restricting maxfps to 125...?

[razi]

maybe my memory is messed up but i seem to recall that hardcore used to be restricted to maxfps 125?

i checked again recently and it seems it can be set to at least 250...any reasons why?

i think that 125 should be the limit as people can do lame shit and get unfair advantages with higher maxfps

[krAzy :)]

what kind of advantages?

 

i think i set mine on 125 fps and when switching to pistol 72 or 76 fps (dont remember what and dont remember why)

[Dougo]

there is no difference in 125 fps or 250 fps, your eye will never be able to tell the difference 

The only thing is the magic numbers but im pretty sure it all got fixed with 2.60 patch..... 76 fps is an interesting 1 tho.. you can do some weird shit with a sniper rifle and 76 fps

[excedo]

there is no difference in 125 fps or 250 fps, your eye will never be able to tell the difference 

The only thing is the magic numbers but im pretty sure it all got fixed with 2.60 patch..... 76 fps is an interesting 1 tho.. you can do some weird shit with a sniper rifle and 76 fps

You can see the difference, it only depends on your monitor, if the refresh rate is above 250 you will notice, otherwise you will get an flickering screen.

 

125 is perfect for ET.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Motafied

[SunLight]

there is no difference in 125 fps or 250 fps, your eye will never be able to tell the difference 

 

it's not only a matter of eyes, your mouse position is read every frame so the delay between the moment you move your hand, and the moment the mouse move is read by the game would be lower

 

but then you can say that if your monitor refresh rate is not high enough it's just a waste...

 

one reason to limit fps would be preventing players from uploading too much stuff and using more server bandwidth

 

edit:

oh, and i forgot the infamous low bullet spread exploit via high fps

Edited April 24, 2014 by SunLight

[Raider-]

there is no difference in 125 fps or 250 fps, your eye will never be able to tell the difference

The only thing is the magic numbers but im pretty sure it all got fixed with 2.60 patch..... 76 fps is an interesting 1 tho.. you can do some weird shit with a sniper rifle and 76 fps

Your eyes receive light at the speed of light. Your brain and retinas can only detect light as separate frames from which you get your 60 frames per second is max you can detect. Think of a light turning on and off. If you start at 20 flips of a light switch, 10 on and 10 off your brain and retinas will detect 20 changes in light " 10 frames per second" only 10 of those frames will be lit up to detect an accurate picture. Once we break the 60 frames light will seem continuous.

 

Computer monitors are like light switches. Think of an updated image on the screen as the light turns on and every millisecond between each image update is the light turned off. Now most monitors stream a continuos beam of light so the image is still there until the next refresh. This is what causes motion blur from a monitors standpoint not your own detection. Monitors have refresh rates in hz measurements which is how fast they can receive the information from your gpu. The display delay is how long your pixels take to change to update the image.

 

To say higher frames per second and monitor refresh rate and delay does not matter is completely inaccurate. When we perceive objects in lit rooms we are pulling all that data refreshing at the speed of light. When we look at a monitor we are pulling it at the speed of light but it is limited to how accurate the monitor is. This results in a less accurate perception of what is actually happening. Though the difference is small because gpus and monitors operate at high speeds, there is a difference none the less. Think of this like a presidential election. Say you poll numbers for 60 days. Would you want to poll from 100,000 each day or 330,000,000? 330,000,000 of course because it would be more accurate.

 

The higher refresh rate you have will result in a more accurate data pool your brain and retina can pool from. The lower display delay the sooner you can start detecting the changes in light.

 

Now motion blur is different. Its caused by several factors. Most of all it is affected by the source that causes pixels to change. Lcd an led monitors leave use a steady beam of light by default via the backlight. This causes each pixel to bleed the last color into the next as the change is occuring. Crv monitors do not do this though they have lower refresh rates and higher display delays. Newer nvidea 3d led/lcd monitors come with a backlight that can be streamed continuous or strobe. Nvidea has made the strobe to turn on during 3d gameplay (lightboost technology) to sync the strobes per second to the refresh rate. This strobe effect is above our light detection rate so we see a continuous beam but the light is actually going on and off. What this does is prevents the color bleed from each change so that the pixel is fully changed before displaying at a brightness we can detect. Currently nvidea does not allow the strobe in 2d mode but there is a program called strobelight that will enable the strobe in 2d. The strobe however adds display delay based on how bright you have it set. Somewhere between 2ms @ 10% and 8ms @ 100%.

 

Hope this helps and if you have a 3d monitor with lightboost google blurbusteers strobelight program.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Raider-

[I_am_Ace]

So those of us on 60hz monitors are at a disadvantage to those with 120hz. How distinct is the difference? Is it fairly noticeable?

[Raider-]

Go to best buy, watch a 60hz tv a 120hz and 240 motionplus. You can tell the difference

[Olykiller]

So those of us on 60hz monitors are at a disadvantage to those with 120hz. How distinct is the difference? Is it fairly noticeable?

 

yes 120Hz screen is better, its more smooth when you aim

 

im still rocking on 60 Hz tho

[SunLight]

So those of us on 60hz monitors are at a disadvantage to those with 120hz. How distinct is the difference? Is it fairly noticeable?

Some years ago I tried a CRT

 

At first I thought I owned everyone, then after trying it for a while I think it was just placebo/luck after all... but definitely there is a difference (even if it's very small)

 

Not only the higher refresh rate and the shorter delay, but also the fact that crt monitors don't show the image all the time, and this black interval helps the eye to 'forget' the previous frame, I think you can follow enemy movement better like that

 

But at some lan events where they had only 60hz lcds, even players who were used to crt still rocked... so I think it's a small difference

[Dest!Ny]

76 fps is an interesting 1 tho.. you can do some weird shit with a sniper rifle and 76 fps

Is that allowed these days? Since its quite unfair imo

[SunLight]

Is that allowed these days? Since its quite unfair imo

i think yes... but it's 71 not 76

[BossHK]

i think yes... but it's 71 not 76

And the difference is pretty small, hardly noticeable

[Dest!Ny]

And the difference is pretty small, hardly noticeable

 

its almost 50% I think, at least as far as I know

[meow]

maybe my memory is messed up but i seem to recall that hardcore used to be restricted to maxfps 125?

i checked again recently and it seems it can be set to at least 250...any reasons why?

i think that 125 should be the limit as people can do lame shit and get unfair advantages with higher maxfps

 

I don't think there's any restriction on maxfps because I got mine at 333.

I never paid attention but I don't think I get a steady 333, more like between 200 and 300...Depends on what's happening on screen.

What lame shit can you do with high fps? o.o

 

 

and 120Hz makes a difference over 60Hz.

My friend I play with in Battlefield4 bought a 144Hz...he was already owning everyone and now he's just beyond owning. He sees everything faster than me.

Edited April 25, 2014 by meow