Can you see the difference between 30fps and 60fps?

[threexgreen 3,160]

8 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

That is probably the crux of the matter, and precisely why I prefer to stick to 1080p resolution on a 24" monitor

I don't think so. I can easily see the difference on a screen as small as my phone.

[pstrub 998]

There's more to high framerates than just the visual smoothness. First of all, some people notice and care about the smoothness from high framerates more than others. 

But there's also the latency: this is the time it takes from moving your mouse or pushing a button to seeing an effect on screen. Due to the way game engines work, this typically takes between 3 and 5 frametimes, depending on the game. At 30fps, this translates to 0.1 and 0.17 seconds, leading to a lag that's particularly noticeable when moving the mouse quickly. This is also the main reason why high framerates are desirable for competitive gamers, even when visually everything is super smooth already.

This is also the reason why DLSS frame generation isn't great for all gamers: while the movements get smoother, the lag increases slightly, due to the way it works. 

 

 

[Sethos 4,541]

I mean, there's a difference between 'seeing' as in just a visual difference like a movie and then also having to control it, moving around in that framerate, plus the pacing of the media. Sitting in a cockpit, lazily panning around while the outside is going by at snail's pace, essentially a step above a screensaver, 30FPS feels more serviceable. A shooter, a game with any sort of movement, 30FPS just feels unbearable in my opinion, no matter how well frame-paced it is.

But yeah, as a general rule, when it comes to games / simulators, nothing below 60 any more. It's not necessary and it feels like complete junk.

[F737MAX 5,738]

This topic every time someone brings it up...

[RobJC 2,073]

Definitely. Now anything over 60 fps is much harder to tell unless panning. 

[threexgreen 3,160]

6 minutes ago, F737MAX said:

This topic every time someone brings it up...

Definitely, but this time there's actual research that suggests not everyone is even able to see the difference. Worth a discussion imo.

[Drebin27 59]

Not just video games.

I browse the HotUKDeals website every morning, I click the middle mouse button and let it auto scroll while I drink my coffee.

One morning I was having a hard time reading the text as it was scrolling up, it wasn't as clear as usual.

Checked my display setting and sure enough, the monitor refresh was set to 60Hz instead of the usual 120Hz. Then I remembered I did a Nvidia driver update the night before and chose the clean install option.

[Wildblue 248]

Ah, now i finally know why i have to run all my games on 360 fps...i have extremely fast speed of visual perception. I can pick a fly out of the air while i'm watching tv, dodge a bullet coming at me with ease and read the whole newspaper while it's printed.😀

[techman 174]

not again.

Take your airbus. Taxi with 20 knots at 30 or 60 fps and tell me what feels more realistic.

 

[Sonosusto 706]

5 hours ago, AnkH said:

Or, those not having enough money to buy proper hardware continue to to claim that the human eye can anyway not see more than 30FPS 🤣

...and their wallets and wives are happier as a result.

[AnkH 2,282]

4 minutes ago, Sonosusto said:

...and their wallets and wives are happier as a result.

Doubt it, my wife prefers me not always complaining that my rig is not up to date 🤣 And my wallet? Well, there are hobbies way more expensive than flightsimming 😉

[Sonosusto 706]

Just now, AnkH said:

Doubt it, my wife prefers me not always complaining that my rig is not up to date 🤣 And my wallet? Well, there are hobbies way more expensive than flightsimming 😉

For you, maybe. Woodworking is also expensive and that new table saw was more than 2 4090's

[Noel 4,563]

For me 1st priority is always ultra low frame time variance--when that is sterling one can then focus on upping rate.   I find a rate of 34 or so close to an ideal minimum and what I mean by that is:  panning is fine and the only place it's visibly not fine is objects very close to my eye point will manifest the lower frame rate as a function of how many pixels wide each frame ends up being at that frame rate at that distance.  So your cockpit pillars for example will have enough pixels per frame such that they become in effect wider during a faster pan action.  By the time you're looking at objects much farther away the effect is too low to register, i.e. the number of pixels involved during a pan per frame out at say 100' or farther is too low to manifest the issue.  I find panning quality, both slow and fast, is excellent at a rate of 34 when FTV is sterlingly low and consistent.   Having recently installed RTX4090 and experienced an FG rate of 68 or so, i.e., doubled native rate of 34 for example, I can say while the difference is easily noticed the artifacts associated with FG is not worth that difference at all, so I've disabled FG, happily.

Parts are OTW now for a 7800X3D.   Unless somehow my 9900K is playing a major role in these artifacts in which case I may find FG to be a net plus, my expectation is to be able to move my native rate up to 45+ in the worst of all scenarios, whereas right now that rate is around 32fps at the worst possible scenarios.  I will be super happy with a base rate of 45 or more.   One aspect of FG high rate when I was experimenting with it I found counterintuitive:  the beginning and end of a panning action is actually LESS REALISTIC than at a lower rate of say 35-45.  How so you say?  Well, when I turn my head in the RW, i.e. pan my view laterally slow or fast, my head stops instantly and so do visuals.  Whereas w/ high rate FG it's almost too soft, too syrupy smooth and that does not happen with panning my vision--the start and stop points are abrupt, much like panning at 35-45 is w/o FG.  I do find that aspect of FG desirable, but ultimately less realistic.

[Lonesome Cowboy Burt 175]

6 hours ago, kevinfirth said:

See new research below - hopefully there will be no more threads like this! (Irony of this one fully accepted!)

 

 

 

Scientists used a “flicker test”, which flashes a light at increasing speeds until it is blinking so quickly it appears completely still.

When they asked participants at what point the light had stopped flickering, some said they saw a steady light at just 35 blinks per second, while others still saw flashing at more than 60 flickers per second.

 

 

Kevin, this simplistic test is not really a good analogue for playing a game where you get lag as your input waits for the next frame before showing its result

Subject has been flogged to death in gaming forums and this study really doesnt add anything new

[Christopher Low 5,398]

It reminds me of the "correct FOV" debate in racing games