G-Sync: 144GH

999nekrofom666

Is NS2 G-Sync compatible?

Yojimbo

I presume so, proof is in the pudding, give it a go

SupaFred

999nekrofom666 wrote: »

Is NS2 G-Sync compatible?

Yes. I use an Asus ROG PG278Q 144 Hz G-sync monitor without problems.

Yojimbo

SupaFred wrote: »

999nekrofom666 wrote: »

Is NS2 G-Sync compatible?

Yes. I use an Asus ROG PG278Q 144 Hz G-sync monitor without problems.

Just showing off now fred

RevanCorana

Speaking of framerate and stuff,
I "discovered" that when using classic Vsync on any type of monitor you can cap the max fps to 1 frame below the monitor refresh rate
using the console command "maxfps" to removes tearing with 0 input lag cost (as long as the framerate stays constant).

Lightboost @ 120hz with vsync is extremely nice with this technique.
no blur, no tear, no lag

Deck_

^Yes, you may be right that capping your frames to 1 under your refresh rate with vsync on can reduce input lag. The question is, is that ideal? Or is it better to have no vsync and no gsync/freesync and just go for highest fps you can?



Capping your frames with vsync might not be ideal. I have never tried gsync or freesync, but according to that video it could be better to have vsync off and gsync/freesync off and just max out frames for the best gameplay. I also have no idea how accurate this video is. Perhaps someone with gsync or freesync can tell us if having it on with your frames capped is better than maxing out frames with it off. You might have to cap your frames a certain amount below your refresh rate setting to avoid input lag with gsync/freesync. Also, lightboost might not be ideal either. Lightboost can make motion extremely smooth with the right amount of fps, but does that cause input lag as well?

RevanCorana

That's true the more framerate the less lag, because the game checks for new input at smaller intervals,
but it's like using a mouse on 3200 dpi or higher, the input becomes invisible on screen basically.

Gsync sounds pretty nice if it has both advantages (removing tearing and allowing higher fps).
But I dont think there is a Gsync lighboost monitor.
(Lightboost is that 3d vision hack that uses backlight strobing to remove motion blur)
Anyway it's really personal preference at this point.

Frozen

I use gsync and in NS2 atleast I maintain 144 fps for the most part. I do limit that to 130 when I remember but being theres no option I don't worry too much. If you're below your max refresh then the input lag is negligible.

Negligible in the way that if I were to try reallll hard again to be good at this game and go crazy yada yada, I would turn off gsync To max out my frames with lower graphics settings to reduce that input lag as close to my monitors 1ms response as possible.

Deck_

^I believe gsync and lightboost can be on the same monitor (depending), but latest I've read is that you can't have them both activated at the same time. They have their trade offs.
According to random info I found online:
G-Sync: seems to have an advantage at variable framerates as it eliminates stutters/tearing, but has more blur than lightboost - might have to cap your frames a certain amount below your refresh rate to reduce input lag.
Lightboost: Can eliminate blur, but stutters can be more noticeable. It also might be smoother at high fps uncapped or perhaps it's better at a capped frame setting. I'm not sure if lighboost causes input lag or the best way to reduce it if it does.

*Edit - so frozen, you have access to gsync and seem to use it, perhaps because less tearing? Interesting that you would turn it off though and max out frames if you were going all out though. If it really is better to just have all that stuff off and max out your frames/hz setting on monitor - then it's kinda funny with gsync being expensive, that good old highest fps setting with everything off is still the best. Or maybe it's like Revan said it's preference.

Rautapalli

Pretty sure every gsync v2 monitor supports ULMB (basically a better version of lightboost) these days, it's less input lag than gsync but requires a very consistent framerate or you'll see flicker. I've tried both in NS2 at 144hz and couldn't really tell any difference, but this is obviously very subjective.

dePARA

There is a simple rule:
Gsync for low fps and Lightboost for high fps.

Like the video from above mentioned, the higher the fps the more inputdelay you have with gsync.
You could counter that by capping to lower fps rates but higher fps have another sideeffect:
You can see the enemy earlier.
Ok, we talking about ms here, but still, these short time can be enough to give you an advantage.

Frozen

I just use it because it looks good, it just makes sure there's no doubled frames so everything looks real smooth. Like how movies look smooth because they're outputting 23.98 or whatever fps very consistently and the projector is simply playing them at a constant interval. So if I get variable frames around 100-110 i could potentially limit that to 99 fps and it would just feel nice, thats all.

But same time I'm playing mgsv on my new 55" 4k tv. I get like 25 fps max with ultra settings but I enjoy the shit out of it 12 ft back on my couch

Deck_

dePARA wrote: »

There is a simple rule:
Gsync for low fps and Lightboost for high fps.

Like the video from above mentioned, the higher the fps the more inputdelay you have with gsync.
You could counter that by capping to lower fps rates but higher fps have another sideeffect:
You can see the enemy earlier.
Ok, we talking about ms here, but still, these short time can be enough to give you an advantage.

Good point about higher fps being better and that's why lightboost might be a better option than gsync. Or is it better to have lightboost off as well and just max out fps to reduce input lag as much as possible? I know there are advantages to seeing smoothly, and some of this is preference. I bet some of it is also dependent on what fps you can maintain with lightboost. NS2 is a tough game unless you have a really great computer to keep constant high fps which may be ideal for lightboost like you said.

RevanCorana

To me lightboost is more accurate and 144hz is more comfortable.

DC_Darkling

Both gsync and ULMB work perfectly fine in ns2.
I use it myself with great satisfaction

Deck_

I've tried lightboost multiple times in ns2, but I always go back to 144hz. I don't know if ULMB is different than the lightboost I've tried though. Motion of the enemy players is really smooth with lightboost, but if my frames dip a lot then I get stutters. Also, I feel like I have input lag with it on or perhaps it's all placebo. Again, ULMB might be better than what I've tried, and also ns2 might be different than csgo for instance because it's very hard to keep your frames really high the whole time.

dePARA

Im sure you see the stutter more cause less motion blur.
So its more an placebo that you you have more.
Just cap the fps at the lowest ammount you get and you are fine.

The important factor is to have constant fps.
Stable frametimes=less stutter and more precise aiming cause constant inputdelay.

My Eizo has has inbuild Lightboost and never had issues with it.

Nominous

I have a VG248QE with the G-Sync upgrade kit installed and G-Sync works fine. I just have to cap the frame rate to 120 after starting the game every time (explained here, press ctrl-F and find this: Why is there less lag), which is a slight hassle. In the past, I strictly used ULMB because I thought minimizing motion blur was key for online FPS games. Turns out I like G-Sync better since NS2 suffers greatly from a variable frame rate, resulting in micro stutters. The frame rate also tends to drop below 120, and, combined with the variable frame rate, it isn't optimal for ULMB @ 120 Hz. I don't like the increased motion blur that enabling G-Sync causes, but the lack of both screen tearing and micro stutters is worth it for me. Aiming is just buttery-smooth.

IronHorse

Nominous wrote: »

I don't like the increased motion blur that enabling G-Sync causes,

Just wanted to clarify for others : He means increased motion blur compared to ULMB, not compared to your typical 60hz LCD etc.
G-sync still has less motion blur than non ULMB or non G-sync monitors.

Deck_

^IronHorse - maybe you know more about this. It does seem like lightboost in this game might work better with uncapped fps rather than capped. I wouldn't be suprised if g-sync works better capped because of the input lag reduction. It just seems like when you cap lightboost, you feel like you're at a disadvantage perhaps because you are sacrificing fps. So it feels like the enemy may be seeing you before you see them and things seem to be more stuttery. Lightboost might work better at higher fps as well like dePara mentioned earlier. The issue is of course maintaining a high fps in this game sometimes. When lightboost feels smooth and non stuttery - high fps - it feels great in this game. Maybe it depends on what you cap your frames to though.

Nominous

IronHorse wrote: »

Nominous wrote: »

I don't like the increased motion blur that enabling G-Sync causes,

Just wanted to clarify for others : He means increased motion blur compared to ULMB, not compared to your typical 60hz LCD etc.
G-sync still has less motion blur than non ULMB or non G-sync monitors.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. In a game with a variable frame rate, G-Sync results in increased motion blur for me compared to 120 or 144 Hz (maybe even 100 Hz) without ULMB enabled. Here's a quote by Mark Rejhon:

G-Sync is bottlenecked by 6.9ms of motion blur due to the 144fps sample-and-hold effect (explanation), so you’ll always get a minimum of about 7 pixels of motion blurring during 1000 pixels/sec motion.

On this page, he also mentions:

With variable frame rates, the only side effect is variable motion blur (as seen in the above animation). We already know that lower framerates create more motion blur even at fixed refresh rates too (on a regular LCD)

My guesstimation is that G-Sync causes somewhere between 9-12ms of motion blur on average when I cap NS2's frame rate to 120. This is about the amount of motion blur caused by a non-strobed 100Hz LCD (10ms). I'm pretty sure G-Sync is not worse than a 60Hz LCD (16.7ms), but it's still a noticeable amount.

IronHorse

@Deck_ I actually don't own either tech, but obsess over them non the less and read a lot.
From what I know about each, I would choose G-sync purely because of NS2's highly varying and unpredictable FPS.
Seriously, it's insane if you've ever logged it over hours of play or compared it to other games.

If it were any other game / engine, then I might choose ULMB because of the motion blur advantage in fast paced competitive games.
But yeah, like Nominous said, dealing with stuttering in NS2 may not be worth the average 5 ms persistence difference between ULMB/LB and Gsync...
Consider the difference between a 60 hz LCD and Gsync is already 2.5 times less persistence, so with Gsync you're improving motion blur (just not as much as ULMB) while also having something that deals well with varying FPS.

In summary,

G-SYNC: Eliminates stutters and tearing but only reduces lag and motion blur somewhat.
LightBoost/ULMB: Eliminates motion blur, but not stutters or tearing.

dePARA

The ammount of stutter @ different capped fps rates is engine related.

I own an Eizo Foris with inbuild lightboost and im always capping FPS, in EVERY shooter.
So my goal is always to find the highest constant rate where the game has the less stutter.
Im very sensitive to stutter/tearing and inputdelay btw. so i can see and feel a fps drop from 180 to 150 right away.

NS2: Capped @ 180fps (it stutters noticale more at 150fps for example)
BF4: Capped @ 130fps (it stutters noticable more at 140 fps for example)
CS:Go: Capped @ 300fps (it stutters noticable more at 350 fps for example)

Could be a timing thing also so these values might be different on other monitors.

It takes some time but in the end worth it cause you have all the advantages you need:
No motion blur, nearly no stutter, nearly no tearing, high fps and consistent frametimes for consistent aiming.

DC_Darkling

It really isnt so hard to pick.

If you detest tearing and are put off by tearing most of all, gsync is the way to go. (results on higher hz/fps may not show tearing minimizing its use)
If you detest blurring above all, go for ULMB, as long as you can maintain high fps.


While it does reduce stutters, and still has far less input lag then vsync, we should not forget its main goal is to reduce tearing with gsync.
I for one would take blur over tearing any day. Its a personal choice.

Frozen

I just tried ULMB for the first time. It's terrible compared with G-sync i hate it

DC_Darkling

id say its due to what you need.
I loved having antiblur on the desktop anything which could blur for me.. Sadly, cant do that anymore on the latest drivers if you want gsync

999nekrofom666

thanks for the reply guys

I use an Asus ROG Swift PG279Q with G-sync and 144 Hz
the best results I achieve but with ULMB and "maxfps 200" in games maybe are not my settings at NVIDIA optimally
would be happy for optimal settings under NS2 NVIDIA ...