the "lost" time i check, you don't really have anything constructive to say "hear". lol.
Oh nooeees rapid typing mistakes! My honoourrr!
And here's my constructive thing to say.
If you want to talk about things you know nothing about, I suggest a discussion rather than the argument this thread was heading towards.
the "lost" time i check, you don't really have anything constructive to say "hear". lol.
Oh nooeees rapid typing mistakes! My honoourrr!
And here's my constructive thing to say.
If you want to talk about things you know nothing about, I suggest a discussion rather than the argument this thread was heading towards.
*sigh* your typing mistakes show that you don't think before you type and check before you submit. it's acceptable if you were talking to me in real time, not when you're posting in a forum where you have all the time you need to look through what you post before you actually hit the button.
a discussion? isn't that what me and savant are doing here? maybe in the wrong thread, but at least we're discussing something while you're... i have no idea what you're doing.
what you deem as constructive isn't even remotely close to being constructive. you call people out because you think they don't know what they're talking about, but you don't support it, you don't back your claims and you bring nothing new to the table.
if you know something, share it with everybody else.
I played CS 1.6 quite competitively back in the day. My goals were (back then) 75mhz refresh rate with a 100+fps. This increased clarity and traction speeds. You have to understand that your brain receives the image from the eyes then does processing on that image to find out what it contains. If at any point lag or 'missing frames' occur the brain has to do more processing. It finds an image from the eyes that seem out of sequence and it possibly becomes somewhat confused. This delayed reaction that could have been that much faster if no lag or missing frames occurred.
Thus in today's gaming, I try to reach 60 minimum and 70+ FPS to be able to stay competitive.
I guess you skipped over the citation at the bottom of this post above. I'd be happy to cite other works, but I think you were just trying to be cute with your remark since you skimmed over my post and didn't notice the citation.
Ummm, Dr. Stuart Hameroff is know for his 'Out there' theories. Using his article as your citation is laughable because its all based on theory. Please provide a respectable study or research that backs up your theory or I will continue to think that your opinion is baseless.
NS2 performance for me is kinda strange, so objectively looking at framerates doesnt work.
Even though I would have 60+ FPS there is lag present, hitches and mouse input lag, which deteriorates my aim, so I would say that I need 100+ for aiming perfectly, e.g. in the ready room, there is no input lag.
well 80 FPS seems to be perfect for this game, theres no inputdeelay n stuff and the mousemovement is all the same - 60 is still fine but below it becomes a worse experience
Well, it depends on how good your aim is to begin with. The higher your skill level, the more framrate plays an important role imo. For instance, if I were to play a game I suck at completely, I wouldn't mind playing it at 30 fps. I'll have nothing to lose. If I'm pretty good though, seeing fps drop down to 30 fps will hurt me a lot more. Also, what you are already used to has an impact as well. In my early gaming days, I used to play CS all the time at 30 fps average. That was good enough at the time. And I was used to it then. Now I'm used to playing with +60 fps average, so anything lower than that means playing out of my comfort zone.
So yeah, I need to have at least a good 60 fps average to play comfortably.
let's say for example you have a 60hz monitor. you need 60 FPS to provide you with a smooth flowing animation (because anything less, the monitor skips and does not output anything but the last available frame).
Actually, that's only true if you have V-Sync enabled. With V-Sync disabled, your monitor will begin to draw new frames as soon as they're available, even if it's halfway through drawing the previous frame.
i know what you mean by diminishing returns. at some point, for example 121 FPS and above, the monitor will not output any additional helpful information...
Due to the phenomenon I described above, a 60Hz monitor can actually display more than 60 FPS while V-Sync is disabled. It just won't display all of every frame. With a frame rate of 240 FPS on a 60Hz monitor with V-Sync disabled, you'll simultaneously be seeing 4 frames but only a quarter of each one will be visible. This is why you get "tearing" artifacts with V-Sync disabled.
Provided that you're not too fussed by tearing artifacts, having a frame rate that is higher than your monitor's refresh rate is actually quite a good thing and makes for a smoother experience.
On a side not: Some people say that, if a game provides a way to limit your FPS, you should limit it to the same FPS as your monitor's refresh rate. This, however, is actually quite bad advice because it causes the tearing artifact to constantly appear at the same spot on your screen, thereby making it much more noticeable and annoying.
I read somewhere that the upper end where the best humans could no longer discern differences in FPS in a video was 72. Funny how valve made the FPS cap in their source games default to that number as well. Maybe an employee read the same data?
Anyways with v sync, I cannot believe there is anyone here who can beat this number, despite any of their existing belief(s).
That being said, fairly sure, like me, game advantage due to FPS wanes past 50
I think Savant is too convinced that science is 100% right in this. A lot of science is theory, and when it comes to 'how many fps the eye can see' there is no definitive answer. The brain is a complex thing, and even though those studies may be accurate in some ways, I have doubts about it in others.
For instance, irl things are not rendered in fps. It is either there or it is not, and the brain is a funny thing. If you move your head from side to side for instance, things start to blur because your brain does not have the power to process all the information. There is probably a lot in play when it comes to the brain, so personally I go on feel.
The most I have had is a 60hz monitor. I used to play CS at a very high level, played the best clans in the UK at the time.
I can say for sure that I could notice a difference between 60/85 fps. We know that monitors can't display some of those frames, but something definitely felt smoother. I wouldn't be surprised that those with 120hz monitors can tell the difference as well.
The higher the frame rate the better, but I think most would be happy around the 72^ mark. I certainly wouldn't start complaining if I had 50 unless I was competitive.
I read somewhere that the upper end where the best humans could no longer discern differences in FPS in a video was 72. Funny how valve made the FPS cap in their source games default to that number as well. Maybe an employee read the same data?
Anyways with v sync, I cannot believe there is anyone here who can beat this number, despite any of their existing belief(s).
That being said, fairly sure, like me, game advantage due to FPS wanes past 50
First of all that humans dont see the difference past that isnt true, also usually its said its actually 60, both being bollocks.
Also Source games dont cap FPS at 72, its fps_max 300 by default.
Also V-sync causes input lag in most cases, so if you cannot tell the difference between v-sync on and off I dont think you can say anything about how 50 fps is enough so that people wont tell the difference after that.
I read somewhere that the upper end where the best humans could no longer discern differences in FPS in a video was 72. Funny how valve made the FPS cap in their source games default to that number as well. Maybe an employee read the same data?
Anyways with v sync, I cannot believe there is anyone here who can beat this number, despite any of their existing belief(s).
That being said, fairly sure, like me, game advantage due to FPS wanes past 50
First of all that humans dont see the difference past that isnt true, also usually its said its actually 60, both being bollocks.
Also Source games dont cap FPS at 72, its fps_max 300 by default.
Also V-sync causes input lag in most cases, so if you cannot tell the difference between v-sync on and off I dont think you can say anything about how 50 fps is enough so that people wont tell the difference after that.
I can tell the difference between 120 vsync on and off, but cannot tell the difference between 120 FPS and say 100 FPS. I hope this illustrates my understanding of vsync in regards to discernable FPS rates. (You misinterpreted my op)
The impact is there but I feel like its exaggerated, I am able to play competitively with 30-40fps and I am doubtful that I am going to go from decent to amazing just by boosting my fps (not that I won't give it a shot once I get some spare $$)
The most I have had is a 60hz monitor. I used to play CS at a very high level, played the best clans in the UK at the time.
I can say for sure that I could notice a difference between 60/85 fps. We know that monitors can't display some of those frames, but something definitely felt smoother. I wouldn't be surprised that those with 120hz monitors can tell the difference as well.
Highlvl CS? I take it you used CRT monitor? Those usually have more than 60hz. Else I'd call placebo, all you would get is screen tearing above 60 fps. The real key to having a smooth image is really a constant steady FPS, having it dip up and down like in NS2 isn't good. I recently bought a 120hz, the difference is obvious. It is easier to aim regardless of what funky science someone spout saying differently, assuming all science is correct is a funny ordeal, especially when it concerns the brain, which afaik we don't know everything about.
Please provide a respectable study or research that backs up your theory or I will continue to think that your opinion is baseless.
You do understand that this is all based in theory right? There is no quantifiable way to measure how many 'moments' of consciousness a person has in a given second - and you know that.
I'm not going to debate quantum mechanics with those who have never studied it. If you want to call it baseless, go right ahead. I'm not going to spend an hour digging up intricate references so you can find some BS reason to dismiss their remarks as well. Unless you can show me your doctorate in quantum mechanics, your rejection of opinions from those who do have doctorates is itself baseless.
As for describing someone as "known for his 'Out there' theories", there were many people who said the same about Einstein and Newton. When it was suggested that the world was round people mocked them as well. We all know how that worked out.
As an alien it would be playable for me, if there wasn't the lagg after biting and the mouse lagg.
My mouse lagg is really bad, if I move it in small circles it will work for 1-2 seconds then I look in a completely different direction, that's why I often loose orientation. Gorge though is still playable, Skulk is a so-so, Fade is impossible, Lerk works fine and Onos is the best class to play with low fps.
Honestly, perhaps I'm an old fart, 30-35 is my aim degradation point. 40 and above feels good, 60 fantastic. I have never had the pleasure of playing on a 120hz monitor but I hope to own one, one day!
WHAT???????
everyone but YOU?? that you dont have a 120hz monitor is just a sacrileg :O
let's say for example you have a 60hz monitor. you need 60 FPS to provide you with a smooth flowing animation (because anything less, the monitor skips and does not output anything but the last available frame).
Actually, that's only true if you have V-Sync enabled. With V-Sync disabled, your monitor will begin to draw new frames as soon as they're available, even if it's halfway through drawing the previous frame.
i know what you mean by diminishing returns. at some point, for example 121 FPS and above, the monitor will not output any additional helpful information...
Due to the phenomenon I described above, a 60Hz monitor can actually display more than 60 FPS while V-Sync is disabled. It just won't display all of every frame. With a frame rate of 240 FPS on a 60Hz monitor with V-Sync disabled, you'll simultaneously be seeing 4 frames but only a quarter of each one will be visible. This is why you get "tearing" artifacts with V-Sync disabled.
This is complete bullshit. A 60 Hz monitor updates 60 times a second, period, never displays more than 60 fps. It doesn't simultaneously output 4 different frames, with each one taking up a quarter of the screen. Screen tearing happens when the video buffer is sent to the monitor while it is caught between two frames, making it a composite of the two.
The most I have had is a 60hz monitor. I used to play CS at a very high level, played the best clans in the UK at the time.
I can say for sure that I could notice a difference between 60/85 fps. We know that monitors can't display some of those frames, but something definitely felt smoother. I wouldn't be surprised that those with 120hz monitors can tell the difference as well.
Highlvl CS? I take it you used CRT monitor? Those usually have more than 60hz. Else I'd call placebo, all you would get is screen tearing above 60 fps. The real key to having a smooth image is really a constant steady FPS, having it dip up and down like in NS2 isn't good. I recently bought a 120hz, the difference is obvious. It is easier to aim regardless of what funky science someone spout saying differently, assuming all science is correct is a funny ordeal, especially when it concerns the brain, which afaik we don't know everything about.
You are right, I forgot that I had a CRT at the time. I think it could display at 75hz max. I could definitely tell the difference.
let's say for example you have a 60hz monitor. you need 60 FPS to provide you with a smooth flowing animation (because anything less, the monitor skips and does not output anything but the last available frame).
Actually, that's only true if you have V-Sync enabled. With V-Sync disabled, your monitor will begin to draw new frames as soon as they're available, even if it's halfway through drawing the previous frame.
i know what you mean by diminishing returns. at some point, for example 121 FPS and above, the monitor will not output any additional helpful information...
Due to the phenomenon I described above, a 60Hz monitor can actually display more than 60 FPS while V-Sync is disabled. It just won't display all of every frame. With a frame rate of 240 FPS on a 60Hz monitor with V-Sync disabled, you'll simultaneously be seeing 4 frames but only a quarter of each one will be visible. This is why you get "tearing" artifacts with V-Sync disabled.
This is complete bullshit. A 60 Hz monitor updates 60 times a second, period, never displays more than 60 fps. It doesn't simultaneously output 4 different frames, with each one taking up a quarter of the screen. Screen tearing happens when the video buffer is sent to the monitor while it is caught between two frames, making it a composite of the two.
I think he means it shows a single frame made up of four different ones...
let's say for example you have a 60hz monitor. you need 60 FPS to provide you with a smooth flowing animation (because anything less, the monitor skips and does not output anything but the last available frame).
Actually, that's only true if you have V-Sync enabled. With V-Sync disabled, your monitor will begin to draw new frames as soon as they're available, even if it's halfway through drawing the previous frame.
i know what you mean by diminishing returns. at some point, for example 121 FPS and above, the monitor will not output any additional helpful information...
Due to the phenomenon I described above, a 60Hz monitor can actually display more than 60 FPS while V-Sync is disabled. It just won't display all of every frame. With a frame rate of 240 FPS on a 60Hz monitor with V-Sync disabled, you'll simultaneously be seeing 4 frames but only a quarter of each one will be visible. This is why you get "tearing" artifacts with V-Sync disabled.
This is complete bullshit. A 60 Hz monitor updates 60 times a second, period, never displays more than 60 fps. It doesn't simultaneously output 4 different frames, with each one taking up a quarter of the screen. Screen tearing happens when the video buffer is sent to the monitor while it is caught between two frames, making it a composite of the two.
You don't understand his point, he's arguing that with v-sync off, he's still getting his frames updated faster, albeit in less than full screen sizes, but incrementally more accurate data never the less. The question is: is this slightly faster updating, coupled with tearing actually a benefit, and if so, how significant of one?
You don't understand his point, he's arguing that with v-sync off, he's still getting his frames updated faster, albeit in less than full screen sizes, but incrementally more accurate data never the less. The question is: is this slightly faster updating, coupled with tearing actually a benefit, and if so, how significant of one?
Yes, there are significant benefits to not using vsync. The difference in input lag is very noticeable.
You don't understand his point, he's arguing that with v-sync off, he's still getting his frames updated faster, albeit in less than full screen sizes, but incrementally more accurate data never the less. The question is: is this slightly faster updating, coupled with tearing actually a benefit, and if so, how significant of one?
Yes, there are significant benefits to not using vsync. The difference in input lag is very noticeable.
Well, time to turn off v-sync I guess.
I better notice this improvement! Lol
You do understand that this is all based in theory right? There is no quantifiable way to measure how many 'moments' of consciousness a person has in a given second - and you know that.
I'm not going to debate quantum mechanics with those who have never studied it. If you want to call it baseless, go right ahead. I'm not going to spend an hour digging up intricate references so you can find some BS reason to dismiss their remarks as well. Unless you can show me your doctorate in quantum mechanics, your rejection of opinions from those who do have doctorates is itself baseless.
As for describing someone as "known for his 'Out there' theories", there were many people who said the same about Einstein and Newton. When it was suggested that the world was round people mocked them as well. We all know how that worked out.
If it isn't quantifiable, then its philosophy rather than science. Einstein's and Newton's theories we're ultimately accepted because they made testable predictions that turned out to be correct. Dr. Hameroff's work seems to be filled more with speculation than evidence.
let's say for example you have a 60hz monitor. you need 60 FPS to provide you with a smooth flowing animation (because anything less, the monitor skips and does not output anything but the last available frame).
Actually, that's only true if you have V-Sync enabled. With V-Sync disabled, your monitor will begin to draw new frames as soon as they're available, even if it's halfway through drawing the previous frame.
i know what you mean by diminishing returns. at some point, for example 121 FPS and above, the monitor will not output any additional helpful information...
Due to the phenomenon I described above, a 60Hz monitor can actually display more than 60 FPS while V-Sync is disabled. It just won't display all of every frame. With a frame rate of 240 FPS on a 60Hz monitor with V-Sync disabled, you'll simultaneously be seeing 4 frames but only a quarter of each one will be visible. This is why you get "tearing" artifacts with V-Sync disabled.
This is complete bullshit. A 60 Hz monitor updates 60 times a second, period, never displays more than 60 fps. It doesn't simultaneously output 4 different frames, with each one taking up a quarter of the screen. Screen tearing happens when the video buffer is sent to the monitor while it is caught between two frames, making it a composite of the two.
correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't you two saying the same thing in different ways?
NS2 performance for me is kinda strange, so objectively looking at framerates doesnt work.
Even though I would have 60+ FPS there is lag present, hitches and mouse input lag, which deteriorates my aim, so I would say that I need 100+ for aiming perfectly, e.g. in the ready room, there is no input lag.
120 FPS on a 60hz monitor can account for the decrease in input delay if the frames are directly tied to how fast the game updates mouse input information, making it seem more smooth than on 60 FPS. this happens even if your monitor is only capable of refreshing 60 times a second (thus 60hz).
or, in other words, the game updates your mouse input information on every frame, so anything higher than 60 FPS updates your mouse information faster than 60 FPS, making it seem more smooth. this does not mean that you get to see the extra frames. it's just that your mouse input information (e.g. x and y position of mouse cursor) is being processed every time a frame is generated by the game.
i'm not sure if NS2 does this though. my opinion is that it does.
let's say for example you have a 60hz monitor. you need 60 FPS to provide you with a smooth flowing animation (because anything less, the monitor skips and does not output anything but the last available frame).
Actually, that's only true if you have V-Sync enabled. With V-Sync disabled, your monitor will begin to draw new frames as soon as they're available, even if it's halfway through drawing the previous frame.
i know what you mean by diminishing returns. at some point, for example 121 FPS and above, the monitor will not output any additional helpful information...
Due to the phenomenon I described above, a 60Hz monitor can actually display more than 60 FPS while V-Sync is disabled. It just won't display all of every frame. With a frame rate of 240 FPS on a 60Hz monitor with V-Sync disabled, you'll simultaneously be seeing 4 frames but only a quarter of each one will be visible. This is why you get "tearing" artifacts with V-Sync disabled.
This is complete bullshit. A 60 Hz monitor updates 60 times a second, period, never displays more than 60 fps. It doesn't simultaneously output 4 different frames, with each one taking up a quarter of the screen. Screen tearing happens when the video buffer is sent to the monitor while it is caught between two frames, making it a composite of the two.
correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't you two saying the same thing in different ways?
NS2 performance for me is kinda strange, so objectively looking at framerates doesnt work.
Even though I would have 60+ FPS there is lag present, hitches and mouse input lag, which deteriorates my aim, so I would say that I need 100+ for aiming perfectly, e.g. in the ready room, there is no input lag.
120 FPS on a 60hz monitor can account for the decrease in input delay if the frames are directly tied to how fast the game updates mouse input information, making it seem more smooth than on 60 FPS. this happens even if your monitor is only capable of refreshing 60 times a second (thus 60hz).
or, in other words, the game updates your mouse input information on every frame, so anything higher than 60 FPS updates your mouse information faster than 60 FPS, making it seem more smooth. this does not mean that you get to see the extra frames. it's just that your mouse input information (e.g. x and y position of mouse cursor) is being processed every time a frame is generated by the game.
i'm not sure if NS2 does this though. my opinion is that it does.
Its not just that, this is not present in other games with these framerates, theres a problem with input lag that is kinda separate from the framerate, even though I would have a "good" framerate, moving the viewmodel with my mouse has this "lag" that makes aiming difficult.
I usually get around 40 in heavy combat but in light combat and gernral playing I get around 50. Before I got a new Graphics card though, I was usually getting about 25 and in heavy combat, below 20 at times. I played like that all through the beta and didn't upgrade my computer untill January so being used to playing on poop FPS and playing good accually made me have to learn how to play again. It was smoother and better then I was used to playing and I had to play for a quite some hours to get used to the high FPS. Anyway my point is, is that if you're used to playing on high setting and then, if started playing on low FPS and low setting, you will feel like you can'nt play aswell as you should. But this is also the case vice versa
Its not just that, this is not present in other games with these framerates, theres a problem with input lag that is kinda separate from the framerate, even though I would have a "good" framerate, moving the viewmodel with my mouse has this "lag" that makes aiming difficult.
i think i know what you're talking about. is it like, when you move your mouse at a constant speed in one direction, your view in-game "eases" to where it's suppose to be, starting slowly then speeding up as you turn, instead of your view in-game "turning" at a constant rate with your mouse movement?
in that case, you are right. it's not an FPS issue, but then it's confusing because you did say you get less input lag at 100 FPS compared to 60.
Its not just that, this is not present in other games with these framerates, theres a problem with input lag that is kinda separate from the framerate, even though I would have a "good" framerate, moving the viewmodel with my mouse has this "lag" that makes aiming difficult.
i think i know what you're talking about. is it like, when you move your mouse at a constant speed in one direction, your view in-game "eases" to where it's suppose to be, starting slowly then speeding up as you turn, instead of your view in-game "turning" at a constant rate with your mouse movement?
in that case, you are right. it's not an FPS issue, but then it's confusing because you did say you get less input lag at 100 FPS compared to 60.
But its true that I do get less input lag with more FPS, just that NS2 requires more FPS for smooth input than other games.
Comments
Oh nooeees rapid typing mistakes! My honoourrr!
And here's my constructive thing to say.
If you want to talk about things you know nothing about, I suggest a discussion rather than the argument this thread was heading towards.
*sigh* your typing mistakes show that you don't think before you type and check before you submit. it's acceptable if you were talking to me in real time, not when you're posting in a forum where you have all the time you need to look through what you post before you actually hit the button.
a discussion? isn't that what me and savant are doing here? maybe in the wrong thread, but at least we're discussing something while you're... i have no idea what you're doing.
what you deem as constructive isn't even remotely close to being constructive. you call people out because you think they don't know what they're talking about, but you don't support it, you don't back your claims and you bring nothing new to the table.
if you know something, share it with everybody else.
Thus in today's gaming, I try to reach 60 minimum and 70+ FPS to be able to stay competitive.
Ummm, Dr. Stuart Hameroff is know for his 'Out there' theories. Using his article as your citation is laughable because its all based on theory. Please provide a respectable study or research that backs up your theory or I will continue to think that your opinion is baseless.
Even though I would have 60+ FPS there is lag present, hitches and mouse input lag, which deteriorates my aim, so I would say that I need 100+ for aiming perfectly, e.g. in the ready room, there is no input lag.
So yeah, I need to have at least a good 60 fps average to play comfortably.
Due to the phenomenon I described above, a 60Hz monitor can actually display more than 60 FPS while V-Sync is disabled. It just won't display all of every frame. With a frame rate of 240 FPS on a 60Hz monitor with V-Sync disabled, you'll simultaneously be seeing 4 frames but only a quarter of each one will be visible. This is why you get "tearing" artifacts with V-Sync disabled.
Provided that you're not too fussed by tearing artifacts, having a frame rate that is higher than your monitor's refresh rate is actually quite a good thing and makes for a smoother experience.
On a side not: Some people say that, if a game provides a way to limit your FPS, you should limit it to the same FPS as your monitor's refresh rate. This, however, is actually quite bad advice because it causes the tearing artifact to constantly appear at the same spot on your screen, thereby making it much more noticeable and annoying.
Anyways with v sync, I cannot believe there is anyone here who can beat this number, despite any of their existing belief(s).
That being said, fairly sure, like me, game advantage due to FPS wanes past 50
For instance, irl things are not rendered in fps. It is either there or it is not, and the brain is a funny thing. If you move your head from side to side for instance, things start to blur because your brain does not have the power to process all the information. There is probably a lot in play when it comes to the brain, so personally I go on feel.
The most I have had is a 60hz monitor. I used to play CS at a very high level, played the best clans in the UK at the time.
I can say for sure that I could notice a difference between 60/85 fps. We know that monitors can't display some of those frames, but something definitely felt smoother. I wouldn't be surprised that those with 120hz monitors can tell the difference as well.
The higher the frame rate the better, but I think most would be happy around the 72^ mark. I certainly wouldn't start complaining if I had 50 unless I was competitive.
First of all that humans dont see the difference past that isnt true, also usually its said its actually 60, both being bollocks.
Also Source games dont cap FPS at 72, its fps_max 300 by default.
Also V-sync causes input lag in most cases, so if you cannot tell the difference between v-sync on and off I dont think you can say anything about how 50 fps is enough so that people wont tell the difference after that.
I can tell the difference between 120 vsync on and off, but cannot tell the difference between 120 FPS and say 100 FPS. I hope this illustrates my understanding of vsync in regards to discernable FPS rates. (You misinterpreted my op)
Highlvl CS? I take it you used CRT monitor? Those usually have more than 60hz. Else I'd call placebo, all you would get is screen tearing above 60 fps. The real key to having a smooth image is really a constant steady FPS, having it dip up and down like in NS2 isn't good. I recently bought a 120hz, the difference is obvious. It is easier to aim regardless of what funky science someone spout saying differently, assuming all science is correct is a funny ordeal, especially when it concerns the brain, which afaik we don't know everything about.
I'm not going to debate quantum mechanics with those who have never studied it. If you want to call it baseless, go right ahead. I'm not going to spend an hour digging up intricate references so you can find some BS reason to dismiss their remarks as well. Unless you can show me your doctorate in quantum mechanics, your rejection of opinions from those who do have doctorates is itself baseless.
As for describing someone as "known for his 'Out there' theories", there were many people who said the same about Einstein and Newton. When it was suggested that the world was round people mocked them as well. We all know how that worked out.
My mouse lagg is really bad, if I move it in small circles it will work for 1-2 seconds then I look in a completely different direction, that's why I often loose orientation. Gorge though is still playable, Skulk is a so-so, Fade is impossible, Lerk works fine and Onos is the best class to play with low fps.
WHAT???????
everyone but YOU?? that you dont have a 120hz monitor is just a sacrileg :O
charlie... how can that happen?...
You are right, I forgot that I had a CRT at the time. I think it could display at 75hz max. I could definitely tell the difference.
I think he means it shows a single frame made up of four different ones...
You don't understand his point, he's arguing that with v-sync off, he's still getting his frames updated faster, albeit in less than full screen sizes, but incrementally more accurate data never the less. The question is: is this slightly faster updating, coupled with tearing actually a benefit, and if so, how significant of one?
Yes, there are significant benefits to not using vsync. The difference in input lag is very noticeable.
I better notice this improvement! Lol
correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't you two saying the same thing in different ways?
or, in other words, the game updates your mouse input information on every frame, so anything higher than 60 FPS updates your mouse information faster than 60 FPS, making it seem more smooth. this does not mean that you get to see the extra frames. it's just that your mouse input information (e.g. x and y position of mouse cursor) is being processed every time a frame is generated by the game.
i'm not sure if NS2 does this though. my opinion is that it does.
i think i know what you're talking about. is it like, when you move your mouse at a constant speed in one direction, your view in-game "eases" to where it's suppose to be, starting slowly then speeding up as you turn, instead of your view in-game "turning" at a constant rate with your mouse movement?
in that case, you are right. it's not an FPS issue, but then it's confusing because you did say you get less input lag at 100 FPS compared to 60.
But its true that I do get less input lag with more FPS, just that NS2 requires more FPS for smooth input than other games.