What I always thought, what I have read, and what has sometimes been said in these forums seem to suggest throwing a 100 or so FPS at a 60 hz monitors is pointless it will just dump anything much more than 60 frames per second. The point of this is that all I keep reading is people talking about their FPS in excess of this. I am not talking about 120, 144 hz monitors I am finding it a struggle to give much over 60hz on my triple monitors, how you can drive 144hz monitors is well beyond my PC. Is what I believe or sometimes read incorrect! Can anyone explain
PC and GFX cards what can run rF2 triple screens @120hz/120fps are still manufacturers drawing board. (120 fps triple screens+HDR+Shadows, impossible)
I'm pretty sure that the more fps you get, up to a certain point anyway, the less lag you have. So I wouldn't say having more frames than the refresh rate of your monitor is pointless. IMO
There are multiple importances to framerate. First, many GPUs pre-buffer frames meaning what you actually see on the screen is fractionally behind what's happening in-game. This can be up to four frames, which at 60FPS is 0.07 seconds, or at 30FPS is an even more significant 0.14 seconds. Put in context a lag of 0.14 seconds means that means at 200MPH your car is 2 whole meters ahead of where you think it is. At 144FPS this is reduced to only 0.03 seconds max. If you're asking how you can get higher than 60FPS visually on a 60HZ monitor? You can't, but even without that factor variable FPS rates, (especailly at the lower and less stable end) can easily throw off people's perception of speed and distance. Many of us have had that slight skip in play that has caused us to botch a corner entry and get thrown off of the road. The more system resources you have in hand the smaller an issue this tends to be. If your monitor is only capable of 60HZ but your system hardware can manage 120FPS you're almost never going to see frame skips.
@James Shorting I think (if i understand correctly), on this link you posted on real racing discussion forum, that high refresh rates as possible is better; http://articles.sae.org/13603/
When I had a single monitor, it was easy to generate a 100 plus frames per sec, but as I have just gone over to triple monitors; I have noticed the much higher loadings and even video crashes on my graphics card when the frame rate is allowed to ramp up with 5760 x 1080p using a detailed high quality game settings. I can understand the need to always be above 60hz within the sim. (can reduce this problem but with a much lower image quality) Much more noticeable in assetto corsa. If I have say I have a 1000FPS and a 60 hz monitor, I have assumed it can only select one frame every 17ms for the monitor even though in that 17ms there are 17 frames being generated. As I have stated previously this is costing me power from my graphics card so at speed it does not matter how much resolution is available to me, I can only select one frame every 17 ms. It is because of everyone apparent obsession with FPS, and as I have assumed most people have 60hz monitors or tv' s it makes me doubt what I have just said as being correct. If there is a strong case for more than 60 hz in game then I will drop quality for quantity. Sorry to bang on about this but I would like to get the reality of frame rate clear in my head.
3x 1920x1080 monitors + Multiview + Transpareny Multisampling + 8xCSAA + HDR... I currently only have a single GTX 780 Ti (sold my other one since I got a good amount of $ for it and want to get two 980 Tis when the bastard ever comes out [hopefully soon if the AMD 390X slaughters the 980 non-Ti as many runours report]) and I have my RF2 framerate pegged against my 120 fps max-framerate limit (@ 120Hz), almost all the time. Worst comes to worse, set the refresh rate, and the RF2 max framerate, to 100, and you instantly save 20 fps in performance. 100fps @ 100Hz still blows away 60, trust me. Oh, and my GFX settings are 95% maxed-out . Click the first link in my sig to view my graphics settings.
This is not 100% true, if you have vsyinc, yes, this is true, but with vsync off there is some things to explaing -----> Tearing! Yes tearing is good for simracing, why? if you render 180fps in a 60Hz monitor, you will have only one complete frame every 17ms with vsyinc on, because of sync, of course. With vsync off something strange occurs, while the screen is drawing from top to bot the image, does not draw a complete frame, just display the frame is rendered in every milisecond. With 180fps, 3 frames are displayed every screen refresh, at the top of the screen will be showed the frame 1, at the middle will be showed the frame 2, and at the bottom will be showed the frame 3, causing tearing effect, but every "portion of frame" is displayed in the moment is rendered, and the lag is noticeable lower if you can manage to get more than 100fps. This is only useful to really high level of "micro" controll, with high downforce cars and all this stuff, It's also noticeable when you have to react against an oversteer on slick tyres. I try to get around 100fps because of this, when I race in a league I can go around 1 tenth faster or sometimes even more in some cars and I feel safer when driving in the limit of grip, I have less oversteer problems because 10ms in some cases are a lot for faster drivers (yes, I'm fast, not the faster, but I consider I'm an experienced one ). In this thread you will understand the tearing effect and why is good to have more fps in 60Hz monitors: http://isiforums.net/f/showthread.p...ery-low-input-lag-(but-in-expense-of-details)
I run high frames and I don't get skipped frames or tearing.... Save CPU power ? heat ? what a laugh seriously My hardware is fine to run 100% load 24/7 if needed. ( I sim barely a few hours a day ) that is really going to kill my hardware ? .................please My favourite car and track I will take you on any day , you can use your 120fps 120Hz, virtual mirrors 3 screens thousand dollar wheels. I will still beat you. lool
I rely hope that nobody believes you claims, everybody who don't match hz and fps get tearing so do DD and everybody else who don`t have G-Sync monitor and here is why: Screen tearing is a visual artifact in video display where a display device shows information from two or more frames in a single screen draw. The artifact occurs when the video feed to the device isn't in sync with the display's refresh. This can be due to non-matching refresh rates—in which case the tear line moves as the phase difference changes (with speed proportional to difference of frame rates). It can also occur simply from lack of sync between two equal frame rates, in which case the tear line is at a fixed location that corresponds to the phase difference. During video motion, screen tearing creates a torn look as edges of objects (such as a wall or a tree) fail to line up. Tearing can occur with most common display technologies and video cards, and is most noticeable in horizontally-moving visuals, such as in slow camera pans in a movie, or classic side-scrolling video games. Screen tearing is less noticeable when more than two frames finish rendering during the same refresh interval, since this means the screen has several narrower tears instead of a single wider one. I hope that it is last time I read reply`s like like this from you mate, you statement is impossible, there may bee somebody who believes you, what you do is to ruin they game experience and it is a big shame.
Let me correct you, more fps, more "tearings", but less noticeable The worst tearing you can suffer is when you are around 60-65 fps and the frame is always being drawed at the middle of the screen like It was synched just to annoy you at 120 you suffer a lot of tearing but It's not noticeable because is irregular and too fast to see It, and of course It reduces display lag.
I read that nvidia had problems with 16nm production and the 980Ti or whatever's next would be delayed until next year, maybe the 980Ti will still come, though they're skipping 20nm which I think the new AMD cards are using. Also read that the 980 will be released with 8gb vram. Was told by a friend that there's an announcement coming at the end of this month from nvidia, he seems to think it's for new cards, but I came across something else it could be: There's some info in the comments too. http://www.lazygamer.net/general-news/you-wont-need-a-new-monitor-for-g-sync-soon/
I tested 240 & 480 fps at 120hz and didn't notice any tearing whatsoever while racing(yes, no sync at all) but I'm back to using 120fps with adaptive sync to run with high settings but I can't use windowed mode since Adaptive sync won't work with it and 120fps at 120hz gives bad tearing with no sync(even changing the fps slightly doesn't fix it, just changes the speed the tear moves around at and is still very distracting). I'll maybe get around to testing input lag with a variety of settings like Kei Kei did -> http://isiforums.net/f/showthread.php/9888-Input-lag-measurements
increase your fps as much as you can reduce resolution & AA, track details to med & nothing maxed no vsync I like 100+ fps, no perceived lag & a much better "feel" at high fps & essential for a racing sim (regardless of hz of monitor )
I was talking about 60Hz monitors. In 120Hz monitors you will suffer tearing at 240fps, but It's not noticeable because there is a lot of refreshes for your eyes and are irregulars. Just like when you have more than 100fps in 60Hz screens. For your monitor you should not have problems with display lag, 120Hz are fast enough, you just need to find a stable fps rate to let you run with sync off and avoid the visible tearing, just making teared frames run faster than you can see. At 240fps the tear moves faster than you can see, at 120fps are just synched with you refresh rate, so annoying I know. For my 60Hz monitor It's enough to get around 90fps to make tears "dissapear".
Yeah I know, just throwing it in there as an example of how with very high frame rates the tearing becomes irrelevant. When I had a 60hz monitor I ran consistently faster lap times running 120 and 180 fps compared to 60 fps, from memory I remember seeing tearing at 120 but not caring, it was so much greater to drive with than what I had used previously. I did find 60fps with GPU sync to be pretty decent though, my favoured way to run 60frames in rF2 and Kei Kei's test with it shows it is very good. Also I haven't been able to avoid tearing with around 120fps at 120hz without some kind of sync, it's very obvious and distracting. Adaptive sync according to Kei Kei's tests is excellent for input lag anyway and my lap times seem to agree but I'd still like to find out in raw numbers from testing where all the options stand against each other, there can't be much between them and it's too hard to tell the difference in lap times unlike it being very obvious to me on a 60hz monitor.
I set my FPS to 60 but ingame I get 60-61 and tearing... one time I actually just sat on track and it kind of "synced" after a while, it was awesome having the smooth transition but only happened once. My monitor can be set to 59 or 60Hz.
