30 vs 60 fps...big difference?

I have not experienced instant TTK in PS2 except with actual OHK weapons

I find it hard to believe that even if you have some sort of jesus pc.

I don't know about you, but I can tell the difference between instant TTK and typical automatic weapon TTK easily even at low framerates. One gives me time to react (even if only to look in the direction of the shooter and fire a couple of rounds), the other doesn't. Usually if i have cover nearby, I'll be able to reach it when I react to being shot at with an automatic weapon, whereas if I'm hit in the head with a BASR, I obviously don't even stand a chance.

I just don't see where you're coming from with the "server doesn't update often enough" claim. In my games, enemies die pretty much when I expect them to, as do I. The only issue I can see is the clientside hit detection which sometimes results in me dying after I've already reached cover on my end.

the only time this should happen is when your connection is really bad

The difference is harder to spot than most would believe BUT people believe it to be huge for a variety of reasons.

FPS is an average.....you could wait 99.999999999999% of a second making no frames and spend that last fraction making 30 and it would be 30 frames per second but to your eyes it would be ~1 frame per second. Htting 30FPS usually indicates that a machine is currently incapable of making more in PC gaming terms. This means there is a significant bottleneck somewhere and in the end those 30 frames per second are extremely unlikely to have equal time between them and that's where it starts to severely affect your game.

Turn off shadows if you play with them. Even having them on Low cuts framerate in half. I got overclocked i5 3570k and GTX780, and I instantly felt a lot better when I turned out shadows recently. I'm a die-hard sucker for a pretty picture, and I liked playing with shadows because I sometimes would detect enemies by their shadow, but it just isn't worth it. The difference in FPS is huge.

And the game becomes a lot brighter, so it's easier to see at night.

When I started playing PS2 I had a much weaker PC, and it certainly was harder to play, but I wouldn't say that "unless you have 60 FPS you may as well not play at all".

There is a diminishing return to framerate. As others have said, 60 is better than 30, and 120 is better than 60. But by the same amount despite one being 30 faster and the other is 60. At some point there is a point where its not very cost effective to get more FPS.

What you want to shoot for is a smooth FPS. Getting 60 FPS is great. But if its shooting between 45-75, your aim is going to get thrown off. This usually isn't a problem when you're hovering around 60FPS which is why many say to shoot for it. It gets to be a real issue when you're averaging 30. Which actually means you're fluctuating between 20 and 40. You might even have the occasional <15 dip which is enough to get you killed more often than not.

http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

I have an Intel C2D Q6600 (around 7 ? years old ) and I get around 20-25(sometimes lower) fps on low in really big fights. In smaller fights my framerate alternates pretty hard, but I definitly notice/feel the difference between 30-60 fps. However, in Planetside are situational awareness, positioning and experince the most important factors, so you can still achive a high KDR or high scores. Just adapt to your weaknesses and chose the right fights for your machine.

I suppose I can cite my source that gave me that opinion about him.

30 vs 60 fps is dramatically different. Once you hit 60fps with your game you will notice it when it starts dropping lower. 60fps is considered by a lot of people the bare minimum with which you can be effective at shooting in a game.

That isn't optimal, mind you, it is the minimum. People who want to be good at shooters will be going for 100+, and you'll notice that all the best players mechanically speaking will consider anything less than 80 as "really low".

Of course in a game like PlanetSide 2 where everyone runs the game so sh*t that very few people will be in the 60+ region, it doesn't really matter that much. As opposed to being generally disadvantaged if you have 30-40fps in PS2, you'll be generally advantaged if you have 60+.

I'm pretty sure he does. While your monitor refresh rate is the biggest factor in terms of capping your FPS, the higher your FPS goes the more smooth the control of your character will be. For the average player it a'int a huge difference, but it's something you will absolutely notice with competitive gamers in games like Counter-Strike, where most of them try to hit several hundred FPS despite no monitors actually really supporting that.

That's not even mentioning things like CRT monitors having insanely high refresh rates.

24.5 FPS is where motion seems to go smoothly, with no missing frames.

44 FPS is roughly where your eyes stop straining to follow moving images and the screen is in this respect realistic. Anything higher than this is useful only for more precise control and less granularity; you may not be able to detect a higher FPS with your eyes, but controls will be tighter and certain games will stop having rounding errors.

60 FPS is the current standard for monitor refresh rates, and it is referred to as "The holy grail" relatively arbitrarily because of this. For most normal people, this is where the game reaches maximum responsiveness to input.

Anything higher is gravy and only really useful for very hardcore and talented gamers.

Well the thing with refresh rates is it's how many times per second that the screen updates. in the case of the most common (yes even amongst CRT's, 60hz, that's 60 updates per second. so that could only fill 60 frames in a second. Anything more than that is just excess that never gets relayed to the monitor, but it creates a buffer so the screen never has to wait for a new frame to update because it's got a large pool of frames to choose from. sometimes they can come out of place, where you will get one frame, then the next is pulled so much further along in the process that it doesn't look like a gradual change from the previous one, and that's how screen tearing happens. It's not very beneficial, but it makes sure that there's never a pause where it has to wait to update.

Wow. A thread about frames per second, and no one has rolled out that ancient myth about the human eye/brain not being able to see over 30 frames a second. Has it finally died?

It's OK. You're among PC gamers now. You're safe.

Depends on people. 40 FPS is the maximum I can ever need. Since I am general extremely good in shooters, in planetside 2 I get 20 FPS and still pretty damn competitive.

Dipping sub 55fps makes me want to log off, it feels crappy.

I have an old spare gaming rig q9450@3.6ghz and a 460gtx planetside is horrble to play on it, the framerates are 30-50fps. It gets me killed.

A bug in the quake engine gives you benefits for higher fps, such as faster strafing, higher jumps etc.

Divisions of 1000 such as 125, 250 and 333 would be more optimal than say 100 200 and 300 for these benefits.

Playing games above your refresh rate may remove tearing too.


Anyway that being said, the high fps and hz you can get, the better for competitive gaming.

Not really. Depending on the game engine used, higher framerates can provide certain advantages to anyone who has them.