so dont cap your fps....

or is this a trick question?

Nah, I just don't get why the opposite effect is happening, and setting it too unlimited doesn't really help that much

Just setting the fps and hz to the same number doesnt mean the frames will be synced, thats vsync's job.

The frame limiter actually throws away frames so there's even less chance of them syncing. I could be wrong, but that's been my experience in some (goldsrc/source) games.

you should not ever cap your fps to your hz, you will experience 'tearing'. dumb idea. use 125fps/120hz like everyone else did in q3.

So the best option is to have more fps.
480fps/160hz is much smother, and makes for a lot more responsive mouse feel.
So why is there still a 125fps limit in q3/ql. So fucking anoying comming from othergames and gona play ql to get tearing since one is stuck with 125 fps

why do you get tearing with 125fps? why would you be stuck at 125fps?

I thought you could use higher fps in q3, but not in ql. I wish they offered like, non-vsync options to eliminate/deal with tearing. I would like 143 fps (~1000/7).

so is maximum fps/hz that can be achieved always the goal, or is there a configuration that is optimal, such as 125fps/120hz?

Optimally you want everything from sv_fps, com_maxfps, displayrefresh (both in-game and out), maxpackets, and even mouse polling rate to be either synchronized or a healthy multiple, and all at the highest values possible. It's totally impossible to do this though, and you run the risk of any value that you set fluctuating anyways.

The goal is to have an fps game with the lowest latency possible, and the highest refreshrate/fps possible for visual aesthetics. I would welcome it even if all of these values were 1000 and never fluctuated, but of course this is impossible (except for mouse polling rate).

So when these values are desynchronized, one waits for the other and produces latency, or artifacts like tearing. In ql for example, sv_fps is 40, a multiple of 40 would be 120 (so at a non-fluctuating 120 fps you would have exactly 3 frames per server update), but then you have maxfps value only possible of 1000/integer, and you have maxpackets 125 as a max value, with 120 feeling weird. Then you try to set your monitor refresh close to these values, but find that monitor refresh fluctuates within a certain range. So to eliminate tearing without using vsync (which adds much latency) you have to fine tune these values and just kind of hope for the best.

It sucks because it seems like 125 is very close to 120 and it could just be made to "fit". Deductive reasoning tells me this must be non-trivial though, and that these two numbers must be the result of some calculations that fit with the rest of the program in a clean way, even if they don't quite fit together.

Like I said though, these values fluctuate, and even if they could be sync'd up the fluctuations alone could produce all the problems mentioned. It's a fruitless pursuit to worry about this stuff really. Just fine tune your values until you don't have tearing, or a reduced enough amount of tearing that you can tolerate it.

In the meantime I wouldn't mind higher than maxfps 125 in ql, say 143? The physics are already independent of the maxfps, and I could definitely adjust my crt to 143 hz.

Optimally you want everything from sv_fps, com_maxfps, displayrefresh (both in-game and out), maxpackets, and even mouse polling rate to be either synchronized or a healthy multiple, and all at the highest values possible. It's totally impossible to do this though, and you run the risk of any value that you set fluctuating anyways.

that's not true, simple as that. no amount of pretty words will change that :)

you could try hz=fps in a game that supports it like qw and you'd see why. i'm pretty sure 'mouse polling rate' does not work the way you think it does tbh. high sv_fps creates lots of issues... we've been through this in q3.

Qw was my former game before ql, and 77/77 or 77/154 was awesome.

The polling rate thing is pretty minor, but I guess it would be nice to know that the frame updates at the end of each poll(s) and vice versa.

High sv_fps does not have to create issues. The problem is that the greater the server frames the more demand is placed on the quality of the connection between the server and the client, in terms of latency and bandwidth, and the more demand is placed on the server itself (how many servers on a single machine, and how many clients on each server). So, the current state of technology and the average quality of connections limits how high the server frames can be made.

Ideally you'd want sv_fps as high as can be made to reduce latency (~12 ms for 77 fps, ~25 for 40 etc). The netcode can "give back" this latency, but in my opinion it just isn't the same, and the greater the latency that the server has to "give back" the greater the chance of gameplay issues.

i agree (now), just not with your preference of 77/77 in qw. you didn't experience a huge 'line' where the screen literally refreshes? i don't understand why some players swear by it and others (like me) find it impossible to play with. do you use a crt or a tft?

CRT. I didn't get the lines, but I spent a lot of time adjusting the monitor refresh (and monitor position). The way I did this was to load a game on dm3 and go just in front of ya stairs and look at the vertical 'lights' there. Then I'd strafe back and forth and adjust the fps (I tried fractional values of 153/154) and/or screen refresh accordingly. I did this until a 'line' was as uncommon as possible, and often compared it to vsync to make sure I wasn't going crazy. Of course sometimes it would seem well on the lights but after running around I would start to notice tearing again. It was really frustrating but it was something I was maybe even a bit obsessed with.

Probably someday someone is going to tell me that the game never accepted fractional cl_maxfps values at all. Heh, what a nightmare it was. I feel like dr. wily from megaman after having done all of that.

I strongly preferred the 77/154 and was overjoyed when they came out with indy physics.

Here's an article:

http://www.quakeworld.nu/blogs/436/140/

nice :)

i remember strider(?) having done some sort of modded setup for qw to improve on hz=fps setups with and without vsync. i might just be imagining things though...

Link? Keywords?

I really miss strider. So annoying he doesn't have a blog or web page or something. His input has always been invaluable.

wish i remember anything... :/

120FPS do not exist in Quake. Let me quote injx:

"Q. Why does the MaxFPS I enter change to a different value when I press 'Calculate'?

A. Quake does not accept just any old value for com_maxfps. The only valid values it uses are those which are equal to 1000/x, where x is an integer. For example, 125 is a valid value because it is equal to 1000/8. If you enter a value which is not valid, Quake will automatically use the next valid value up from what you have set. For example, the default value of com_maxfps, 85, is not a valid value, therefore Quake will use ~90 (1000/11) even though your com_maxfps will remain on the 85 setting. Also this explains the effect that you may have seen in Quake yourself - if you reduce your com_maxfps from 125 to 120 you will still get 125fps on the fps meter. This calculator takes this into account and will adjust any invalid MaxFPS values in the same way Quake does. "

i have to use 75fps to get smooth visual settings in quake... if i set it to anything else it stutters as m not hitting anything higher even though i am, really want to understand why my monitor can't play quakelive at 125fps and looking normal... and if there's anything i can change to maybe fix this.

crt or lcd?
vsync?
what's your settings?

It's possible to get 125 Hz on a crt if you fuck with settings with something like powerstrip. If you can get 144 Hz on a given res then 125 should be safe. I used to play 800x600@125 Hz.

Also don't forget netcode is synced to game engine fps so legit pairs for maxpackets and fps are 1:1 or 1:2, as in:

125/125
125/63
100/100
100/50
90/90

So playing at 125 fps and setting packets to 100 will afaik lower them to 63 and that's probably not what you want.

I thought the netsettings are not connected to FPS anymore?!?!?!

You could pester arqon or anthonyj for an answer. I don't know for 100% sure but I'd bet a few euros for it though.

REALLY STRANGE.

FPS_limiter_0.2

http://www.caveofdistraction.com/2009/07/22/f...er-titles/

someone tried this?

We already have a cmd for that...

And i would probably never take an advice about gaming from someone that says:
"Now if you think about it, there is really no reason to have a frame rate above 30."

It's definitely like nails on a chalkboard when I hear this kind of thing.

"omg dood u cannot c more than 30 fps" etc

maybe sounds weird but i gotta say i used 2 play 125/144 or 125/160 4 a long time without vsync and was very happy with that.
After i knew about vsync i played 125/125. When i switched back (test) i couldnt belive i ever played without vsync its like my eyes start bleeding ;(

A: Triple buffering.

Use it.