btw this is about 60fps debate... console fans dont even come here with 30fps debate please... that debate doesnt even exist..
human eye can see above 60fps... or not?
btw this is about 60fps debate... console fans dont even come here with 30fps debate please... that debate doesnt even exist..
some pc gamers... not many... think more than 60fps is a waste coz human eye can barely see over 60fps?Originally Posted by redwan hasan
Let me give an explanation. Its going to be very big, get ready.
First of all, human eyes can perceive new images at 0.1 seconds. That is 10 fps. But we don't actually see 10 fps, right? Here is why:
Our brain actually updates a clear distinct new image at every 0.1 sec. And rest of the images gets blend smoothly and thus we see motion blur.
We can possibly see unlimited amount of frames per second but we will see a clear image at 10 fps. And there isn't any Vsync thing in human body. Now you actually experience somewhat low fps especially at night if your light source is blinking 60 times a second. Here in my house, my tube light blinks 50 times per second. In between those blinks- the room lacks light and thus its dark. To test it:
Wave your hand in a daylight without any other lightsource. Just do it in pure day light under sun.
Now at night, turn on your tube light and wave your hand. Your hand motion doesn't feel that much smooth as it did with sunlight. Reason: the light blinks. You still see unlimited fps but those frames are lightless and barely visible.
Verdict: we can possibly see unlimited fps. More than 500 fps can be confirmed. Sunlight blinks a lot faster aka light emmision is too fast and thus you will see smooth motion.
- - - Updated - - -
If our brain could perceive image at 0.00000001 seconds, we would have less motion blur in our eyes.
Its just my opinion. I ain't a scientist.
Last edited by Sami 1999; May 31st, 2016 at 11:29.
I just know that BlackonBlondes does 60hz whereas others 24hz. Bob is better
I don't think people even argue about this anymore.
'30fps is better for gaming' ubisoft is still one of the biggest/best publisher+dev in the history of gaming industry.
actually they are the biggest if u count gamecounts, or even AAA/AA game counts.
40FPS and im happy.
I'm happy as long as the game feels smooth and has no tearing. In some slow games, 30 Fps can be tolerable. But here's what I do:
My monitors max refresh rate: 75Hz. But I use 74Hz so that in demanding games so that I can play in 37 Fps. While 45 fps is smoother than 37, it still tears the ¤¤¤¤ out in my 74hz screen. So its either 60hz- 60/30 fps or 74hz- 74/37 fps or 75hz- 75fps. I use Adaptive Vsync [Half refresh] from Nvidia Control panel if I get half assed Fps in games. Getting 45-50 fps in Far Cry 4 in 2880x1800, so I change it to 37 fps. And interestingly, the stutter crap that's present in Far Cry 4 is greatly reduced at lower fps and almost unnoticeable at 30 fps. Typical console port.
- - - Updated - - -
By the way, I would gladly prefer 240 fps over 60 anyday. By the way I didn't know that people feel headache at high fps if no motion blur is used! I once tested a 120fps screen without motion blur and felt less headache than 60 fps. And the motions looked a bit blurred caused by my eye. So I don't get the point of motion blur in games other than to smoothen the low frames. Even 120 fps is low enough.
The new DOOM feels laggy to me when the FPS in anything under 100.
Depends on the person I guess. If you get accustomed to like 120 fps, 60 may feel laggy.
I don't think many gamers even own a monitor above 60Hz.
You have a 144hz monitor?
Nope. 768p, overclocked to [email protected]
Doesn't the screen tear at those res? And shouldn't ur frame rate be limited to ur refresh rate?
disclaimer: I'm a noob
It does tear a lot. Doesn't bother me one bit.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
