FPS limit
- Thread starter Frosted
- Start date
ChampBob
New Member
IF there really is a framerate cap, then I have 2 questions:
1. Why does my video card max out on activity on the title screen, with the title screen running at over 900fps?
2. Why does FRAPS confirm the frames displayed in game? If it was capped at 60fps, FRAPS would have shown it, would it not? (it does after all, cap the frames at the amount you record at)
I actually was starting to look into this a day or two ago, wondering why my video card was getting hot and loud while just playing Legions.
1. Why does my video card max out on activity on the title screen, with the title screen running at over 900fps?
2. Why does FRAPS confirm the frames displayed in game? If it was capped at 60fps, FRAPS would have shown it, would it not? (it does after all, cap the frames at the amount you record at)
I actually was starting to look into this a day or two ago, wondering why my video card was getting hot and loud while just playing Legions.
1. Nothing's moving.
2. And FRAPS does have an FPS counter.
ChampBob
New Member
1. Just because nothing is moving doesn't mean that it's not displaying a crapton of frames. If nothing is moving, my GPU activity meter shouldn't be maxed.
2. Yes. I know. I used it to benchmark. I don't understand your point.
ChampBob
New Member
Everyone else on this thread claimed that the FPS was capped. My point is that the FPS limit does not seem to be capped. I also do not like my video card killing itself by putting way more power into a game that needs only a portion of it.
Either way, all of this could be fixed by simply putting a vsinc option in the video options. It sounds simple, but I'm not one to say considering I'm not much of a programmer.
Either way, all of this could be fixed by simply putting a vsinc option in the video options. It sounds simple, but I'm not one to say considering I'm not much of a programmer.
MJ1284
Member
That's funny, when I had FRAPS locked at 60 FPS I had major tearing on bottom 3rd of my screen... and my monitor's refresh rate is 60 Hz.
Any chance ingame FPS counter is off by 2-3 frames/sec?
Referring to my previous post, when I said "actual FPS is locked at 60 FPS" I ment to say that you can't perceive any difference in FPS rates if it goes past 60 FPS.
Mabeline
God-Tier
Being at 60hz doesn't mean you're vsynced.
"Humans can't perceive any difference past 60 fps" is way different from "FPS is locked at 60", say what you mean. I hate this myth with a passion.
Humans can easily process images in excess of 60hz, especially changes in brightness. This is why fluorescent lights flicker (your mains cycle at 60hz) and you need to turn CRT monitors up to > 75hz to stop seeing obvious flickering (and visible flickering continues well up past 85hz). 60fps doesn't mean continuous 16.6ms frames either, the distribution of time can be anything as long as it averages out to 60fps. Between the rapidly changing scenery and OS preemption 60fps is rarely enough.
And before you bring films into this, films have a very visible framerate and are laced in motion blur which feeds us tons of information that our brains convert into illusions of motion.
Unknown
Private Tester
English please.
Frosted
Member
I forced vsync but I don't think 60fps is enough for a game like legions where things happen in a fraction of a second, near 100 would be great imo.
Maybe I should email nvidia and suggest that we can force a limited amount of fps other than what vsync gives us.
I play a crysis mech warrior mod sometime and my video card doesn't over heat but whit legions I have to put my fans speed up.
Maybe I should email nvidia and suggest that we can force a limited amount of fps other than what vsync gives us.
I play a crysis mech warrior mod sometime and my video card doesn't over heat but whit legions I have to put my fans speed up.
Lanthus
New Member
Something to note about vsync: From my understanding, it adds a slight input lag (the time between input, such as a mouse click, and seeing a reaction on the screen). This is because double (or triple) buffering is used. With double buffering, you are essentially seeing one frame behind. For 60 fps, this means you are seeing an average delay of 16.7ms. I usually have vsync disabled for multiplayer games. Some games implement a frame rate limiter that you can set. I also remember reading somewhere that the catalyst software for Radeons can set a max refresh rate. However, I don't know the specifics of either of those. There is a program that can limit the frame rate of dx8/9 games but it can't be used on games with launchers and such.
On not being able to perceive past 60 fps, I use a 120hz monitor and the difference between it and my laptop's screen is very noticeable.
I was also wondering about the accuracy of the in-game fps counter. The difference between the in-game counter and Fraps is frequently 100-200 for me, with the in-game counter being the lower of the two.
On not being able to perceive past 60 fps, I use a 120hz monitor and the difference between it and my laptop's screen is very noticeable.
I was also wondering about the accuracy of the in-game fps counter. The difference between the in-game counter and Fraps is frequently 100-200 for me, with the in-game counter being the lower of the two.
PureWhoopAss
Legions Developer
Has anyone ever taken a camera and filmed a room with a tv in it or computer monitor? you should see the screen flickering in the video.. basically same concept for everything that has lightning projects light quicker then our eyes can brains can process.
Believe it or not i was reading some reviews on video card testings, specially the ones with 3 SlI setup. Their findings was that the video cards were pushing way more data then any beefy processor at the time could handle and that it is litterally bottlenecking the data. This was of course before I7 or I5's came out, but generally speaking don't waste too much money on getting graphics cards beyond what your processor can handle, you won't get much better results.
Believe it or not i was reading some reviews on video card testings, specially the ones with 3 SlI setup. Their findings was that the video cards were pushing way more data then any beefy processor at the time could handle and that it is litterally bottlenecking the data. This was of course before I7 or I5's came out, but generally speaking don't waste too much money on getting graphics cards beyond what your processor can handle, you won't get much better results.