videocard overclock doesn't made even +1fps.

ofc it doesnt, some dual gpu (igp+dedicated vga) systems stay in power saving mode when running quake live and you wouldn't even notice. and fx like decals, bullet marks etc are all processed by cpu, try standing just next to a wall zooming in and blasting it with shotgun. my fps suddenly drops down to 150 from 250 when i do that.

Actually it's enough to try to walk into a wall to drop FPS by 1/4. And it has nothing to do with rendering anything, I can leave as many marks as I want and it can't make a difference, unlike pushing against a wall.

in ql it's different but the shotgun's animated hitmark effect still drops the framerate. in q3 i managed to go down to 4 fps by discharging all of my plasmagun ammo into one point and zooming into it. looking at animated textures, like the glowing tubes on power stations ceiling did the same thing. ql fortunately handles this differently. pushing into a wall doesn't make the framerate drop on my rig btw

Find a way where it's not maxed out (read: Terminatria above quad) and observe the difference between standing and pushing a wall (still not actually moving).

Collision detection is the biggest fps-killer in Quake 3. I've made maps that give me 125fps solid with noclip, but drop down to 2fps when i turn noclip off. It's crazy.

Try cg_nopredict=1 - you'll see no FPS drops in this situation. Not that you'll be able to play comfortably though))

I can drop mine from 1000 to 23 fps with cg_marks :)
looking at wall
lg marks
lg marks + zoom

What does 250fps give you over 125?

more frames per second ;]

and personally my mouse feels better on 250 over 125 but it might jsut be some placebo-like thing

I created the above diagram that explains input lag behaviours of different parts of a screen during VSYNC OFF.

People need to know that the input lag of different parts of a refresh are different. This is because GPU frames are rendered in sudden bursts, while a display is scanned out in a continuous fashion. See high speed videos of LCD refreshing to understand how the top edge of the display is refreshed first, then "scanned" to the bottom edge of the screen. This is still the status quo for LCD's, and is the best way since that's how data comes in from the display cable, even DVI and DisplayPort (pixels come in a raster fashion).

This creates input lag disparities at the top edge versus bottom edge of the screen. This is already complex to explain. And even more complicated to explain during VSYNC OFF. I understand this very well, so I've created a heavily simplified diagram.

This illustrates how complicated it is to truly measure the input lag of rendered game frames, of different parts of a refresh cycle, during situations where game framerates run at higher than refresh rate. I've created a diagram which hopefully helps explain things better. The higher the framerate, the more frame slices, and the lower latency each frame slice becomes.

This is a simplification obviously, strictly geared to explaining input lag (of different parts of screen) during VSYNC OFF during framerates massively exceeding refresh rate.

what are your thoughts on aiming/turning with a very high mouse DPI versus an adequate amount of DPI with regard to a smoother gaming experience?

high mouse DPI makes the mouse more, almost too, sensitive and the view angles while turning appear smaller, which might be unnecessary.

faster response and more viewable frames.

Can these benefits still be seen on 60/75hz monitors?

see - no. feel may be yes.

See yes, feel yes.

Tried on many games, PK, COD (from 1 to 4), Quake series, with different monitors, high input lag to low input lag 60hz to more than 120hz (CRT) = yes you can notice the difference between 125 and 250 fps, if YOU can not then YOU can not, it doesn't EVERYONE can not, since at least you can Google "COD4 promod 125 or 250fps" look at how many people will say "pick 250 fps", and these guys don't even play a very fast paced FPS like Quake, so... Even these people can notice the difference.

60/75hz monitors produce 60/75fps so u cant "see" more fps.

Sir, you do notice the difference, if I make a video test 125 vs 250 fps and ask a guy to tell me if it's the first or second one they will be able to tell if it's 125 or 250 fps, and this whether it's a 60hz, 75hz, 120hz monitor.

If you have poor experience in a field, don't generalize it and make a rule about it, because this is not an absolute rule, how you feel the framerate difference can be more or less sensible depending on the person.

Your only argument is technical "60/75hz monitors produce 60/75fps so u cant "see" more fps", oh really? What's next? We should all develop video games capped at 24fps, since it's totally fine watching movies with such framerate, right?

I'm sure you have published very important medical books, and you are leading very important research groups concerning the "eye" and "vision" domains to state that it's impossible for anyone to notice that difference.

I'm sorry but uber9petska is right. It simply is fact, whatever you say. Frames per second past monitor refresh rate does nothing visually it has nothing to do at all with "eye" and "vision" domains. It is about input, ie: some people might be able to feel that their mouse is more responsive at 250fps because the game receives updates 250 times per second instead of 125.

Hence: see no, feel maybe.

Merry Christmas.

Before let me ask you guys a question, when you say "feel", which sense are we talking about? The touch? Is that your forearms/hands feeling a better response to a higher framerate? What is it? Ask yourself what causes this "feel" difference? Which human sense is receiving the information to determine that difference, even if so slightly between 125 and 250 fps? Is it your smell, your hearing, your touch (the fact you touch and move the mice), YOUR TASTE THEN PROBABLY?

And by the way:

You don't see at a frame rate. Each individual cone/rod cell receives light and sends a signal to the brain before recharging. You could say that each cell has a variable frame rate that changes with the intensity of light, but your sensory cells are by no means synced up. Depending on the person and situation, you can see at up to about 150-200 FPS due to how the brain interprets the signals. You can create the illusion of motion with as little as 16 FPS.

Yeah and how many monitors nowadays do you think can display more than 120 frame per seconds in order to let people conclude that? All you "use" as argument is one fact which is "at a certain refresh rate, it is technically impossible to display a frame rate higher than what the monitor is capable of": Captain Obvious much? What I was trying to make you realize was that this problem is far more complicated than your simple assumption, and either you published few books on the subject proving that there is absolutely no possibility that the eyes, something that you guys have poor knowledge about, can't notice anything that is happening.

A common misconceptionwith vision is that the eyes feed the brain a full image over and over, like full frames in a video, every pixel in every frame.
They don't.
Think about how computers compress video, they take out the parts of the frame that have stayed the same and only change the parts that change. Lots of other tricks..
For example, one thing your eyes do is for the most part send a black & white image to your brain. Then they take a small sample of color and tell your brain what color the object is, and your brain fills in that data for the rest of the image for you. It's.... crazy.
Also, looked up the Stopped Clock illusion

The concept of frame rate comes from standard exposure based photography. When you expose a digital detector (CCD, CMOS, etc) to light, photons striking the silicon that makes up each pixel induces a small charge. The more light striking the pixel, the more charge that accumulates. The longer you expose the detector to light, the more charge that accumulates. To read out the image off the sensor, the computer uses an analog to digital converter which translates the voltage (number of charges) of the pixel into a number. For instance an 8 bit detector will result in a value between 0 and 255. This process requires time quantization. You have to collect light (integrate) over some time, then read out how much you gathered. This time (the integration time) is related to the 'frame rate' of the detector (the frame rate can be longer that the integration time, but I digress).
The eye and brain are 100% analog and don't have to deal with framing. The brain doesn't allow the eye to gather light for x time, then read the charge accumulated. Light interacting with the cones and rods in your eyes produce an analog signal which varies with the intensity received. This analog signal is fed directly into the brain which then figures out how to stitch the data together to form the image that you see. So there really is no frame rate..each cell acts independently to send a constant stream of asynchronous data.
While there is no actual frame rate, there are limits to the temporal resolution that the eye can see. I believe this limit is somewhere around 60 Hz...but keep in mind that because there is no actual framing, you can't actually quantify the level of blur experienced at a certain frame rate... so even past 60Hz, the signals from the eye are likely different...the question is if the brain is doing anything with that data, which is pretty dang hard to determine.

If your game generates more frames, even though you won't distinguish exactly 250 frames due to technical limitations, the game will still be able to display more distinctive "pictures" or "lights" in the animation of the scene on your screen, at lower rate there will be less distinctive frames, the more distinctive frames the higher is the probability that your eye catches that slight difference.

You underestimate something you have no knowledge about: the eyes. And overestimated what you all know about (or at least more): technical limitations of today's monitors.

And before you reply, I just want to let you know that, this debate is not new, I know so little about this, and because I know that I have poor knowledge about this I can safely say that you also don't, you come and bring a one old argument that some people out there can counter easily with more detailed explanations than you all did in this thread, a subject where more factors than just "the monitor" are involved, this is why you are not right, but not completely wrong, now you're gonna claim that this is the absolute truth about that slight difference that is happening? Ha! Ok then :D.

Merry Christmas.

PS: Go tell Fraze this is all placebo, after he said that "I aim better with 250 fps" yesterday :D. Also all gaming communities playing games with 250 fps instead of 125 fps (for instance http://www.esportsheaven.com/) since that difference is not that significant :D Go throw that in their face.

If your game generates more frames, even though you won't distinguish exactly 250 frames due to technical limitations, the game will still be able to display more distinctive "pictures" or "lights" in the animation of the scene on your screen, at lower rate there will be less distinctive frames, the more distinctive frames the higher is the probability that your eye catches that slight difference.

Assuming we are talking about a game where most things are FPS independent, what do you base that statement on? Let's go with something simple.

Scenario 1 : Game rendering at 2 FPS on a 2 Hz display.
Production of frame A1 at 0 ms.
Frame A1 is displayed.
Production of frame B1 at 500 ms using A1's gamestate and a time delta of 500 ms.
Frame B1 is displayed.

Scenario 1 : Game rendering at 4 FPS on a 2 Hz display.
Production of frame A at 0 ms.
Frame A2 is displayed.
Production of frame B2 at 250 ms using A2's gamestate and a time delta of 250 ms.
Production of frame C2 at 500 ms using B2's gamestate and a time delta of 250 ms.
Frame C2 is displayed.
Production of frame D2 at 750 ms using C2's gamestate and a time delta of 250 ms.

What makes A2 and C2 "more distinctive" than A1 and B1?

Or maybe you were thinking of taking advantage of tearing?

Yes my assumption was more based on the tearing part , I don't understand your scenario though I'm not that keen enough for that (or my English level not that advanced enough). But in the end that doesn't say much about my "main question", I didn't try to say that numbers are wrong, I tried to say that there is at least a factor that nobody is talking about, and nobody brings enough informations about: the eyes. A bit like "Oh there are only X colours I can see looking at this landscape", even though there are more colours in reality, but human eyes just won't see them. And again what is the sense or the senses involved here then? If it's not the sight?

What makes Fraze say that he is aiming better? What makes all these "pgm" say that they play better with 250 fps then?

Maybe if I ask you the question then it will work better.


__________________

Also:

So what is the perfect framerate in a video game? If we forget the refresh rate of our monitors, the sensitivity of ours mices, the number of calculated events (and not displayed) by the 3D engine, we can conclude that the more there are frames, the better it is.

What we are sure about is that, with the technology that we have today, it is not the eye and even less the brain that would render useless the idea of displaying hundreds of frames per second in a video game [...].

And honestly, it is not very smart to talk about human perception when we talk about frames per second whereas the eye and the brain discern a continuous flux of light and informations.

Sources: http://www.nofrag.com/2003/nov/24/8629/
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
http://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfa/teaching/UVLibre/...rcept.html
http://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfa/teaching/UVLibre/9900/bin26/per2.htm

First of all I did not say it was placebo, I am sure some people are sensitive enough to FEEL the difference (NOT see). Look, it's not magic. Higher fps means less lag, making the mouse more responsive. Sure, since there is more frames to pick from, the monitor will obviously pick a more precise frame to display, but it is still displaying only 60/75/120 frames per second or whatever the monitor refresh rate is set to. Making it impossible to notice a difference unless you are the person moving the mouse. You saying a random person could sit on a chair and look at the monitor, without touching the mouse or anything, would be able to tell the difference is just wrong.

So you're saying that this sense that allows you to "feel" the difference is the touch and only that?

We should all play without looking at the monitor then, right? Hell why do we need monitors anyway, it's all in the touch!

http://www.esreality.com/post/2535728/n-a/#pid2535728

Peace.

A 60hz monitor cannot display more than 60 frames per second. It's just a fact whether you want to believe it or not. Likewise a 120hz monitor can't display more than 120 frames per second.

That doesn't mean there isn't an advantage in playing with a higher fps than your monitor can display. I have a 60 hz monitor but I play with 125 fps. Why? Because 125 fps means I'm sometimes getting frames that are slightly more "up to date" than if I was playing at 60 fps.

Your comment about 24 fps has nothing to do with anything. 24 fps is pretty much the minimum speed for reasonably fluid motion. I've seen studies that show pretty much no one can see a difference above 100 to 120 fps, but everyone can see a difference between 24 and 48 or 24 and 60. There might be some people who can see a difference in smoothness between 120 and 144 hz, but I doubt there is anyone who can see a difference in motion smoothness above that.

As for whether 125 vs 250 fps could make a difference in reaction time... Maybe. 250 fps means in some cases, you might see something happen 1/125th of a second faster than at 125 fps. That means 250 fps might improve your "lag" by 8 ms at the very most. Good players might find a slight benefit from this...

ATTENTION

**** The graphics above and below the tearline (tearing) are from DIFFERENT frames ****

You also can have multiple tearlines per refresh, if you're running huge excess framerate.

So at 240 frames per second on 60hz, you can have segments 4 different frames spliced to each other. All rendered less than 1/240sec ago when they were displayed.

Instead of a full 1/60sec GPU latency for the whole refresh cycle, the "slices" (with tearlines separating them) have only 1/240sec GPU latency each.

As a screen scans out, the new frames are continually spliced into the current raster scanout (creating the tearline between each).

Also:

So 250fps VSYNC OFF can look/feel much better than 120fps VSYNC OFF especially if you prefer to play VSYNC OFF during LightBoost use.

Source: http://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=49#wrap

Apply water on burnt area. Also I'm sure you read my other posts, I dropped some sources coming from real specialists, and some people who actually published things in their life about this matter.

Peace.

The frames displayed by monitor are not synced with frames rendered by game. In this case, by Nyquist theorem, you need at least twice as many fps than refrensh rate to get rid of all possible artifacts.

so seems like Nyquist theorem says there are no tears if com_maxfps 125 and display refresh 60, right?
what else artifacts u can name?

Yes, if you use outdated 60hz monitor not suitable for gaming, then you get no benefit from >120 fps.

Not necessarily.

(1) You get less input lag 250fps@60Hz than 125fps@60Hz

--> Instead of 1/125sec GPU lag (125fps), you get only 1/250sec (250fps).
--> So playing at 250fps on 60hz monitor, even though you really want more Hz, the GPU share's of input lag is reduced. At 250fps, the frames are rendered only 1/250sec ago, so it has fresher input.

(2) Tearing can become fainter.

Tearing is still visible at framerates beyond refreshrate. However, the number of tearlines is proportional toe framerate. There are more tearlines at 250fps than at 125fps, however, they are half the offset (half the skew amount) because of only 1/250sec movement between the frames than 1/125sec movement between the frames.

It is not about seeing more fps, it is about seeing the most accurate f at a given s.

Yes, as you'll be provided with more accurate frames than before.

even if you have 120hz screen you won't see/feel over 125fps.

You can see it even more easily because instead of 1 tearline, you'll be getting 3 and because it's 60 Hz, they stay on screen longer than on 120 Hz.

Being able to see _a_ difference doesn't mean it will help your game in any way.

I wonder, maybe setting max fps to a multiple of monitor hz might fix tearing (in similar fashion as vsync)? ie: setting maxfps to 240 on 60z (60x3) or 225 on 75hz (75x3). This worked in qw/ezquake for sure, I don't know about QL.

I don't see the logic in that. Why would it being a multiple change anything?

Shouldn't 240 fps rendered displayed on a 60 hz monitor look like that?

FlashSoul is correct.

His diagram is a good illustration of how segments of 4 frames gets spliced into one refresh.

Video cables are continuously transmitting at a finite speed, one row of pixels at a time (we still borrow legacy raster scanout from the old CRT days, even when using DisplayPort, DVI, and HDMI)

As new frames become available, it gets "spliced" into the current refresh.

Instead of one full frame, with 1/60sec = 16.7ms latency each, you've got four frames spliced into the current refresh (with a tearline separating each), with only 1/240sec = ~4.2ms GPU latency each.

Also, frametimes are different above and below tearlines. If you have tearing that is displayed all over the screen in random locations, you have microstutters. You have +/- 16.7ms microstutters at 60fps VSYNC OFF, you have microstutters +/- 4.2ms at 240fps VSYNC OFF. This can lead to more accurate 180 degree turns, since 1ms of error = 1 pixel of error during 1000 pixels/second.

When you do a fast-flick 180 degree, you are panning the screen at approximately two screen widths in one second. That's a screen panning speed 4000 pixels/second (or faster). That's fast panning at approximately ~65 pixels per frame. A one frame error (1/60th of 4000) is a 65 pixel overshoot or undershoot, if it's stuttering a lot. Imagine fast-flicking 180 degree and aiming your crosshairs on an enemy behind you, as quickly as possible without overshooting your mouse. And you do know that this is easier to do at high framerates? And you do know that this is easier to do when there's less stutters? Bingo.

Higher framerates such as 240fps, reduces these microstutter errors. At 4000 pixels/second panning (180 degree flick), 1/240th of that is about 17 pixel. That's MUCH SMOOTHER.

Conclusion: Scientifically, 240fps@60Hz yields much smoother fast 180-degree flicks than 60fps@60Hz. Provable, proven, and not subject to dispute.

Science papers have not currently yet covered the VSYNC OFF effect, so the science papers that say it's all invalid, definitely cannot be applied to this. Only a very few sites, such as AnandTech and Blur Busters understand these things well enough.

Thusly, even 240fps@60Hz has benefits for competitive play, full stop. High speed video tests confirm this too.

So yes, FlashSoul's diagram is a good illustration that explains how 240fps @ 60Hz reduces input lag, compared to 60fps @ 60Hz.

I've used 125 back then on Cod2 when it came out, and later when everyone got a better PC and could run 250 FPS stable, it clearly felt better, altho the difference in Quake from 125-250 isnt as big.

I can't notice any difference.

some persons prefer 60hz instead 120hz. some can't notice any difference. it's ok.

I hit more lg with 75Hz, but more rails with120Hz. I guess I overcompensate more on 120Hz with lg. It's just personal as you say. :)

I do.

Not everyone can, but I do.

>>> "Engine: Added cvar to disable idle sleep, to prevent FPS issues that may be caused by low resolution timers in Windows XP or on-demand CPU scaling. Setting com_idleSleep to 0 will restore the previous behavior of using up an entire CPU to wait until the next frame. Unless disabling com_idleSleep has a direct effect, it is highly recommended that com_idleSleep is kept ON."

So why com_idlesleep 0?

coz with default com_idlesleep 1 i cant get 250fps (due sleep function in rendering frames)

same here - variable drops below 250fps with com_idleSleep "1", but solid 250 fps with com_idleSleep "0"

The real question is, does com_idlesleep 0 has any chance to harm (more) the cpu?

no, cpus are not fragile

Didn't you buy a computer to do computations? Does using a dishwasher on the "Pots and Pans / Heavy" cycle have any chance to harm (more) the dishwasher? I think you already know the answer.

well, but it does. A Ferrari is built to be driven fast, but if you drive it very fast it'll break more than if you drive it slow.
That's what confuses me about the cpu, cpus are made to work, of course, but the idle thing has a useful purpose, as far as i know, to save life and energy of the cpu. I may be wrong, i don't pretend to be an expert in those questions, absolutely, and any input is greatly appreciated.
Now, if the cpu doesn't work at 100% even with idlesleep 0, it isn't more consuming, but if there is a great difference from the previous situation, percentage wise, then i start to worry.
If i run Skyrim or Crysis on my pc, i full know the consequences on the cpu and the vga (low, of course, as long as the cooling system works properly); but if ql starts consuming as much as Skyrim, or more, because there is no idlesleep, i may start to reconsider.
I hope to have been clear about my reason to worry, does the deactivation of the idlesleep makes the cpu works at his full and maximum capacity, or is it simple "more than before", but not very much?

i've observed cpu usage in both conditions (com_idleSleep 1/0) and it seems that, at least on my Core i7 2.8ghz w/16gb RAM, CPU use increases somewhat with idleSleep 0, but not all that much - remember, it's using a CPU core between frame renders, so there's not much going on.

ahh, thanks a lot! Since i've read the comment of another user reporting his cpu raising to 100% usage all the time, i was slightly worried.
But i now realize that i didn't understand what that command really does: so, it regards the cpu usage specific between frames, and not all the time? So it makes sense that it doesn't raise the cpu usage so much.

This is the code used when it doesn't sleep :

https://github.com/id-Software/Quake-III-Aren...on.c#L2691

When it sleeps, it should do something like

someSleepFunction(minMsec - (Com_EventLoop() - lastTime));

instead of the do...while loop.

Anyway, if you weren't concerned by CPU usage before the standalone, you shouldn't be any more concerned now.

Thanks, i'm less concerned now!

I think that if you use com_idleSleep 0, then you get how QL worked before the standalone update (busy wait between frames), which means 100% usage of one processor core.

Now, in practice, running your CPU at a constant load is not a problem if the CPU is cooled properly and is working below the manufacturer's specified temperature threshold. And even if it's not, modern CPUs will just shutdown if overheated.

In theory, running the processor at considerably higher temperatures decreases its life somewhat, maybe on a scale of tens of years.

Note also that if you have multiple cores/processors, then modern operating systems (like Windows and Linux) will change the core the game is running on from time to time, so that the average heat generated by all cores is close to equal and not very high compared to other cores.

TL;DR: If your cooling system is working properly, don't worry about it (if only except your power bill).

Thank you too! Didn't know the fact about the core switching, so simple, so clever!

I use 122 fov and can see the futre

88 is best for time travel

69 baby

well i could be using 250 fps but 125 just feels better.. mouse is too sensitive on 250..it makes the same distance but it just doesent feel right,..

I got exactly same feeling. with 250fps my sens feels kinda off and my accuracy went down. Im back to 125fps but dunno if I could make it work with 250fps...

Any explanation for this ?

more fps makes mouse more responsive and it feels different for you. may be it's placebo that acc went down. may be ur setup sucks. may be users with in_mouse "not 2" and\or mouse accel have sensitivity troubles for real. there are many variants.

Diff mouse feeling that needs time to get used to for some players. For me it feels slower+m_filter 1 like feeling.

strange.
with 250 it feels like i have more time to pick shots.
im hitting better everything pretty much.
but i do get some tearing and stuttering on big tdm maps.

Same.

so if you want to 250 frames per second?

Isn't there a footstep bug if you enable 250FPS?

Footsteps dont play that as often as on 125fps but after a few duels i'd say when I lose it's not because of that.

i play at 250 fps constant and haven't noticed any issues with footsteps, although many others have. Has anyone played with s_mixAhead to try to fix this???

footsteps missing was annoying some ocd bone in my ass, and found 144fps on 75hz lcd to be very smooth if anyone would have interest in knowing that.

fps has no bearing on mouse sens.....

schizm has no bearing on esr post sense.....

then why does the mouse feel crap on 30fps

maybe because everything feels like crap anyways with only 30fps?

[-] don't spout shit u dun no, because it does.

.lol.

Yes it does. Input lag is lower on higher FPS. And the footstep bug is only on your end only. Your opponents footsteps are different.

how exactly does input lag depend on framerate? can someone explain it to me? i have a theory but since I'm a total noob on this field I'm not sure whether it's garbage or not.

30 fps = 1000/30 = 33,333ms between frames.
60 fps = 1000/60 = 16,666ms between frames.
125 fps = 1000/125 = 8ms between frames.
250 fps = 1000/250 = 4ms between frames.

may be its bad example )

Input events are processed at every frame. If you run the game at 1 FPS, you may have to wait 999 ms before your input has an effect. If you run at 60 FPS, you'll wait at most 16 ms.

just the way i thought, so its true!!!! i had a huge dispute with a gamedev who claimed he has woked with tech3 for five years and firmly stated input has nothing to do with fps so i just could not convince him. thank you and merry christmas!

It's not true in all game engines though. You can decouple input grabbing and world simulation from frame rendering.

You might be interested in this article :

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/130247/...ngine_.php

EDIT : Although obviously for any VISUAL effect you'll still have to wait for (at least) the next frame so even there the framerate is important.

Correct, average input lag does increase, the lower framerate you go. AnandTech wrote a great article about this, sometime ago:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2803/7

Input lag contains MANY components from the computer code all the way to photons hitting the eyes. John Carmack agrees too.

Game engines can decouple it somewhat, but there will be limits on how much you can compensate. Decoupling actually ends up handicapping the latency of higher framerates, in exchange for levelling the playfield with lower framerates, so there's drawbacks when creating a game engine that tries to fully decouple input lag from frame rate.

Mathematically, there is no way to have absolute minimum input lag at high framerates, while still having equal average input lag at lower frame rates. The absolute scientific fact is -- once a frame is displayed, the freshness of that frame (input read) continually decays the more time passes without displaying a fresher frame.

Only a few of us, myself included, understand the "computer-code-to-photons-hitting-eyeballs" behavior better than most game programmers do -- people who understands rasters well (e.g. programmers from the Atari 2600 days, and people who did raster interrupts) will understand the behavior of code-to-photons-hitting-eyeballs much better than the average game programmer who grew up with no understanding at all, of how graphics transmit from computers to displays, and no understanding at all, of raster scanning behavior (legacy behavior still used with digital displays and digital cables).

Input lag is lower on higher FPS.

He was talking about sensitivity though. It really shouldn't change sensitivity.

No, of course not, but his statement implied that he was talking about mouse input in general and reeked of a know-it-all know-nothing-at-all kind of thing but im too busy to go into further details.

the human eye to brain hand/eye co-ordination cannot process anything more than 144 fps anyways.....


everything over that = placebo

False, false, false.

Although there are points of diminishing returns, there is no fixed upper limit. Human eyes are not based on frame rates.

(1) See Michael Abrash article of Valve Software, explaining why 1000fps@1000Hz can benefit virtual reality:
http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/abrash/down-th...ng-judder/

(2) There is less motion blur at higher framerates, on a flickerfree display (sample-and-hold). Flickerfree creates persistence, which creates eye-tracking-based motion blur. Good animation demonstration found at www.testufo.com/eyetracking
View this at 144Hz (non-LightBoost) and you'll still see motion blur.

(3) 60fps@60Hz flickerfree = baseline
120fps@120Hz flickerfree = 50% less blur than 60fps@60Hz flickerfree
240fps@240Hz flickerfree = 75% less blur than 60fps@60Hz flickerfree
480fps@480Hz flickerfree = 87.5% less blur than 60fps@60Hz flickerfree

This assumes pixel transitions are fast enough to be complete (e.g. OLED, fast LCD, DLP, etc -- vpixx.com sells a 500Hz-native-refresh scientific refresh projector)

(4) Blur Busters Law of motion blur:
1ms of persistence = 1 pixel of motion blurring during 1000 pixels/second motion.
(simplified, assumes framerate=refreshrate, and assumes clean persistence without decay effects)

144fps@144Hz = 7 pixels of motion blurring (1/144th of 1000) during 1000 pixels/second when viewing www.testufo.com/photo at 144fps @ 144Hz.

Strobing (e.g. LightBoost) is a way to reduce motion blur, but to reduce motion blur without strobing, requires more framerate. To mimic LightBoost without strobing, you need a 700fps@700Hz display. (1/700sec = 1.4ms = LightBoost 10% strobe flash length, measured both by TFTCentral and by BlurBusters = to reproduce 1.4ms of persistence without using flicker, all frames needs to be only 1.4ms, and to fill a whole second with 1.4ms frames. That means you need 700fps@700Hz for a flickerfree/strobefree display to have motion that has the same darn nearly zero motion blur of LightBoost 120fps@120Hz.

This is scientifically exactly why nobody has successfully commercialized a flickerfree/strobefree/PWM-free low-persistence computer display (yet). All low-persistence display on the market use some form of flicker, strobing or other light modulation (CRT, plasma, LightBoost, laser display, strobe backlight, black frame insertion, etc).

Don't forget GtG is not the same thing as persistence.
Transition = pixel movement time (GtG, change from one color to another)
Persistence = pixel stationary time (continuously lit, visible)

Most motion blur on modern displays is caused by persistence, not GtG. That means even a 2ms 60Hz LCD has 16.7ms of persistence, because the frame is continuously shining for 1/60sec = 16.7ms frame visibility time = 16.7ms of persistence. Manufacturers aren't revealing this, they only like to record the transition speed, which is no longer the major cause of motion blur once it became far less than a refresh cycle.

Don't understand? See the animation at www.testufo.com/eyetracking (especially view with LightBoost OFF) which explains persistence-created motion blur very well.

so much text for the troll...

lol

No, it's not useless.

Read OP's posts, and some people I replied to, this post from mdrejhon is educative for them and many others :).

ill tell u some facts:
1.more fps is better
2.more display hz is better
forgot about eyes can see only.... bla bla bla
but
if u put fps > display hz(like 250fps on 144 hz) u will only get more screen tearing(cuz frames go out of sync with ur display) unless u use vertical sync but then again ur fps'd be capped to ur hz

P.s gl reaching 250fps :D

wrong.

on 120hz screen you don't get more tearing with 250fps compared to 125fps, or 120fps or 121fps or 119fps.

u just think so

there will be twice more lines at 250fps but the frame shift will be twice smaller => less noticeable and more acceptable
not even talking about smaller frame delay with 250 fps and in case of using 144hz it becoming more efficient
there's no single reason to use anything but 250fps atm except for footstep bug

rofl u r to clever to know basics. all u can is do simple math: 1000/125=8ms lag(bad) 1000/250=4ms(good) => 250 fps is better at any point.:D it seems u dont even know what tearing is.so especially 4 u:
Tearing

"It is an unfortunate fact that if you disable VSync, your graphics card and monitor will inevitably go out of synch. Whenever your FPS exceeds the refresh rate (e.g. 120 FPS on a 60Hz screen), or in general at any point during which your graphics card is working faster than your monitor, the graphics card produces more frames in the frame buffer than the monitor can actually display at any one time. The end result is that when the monitor goes to get a new frame from the primary buffer of the graphics card during VBI, the resulting output may be made up of two or more different frames overlapping each other. The onscreen image may appear to be slightly out of alignment or 'torn' in parts whenever there is any movement - and thus it is referred to as Tearing"

p.s go ask ash/agent what they think about 250 fps :D

Ash and Agent are not 100% of PC gamers. If they hate tearing then everyone should? Ok then.

Also let's all start a name dropping war right? People who get annoyed by tearing as if it's the end of the world and people who just get over it.

monitor and graphicscard are not insync at any hz or fps without v-sync.
with 250fps tho, the framebuffer will be filled with twice as much pictures compared to 125hz.

so it is more likely that the monitor will get a more accurate picture when it wants to draw.

How does that contradict with what i've written?...
I've said that the higher fps - the more tearing lines you gonna have but the less different the 'teared' frames gonna be, at 250fps the 4ms difference is pretty much not really noticeable ingame opposite to more rare lines with 8ms frame difference in sutuation with 125fps.
If you don't like tearing there's always an option to eliminate it turning triple buffering on at 250fps which still overperforms 125fps both delay and tearing(at any refresh rate) wise and there's no need to turn Vsync on
P.S. I don't really understand your bragging about this cause in your case of using 166fps+165hz it gives a ridiculous tearing line in almost the same place every frame moving with the low speed of 1 full vertical screen size per second....
As for ash or agent i got no clue what they think and don't really care lol. In case they don't like it it's most likely due to different accel feeling cause software ingame accel is based on frame-timed difference. Basically doubling fps gives the same effect as lowering mouse dpi with it only influencing the acceleration feeling but not the value of it. This actually should feel much better in case they get used to it.

h8m3 is correct. The more framerate, the more tearlines, but the less "skew" (offset) between frames.

At 250fps, there is 1/250sec of movement between frames. (smaller step)
At 125fps, there is 1/125sec of movement between frames. (bigger step)

what do they think?

Yo because ash/agent are known for their sick aim xD:DWOROLOL

but can you actually see the extra 130 frames your rendering?

I do feel its better i just can't understand why yet..

because your monitor gets more choices for which 120 frames (for a 120hz monitor) it will display in any given second. that means more up-to-date information being displayed, resulting in it "feeling" better.

btw i personally play on r_mode 5, display refresh 165 hz, com_maxfps 166. thing i dont like is that i now send only 83 cl_maxpackets(even tho its set to 125) and its bad 4 shaft :(
u see i got +40 fps from this ql standalone and lost 42 updates to the server of what im doin

And how do you know you send only 83 packets even if you have cl_maxpackets set to 125?

last night i had a dream bout it :D

seems legit.

inb4 video with wireshark

good thread on the 250fps issue here

Thanks for your posts mdrejhon.

this is beyond rediculous loool

does anyone get constant 250fps on the space maps + 8 enemies?

^ someone try plz. :(

load practice game FFA - longest yard - 7 bots - spectate - look at FPS, mine are below 200 with com_idlesleep 0 on a Xeon 1230v3 3.3Ghz(comparable to i5-4670).

using
r_vertexlight 2
r_subdivisions 80
r_lobias 2

WTF, shouldn't it run with like 1000fps?

Bots need time to think too. Kick them out and see what happens.

then i would kick the extra polygons too.
it happens on real servers too of course.

It should, but it's Quake Live.

Spectating:
250 stable with 8 bots and same settings
with 12 it can get down to 240-220, even 200 for a short time.

Playing:
12 bots, fps goes even to 180 with default graphics.

Seems like my 2500k@4.5Ghz is too weak to handle indian code

seems like i need to get a new CPU which can be overclocked, to get the most out of this 14 year old game.
if i want to use lightmap instead of vertexlight, i must already start saving money for the next gen of CPU's...

Nah, waste of money, unless you do it for other games and applications...

I'm telling you, me and my friend already tried to run QL with a monster PC, and it never made a big difference, it's like you have to be lucky...

I'm lucky I don't have this problem though... :/

i was being sarcastic. :D
i just upgraded 2 month ago to xeon 1230v3 which should be already on top of the mid level CPU's.

About 200fps is no drama, but the code is indeed not optimized, a lot of processing is done by CPU instead of GPU. There were a few community projects (now all dead) that did some optimization. Berserker Quake3 - about 6x higher framerate
http://s39.radikal.ru/i085/1106/f6/ef34d13e44f1.jpg
Next, QL is still single-core, on a quad core there could be another 4x framerate boost.

You can try if there is a fps difference:
r_vertexlight 1 or 2
bot_thinktime 0 or 100

"id" should pay for this engine.
can't be too expensive, if you assume that this guy made it only to show off his programming skills.

imho there are more chances to fix footsteps sound bug via going back to com_maxfps 125 limit than redo/fix/buy the engine.

OK, i have it solved why i didn't get as much FPS as expected:

i turned threaded optimization to "AUTO", instead of "On" in Nvidia drivers, and now i get my 250FPS in all circumstances with my settings.
thanks alot thunda, u rule!

yeah this did help me a lot, this and com_idlesleep 0

always at your service!

Don't test your fps against bots. my fps would dip to 220 all the time but in online mode i would get a stable 250fps.

all this data and graphs and bs for players that I would destroy in a second on stock config using 60hz LCD monitor.....