30fps on PC feels worse than 30fps on consoles?

Certain engines don't seem to handle frame limiting correctly for the PC version despite a console edition existing (different paths, I guess).

I had a pretty strange experience with Gears Ultimate where setting the in-game framerate to unlimited provided a better experience than 60 even with v-sync still on, as if the engine didn't decouple a bunch of things like streaming/loading; there was much more stuttering setting it to my monitor rate, and a lot less with "unlimited".

 

Does BotW use using motion blur? That somewhat compensates for a lower frame rate.

Also, the switch's small screen may be only getting sensed by your slow and precise central vision, whereas the PC game with a significantly larger screen is also getting sensed by your fast peripheral vision.

Lastly, are you turning Vsync on? Stuttering can give the perception of a much lower frame rate.

 

This is not uncommon. Bethesda RPGs tend to have incredible mouse lag with vsync on unless you also limit FPS to 60, even if vsync is already limiting to 60. It has something to do with incompetent programming.

 

I had no idea vsync could cause such mouselag. I've always been a dedicated "VSYNC ON!" kind of person, but since my upgrade I've been in love with enhanced sync, frame limiting, and the chill key. Just started playing with the anti-lag thing a little yesterday, but since it was GTA V and I've got that thing tuned in to my system like it was on a dyno for a few weeks so it's hard to tell. LOL

Thanks for the Bethesda tip, and the tips in general in the thread. When I played GTA V on the 360 before it came out for PC I noticed that the 30fps didn't really bother me much at all, it was very smooth, but the jaggies annoyed the hell out of me. (I played it on my PC monitor too, so samey-same output device)

 

Oh this could be one of the things that fuels PCMR high fps master race.

They think console 30fps = absolutely horrible

Due to their experience with horrible 30 fps on pc

 

Yup it's been a thing for like forever. Half-Life and Half-Life 2 had extremely bad mouse lag with Vsync on back when they came out. It wasn't the only game that did it (there were lots), but it's one that has always stuck out because it was particularly bad.

One of the reasons I generally played with Vsync off. Developers have gotten much better at doing whatever needs to be done to reduce the impact of Vsync on mouse lag in recent years though.

I've also only ever limited FPS within the game engine itself, so I can't recall having run into limiting frame rate causing input lag. Then again, I may just be lucky that the games I play have good programmers.

Regards,
SB

 

It just could be what your used to
30fps on console feels good because your used to it

ps: it's only quite recently that the must have a steady 60fps became a thing on p.c
and I'm sure the day will come when people complain about not getting a constant 120fps

 

I never needed a steady 60fps on PC, as long as it was around/above 40-45 I'm usually pretty good as long as it's consistent.

 

Once you're used to 60+ FPS it's hard to go back to 30. Also I think input lag is more noticeable with a mouse.

 

Yes, with a mouse there is more of a direct 1:1 relationship between moving the mouse and moving your hand as the movements mirror each other. With a controller that is disconnected a bit with moving the analog sticks or d-pad.

I remember when I bought into the whole schtick that 30 FPS was enough back in the 90's. Quake 2 and UT was when I finally opened my eyes as everyone told me that in order to be competitive you needed 60 FPS. So I tuned both of those games to 60 FPS, immediately saw an increase in control feel and visual feedback which lead to ranking higher in tournaments.

After that whenever I tried a 30 FPS game, I just wanted to throw up as the controls were so bad. Not to mention the visual feedback, stuttering, juddering, etc. compared to 60 FPS.

Regards,
SB

 

^^ indeed! mouse really makes 30fps feels soooooooooo laggy

btw destiny 2 on PS4 pro have crazy rock solid 30 fps, when it suddenly dip at very rare moments, it become super noticable.

depite consoloe 30f felt good enough to play, when im on PC when KB/M, i run it with vsync off and let it fluctuates 40-60 fps due to the input lag in 30 fps.

 

Also consider that PC monitors have very little input lag and televisions sometimes have quite a lot. Numbers are hard to find but it seems even bog standard LCDs typically have <20ms of input latency. Televisions can have much more than that. Going to 30fps from 60 adds 16ms. If you're used to having low total input latency this is probably very noticeable, if you're already dealing with 100+ms then it probably isn't very noticeable.

Anecdotal but I find that when I connect my PC to most televisions it is difficult to click things even when the TV is set to Game Mode. I have to slow way down compared to my monitor.

 

Yes, while there are some TVs with good input latency in Game/PC mode, most of them are still pretty bad. And even for TVs with good input lag in Game/PC mode, it's still pretty easy to mess it up and get bad latency.

For example, with the LG SK9000 that I got second hand for cheap.

According to Rtings

• 4k/60 is 15.6 ms. Game mode.
• 4k/60 4:4:4 is 15.1 ms. Game mode + PC mode.
• 4k/60 HDR is 23.6 ms. Game Mode + HDR.
• 4k/60 without Game mode jumps to a massive 44.5 ms.

And that is a TV with one of the best Game modes you can get on TV, as long as you don't enable HDR in game mode. However, Pixel response times aren't great compared to a gaming PC monitor at 5.1 ms (80%) and 14.4 ms (100%).

LG's C9 is even better dropping down to 13.3 ms at 4k/60 with Game mode + PC mode (HDR only bumps it up to 13.4 ms). But outside of game mode it's worse going up to 50.6 ms. And even worse at 1080p/60 without game mode at 100.8 ms. Pixel response time is fantastic at 0.2 ms (80%) or 2.4 ms (100%), better than any PC gaming monitor.

Regards,
SB

 

"Fantastic" red herring, If you flash backlight every line or second on LC display AFTER the crystal settled that will be the percieved response time not the crystals, so the important question is whether there is full frame length persistence (bad) or fraction...
Again some blissfully complacent oled specmanship at work.

 

I've tried TV sets with BFI. It is universally horrible for me as I am apparently one those that is especially sensitive to the flickering.

Rtings doesn't test pixel response with BFI enabled, so that's not the cause.

Regards,
SB

 

... wasn't talking about BFI but scrolling backlight ("lines"). Scrolling is uninterrupted light while BFI is commonly called "strobing" - kinda hack mode, inviting flicker. Former is hard to implement, but it's possibility, just like 20k native contrast without extra LC layer.
It's a fact, sufficiently advanced backlight gets around LC limitations.

 

And yet there are no commercially available LCD displays that have a sufficiently advanced backlight to get around the limitations of LCD technology. Likely because the cost is far too much to approach any of the theoretical benefits.

All backlighting on LCD displays available for consumer purchase lead to atrocious backlight bleed. Local dimming only makes it more apparent and perceivably worse.

Regardless, consumer available LCD displays all have worse pixel response than current consumer available OLED displays.

Until something better than OLED comes along in the consumer space, it is by far the best available technology...that you can reasonably purchase as long as you don't have pathologically bad display habits that would lead to permanent burn in.

Theoretical is all well and good, but if you can't buy it yet, it is mostly irrelevant. That said, I would love for something better than OLED to become commercially available for your average consumer.

Regards,
SB