Optimize the graphics engine (performance) in 2023 ?

@AlexHeuskat ... Not sure I totally follow what you are suggesting... Are you saying that Vsync is better (the same) than g-sync (or FreeSync) with a frame cap? Overall?

Or are you Just speaking about input lag...... if that the case... I would tend to agree...
At a fix 120fps Vsync... vs a cap 119fps with g-sync... Input lag would probably be Very similar...

But Vsync is still something to avoid as much as possible... FreeSync with a frame cap is the way to go... because it's not all about input lag... there is a lot more to take into account.

 

there is a myth, it's to cap at 117fps if the monitor is 120hz, to prevent "vsync" kicks and higher input lag....but there is no true stat about this, it's just a myth

 

I can't agree with that.
Try turn off any of the head movement and turn off stabilize horizon, then go on Sebring with LMP car...
I see noticeable difference between 60hz and 77hz, especially on back straight when you look at banners above the track.

 

This is my opinion, based on my experiences and testing.
With Gsync+Vsync On+framelimiter from nvidia cp at 117 the experience is smoonth as butter and feels inmediate. With ingame limiter at 117 sometimes i have random stturering. My guess is that the game limiter in certain scenarios allows more than 120 fps and that increased lag when Vsync is activated causes sttutering.
Yo can see many test and conclusions here https://blurbusters.com/gsync/preview2/

 

looks ok tome? I guess depends on why we race, when im racingthe ONLY thing i see is my corner markers and the tail of the guy in front of me, if we drive for site seeing different thing maybe?

 

grabbed a clip running at 60fps vsync'd in both rf2 an iRacing, the 60fps is captured in OBS at 30FPS so halved again.. but even reviewing video its hard to say there is not fluid enough visual input to play a driving game?

 

I didn't say that when I driving I'm watching tracks peripherals
I'm just very sensitive to background fluidity, and for sure 77 hz it's less choppy, especially on bumpy tracks.
Also this can vary when it comes to camera setting. Any head movement, and stabilizing horizon will reduce the difference between 60hz and higher refresh rates...

 

We used to play games at 8 fps (or less) when computing power was much lower and 3d was in its infancy. 'Fluid enough' isn't just about functionality, and it's going to be down to personal preference as well. If I'm staying somewhere and the place has a TV with what I'll call 'motion smoothing' on, I can't stand the effect as it smooths some scenes to 100Hz (or higher) and then occasionally loses track of movement and things flick back down to 50Hz, then back to smoothed again. I prefer to just have everything at 50Hz than to have that switching. Meanwhile, hardly anyone else who has been around at the time has even been aware of it.

Desktop mouse movement at 60Hz is fine, until you run on 144Hz for a while and then go back to 60 again. If I have my TV running at 24Hz in preparation for watching a movie I can do things with the mouse just fine, but I certainly notice the jerky movement of the pointer compared to normal. (I haven't subjected myself to 144Hz yet; I know that's a step I'll need to commit to when it happens) And even then, I'm sure some people won't notice or care about it.

 

Without talking about VR, I can confirm that using vsync on screen, the difference between 60 and 75 hz is really significant.

 

i notice negligible difference running at 100hz or 60hz on my machine, (yes it can do 100, and achieve it) I dont post better laptimes, or drive any better, and because i simply cannot humanly react to 16.7ms... (1 frame at 60fps) then im simply sucking down on a placebo pill and some clever marketing hype

 

I think I found my settings after quite a few hours testing.
I have a mix of full, high, medium and off settings and OpenXR tool set to 2700x2700 per eye on my new Reverb G2. While overall the graphics don't look as modern as say ACC or AMS2 the image is much crisper and cleaner and I have it probably looking "more real" than those other sims.

Oops, I posted in the wrong thread.

 

Well done sir.

 

I went from 60Hz triples to 144Hz triples and not only did everything look smoother but the image was so much cleaner. It's like the faster the pixels render the less smear they create. Was i faster, no, will I ever go back to 60Hz, no. Although I have just dropped to 90Hz in VR and it's fine. I did try 60Hz in VR and its noticeably stuttering and smeary.

 

Something is wierd here, in my case I can clearly notice the difference when playing, to be really comfortable to my eyes I need to run at 120fps.

This one I recorded, running around 100 fps, and youtube reproduces 60fps in higher resolutions.

 

I think 60hz is insufficient, 75hz is a major gain but not enough, and 90hz like on my VR headset is ideal.

Above 90 hz, there is necessarily better, but you have to have lynx eyes, and it's luxury in my opinion.
Not essential I mean.

 

I think youll be surprised how much better "higher than 90fps" is in VR.
Ofcourse frametiming is a big part of it and 90fps looks fairly fluid for me, but for me its also the absolute minimum where it starts being fluid and I really dont think thats where our eyes stop.

 

I have the pg27aqn on my desk for FPS game, it's 360hz 1440p, and I don't need to have lynx eyes to see how 360hz is smooth, but for sim racing, I'm stuck at 120hz for triple 1440p or 4K oled.....it's less smooth but it's the minimal acceptable for me