GhoulofGSG9Join Date: 2013-03-31Member: 184566Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver, Reinforced - Supporter, WC 2013 - Supporter, Pistachionauts
edited December 2014
Use maxfps <value> in your console to limit your frames per second to a given value.
Short Pro/Cons List
Cons:
- You limit your fps.
- You add a extra delays between frames. => less time to react to changing things => might feel like a "input lag".
Pros:
- Decrease power consummation of gpu and heat development of it
- Decrease the frame tearing effect.
- Might make the game feel more smooth due to the fact that frames get more "stabilized".
If you want to read more about this topic just google a bit about vsync etc.
Use maxfps <value> in your console to limit your frames per second to a given value.
Short Pro/Cons List
Cons:
- You limit your fps.
- You add a extra delays between frames. => less time to react to changing things => might feel like a input lag.
Pros:
- Decrease power consummation of gpu and heat development of it
- Decrease the frame tearing effect.
- Might make the game feel more smooth due to the fact that frames get more "stabilized".
If you want to read more about this topic just google a bit about vsync etc.
Is the extra delays caused by the frame limiter itself or from the lower fps?
I was wondering this because simply using vsync with triple buffering and frame limiter at 2 fps lower than refresh would seem to solve most problems. (or maybe the vsync + TB wont even be needed)
Use maxfps <value> in your console to limit your frames per second to a given value.
Short Pro/Cons List
Cons:
- You limit your fps.
- You add a extra delays between frames. => less time to react to changing things => might feel like a input lag.
Pros:
- Decrease power consummation of gpu and heat development of it
- Decrease the frame tearing effect.
- Might make the game feel more smooth due to the fact that frames get more "stabilized".
If you want to read more about this topic just google a bit about vsync etc.
Is the extra delays caused by the frame limiter itself or from the lower fps?
I was wondering this because simply using vsync with triple buffering and frame limiter at 2 fps lower than refresh would seem to solve most problems. (or maybe the vsync + TB wont even be needed)
With setting a limit at fps => you decrease your fps => less frames per second => a larger time-frame (delay) between frames than you would have without limiting your fps
Technically, there should be no input delay from any internally implemented frame rate limiter (like maxfps)
This is much different from say fraps or any exterior frame rate limiter.
But you are definitely not getting the most frequent and current updates of the game world that you could be, otherwise.
So think of this theoretical scenario.. if your machine only gets 10 fps, you are getting less frequent updates of the game world than the guy who is getting 200 fps.
In that scenario you'd be getting updates every 100 ms, whereas the other guy is getting updates every 5 ms - 20 times faster.
I'd say the real downside to using maxfps is that it creates bad "screen tearing", the symptom that Vsync seeks to eliminate (at the cost of input delay)
Ideally we'd all be using Gsync monitors, where maxfps or Vsync would never be needed for smooth frames.... mmmmmm I dream......
Great for g-sync, but you need to use fps max ~138 reduce g-sync buffer delay or something (also r_stats shows 0 ms GPU delay).. With out maxfps fps is 140-144 and have input lag( r_stats shows 4-5 ms GPU delay), if you are more interested you can read same problems from blurbusters. Fraps, afterburner or nvidia limiter will give a way more input lag than internal.. I´m eager to wait AMD own freesync with out buffer stuff
I remember trying out some fix once where if you limited your frame by 1 under the monitors refresh rate it gives you the effect of vsync but without such bad input lag e.g. monitor is 60hz, set your frame to 59.
Tried it for NS2 and remembered it worked pretty well compared turning vsync on!
I tried the maxfps once. It didn't work all that well. I mean, it limits your fps allright, but it helps little with screen tearing or general smoothness. Limiting fps through some external software like MSI afterburner has a much better effect, at least in my case. Not sure if maxfps functions better now, would have to try it again some time.
Great for g-sync, but you need to use fps max ~138 reduce g-sync buffer delay or something (also r_stats shows 0 ms GPU delay).. With out maxfps fps is 140-144 and have input lag( r_stats shows 4-5 ms GPU delay),
What?
You don't need to limit your FPS if you're using Gsync? Link me that blurbusters article if you got it, because that'd be news to me.
Also Just because there is waiting on GPU does not imply there is input delay
Yes there is lag when you are using g-sync if fps is maxed out (of course game needs to be low latency). You can google that many others are complaining this same thing. Also freesync doesn't use handicap buffer stuff, mostly nvidia used this to get support from older GPU'S http://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/preview2/
Most people don't even know that v-sync give input lag so.. dont think that avarage joe can feel the difference Well I love G-sync while it isn't worth with extra 200dollars (but you don't need to lower GPU settings when playing taxing games like dragon age inquisition ) and only downside is that lag when fps is maxed out. Almost 3 months with G-sync now.. Oh yes games are butter smooth if game engine is good.. One example hitman absolution (maxed out) vs cod advanced warfare even lowest setting.. Hitman is butter smooth while COD single player is stutter jungle
In my opinion g-sync/freesync is the final nail for the CRT
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
@Mige Thanks.
That's surprising, but at least it only effects high fps scenarios, and even then the difference between 27 and 35 ms isn't much at all.
Regardless, I hope that Nvidia eventually addresses this like the article suggests.
Can you raise it higher than 200 fps or is it hard capped?
Also all my visual errors like tearing went away when i got a 120hz screen. And I uncapped my framerate in generally every fps game cause I found uncappign it leads to the fastest input response - capping it the framerate doesn't seem to move sure.. but there's a permanent delay on input! Also it increases gpu heat quite a bit, but I just turn on my fans and its all dandy
Comments
Short Pro/Cons List
Cons:
- You limit your fps.
- You add a extra delays between frames. => less time to react to changing things => might feel like a "input lag".
Pros:
- Decrease power consummation of gpu and heat development of it
- Decrease the frame tearing effect.
- Might make the game feel more smooth due to the fact that frames get more "stabilized".
If you want to read more about this topic just google a bit about vsync etc.
Is the extra delays caused by the frame limiter itself or from the lower fps?
I was wondering this because simply using vsync with triple buffering and frame limiter at 2 fps lower than refresh would seem to solve most problems. (or maybe the vsync + TB wont even be needed)
With setting a limit at fps => you decrease your fps => less frames per second => a larger time-frame (delay) between frames than you would have without limiting your fps
Technically, there should be no input delay from any internally implemented frame rate limiter (like maxfps)
This is much different from say fraps or any exterior frame rate limiter.
But you are definitely not getting the most frequent and current updates of the game world that you could be, otherwise.
So think of this theoretical scenario.. if your machine only gets 10 fps, you are getting less frequent updates of the game world than the guy who is getting 200 fps.
In that scenario you'd be getting updates every 100 ms, whereas the other guy is getting updates every 5 ms - 20 times faster.
I'd say the real downside to using maxfps is that it creates bad "screen tearing", the symptom that Vsync seeks to eliminate (at the cost of input delay)
Ideally we'd all be using Gsync monitors, where maxfps or Vsync would never be needed for smooth frames.... mmmmmm I dream......
Tried it for NS2 and remembered it worked pretty well compared turning vsync on!
Why is this good for g-sync?
You don't need to limit your FPS if you're using Gsync? Link me that blurbusters article if you got it, because that'd be news to me.
Also Just because there is waiting on GPU does not imply there is input delay
http://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/preview2/
Most people don't even know that v-sync give input lag so.. dont think that avarage joe can feel the difference
In my opinion g-sync/freesync is the final nail for the CRT
That's surprising, but at least it only effects high fps scenarios, and even then the difference between 27 and 35 ms isn't much at all.
Regardless, I hope that Nvidia eventually addresses this like the article suggests.
Also all my visual errors like tearing went away when i got a 120hz screen. And I uncapped my framerate in generally every fps game cause I found uncappign it leads to the fastest input response - capping it the framerate doesn't seem to move sure.. but there's a permanent delay on input! Also it increases gpu heat quite a bit, but I just turn on my fans and its all dandy