Thread: 60fps cap for 2.0?

I realize that this is an mmo and that many people will be running with different specs. Most of the player base probably runs the game well bellow high settings.

In my mind it's just another way to future proof a game.

Indira, you seem more tech savy than I when it comes to this stuff and I would not refute anything that you have posted thus far. It's just when it comes to most games that I own there has been a significant difference when I picked up my benq xl2420t monitor, especially while playing BF3. Hell, even my desktop runs smoother on my 120hz monitor vs the 60hz monitor that I run along side it (opening tabs, dragging them around etc). It's just when I tried FFXIV I could not notice anything but a slight difference in colour. I assumed it was because of the 60fps cap.

This is the best post/suggestion I've seen on this site in months and I completely agree. My computer can definitely handle higher frame rates for this game (did 120FPS during early Beta in a lot of areas) and I would like for that option to be available for players, like myself, with above average computers.

30 > 60 > 120 > Uncapped. Make it happen devs.

Btw, the argument that no one can currently run the game uncapped is stupid and moot since they are changing the engine in 2.0.

Just wondering (im in no way knowledgeable in this), but would we even SEE the difference?
I heard somewhere that its the 30 FPS (I think) that is the mark where we no longer can tell the difference.

But if they can, hell why not...

Originally Posted by Renen

Just wondering (im in no way knowledgeable in this), but would we even SEE the difference?
I heard somewhere that its the 30 FPS (I think) that is the mark where we no longer can tell the difference.

But if they can, hell why not...

I read this everywhere and it's not true. Some people can't tell the difference (just like some cant tell the diff between native 1080p and upscaled 720p) but theres a huge difference between 30 and 60 and then another big jump from 60 to 120. Anything beyond 120 at the moment is extremely hard to notice.

Originally Posted by TimonLoon

I read this everywhere and it's not true. Some people can't tell the difference (just like some cant tell the diff between native 1080p and upscaled 720p) but theres a huge difference between 30 and 60 and then another big jump from 60 to 120. Anything beyond 120 at the moment is extremely hard to notice.

You are right, but that all depends on the engine that is being used, the human eye does not work with framerates, it works in a different way and its not measurable in the same way 3d engines are. You can check this by playing all kind of games, some run great on 20-40 fps and others are just unplayable.

That being said it is possible that some ppl perceive more fps than others and games in which fps increases/decreases are more noticeable and others that are less.

Originally Posted by Renen

Just wondering (im in no way knowledgeable in this), but would we even SEE the difference?
I heard somewhere that its the 30 FPS (I think) that is the mark where we no longer can tell the difference.

But if they can, hell why not...

Frames are simply a trick to fool the mind into thinking that an object is moving, in other words a game utilizing good FPS tricks can look smooth at as low as 24 frames. sadly these tricks are usually bundled into an API or console, and hardly utilized at game level. For instance DirectX11 looks Smoother at 30Frames than DirectX9, Xbox360 caps games @24FPS. PS3 Games are Capped @30FPS but they are very smooth.

All in all smoothness or how many frames an eye can see Will very Greatly with the amount of eye trickery employed and the utilization in that said game.

Indira, you seem more tech savy than I when it comes to this stuff and I would not refute anything that you have posted thus far. It's just when it comes to most games that I own there has been a significant difference when I picked up my benq xl2420t monitor, especially while playing BF3. Hell, even my desktop runs smoother on my 120hz monitor vs the 60hz monitor that I run along side it (opening tabs, dragging them around etc). It's just when I tried FFXIV I could not notice anything but a slight difference in colour. I assumed it was because of the 60fps cap.

yeah, is alot nicer on a higher hz monitor, each company has its own term for there add in frame technology thats what you see when you when you play it take the 60 base and adds frames between each one then you have 120 and so on, its a blessing from them that way we dont need god like pc's to see our games/movies run at them refresh rates. it pertty much just blends the frames together.

Originally Posted by indira

yeah, is alot nicer on a higher hz monitor, each company has its own term for there add in frame technology thats what you see when you when you play it take the 60 base and adds frames between each one then you have 120 and so on, its a blessing from them that way we dont need god like pc's to see our games/movies run at them refresh rates. it pertty much just blends the frames together.

you are wrong, there are several monitors which have real 120hz.. such a list includes the one OP is talking about (benq xl2420t). I also have 2 monitores that have real 120hz, samsung 2233rz and LG 2363d.

Real 120hz is not the same as true motion or any other technology that they use on LCD/LED TVs. In fact, these tecnologies suck to play any game, because they generate fake frames that will lead to ghosts, trailing and other stuff.. its just a bad technology to play games.

Real 120hz on the other hand is the most beautiful thing they ever invented, first time i laid eyes on it i just couldnt let it go. Most games i rather play on 22' 1680x1050 than on a 27' 2560x1440.

Any real fps gamer has a 120hz monitor.