 
PenGunn said:
If that what you want to hide behind, so be it.
Click to expand...
Are you really having trouble understanding such a very simple concept? I think even a child can grasp the idea that some people don't notice certain things. But hey if you want to pretend that you have some magical system that avoids all the issues that are well-documented and well-known with this game engine then keep living in your fantasy land.
 
gamerk2 said:
Stupid question, if Physics is still locked to FPS, wouldn't that mean that Physics will still be affected by FPS dropping? Sounds like Bethdesia is just trying to hide the problem, rather then working on a proper fix.
Click to expand...
yes it will
its ussual minor diffrence
but e.ge quake 125fps gave you a longer jump distance due to rounding errors at that update speed
 
  • Like
Reactions: dgz
like this
misterbobby said:
Are you really having trouble understanding such a very simple concept? I think even a child can grasp the idea that some people don't notice certain things. But hey if you want to pretend that you have some magical system that avoids all the issues that are well-documented and well-known with this game engine then keep living in your fantasy land.
Click to expand...

I can play Doom on Nigtmare. I notice what the fuck is happening. This is egregious stupidity.
 
PenGunn said:
I can play Doom on Nigtmare. I notice what the fuck is happening. This is egregious stupidity.
Click to expand...
And what in the flying fuck does playing Doom on nightmare have anything to do with you noticing or not noticing stutters in Fallout 4? Really at this point you are also oblivious to how big of a fool you're making of yourself
 
Domingo said:
63fps? That seems like an odd choice, rather than 30,50, 60,120, etc.
Click to expand...

Zarathustra[H] said:
63fps??? What an odd number.
Click to expand...

Limiting a game to exactly 60FPS with VSync off will make screen tearing very obvious.

Depending on how the limiter is set up, I believe a 60 FPS limit with VSync on can make games stutter, as it will sometimes limit frames that should've gone through. Not 100% sure about that, but that seemed to be the issue I had with Rivatuner in Skyrim, before Enhanced Sync was a thing on AMD cards.

A solution is to go a little bit above 60. I know Mass Effect 2 had a 62FPS limit for similar reasons (though it worked fine at any framerate), and I believe other games have similar slightly-off-60 limits.
 
misterbobby said:
And what in the flying fuck does playing Doom on nightmare have anything to do with you noticing or not noticing stutters in Fallout 4? Really at this point you are also oblivious to how big of a fool you're making of yourself
Click to expand...

I have never cared. You have retreated to a position you only hold because you claim I cannot perceive what you perceive. What a crock of pitiful shit.
 
PenGunn said:
I have never cared. You have retreated to a position you only hold because you claim I cannot perceive what you perceive. What a crock of pitiful shit.
Click to expand...
Perhaps see if you can find an adult there with an IQ above 75 to help you understand.
 
misterbobby said:
You are just oblivious to it. Plenty of people don't notice certain things. My parents used to sit right in front of a CRT monitor running at 60 hertz and it never bothered them one bit nor did they even know what the hell I was talking about when I would try to put it at 85 to get rid of the flickering. Plenty of people don't even see screen tearing and act like vsync is not even needed in games. Even when the shittiest most technical mess of a game is released there are always people that say the game runs fine for them which is always quite hilarious.
Click to expand...

rofl. You're no position to patronize anyone with gems like "Plenty of people don't even see screen tearing and act like vsync is not even needed in games".

Generally speaking, the tearing problem is solved by allowing your monitor to display more frames. vsync is one of those things where the cure is worse than the disease. Seriously, get a high refresh monitor first, and then we'll talk.

SvenBent said:
yes it will
its ussual minor diffrence
but e.ge quake 125fps gave you a longer jump distance due to rounding errors at that update speed
Click to expand...

You meant Quake 3. I think 333 or something was producing the biggest jumps. Different values for Quake 1/2.
 
dgz said:
Generally speaking, the tearing problem is solved by allowing your monitor to display more frames. vsync is one of those things where the cure is worse than the disease. Seriously, get a high refresh monitor first, and then we'll talk.
Click to expand...

Seriously. Those who say "it doesn't matter" or "I can't tell the difference". Have never experienced a Gysnc or Freesync display. I can tell you that I will never go back to a 60hz display for gaming. The difference is night and day.
 
dgz said:
rofl. You're no position to patronize anyone with gems like "Plenty of people don't even see screen tearing and act like vsync is not even needed in games".

Generally speaking, the tearing problem is solved by allowing your monitor to display more frames. vsync is one of those things where the cure is worse than the disease. Seriously, get a high refresh monitor first, and then we'll talk.



You meant Quake 3. I think 333 or something was producing the biggest jumps. Different values for Quake 1/2.
Click to expand...
Maybe don't take one part of what I said out of context as the point was that some people just don't notice certain things and that is a fact. Screen tearing was nothing but a simple example.
 
misterbobby said:
And what in the flying fuck does playing Doom on nightmare have anything to do with you noticing or not noticing stutters in Fallout 4? Really at this point you are also oblivious to how big of a fool you're making of yourself
Click to expand...

Because clearly Epeen > understanding and evidence of topic.
 
dgz said:
Generally speaking, the tearing problem is solved by allowing your monitor to display more frames. vsync is one of those things where the cure is worse than the disease. Seriously, get a high refresh monitor first, and then we'll talk.
Click to expand...


Tearing is in not way removed by faster/slow fps/hz. it just changes the form and behavior of tearing.
If you think presence pf tearing is a speed related issues You are not understanding the concepts at works here
More FPS > hz = more tearing lines on the screen at a time that split hte amount of tearing betweens them but the total tearing delta form top to bottom of screen is the same as its only affect by your "camera" movement

runing at 60fps/60hz no sync give you one taring line exaclty at the same spots
if you move you camara 130 pixela to the left in those 16.6 mz you havea tearing delta of 130 from top to bottom
that 130pixels are split in one taring line so you tearing line has a 130 pixels "local" tearing

If you do 120fps/60hz what you get is no 2 tearing lines at exactly the same spot.
you still would have a total tearing delta from top to bottom of 130pixels but it now divided among 2 tearing lines
So each tearing linve have 65 pixles of "local" tearing

the total top to bottom tearings delta remains the same no matter how many FPS you toss at it it does indeed NOT solve the issue


Unless it because you just don't notice the issues (like a lot of ppl dont)



P.S.
Since no game runs at the exact smae/constants FPS the tearing lines moves around.
How much they move aorund is affected by the FPS to HZ ratio




dgz said:
You meant Quake 3. I think 333 or something was producing the biggest jumps. Different values for Quake 1/2.
Click to expand...
Yup I meant Quake3
 
Last edited:
GameBryo best engine out there the best use of it was seen was with Dark Age of Camelot, Warhammer Online and Rift.
 
dgz said:
rofl. You're no position to patronize anyone with gems like "Plenty of people don't even see screen tearing and act like vsync is not even needed in games".

Generally speaking, the tearing problem is solved by allowing your monitor to display more frames. vsync is one of those things where the cure is worse than the disease. Seriously, get a high refresh monitor first, and then we'll talk.
Click to expand...
You don't know what you're talking about. Unless you have Vsync, freesync, g-sync, or fastsync, you're getting tearing. The end. Now some people value lower latency over image quality / screen tearing. That's a fair argument, but acting like a fast refresh rate on your monitor solves screen tearing shows you don't get it. It's simply a different variety of tearing.

Me personally, I've only run into a handful of games where Vsync introduced enough latency to create problems for me, but I'm not a pro gamer either. I'll take the higher image quality every time.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I'll fully admit that I have never developed a game, and have little insight into the process, but my understanding was that most game engines are very malleable and you can integrate almost any feature (like selective looting) into them.

Many different applications like this have certainly been done with the Unreal engine, and the old Valve Source engine seems capable of it as well.

Is the ID Tech engine just very limited?

The reason I brought it up was because I was very impressed with its rendering performance, but if ID Tech is off the table, certainly there has to be a more suitable engine out there than the garbage they are using?
Click to expand...

ID Tech never gets licensed because they don't want to license it. Nevermind it's always been based on OGL, which no one uses and no one outside ID is crazy enough to use.
 
gamerk2 said:
ID Tech never gets licensed because they don't want to license it. Nevermind it's always been based on OGL, which no one uses and no one outside ID is crazy enough to use.
Click to expand...

ID tech was the tech of choice for many companies for almost 10 years. The quake 3 engine was licensed countless times before they released it's source code.

Open GL is a better library for some uses than DirectX.
Also they try to use platform agnostic libraries like OpenGL and now Vulkan. It's seems like this has enabled them to get Linux/Mac/other ports out sooner/easier than some other companies.
 
It's a either or to me, I like 144hz, but I think I like the 60hz 4k 49" quantum dot hdr shit more at the moment.
 
tetris42 said:
You don't know what you're talking about. Unless you have Vsync, freesync, g-sync, or fastsync, you're getting tearing. The end. Now some people value lower latency over image quality / screen tearing. That's a fair argument, but acting like a fast refresh rate on your monitor solves screen tearing shows you don't get it. It's simply a different variety of tearing.

Me personally, I've only run into a handful of games where Vsync introduced enough latency to create problems for me, but I'm not a pro gamer either. I'll take the higher image quality every time.
Click to expand...


I don't get why people think anything besides X-sync solves tearing. Tearing is directly due to lack of sync and nothing else. Tearing IS the lack of sync.
but so many people act high and mighty about sync but have no idea how framebuffers works at all
 
I love the fact a lot of you care more about getting uncapped framerate, let's not consider if it's even a good game or not. But neh, game play isn't important 0_o
 
Eshelmen said:
I love the fact a lot of you care more about getting uncapped framerate, let's not consider if it's even a good game or not. But neh, game play isn't important 0_o
Click to expand...
When the lack of current tech influences gameplay we do care. It's the topic of this conversation.
 
misterbobby said:
Perhaps see if you can find an adult there with an IQ above 75 to help you understand.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you can find a adult who can explain to you that if he doesn't' notice something than it is not important. If he doesn't notice it than it is irrelevant. If he is observing better performance than you maybe there are reasons why.

If he played Doom back in the day that means he knows a thing or two about configuring computers. You could not just install a program and it played. You had to setup config.sys and autoexec.bat files to manage memory and control the order in which drivers were loaded. It's very possible he is doing something right and you are doing something wrong and "that" is what is accounting for his observed performance non-issues.

When you make "high-schoolish" accusations about IQ than you lose credibility and make people question "your" maturity...
 
mbelue said:
When the lack of current tech influences gameplay we do care. It's the topic of this conversation.
Click to expand...
When you become obsessed with secondary issues while ignoring the primary issue you might consider refining your priorities.

Part of enjoying literature or art is the suspension of disbelief. It requires you to tune-out reality and allow yourself to become absorbed in the story. Computer games are a new art form. To enjoy this game you have to ignore reality and that includes minor technical issues. If you are unable to do that than that is a personal matter you have to deal with. Those of us who can allow ourselves to become "one with the game" will enjoy fallout 76 very much. It must suck to not be like us...
 
mbelue said:
ID tech was the tech of choice for many companies for almost 10 years. The quake 3 engine was licensed countless times before they released it's source code.

Open GL is a better library for some uses than DirectX.
Also they try to use platform agnostic libraries like OpenGL and now Vulkan. It's seems like this has enabled them to get Linux/Mac/other ports out sooner/easier than some other companies.
Click to expand...

Let me correct myself: The newer versions of ID Tech have never really been used, mainly because the planet moved away from using OGL in games. OGL is just a horrible to use API that makes everything hard; it's a legitimate PITA to use. Meanwhile, MSFT has created a best in class toolchain for DirectX.
 
AlphaAtlas said:
Limiting a game to exactly 60FPS with VSync off will make screen tearing very obvious.

Depending on how the limiter is set up, I believe a 60 FPS limit with VSync on can make games stutter, as it will sometimes limit frames that should've gone through. Not 100% sure about that, but that seemed to be the issue I had with Rivatuner in Skyrim, before Enhanced Sync was a thing on AMD cards.

A solution is to go a little bit above 60. I know Mass Effect 2 had a 62FPS limit for similar reasons (though it worked fine at any framerate), and I believe other games have similar slightly-off-60 limits.
Click to expand...


Interesting. Did not know that. In recent years I've always just run with adaptive vsync on, and then tried to configure settings such that I very rarely drop under 60fps.

To me, the goal is to have a straight line framerate chart at 60fps in RivaTuner.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
63fps??? What an odd number.

It has been long known that the engine has problems because it ties physics calculations to framerate.

They really should have replaced the engine before releasing what likely is a long term project.

The ID Tech engine used in games they have published in the last few years is so good too. Why couldn't they just have used that?
Click to expand...
It is actually a quirk in the Gamebryo engine and all its branches. The engine is so old that the update loop is still based on ticks, and everything tied to it including physics updates at a rate of 64 Hz. Limiting to 63 FPS prevents any oddities from the game going over that limit, such as the faster running speed. The V-Sync argument presented earlier is a valid one, but in this case it's not true. Look up "64 Hz bug."
gamerk2 said:
ID Tech never gets licensed because they don't want to license it. Nevermind it's always been based on OGL, which no one uses and no one outside ID is crazy enough to use.
Click to expand...
As far as I know id Tech 5 (Rage) is the first engine to not being licensed, which was ultimately Zenimax's call despite Carmack's wishes to the contrary. id Tech 6 contains a lot of proprietary tech unlike previous engines, which is likely why they will continue to keep the engine in house going forward.
 
AlphaAtlas said:
Limiting a game to exactly 60FPS with VSync off will make screen tearing very obvious.

Depending on how the limiter is set up, I believe a 60 FPS limit with VSync on can make games stutter, as it will sometimes limit frames that should've gone through. Not 100% sure about that, but that seemed to be the issue I had with Rivatuner in Skyrim, before Enhanced Sync was a thing on AMD cards.

A solution is to go a little bit above 60. I know Mass Effect 2 had a 62FPS limit for similar reasons (though it worked fine at any framerate), and I believe other games have similar slightly-off-60 limits.
Click to expand...

This sounds valid to me.
sincen ot hitting the 60FPS rate exactly with vsync on and under doouble buffering will incres the 16.6ms render to screen time to 33mhs asicaly giving you a 1 fram that is only at 30FPS

Having such a tight max 60max and 60hz vsync is most likly there will be some that just missed the buss then due to microscoptic diffrence in timmings.

Reducing the min render time from 16.6ms render time (60fps) to 15.8 (63fps) will make sure that is always a frame ready for the bufferswap under sync enviroment

Another options would be to use triple buffering. but tripel buffering under DX is not rotating so it increased lag
triplebuffer under opengl i believe is rotation so it does not increase lag


in short:
I agree. I think what you are saying sounds very valid
 
SvenBent said:
Tearing is in not way removed by faster/slow fps/hz. it just changes the form and behavior of tearing.
If you think presence pf tearing is a speed related issues You are not understanding the concepts at works here
More FPS > hz = more tearing lines on the screen at a time that split hte amount of tearing betweens them but the total tearing delta form top to bottom of screen is the same as its only affect by your "camera" movement

runing at 60fps/60hz no sync give you one taring line exaclty at the same spots
if you move you camara 130 pixela to the left in those 16.6 mz you havea tearing delta of 130 from top to bottom
that 130pixels are split in one taring line so you tearing line has a 130 pixels "local" tearing

If you do 120fps/60hz what you get is no 2 tearing lines at exactly the same spot.
you still would have a total tearing delta from top to bottom of 130pixels but it now divided among 2 tearing lines
So each tearing linve have 65 pixles of "local" tearing

the total top to bottom tearings delta remains the same no matter how many FPS you toss at it it does indeed NOT solve the issue


Unless it because you just don't notice the issues (like a lot of ppl dont)



P.S.
Since no game runs at the exact smae/constants FPS the tearing lines moves around.
How much they move aorund is affected by the FPS to HZ ratio





Yup I meant Quake3
Click to expand...

Interesting. Your examples cover the exact opposite of what I had in mind. Rendering 120 FPS on a 60 Hz is the cause of the problem. 60/60 is also clearly NOT what I had in mind since hardly any game besides Quake till 3 allow you to limit your frames. I blame my dyslexia, though.

That said, I do agree with your last paragraph. Now, imagine you have something rendering at 120 FPS on a 200 Hz monitor. Would tearing be as noticeable as 120 FPS / 60 Hz? I dare you to say yes
 
misterbobby said:
Maybe don't take one part of what I said out of context as the point was that some people just don't notice certain things and that is a fact. Screen tearing was nothing but a simple example.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I assumed you're like Sven and tetris42
 
dgz said:
Interesting. Your examples cover the exact opposite of what I had in mind. Rendering 120 FPS on a 60 Hz is the cause of the problem. 60/60 is also clearly NOT what I had in mind since hardly any game besides Quake till 3 allow you to limit your frames. I blame my dyslexia, though.

That said, I do agree with your last paragraph. Now, imagine you have something rendering at 120 FPS on a 200 Hz monitor. Would tearing be as noticeable as 120 FPS / 60 Hz? I dare you to say yes
Click to expand...

Well lets put it to the test....oh you lack one important information is the test to even take it into any kind of consideration.
How much movent. tearing is the coming from changing the pictures between an update cycle without movement how do you dtermine tearing? and you should know this since it was brought up in the example you are quoating

lets increase the speed from the former examples to make the math easily and says 1pixels/ms

120 FPS on a 200 Hz monitor aka 8.3ms render cycle and a 5MSrefresh cycles
in this case you will have a tearing line ever 1.6 refresh cycles. so first displayed picture would not have a tearing line next frame would have it 66% down. next one it would be gone then next one it would be 33% down etc etc.
tearing is not gone is now just blinking in and out and moving around
each new frame contains 8.3 pixels of movements so a local tearing of 8.3 pixels
and you have a top to bottom tearing of 8.5 pixels as well

in short:
local tearing 8.3 pixels
Top/bottom tearing 8.3pixels
# of lines = 1 "blinking "in and out



120fps/60hz aka 8.3msreder cycle and 16.6hz refresh cycles
In this case you have 2 tearing lines consonant inthe same spot. not blinking
Each new frame contains 8.3 pixels of movements so ao local tearing of 8.3 pixels
you have a total top to bottom tearing of 16.pixels


in short:
local tearing 8.3 ms
Top/bottom tearings 16.6ms
Top/bottom tearing
# of lines = 2 not blinking/not moving around



Problem was not solved in any of them.
which one is the better is highly subjective as someone might be more disturbed but a blinking tearing line moving across the monitors more erratic than having 2 solids tearing located the same places ( under optimal conditions)

But one thin is for sure its not solved which was your original post. ( don't try to change the goalpost)


To quote you
Generally speaking, the tearing problem is solved by allowing your monitor to display more frames


The only thing that solve tearing is sync, as tearing is the due to lack of sync.
 
gamerk2 said:
ID Tech never gets licensed because they don't want to license it. Nevermind it's always been based on OGL, which no one uses and no one outside ID is crazy enough to use.
Click to expand...

OpenGL and Vulcan. Maybe they just should be crazy enough to try it, as this is the best performing engine on the market. Doom (2016) and Wolfenstein the New Order (2014) and Wolfenstein the New Colossus (2017) are some of the best performing games I have run on my overclocked Pascal Titan X at 4k. No other modern games look as good while running at a constant 60+fps.

And I don't think it's accurate that they don't license it. Tech 5 and Tech 6 may not have been used in a ton of titles, but they have been used in some non-ID games:

Tech5:
Rage (2011) – id Software
Wolfenstein: The New Order (2014) – MachineGames
Wolfenstein: The Old Blood (2015) – MachineGames
The Evil Within (2014) – Tango Gameworks
Dishonored 2 (2016) – Arkane Studios
Dishonored: Death of the Outsider (2017) – Arkane Studios
The Evil Within 2 (2017) – Tango Gameworks

Tech6:
Doom (2016) – by id Software
Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus (2017) – by MachineGames
Doom VFR (2017) – by id Software
Wolfenstein: Youngblood (2019) - by MachineGames

From a graphical appearance and performance perspective, I'd argue it's the best engine out there today. Can't speak to any other aspects of it though.

The ID Tech engine is limited to only Zenimax developers, but Zenimax owns Bethesda, so....
 
SvenBent said:
Well lets put it to the test....oh you lack one important information is the test to even take it into any kind of consideration.
How much movent. tearing is the coming from changing the pictures between an update cycle without movement how do you dtermine tearing? and you should know this since it was brought up in the example you are quoating

lets increase the speed from the former examples to make the math easily and says 1pixels/ms

120 FPS on a 200 Hz monitor aka 8.3ms render cycle and a 5MSrefresh cycles
in this case you will have a tearing line ever 1.6 refresh cycles. so first displayed picture would not have a tearing line next frame would have it 66% down. next one it would be gone then next one it would be 33% down etc etc.
tearing is not gone is now just blinking in and out and moving around
each new frame contains 8.3 pixels of movements so a local tearing of 8.3 pixels
and you have a top to bottom tearing of 8.5 pixels as well

in short:
local tearing 8.3 pixels
Top/bottom tearing 8.3pixels
# of lines = 1 "blinking "in and out



120fps/60hz aka 8.3msreder cycle and 16.6hz refresh cycles
In this case you have 2 tearing lines consonant inthe same spot. not blinking
Each new frame contains 8.3 pixels of movements so ao local tearing of 8.3 pixels
you have a total top to bottom tearing of 16.pixels


in short:
local tearing 8.3 ms
Top/bottom tearings 16.6ms
Top/bottom tearing
# of lines = 2 not blinking/not moving around



Problem was not solved in any of them.
which one is the better is highly subjective as someone might be more disturbed but a blinking tearing line moving across the monitors more erratic than having 2 solids tearing located the same places ( under optimal conditions)

But one thin is for sure its not solved which was your original post. ( don't try to change the goalpost)


To quote you
Generally speaking, the tearing problem is solved by allowing your monitor to display more frames


The only thing that solve tearing is sync, as tearing is the due to lack of sync.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely incredible. The lengths you're willing to go before admitting there's a lot less tearing at 120 Hz and beyond which is what I meant. Explaining the meaning of my original statement is not changing the goalpost. What else do you need, an apology?

I was about to leave it at that but your math is correct. 120 fps/200hz would certainly not be ideal. There's going to be some tearing but a lot less of it because each frame, broken or not, has significantly shorter life span.
 
dgz said:
Generally speaking, the tearing problem is solved by allowing your monitor to display more frames.
Click to expand...
dgz said:
Explaining the meaning of my original statement is not changing the goalpost.
Click to expand...
I've seen this pattern lately of people speaking in absolutes, then backtracking once challenged on what they said, since it's not defensible. You went from saying the problem is solved, to saying it's not as bad. Isn't that the textbook definition of moving the goalpost? If it's not, what WOULD you changing the goalpost look like in this scenario?
 
tetris42 said:
I've seen this pattern lately of people speaking in absolutes, then backtracking once challenged on what they said, since it's not defensible. You went from saying the problem is solved, to saying it's not as bad. Isn't that the textbook definition of moving the goalpost? If it's not, what WOULD you changing the goalpost look like in this scenario?
Click to expand...

Well, I said "generally". I should've been more specific. What you call changing the goal post is me admitting I didn't express my thoughts correctly. Still not sure why that's not good enough.

p.s. I can totally see you quoting my first post again hehe
 
Azphira said:
It's a either or to me, I like 144hz, but I think I like the 60hz 4k 49" quantum dot hdr shit more at the moment.
Click to expand...

Me too, once I hooked my machine up to the q9f it has been hard to love my monitor again :(
 
dgz said:
This is absolutely incredible. The lengths you're willing to go before admitting there's a lot less tearing at 120 Hz and beyond which is what I meant. Explaining the meaning of my original statement is not changing the goalpost. What else do you need, an apology?

I was about to leave it at that but your math is correct. 120 fps/200hz would certainly not be ideal. There's going to be some tearing but a lot less of it because each frame, broken or not, has significantly shorter life span.
Click to expand...


You are surprised by doing proper math to see how things reacts, rather than just baseless claims?
Should i apologize for trying to debate and follow up with arguments and evidence?
I'm sorry that just part of how I normally debate technical stuff. some of the forum i go on will ban you from not provide evidence support of claims (its in the TOS).
I guess you are just not used to it


Just because you dont undesyand the terminolgy of moving the goalpost does not make you right.
Just as because yo dont understand haw sync and frambuffers works does not make you right either.

You statement was not if it was reduced but if it was resolved.
If you can admit your statement we are debating was in fact incorrect. Then we can agree on that and move on,

The lifespan of a frame is not really important on its own in the way you are portraying it
It doesn't matter if you have 120fps/hz with a taering line. or 3fps/hz with a tearing lines.
You still have a tearing line 100% of the times

or to put in another way
60 x 16.6ms is the same as 200x5ms. Both are 1sec with a tearing linen no matter the speed of FPS or hz.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top