unlimited frame rate option has been removed from the client on 5.0

Me: Buys 165hz monitor to play games with really high frame rates:
SE: "Not today"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaethra

I explained this already, but you decided to resort to ad hominem (hence the retaliation in kind). And since you question my experience, know that I have experience with Unreal and with other proprietary systems. My latest project that I am apart of utilizes frames to synchronize events.

However that project is not network based (as it doesn't utilize a network for any function). GCD are handled by the server itself, as are all of the skills and abilities. Its only movements (but not position) that would affected by frames.

Perception of those movements are mostly irrelevant. Your brain will fill in the gaps and it is very good about doing that. But if the framerate is lower, you will have a noticeable degradation in precision, and in some extreme cases your character movement will be slower. The latter only happens if the local framerate drops below the server tick rate. In which case the server will interpret the commands coming intermittently unless the game has a means of compensating for that. Most don't.

---

See, this explains your point much better. Your first post made zero sense in context to the conversation.


My point was never that higher framerates are bad. It was that running a higher framerate when your monitor doesn't support it does not give you an advantage in this game.

Based on some of the screenshots that were posted a few pages back, it seems that the options change automatically based on whatever the current refresh rate is when you launch the game.

Just remember to set your refresh rate correctly. It doesn't always set it to the correct one automatically, for some reason.

https://i.ibb.co/pLmhXQ3/refresh.jpg

There's no reason to allow for unlimited frame rate. What's important is that the max framerate changes with the monitor's hz.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asheryon

ummm, no one said it runs bad...but the difference beetween 144 and 60 is abysmal. (probably you never seen 120+, but if you did you would understand).

---

I understand the difference but dont care cause I dont play all my games at a high frame rate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eli85

Apples to oranges. The more apt comparison would be downgrading from PS4 Pro to PS4. Which, while inconvenient, isn't game breaking in the slightest.

As to the other replies, well, it's jarring to "downgrade" to 90 FPS (I can't help but laugh as I write that), but really, it's, well, hard to put into words. You're all really not all that hard done by. I do hope this gets reverted for everyone affected, but let's stop treating this like the world is ending.

---

its the same, ps4 pro to ps4 or to ps1 or etc...the point is the same....you are accepting lowering the quality of a product as something natural....would you be happy if SE came and said "hey guys we are gonna remove X job from the game because its broken (or any reason)", then you ask why is it that every day gaming companies are becoming lazier when they develop ports.... then they charge you 100 bucks for a broken mess of a game and you go all happy and say "oh this is fine!!!!"
you are only mitigating the impact because "its just fps", but that doesnt even matter, the fact of removing something that is expected or was announced is bad, it doesnt matter if its fps, a job or the entire msq. for you "its just fps" for some other guy it could be really important...(just as if they removed rdm and that would be your main, YOU would care, any non rdm player, wont).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asheryon

its the same, ps4 pro to ps4 or to ps1 or etc...the point is the same....you are accepting lowering the quality of a product as something natural....would you be happy if SE came and said "hey guys we are gonna remove X job from the game because its broken (or any reason)", then you ask why is it that every day gaming companies are becoming lazier when they develop ports.... then they charge you 100 bucks for a broken mess of a game and you go all happy and say "oh this is fine!!!!"
you are only mitigating the impact because "its just fps", but that doesnt even matter, the fact of removing something that is expected or was announced is bad, it doesnt matter if its fps, a job or the entire msq. for you "its just fps" for some other guy it could be really important...(just as if they removed rdm and that would be your main, YOU would care, any non rdm player, wont).

---

A complete and total misrepresentation of what I said. Of course, no one would dispute that lowering quality is a good thing (and I'm not suggesting that it's good). What I find funny and hard to wrap my head around is the hyperbole among these reactions. 90 FPS isn't "unacceptable." Sub 30 FPS is unacceptable. So, again, it's not that I would support a lowering of quality, but it's the insinuation that 90 FPS is this horrible thing. It's really not .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eli85

A complete and total misrepresentation of what I said. Of course, no one would dispute that lowering quality is a good thing (and I'm not suggesting that it's good). What I find funny and hard to wrap my head around is the hyperbole among these reactions. 90 FPS isn't "unacceptable." Sub 30 FPS is unacceptable. So, again, it's not that I would support a lowering of quality, but it's the insinuation that 90 FPS is this horrible thing. It's really not .

---

for someone whose eyes are accostumed to much more, it might be....you dont know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valkyrie_Lenneth

Games do not inherintly process data (read game logic) faster at higher framerates.

---

That depends on tons of factors. Many engines stick both the rendering code and the game logic on the same thread. Faster FPS, in those cases, is a direct indication that the code is running faster. Code that is designed incorrectly (for example, not using time deltas in calculations for anything cumulative, like movement or basic DoT effects) can completely go bonkers with high frame rates. No, this isn't just a problem with indie games. Look at Bethesda games. *shutters*

The good news is, FFXIV is an MMO and most things are handled on the server. If anything breaks, it's going to be related to either animations, movement, or input latency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valkyrie_Lenneth

See, this explains your point much better. Your first post made zero sense in context to the conversation.


My point was never that higher framerates are bad. It was that running a higher framerate when your monitor supports it does not give you an advantage in this game.

---

I'll give the benefit of the doubt and retract any preconceptions. In the future, ask for clarification before attacking someone's experience or dismissing them entirely.

Unfortunately we can't be certain to the extent on how much of a difference bettween 90fps and 144fps will have on an individual's performance. Do to the server side nature of FFXIV, we would need to understand what the server tickrate is. If I were to hazard a guess it would be either 30 or 60. Which understandably makes for a negligible benefit over 90fps. From my personal experience in other games, you get diminishing returns. 20 to 30 is a bigger jump in performance than 60 to 90. But the benefit is still there.

In our case it will be input latency as others pointed out.

This is basically a downgrade. I play on 144 an dused unlimited to not deal with SE's horrible implementation of their artificial FPS cappers.

People should reread this just to be clear but the frame limiter actually is scaled based on your monitors maximum refresh rate, if you look closer on the existing options theres a 1/1 rate 1/2 rate and 1/4 rate of your monitors default rate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valkyrie_Lenneth

Cuz the gcd is still time based, not frame based.

---

You would hope!

I'm probably gonna get banned for posting this but I am prepared. Someone did a study and showed that while gcd is time based, the queued action does not execute until the first frame is available.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ffxiv/comme...ort=confidence

Essentially, the less frames you get the less DPS you will do over a long long time. Now while that is probably negligible between 90 to 60 fps, what isn't negligible is how having the in game's frame limiter on at all causes my 1080ti which consistently puts out 100-150 frames uncapped to stutter at 60 capped and even randomly drop to 30-40. How is that possible if I'm never going below 100 without the limiter? I don't know. Then imagine getting a micro stutter mid mudras which do not queue up in the same way gcds do and end up casting the wrong ninjutsu or having to babysit the mudra casts even if it takes longer than frame perfect execution which is still a DPS loss. I do not want to use the in game frame limiter no matter what the limit is, even it they had it at 300fps. I have Gsync for a reason so I don't have to rely on crappy software vsync technology.

My point is that there are those of us who want to play the game to the absolute highest performance possible and will seek every single nook and cranny to optimize our game play. It just happens that graphical performance (among many many other things) is one of those avenues of min maxing. So by having this limit, it removes that facet of optimize for us. Is 90 still acceptable and can they still perform extremely well? Yes. Should they be limited if their hardware can handle more? I don't think so. What the user has hardware wise is their choice, and so should be their fps limit if any at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WaterShield

Translation "I don't value this, so it's preposterous that people should be upset."

I will be incensed if it is a 90 FPS hard cap for everyone.

---

I'm running at 60Hz, so not applicable to me. But I understand the sentiment and I share your rage. If this is due to something tied to physics then let those of us that want to exceed 90fps deal with that issue. If it's due to the botting issue whereby they can use high framerates to somehow get OOB, then git gud and write tighter code, hire more GM's with all that sub monies we gives ya and deal wit the issue proper like

It had better still run at a 1/1 ratio depending on your monitors native resolution as someone stated above. I understand some of you don't have 144Hz+ monitors or have never played at anything about 60Hz and that's fine but many of us have and stay at those refresh rates for a reason. If it doesn't apply to you I don't even see the reason for you posting here, this is an issue for those of us who do play at 144Hz+ and a serious one.

i dont know how to feel about this. I play the game in 4K full settings with 2 cards in SLI.. i do notice some zones give me weird crazy high framerates and also really push my fans, but we will see what this does. i honest don't see much difference in my game when i play above 100, so this may not be an issue, but again.. we shall see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DrFlesh

just a heads up, the ingame frame limiter is 100% garbage, if they haven't fixed this the game is gonna be a stutter fest for people with a high end rig and of course if you have a 90hz + monitor is useless now

---

It's not 100% garbage when it works fine for most people...

This change is clearly to stop unintended things (exploits) from happening. It's worth making a small % of players have to "suffer" by playing at 90 FPS. No human can see the difference between 90 and 144hz anyway.

The real problem with this is how it would effect Gsync/freesync

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arrhin

If it's due to the botting issue whereby they can use high framerates to somehow get OOB, then git gud and write tighter code, hire more GM's with all that sub monies we gives ya and deal wit the issue proper like

---

That's literally not how "code" works. Some things are due to the engine. And this game was originally made in 2010. there's only so much that can be "fixed". Especially without breaking other things. This is a simple fix that hurts like 5% of players

Quote:

---

RL basically has >5*10^44 "fps" with only our eyes (changes with >200fps still noticeable) being the limit.

---

That ones still being researched. Theres parts of the eye which cant detect specific things above 60hz, and a chunk where your brain cant process any differences past 90 even if its visible. Theres studies that say optimal frequency of objects for rendering is somewhere between 7 and 24hz, and that while you CAN detect significantly higher, you cant process them any differently, while others say 90hz is the sweet spot, and anything past that has a significant drop-off.

We still need a lot of information on that topic.

For people that are trying to defend capped fps because they do not personally notice the difference is sort of funny and sad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awha

For people that are trying to defend capped fps because they do not personally notice the difference is sort of funny and sad.

---

On mobile sorry personally their is never a valid reason to cap fps on a PC game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Voross

They had to change the unlimited setting because it allowed players and bots to move OOB in certain areas.

---

So like every thread where the whole community likes to get holier than thou and strawman until the thread is a mismatched garment, just gonna say "this." Because doubtful if anyone wants to read through the pages of arguing for the sake of arguing and trying to look smart.

People want solutions for bots, this is one of them. Not an absolute, but it is a measure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DumdogsWorld

Based on some of the screenshots that were posted a few pages back, it seems that the options change automatically based on whatever the current refresh rate is when you launch the game.

Just remember to set your refresh rate correctly. It doesn't always set it to the correct one automatically, for some reason.

https://i.ibb.co/pLmhXQ3/refresh.jpg

There's no reason to allow for unlimited frame rate. What's important is that the max framerate changes with the monitor's hz.

---

There is a reason. The ingame framerate limiter is causing stuttering and problems for lots of players. For instance, if I select any capping option ingame it would make the fps go like ~20-30 fps less than the option selected.

So as an example, you select 1/1 refresh rate, 60fps in my case and game will run at ~45fps, while with "unlimited/no cap" it will average 80fps+.

There has been posts on reddit and thelike showing it: https://streamable.com/txvqx .

And yeah it has to do with the ingame framerate limiter, if I limit them with nvidia panel/inspector after setting it to unlimited ingame it works as expected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kougeru

It's not 100% garbage when it works fine for most people...

This change is clearly to stop unintended things (exploits) from happening. It's worth making a small % of players have to "suffer" by playing at 90 FPS. No human can see the difference between 90 and 144hz anyway.

The real problem with this is how it would effect Gsync/freesync

---

If it works for most of the people but not all I wont call it a good solution either, see above as why its not a good thing as an example

This change has me pretty worried.... Not just the fact that uncapped framerate, which a large number of users use, will no longer be available, but the fact that the in-game limiter has historically been problematic for a very long time now is what concerns me the most.

For me, the in-game fps limiter causes unstable framerate AND frametimes (stuttering) which I've read is a common issue. Thus, setting FPS to unlimited is the only option which actually allows the game to run smoothly.

If square manages to fix the in-game limiter to be functional for people running on monitors higher than 60hz, then that's not so bad. Otherwise the game could very well end up being unplayable for users like myself....which sucks, alot. I really want to be able to enjoy the new expansion.

And to the few who are criticizing those of us who are concerned about this change with statements along the lines of "It doesn't affect me personally, so everyone else should stop making a big deal about it". Please don't do this. It's not cool to downplay the misfortune of others, no matter how trivial it may seem to you. For me personally, it's a matter of the game being playable or not. I don't care about having massive FPS for no reason - I care about having a stable, smooth frame-rate which this change could potentially threaten.

So are all the upset people here part of the bot cartels?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RyuSaarva

So are all the upset people here part of the bot cartels?

---

Unlikely. More likely it's a bunch of people on a forum finding something to get riled up about 36 hours before they can just find out for themselves if this is a big deal or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Callinon

I can tell the difference between 60 and 120. But the fact is 90 is perfectly fine and furthermore it won't be any kind of "stutter fest" on high refresh monitors. Your eyes will only really care about a CHANGE in FPS. If the client can hold consistently at 90, you won't even see it.

---

For a fair number of users the in-game limiter does cause stuttering. If you personally don't experience this issue then that's fine, but others do. We're not just making this up, lol.

The in game limiter is not just a limiter. I think I've read around that others believe it's also a vertical sync, potentially a triple buffer. I'm literally standing still in Rhalgr's @ 141-144 fps on my 165 hz monitor with no cap. I turn the cap to 1/1 at 165fps, what should you expect? If you thought 141-144 you're wrong. the frames immediately fall to 133-138. Let's try 1/2 @ 82 fps because I was getting over 100 fps, I should easily see 82 constantly. Nope, any where from 61 - 80 with just wild fluctuations up and down. So if they implement a 90fps max, I can just play at 60fps like the rest of you because that's what that setting will realistically do. It's broken and anyone who thinks otherwise needs a reality check. Just because it "works for you" doesn't mean it "works as intended".

While I only talked about frame rate above, there are huge stuttering issues that I didn't even touch on. Frame stutter is the REAL reason most of us are concerned, not "mah frames". Yea we're getting riled up before we can test it, but do we have any reason to believe that the engine is any different what so ever? It's likely the exact same frame rate limiter that we've had since 2.0, they're not going to magically change it now. But we'll see who's right in 2 days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrystalRaina

The in game limiter is not just a limiter. I think I've read around that others believe it's also a vertical sync, potentially a triple buffer. I'm literally standing still in Rhalgr's @ 141-144 fps on my 165 hz monitor with no cap. I turn the cap to 1/1 at 165fps, what should you expect? If you thought 141-144 you're wrong. the frames immediately fall to 133-138. Let's try 1/2 @ 82 fps because I was getting over 100 fps, I should easily see 82 constantly. Nope, any where from 61 - 80 with just wild fluctuations up and down. So if they implement a 90fps max, I can just play at 60fps like the rest of you because that's what that setting will realistically do. It's broken and anyone who thinks otherwise needs a reality check. Just because it "works for you" doesn't mean it "works as intended".

While I only talked about frame rate above, there are huge stuttering issues that I didn't even touch on. Frame stutter is the REAL reason most of us are concerned, not "mah frames". Yea we're getting riled up before we can test it, but do we have any reason to believe that the engine is any different what so ever? It's likely the exact same frame rate limiter that we've had since 2.0, they're not going to magically change it now. But we'll see who's right in 2 days.

---

Out of curiosity, are you running fullscreen or fullscreen windowed, and have you checked to see if fullscreen optimization is turned on on the executable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gula

So like every thread where the whole community likes to get holier than thou and strawman until the thread is a mismatched garment, just gonna say "this." Because doubtful if anyone wants to read through the pages of arguing for the sake of arguing and trying to look smart.

People want solutions for bots, this is one of them. Not an absolute, but it is a measure.

---

This is not a solution for bots in the slightest. It has absolutely nothing to do with bots. The bots you see teleporting around are not using uncapped FPS and are instead using a map hack to get around and jump to wherever they need to go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valkyrie_Lenneth

Out of curiosity, are you running fullscreen or fullscreen windowed, and have you checked to see if fullscreen optimization is turned on on the executable?

---

Windowed full screen and yes I disable windows fullscreen optimization on the dx11.exe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WaterShield

All they said was Viera were coming. There is zero reason to think no male Viera. If it was, they would have said so at fanfest when they first announced Viera, no?

---

Don't have they announced it with the Viera trailer (no male Viera in the video)?

I can't wait to see how this screws everything up, considering I get horrendous stuttering on any setting but unlimited. I really would appreciate some clarification on this, but I suspect we'll just have to see when servers go live. Going to be really disappointing if I have to spend the first couple hours of early access troubleshooting something that was never even a problem to begin with.

What frustrates me even more is that they decided to tell us about this last minute. Why the heck did they not tell us like during the benchmark release? No less actually implementing it in the benchmark for us to try and come up with any solutions for errors we run across way before the expansion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doozer

I don't even remember what I have mine at, but I changed some settings recently trying to resolve an unrelated fps problem (that has since been fixed) and didn't notice any stuttering when capping the fps while using a 120hz monitor.

I don't even know what the big deal is anyway, whether the fps is 60 or 120 I wouldn't even be able to tell you because my eyes can't tell the difference. Just like with DPS, people just love big numbers and think the higher their fps is, the better they play or something.

---

yea its the ...2019s people need to "flex" something to add meaning to their existence for some reason

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by guardin

yea its the ...2019s people need to "flex" something to add meaning to their existence for some reason

---

That's a gross oversimplification. I wouldn't be upset at a 90 fps cap if the current in-game frame limiter worked properly. But it doesn't. It introduces noticeable stuttering that can only be avoided by not engaging it. If the in-game frame limiter worked like RTSS or other applications, yeah it would be annoying not to be able to play higher than 90, but I could deal. But this jittery mess that happens with the in-game limiter? Can't be overlooked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by guardin

yea its the ...2019s people need to "flex" something to add meaning to their existence for some reason

---

Indeed. Some people need to flex good ol' "I can't see the fps difference, ergo it's meaningless" aka a twisted version of "Screw you, got mine".

The only people defending the frame capping are those who have pc's that cant reach it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rattles

The only people defending the frame capping are those who have pc's that cant reach it.

---

Or console players which are unaffected.

Feels like too much people jumps to the reply button with their disapproval, without noticing the issue was unveiled in page 1 of the thread, and you still can play your 144Hz fine tomorrow as you do today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LalaRu

Feels like too much people jumps to the reply button with their disapproval, without noticing the issue was unveiled in page 1 of the thread, and you still can play your 144Hz fine tomorrow as you do today.

---

Except that a hard fps cap and playing at such refresh rates are mutually exclusive propositions?