Thread: 60fps cap for 2.0?

60fps is all you need.

Trying to push the game to 60fps+ would be a waste of time, when it would be better served to increase the quality of the motion blur effect.

Here is a question posted from a player who did not know the difference between capping at 30 fps vs 60 fps. He stated an interesting observation.

Originally Posted by Anima

So I'm actually not a new player, but I feels weird to post "Config" question in General Discussion so I'm gonna ask here.

I'm playing FFXIV in an average Config, but I'm playing on Limit FPS 30.

...

I have no problems, no lags, all smooth with these config, but once I change Cap to 60 FPS the game Lags when there's a lot of objects to load, and especially on Raining, Sandstorm, CS, etc.

This is the same effect people experience when they enter a crowded area like Ul'dah. The brain exaggerates a drop of 60 fps to 25 fps as a decrease of responsiveness than one of 30 fps to 25 fps. The reason of course is that you subconsciously adjust your response to the rate at which you interpret changes in visual information. In other words, a consistent FPS appears more fluid than a constantly fluctuating one.

From a developer perspective, your goal is to keep the frame rate about 20% within the target fps. If you exceed that 20%, you either need to tweak the environment so to get the frame rate up, or lower the target fps. And since the game developers of this game want higher detail by sacrificing frame rate, the cap should be set at 30. As time passes and hardware improves, environments within the game will become more complex, but the frame rate need not change.

60 FPS or above would require keeping the game frame rate above the mid 40s. And few players can achieve that. Maybe a small few will be able to, but you are in the minority and the majority comes first.

Originally Posted by TheRac25

unthrottled render loop is nice,



for burning out pc components

Furmark anyone?

At the end of the day, there's no reason to enforce an FPS cap. PERIOD!

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...

The average person can see up to the equivalent of 60FPS, and even someone with as bad eyesight as me can often notice the difference between the equivalent of 60FPS and 90FPS. The ONLY reason why people have not noticed the differences until recently is because SDTV (esp. analog) sets never worked beyond maybe an equivalent of 35~40FPS. Period. (Not to mention, everything American film - until Avatar I think it was - was filmed with a 24.9~29.9 FPS rate.)

Originally Posted by Lux_Rayna

Maybe not, but you'd have to be rich or stupid not to put an fps cap on any game you're playing. Your computer has a limit as to how much fps it can keep up with consistently. Any drops in fps will be very noticeable, even at 120+. Smoothness is a function of consistency, not necessarily how high the fps count is. If you don't put a cap, your gameplay will suffer terribly due to the constant spikes in fps. Ideally you want a level your computer can run with without dropping significantly. Any higher and it will actually appear worse.

Of course if you're running a supercomputer you don't need a cap for any game out right now. But enforcing a cap prevents fps noobs from experiencing crappy gameplay due to bad game settings. Most ppl assume more fps = good, when it's only good if your computer can stay up there consistently. And given that the vast majority of computer owners are ignorant about their hardware, an fps cap keeps ppl from being dissatisfied with your product. It's all about the benjamins.


EDIT: This isn't even talking about how much optimization a game would have to go through in order to account for lack of an fps cap. I imagine getting any game to run 120+fps without any significant drops would be quite costly in terms of hardware, equipment, and man hours. Especially with an MMO, which has to account for mass amounts of people congested into relatively small maps. I don't think any company is going to drop that kind of coin without charging you more for the game. And i'd rather not pay for that, considering I can't even use it.

If a person's computer cannot run a game in 1080p past 60FPS, an enforced FPS cap is still useless. There is nothing in game code that can force a video card to run a game at an FPS higher than what it can run to begin with and the lack of an FPS cap isn't going to cause a game to run more than what the video card can handle. It simply does not happen, period.

Now, if people want an option to turn on an FPS cap, that's different. But don't you dare try to sit there and tell me that I should not be allowed to run it above xyzFPS just because someone else can't. That's absolutely stupid, and not to mention that because of fail-safe software & hardware design, it's actually impossible for the average user to burn their video card (it takes someone that knows how to bypass certain coding).

FYI, I do use a 60FPS cap on all games I play on my PC when and where there is a choice to. Even when emulating old games, unless I want to play in turbo-mode, I use no more than 60FPS.

Originally Posted by Syris

Eh, I didn't buy a true 120hz monitor for 3D.

If FFXIV burns up a PC that's SE fault. Bad optimization. Yes, the 60 fps cap and 30 fps cap were placed to prevent this from happening since beta, but that was because the original engine and overall server design stunk. The developers have already admitted to this. It's no secret.

I mean, FFXIV graphics are nice and all... but they aren't that nice. It's terrible optimization bringing your computer to its knees. Like you said, rendering objects far above and below what you even see on your screen hogging up resources pointlessly. I turn on ambient occlusion and I run FFXIV at 2 fps. I run BF3 on ultra with no problems. 50-90 fps and temps no higher than 55 degrees Celsius. Even on my gtx 460 768mb I could run far more demanding games than FFXIV well into 60+ fps (medium-high settings) under 60 degrees Celsius. It's not like we need an fps limit for other games on the market that are way more demanding than FFXIV (DX11 games). Why aren't those games frying machines?

The new engine that they are working on is supposed to alleviate these issues. If they need to cap your fps at 60 in order to prevent your computer from melting then they are simply putting a bandaid on a horrible mess of an engine to begin with. This is why they are building a new engine from the ground up for 2.0. We are playing on PC, not consoles. I expect to see fps cap on consoles simply because there is no work around for those systems. You are playing with what you have on a PS3. No upgrades and everyones machine is the same. But when it comes to PC, there are going to be a wide variety of set up's which means there should be a wide variety of graphical options for both lower end and higher end machines. Lower end machines can crank the graphics down to maintain playable frames, while higher end machines can crank up the graphics to make use of the hardware.

Directx11 is less taxing than both 9 and 10 when using comparable features, as for lowering features i've run this game on an ATI X650 with everything on low granted it looks like wolfenstein 3d but is it playable. here's a screenie if you dont believe me < http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/57...0679616BF27B6/ >