Forum
fps_max
Created 17th February 2015 @ 05:48
Add A Reply Pages: 1 2 Next »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7jelqvvzxE
so i was seeing some fragclips and i notice that kaidus fps lock, when in a fight locks to 60 fps and when he have enough fps, it locks itself to 120. i went to his cfg in twitch.tv and didn’t found anything
anyone knows this command?
mat_vsync 1
I strongly recommend not using it though because it produces massive input lag.
Last edited by ondkaja,
why not just use fps_max 60?
im using it for quiet a while now and its basically the same idea
Quoted from CapricorN
why not just use fps_max 60?
im using it for quiet a while now and its basically the same idea
why would you use such a number? … with that you get screen tearing – with vsync on not. and again: why would you use vsync 1 if you get HUGE input-lag? try fps_max 300 @60hz and 600 with 120hz. Dunno if I am the only one but if I multiply the hz by 5 I do not get screen tearing at all. Even can see the difference between (fps_max) 599 and 600 …
Isn’t that just the fps he records at? He might of forgotten to change it to 120 so some of the clips are at 60fps.
You could just always go and ask him.
Quoted from schocky
[…]
why would you use such a number? … with that you get screen tearing – with vsync on not. and again: why would you use vsync 1 if you get HUGE input-lag? try fps_max 300 @60hz and 600 with 120hz. Dunno if I am the only one but if I multiply the hz by 5 I do not get screen tearing at all. Even can see the difference between (fps_max) 599 and 600 …
i myself get dropped down to 60 fps in mids and such. so im atleast used to the screen tearing. its sort of a bad solution, but its better than being used to 120 and get dropped down every time
Doesn’t fraps do this when you record? I highly doubt kaidus is playing with vsync although he does have a pretty awful cfg.
Quoted from schocky
[…]
why would you use such a number? … with that you get screen tearing – with vsync on not. and again: why would you use vsync 1 if you get HUGE input-lag? try fps_max 300 @60hz and 600 with 120hz. Dunno if I am the only one but if I multiply the hz by 5 I do not get screen tearing at all. Even can see the difference between (fps_max) 599 and 600 …
Isnt the “perfect” lock fps*2+1 or is that just a myth ?
myth 4sure. one reason to use a higher fps_max is that you will get a faster response time.
also do not understand why ppl downscale their resolution on a LCD…
if you change the resolution ingame the pc has to recalculate everything AGAIN to get the lower resolution. native resolution ftw, same goes for mice (dpi). so many ppl use their old deathadder mouse and use a wrong dpi-step and get weird acceleration because of that.
Last edited by schocky,
Its the way the record works, its like streaming it will display your fps value if you have like overlay running or fraps, also you cant change “fps_max” values ingame (while connected) for some time now.
Quoted from schocky
myth 4sure. one reason to use a higher fps_max is that you will get a faster response time.
Since statements like “the human eye sees about 100 fps” don’t really apply and are wrong, it’s difficult to give a hard limit on how many fps are enough. I would wager a guess and say that anything above 200 fps (stable fps, that is) makes an insignificant difference and is down to personal preference and imagination. But we had that discussion before, schocky :)
also do not understand why ppl downscale their resolution on a LCD…
if you change the resolution ingame the pc has to recalculate everything AGAIN to get the lower resolution. native resolution ftw[…]
Are you claiming that your PC will render frames in, say, 1080p regardless of the resolution you are running your monitor at? That is most definitely not true. Lower resolutions mean fewer pixels to render, which in turn increases the performance.
Quoted from firej
[…]
Isnt the “perfect” lock fps*2+1 or is that just a myth ?
Not really, the reasoning people use is that the screen will show every other frame because the framerate will be locked at double the frequency, thus ensuring smooth performance. But in reality you will get fluctuations in your framerate even if your computer can handle way above the fps_max cap, so it doesn’t really matter which framerate you use as long as it’s high enough.
Quoted from Selek
[…]
Since statements like “the human eye sees about 100 fps” don’t really apply and are wrong, it’s difficult to give a hard limit on how many fps are enough. I would wager a guess and say that anything above 200 fps (stable fps, that is) makes an insignificant difference and is down to personal preference and imagination. But we had that discussion before, schocky :)
[…]
Are you claiming that your PC will render frames in, say, 1080p regardless of the resolution you are running your monitor at? That is most definitely not true. Lower resolutions mean fewer pixels to render, which in turn increases the performance.
1. “personal preference and imagination”-yes.
2. do you know how it works? do you know the difference between crt and lcd?
the lcd-screen has to interpolate the information so you can use that “custom” resolution which isn’t native :) (fact)
*sorry for off topic* *stopping that RIGHT NOW :X*
just ask kaidus!
Last edited by schocky,
I am aware of interpolation and its resulting loss of image quality on LCDs. But what does that have to do with your (until now unsourced) claim that the PC will render an e.g. 1080p frame regardless of the LCD’s resolution and then downscale it to 720p, effectively giving a worse performance than running your LCD in its native resolution?
Add A Reply Pages: 1 2 Next »
content rss