Why Am I Lagging?

everyone here except DavidBC and NINJAHOBNOB have no idea what there talking about :/

 

I agree with you there!

 

And you know what you're talking about?

 

-_- about what they were saying because none of it was making sense...to me or to logoster

I had no idea what on earth they were talking about seriously...they lost me I usually follow along yes but well it went over my head and I lost my concentration and I didnt know what they were talking about

Mythbuster...that is a valid reason just so you know...

 

They're*


Really now? Funny that you should say that. Please, go check the Hz amount of your monitor. If it's not very modern(like my old monitor), chances are high that it's 60hz(most monitors are, some are 100, some 120). That means you will NOT see more than 60fps EVER, even if Fraps says you're doing 5 billion fps...


Whereas yes, the human eye and brain can see up to 1000fps-ish, most people cannot see the difference anymore from 150fps and up(ie guessing what frame-rate they're looking at). That's when you're actively sitting down, trying to guess the framerate, doing nothing else. Ie not concentrating on a game you're actually playing at the same time... You really think you're gonna see that much of a difference above 150 when you're also concentrating on a game?... Seems like BS to me...


Then there's another funny thing. There's this thing called flicker fusion threshold. This is the frequency at which the light flickering is gone completely. Surpise suprise, it's 60hz for humans on avarage(most people cannot detect the flicker at all above 75 fps)... This means that it's very unlikely that anyone would detect *any* color flicker difference between 120 and 250 fps, and if any, it would be very small. That flicker also counts for just general seeing of frames...


On top of that, DavidBC claims there's a huge difference between 120 and 250fps... That's funny. In his signature it says he's running a 19 inch 1440x900 monitor. Considering he's talking about a console command to unlock the fps, it's unlikely he's playing CoD on his console / Sony Bravia(240hz)(that would be silly anyway, we all know that for first person shooters: Mouse > controller), he must be using a 19 inch 1440x900 monitor of 250hz at least... Funny... Google says no such thing exists, which would mean he's blatantly lying about this "huge difference"(Which is confirmed by the fact that on average, most people can't even tell the difference above 150fps at all, that makes it unlikely that even an exception to that rule will be able to detect a "huge difference" up to 250)...

Besides all that... You'll usually get screen tearing when you go over 60fps. To me, anything over 100fps is just a waste. There's no point... Your game will appear fluent at 60fps, so, yeah, it'll be a bit more fluent up to 100. I'll give ya that, but after that it's really just a matter of "look at how good my PC is!". Most people who say they actively see the difference are just suffering from a placebo effect. "Oh Fraps says I'm getting higher FPS... oh yeah I can see that!"... Guys, there's a reason movies and tv are still usually shown at below 35 fps(I think the Hobbit was recorded in 48, and that's an exception)... It's cause most people will barely notice it.

The only thing that might change is the input... But even then I doubt it'll make much difference from 120fps and up.

DevKryton is the one who has an idea what he's talking about

 

@mythbuster Don't hurt me.

I have to say there is a difference between 75 and 120hz monitors. I've never tried a 60/100/85/144hz monitor, only 75 and 120, but there most definitely is a difference there, and I don't like it. It feels more than smooth, like it doesn't fit the environment the game is in. For a good example if you own minecraft and a great pc, try running shaders at 30 fps, then 60. It doesn't feel natural with that lighting. It might be me being used to ~40 fps due to my gfx card, but 120hz is 3d only for me.
I've never tried it but I bet you will find a difference in 60 to 75hz, if 75 to 120 is painful to me.

 

Couldn't have put it any better myself. If I'm at 60 FPS (and sometimes a lot less for some things) I'll to up my settings, like you said most monitors can't refresh any faster anyway. I do have to say I'm all for higher frame rate for movies, especially for big IMAX screens.

 

I personally see quite a large difference between 60 and 120. Obviously not quite as much as 30-60 due to diminishing returns etc but I see it. Other people may not see it and others may be even more sensitive to differences in fps than me. More fps results in less blur between frames and overall better input and visual feedback which results in me wanting the highest possible fps. Obviously there is a limit to where people can tell the difference (around 300) and a lot more than that is just unneeded. I can't wait for the day when 400hz 8k monitors are the norm and hardware is at the point when it can provide that frame rate with that resolution, I don't care if people think 60 fps is enough, more is objectively better up to a point in this case. The reason console players get 30fps is because they say "it's enough and all we need". People saying "it's enough" hold back improvement.

 

Ok, I need to clear some things up here... First of all, there is a console command to unlock FPS, but that doesn't mean I'm playing the game on consoles... PC games have a ''console'' where you can input commands to change any settings of the game (much more detailed than the graphics options menu). Second thing, Xfire says I have 3000+ hours in Call of Duty World at War, and trust me, I can tell in a second if you're running the game at 60, 125 or 250, because as I said, the difference is HUGE. Ok, maybe my monitor is capped at 60Hz, but still playing at 60 fps in cod waw feels laggy to me, whereas at 250 fps the character animations are faster, you run faster, jump further, etc, so yes, I can tell. Although this might be because the game behaves differently at those fps and that's why I can tell...

And about the movies... the standard I think is 24fps. I don't understand how some people say that 24 fps is the max you can see. Seriously when I start watching a movie it feels laggy until I just get used to it. And it's not correct to say your eyes can see up to x FPS, because eyes don't work like that, it's the same as when some people say: your brain can store x terabytes of information. It's just stupid because we don't work as computers.

 

they're*

 

If your game behaves differently at different FPS, that's because it's poorly coded. If your monitor is capped at 60fps then you cannot see any difference between 60 and 250 fps unless the game is coded in a way that it makes a difference in how far you jump and how fast you run and how fast animations are played... So in the end it basically has nothing to do with actual frame lag, just how fast the game runs... Which means no, you cannot tell the diference between 60fps and 250fps, because you're always only seeing 60fps. What you can see is internal fps changing your actual game. And a placebo effect is causing you to say "no but I can see the frames!"

Also... Please do read what I said.

" Considering he's talking about a console command to unlock the fps, it's unlikely he's playing CoD on his console "

I said you were probably playing on a PC. I know what a console command is(duh). And actually it is correct to say eyes can see up to x fps. The little thingys in your eyes can only refresh up to a certain rate, nerves can only send information at a certain speed, and the brain can only process everything at a certain speed.

And err... The brain can store up to 2.5 peta bytes... Aka a hundred million bytes. However it's more difficult to say for different parts of the brain.
Source: link

That was the joke I shoulda made it more obvious though.

 

can anyone tell me why i can run BeamNG so smoothly with my 4gb ram and my prehistoric geforce 9600gt?
while others complain about FPS issues with waaaaay better specs???
beats me

settings are on "auto-detect"... onlything i noticed is that the game freezes before extreme chrashes for 0,5 seconds or so...
except this, i have no FPS problems at all

 

either you have a very fast processor or, since you didn't give us your actual fps, the more likely case is that the game is not actually very smooth and you've just never experienced high fps.

 

maybe... i´ll check out the actual FPS... but sofar, my eyes havent noticed any serious lagg...

so... i see it kinda depends on the vehicle i choose :

tested: Industrial Site

Gravil D series : 25 fps

Civetta Bolide : 25 - 35 fps

DSC Buggy : 40 - 50 fps

(on 1280 x 720)

... its really not that much tough, youre probably right... but im fine with it.

 

You shouldnt be running any faster. Game logic (including player movements) is updated in a separate threads independent of render code and should fully scales for time. You should run at exactly the same speed at 5 fps and 10fps. Its just you might move 2 metres per frame at 5fps and 1 metre per frame at 10fps (I don't know what CoD's actual movement speeds are, although I suspect they are lower than 10m/s considering the fastest recorded for a human sprinter is about 12.4).
Otherwise it would make gameplay incredibly unfair with different players moving at different speeds (CoD's case weapons carried does impact it, but thats fair at least).

Even doom which is 2 decades old has movement independent of frame rate

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, the framerates arent amazingly high and its not drawing to a 1080p screen or anything (higher resolutions of course have more pixels to draw and do impact framerate a bit, sometimes alot, sometimes a little). But its whether you like it or not thats most important.

 

Trust me, fps do affect jumping and running. That's why you need 250 fps to jump onto the bomb in one map. If you try with less than 250 you'll never succed, because you won't jump that far. Just google: cod fps jump

In CoD 2 you jump further with 333 fps. I don't know why though.

 

Then someone at infinity ward/treyarch needs to be shot for introducing an exploit.



Its probably just an old bug of some sort that hasn't been removed though.

 

as i SAID, my COUSINS, have a 120hz monitor, and i see a HUGE, difference between 60 fps and 120, and its not some stupid placebo affect!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

250 fps is only accomplished by one of 2 things; a very low resolution game, or quad GTX 680's or higher. If you are reading 250 fps, then the counter is off.

Newegg did a special on what it would take to achieve 300+ fps in Minecraft. Took a 4K monitor, Core i7 4770K, and 4 GTX Titan's in SLI. So getting fps anywhere close to 250 in any modern game would a rig well over $4,000.

 

what? minecraft should not need a $4000 computer to run at 300+ fps, at all, i easily get 200+ on an intel hd 2500, so there's no way in the world, you need quad sli titans, to get 300+ fps in minecraft