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

[tetris42]

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.

I have no problem explaining it. You said "generally", except that still doesn't work in the context you used it. If we're talking about something that solves a problem 90% of the time, then sure, "generally" makes sense there. It doesn't solve it EVERY time, but it solves it most of the time. In the case of frame synching, having a higher framerate solves tearing 0% of the time. So saying it "generally" solves it isn't true.

I get what you're saying, you just had multiple cases of a poor choice of words. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's like this:

In your MIND, you were trying to say that the latency caused by vsync is worse for you than frame tearing itself, and having a higher framerate makes the tearing less noticeable for you personally. You didn't move the goalpost, because this is what you were always thinking.
In your POST, you said high framerates solve frame tearing, then backtracked and said they didn't solve it, but make it less noticeable, then said changing your stance isn't moving the goalpost (even though that's exactly what it is).

Point being, what you were thinking and what you were saying were two different things, hence the commotion.

p.s. I can totally see you quoting my first post again hehe

Yes, I find it useful when people deny saying what they said.

 

[dgz]

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.

Again, I already owned up to my mistake several times. My initial statement was incorrect.

Now, what do you mean there's tearing 100% of the time? I am not following. Constant tearing lines were certainly a big thing back when I was running a 60Hz VA panel. Absolutely not the case on 120 Hz and 144 Hz panels. Remember when I said your math is correct? I lied. I didn't even question it. Math don't lie. But math gives results even when wrong parameters are being used, yeah?

Funny, you'd have me banned for attacking vsync in the name of latency if only you could find a reason for justifying such an act in the rules.