Possibility of getting constant 60fps

Where does it keep your framerate? Do you use adaptive or in game vsync?

A properly configured setup is much better than in game smoothing.

Wherever I tell it to.

I currently have it set to 62 fps, which is further capped by vsync, when I use it.

When I use vsync, I use in-game vsync. My primary system has an R9 290X, so no adaptive vsync.

I find that without smoothing, frame rate/frame times are more inconsistent, and thus not as smooth, regardless of what frame rateI'm getting. Just capping the frame rate results in good smoothness, but only as long as I don't dip below the cap. Smoothing works at any frame rate.

Acksbox

I don't know how AMD's GPU's handle Vsync compared to Nvidia, but I find that the best smoothness can be accomplished for my setup using driver level adaptive Vsync and no smoothing, in game.

Appl3

I know what you're saying. But it's not as simple or non destructive as you make it sound.

Our PC's might be fine. I have a well cooled, dust free PC, with a WindForce cooler on my GPU, and a Seasonic X650 Gold PSU, Japanese capacitors and all my stuff is designed for durability.

This could be a serious issue for people with laptops or older computers, putting unnecessary stress on them for a menu.

The fact that the 2D menus in this game(and several others, like specific menus in Blacklight Retribution etc) load a GPU beyond what the game does, is pretty ridiculous, when you consider that plenty of games can make their menus work, and DROP the load on the GPU when you enter them.

https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2...-page-also-spikes-gpu-temps-wtf.125209/page-3

In that thread Octiceps mentions that the menus are in Scaleform, which might have something to do with it. I'm not sure, and I don't know much about that, so I'd need someone who does to comment on it.

Again, I'm proposing that it's because the game doesn't cease to render beyond the menu. Rendering the scene takes X capability, rendering the menu takes Y. Thus rendering a menu over a scene (again, you can see through the menu out to the world) takes X+Y and results in higher load.

It's a pointless aspect of the design in my opinion, but at least it's a pretty clear reason and not a baffling unknown issue.

Ram drives were good back in the days. Today you need a ton of ram for a ram drive due to the size of the games. Try buying an SSD.

Don't over look the monitor type, get a 120hz or one of the newer 144hrz, these are 3D gaming monitors, but you're not after the 3D just the extra fluidity you get like the CRT Monitor days at 100hrz.

Right.... because a sudden quadrupling of population had nothing to do with it.

What makes you think I don't have multiple SSDs and tons of RAM?

RAM drives have never been better. Memory capacities have been keeping up with game size pretty well. The 32GiB of memory in each of my three best desktops cost less combined than the 1GiB of memory I had in my single desktop "back in the day" and way less than the 16MiB of memory I had back in the day before yesterday. Tomorrow, when DRAM makers overproduce DDR4 and crash prices, I'll put 128GiB in as many systems as I can, while it's cheap.

Game runs at least as good from a RAM drive as it does from a fast SSD, and I have more important things to fill my SSDs with than PS2. So, I load an image of PS2 from a storage drive into a RAM drive.

Acksbox : while i can see your point, id still buy a cheapish 256gb ssd over a ram drive at this point

Access time on good ssd's are 0.1 ms or less

If you want to dedicate that much ram for a game, I have no problem with that. Was just suggesting it wasn't necessary that's all. SSD's work great and I don't have to dedicate a partition for a specific purpose.

You are correct, it did not. I ran a file check and logged in a few hours later. Gameplay was fine and has been back to my normal 55fps constant rate. Something was hung, stuck or otherwise screwing up directly after the patch came down.