What graphical setting do you play with?
Custom Config now to make sure I never dip below 144. Used to run on all High but kept dropping to ~110-120 in some areas. Wasn’t the case when I started playing, used to get like 180fps then and never drop below 144.
So long as I’m at 60fps+, I don’t mind. If I am playing competitively, I will alter it to ensure a steady 120fps+, but when I’m playing regular matches, 60 is fine for me. Plus, I like the game to look nice c:
I know my laptop would be able to just run it at medium settings.
However, I want to avoid more heat.
Also, I like to have it as clean as possible. 
Low settings since I noticed that on medium FPS dropped so much that I was basically aiming according to stillshots. 
I never believed I would play FPS games anymore (got bored to loads of games and have seen my share of them in the past) when I bought my quite ordinary desktop couple of years back. It was fine with some older FPS but apparently it has trouble even with Dirty Bomb. If I would play comp more seriously I would need new hardware.
I’m clearly handicapped in many areas and sometimes I’m just amazed I get out of life from CQC.
I guess I have to start look for some new specs in order to play newer games.
[quote=“Kirays;76598”]I know my laptop would be able to just run it at medium settings.
However, I want to avoid more heat.
Also, I like to have it as clean as possible. [/quote]
What kind of laptop do you have because mine can’t dare run it on medium settings without unstable fps.
Really all you need to play a fps game efficiently is 60 fps.
Anything higher is probably overkill.
[quote=“BlackFro;76634”][quote=“Kirays;76598”]I know my laptop would be able to just run it at medium settings.
However, I want to avoid more heat.
Also, I like to have it as clean as possible. [/quote]
What kind of laptop do you have because mine can’t dare run it on medium settings without unstable fps.
Really all you need to play a fps game efficiently is 60 fps.
Anything higher is probably overkill.[/quote]
I know a lot of people with 144hz refresh rate monitors that would tend to disagree with that statement.
[quote=“BlackFro;76634”][quote=“Kirays;76598”]I know my laptop would be able to just run it at medium settings.
However, I want to avoid more heat.
Also, I like to have it as clean as possible. [/quote]
What kind of laptop do you have because mine can’t dare run it on medium settings without unstable fps.
Really all you need to play a fps game efficiently is 60 fps.
Anything higher is probably overkill.[/quote]
Well, you have to consider I play the game with a resolution of 1280 x 720.
That is most likely an important factor.
[quote=“Raw;76640”][quote=“BlackFro;76634”][quote=“Kirays;76598”]I know my laptop would be able to just run it at medium settings.
However, I want to avoid more heat.
Also, I like to have it as clean as possible. [/quote]
What kind of laptop do you have because mine can’t dare run it on medium settings without unstable fps.
Really all you need to play a fps game efficiently is 60 fps.
Anything higher is probably overkill.[/quote]
I know a lot of people with 144hz refresh rate monitors that would tend to disagree with that statement.[/quote]
Ok but speaking scientifically:
The average human response time to visual frames is between 150-300 miliseconds. Round that off to about 225 milliseconds or 0.225 seconds. You do the math.
Why have more fps per second than the human brain can perceive?
Even the “Final Cut Pro 7 User Manual” agrees :).
There is no reason to show more frames per second than the viewer can perceive. The exact limit of human motion perception is still up for scientific debate, but it is generally agreed that there is an upper threshold after which people can’t appreciate the difference.
There is a huge difference between frames in a video game and frames in a rendered film. That’s why films get away with 24fps - which I still think is terrible after using SVP - and games absolutely cannot.
Also the only study really done on how much fps our brain can pick up on was done on airforce pilots and came to the conclusion that on a consistent image they were able to see a difference at up to 250 fps - ish - and on radically different images were able to see a difference with 780.
I really don’t like having my game looking like sh*t with configs, seriously. Are we really gonna use custom configs even when you own a double Titanz Black Nvidia graphics card?
Using custom settings but not a custom ini (outside of smoothframerate).
@BlackFro those 150-300 ms is for the whole package, - time for your brain seeing an image analysing what it is - deciding what to do - sending command to your hand - hand pressing buttons.
24 is the standard for film mainly because of cost. Old film material was expensive so the less fps the less cost. 24 fps is the lowest if you want to pack an audio signal in it, without it sounding weird. Also its pretty close to the lower limit where you can show your brain single images and it says “hey those discret images you show me, they seem to belong together I’ll just go ahead and interpret them as moving”. Unfortunaly since we are used to seeing movies in 24 fps for a century now. quite a few perceive more FPS in movies as wrong (not cinematic).
Ars Technica had an article a couple of years back about higher FPS and by their explaination: Our eyes will see constantly but our brain reads the incoming data on a as needed basis. Depending on how awake and concentrated you are, or how demanding the current situation is your brain will be able to discern a single differing frame anyware between 10Hz and 200+ Hz for everyday situations it seems we average around 60Hz propably with some variations.
Personaly I thing 60 FPS is perfectly fine. to give you enough information to react proper in all situations. But I do remember the glory of 80-120 FPS gaming on a CRT.
[quote=“BlackFro;76649”][quote=“Raw;76640”][quote=“BlackFro;76634”][quote=“Kirays;76598”]I know my laptop would be able to just run it at medium settings.
However, I want to avoid more heat.
Also, I like to have it as clean as possible. [/quote]
What kind of laptop do you have because mine can’t dare run it on medium settings without unstable fps.
Really all you need to play a fps game efficiently is 60 fps.
Anything higher is probably overkill.[/quote]
I know a lot of people with 144hz refresh rate monitors that would tend to disagree with that statement.[/quote]
Ok but speaking scientifically:
The average human response time to visual frames is between 150-300 miliseconds. Round that off to about 225 milliseconds or 0.225 seconds. You do the math.
Why have more fps per second than the human brain can perceive?
Even the “Final Cut Pro 7 User Manual” agrees :).
There is no reason to show more frames per second than the viewer can perceive. The exact limit of human motion perception is still up for scientific debate, but it is generally agreed that there is an upper threshold after which people can’t appreciate the difference.
People who make this argument, which isn’t even a good one outside of film, always seem to forget that you’re playing a game and not watching it. Higher and consistent framerate is pretty much always better. 60 FPS will feel much more responsive than 30 FPS, 120FPS more responsive than 60fps in regards to movement. Especially when you factor in the very tiny movement a mouse can make and is needed for general aiming. Yes, there is diminishing returns but you have to start getting pretty high up (higher than 144fps) to stop noticing. For example, Linus did a test that compared a casual player’s ability to tell the difference between 60fps/60hz and 120fps/120hz. The casual guy was hit and miss but Linus very quickly knew every single time it was 60 or 120.
If you have a 120hz monitor and can achieve 120fps then put a cap on it there. Then set it to 60hz and cap your fps at 60 (just cap it, don’t turn on vsync). You’ll notice super quickly the difference in fluidity. Last week I plugged in a TV to my PC and it reset my 144hz monitor to 60 and I played DB and it took me about 2 seconds to notice. And I still was getting 144+ FPS. If I had dropped to 60 it would have felt like muddy to play with by comparison.
[quote=“Amerika;76695”][quote=“BlackFro;76649”][quote=“Raw;76640”][quote=“BlackFro;76634”][quote=“Kirays;76598”]I know my laptop would be able to just run it at medium settings.
However, I want to avoid more heat.
Also, I like to have it as clean as possible. [/quote]
What kind of laptop do you have because mine can’t dare run it on medium settings without unstable fps.
Really all you need to play a fps game efficiently is 60 fps.
Anything higher is probably overkill.[/quote]
I know a lot of people with 144hz refresh rate monitors that would tend to disagree with that statement.[/quote]
Ok but speaking scientifically:
The average human response time to visual frames is between 150-300 miliseconds. Round that off to about 225 milliseconds or 0.225 seconds. You do the math.
Why have more fps per second than the human brain can perceive?
Even the “Final Cut Pro 7 User Manual” agrees :).
There is no reason to show more frames per second than the viewer can perceive. The exact limit of human motion perception is still up for scientific debate, but it is generally agreed that there is an upper threshold after which people can’t appreciate the difference.
People who make this argument, which isn’t even a good one outside of film, always seem to forget that you’re playing a game and not watching it. Higher and consistent framerate is pretty much always better. 60 FPS will feel much more responsive than 30 FPS, 120FPS more responsive than 60fps in regards to movement. Especially when you factor in the very tiny movement a mouse can make and is needed for general aiming. Yes, there is diminishing returns but you have to start getting pretty high up (higher than 144fps) to stop noticing. For example, Linus did a test that compared a casual player’s ability to tell the difference between 60fps/60hz and 120fps/120hz. The casual guy was hit and miss but Linus very quickly knew every single time it was 60 or 120.
If you have a 120hz monitor and can achieve 120fps then put a cap on it there. Then set it to 60hz and cap your fps at 60 (just cap it, don’t turn on vsync). You’ll notice super quickly the difference in fluidity. Last week I plugged in a TV to my PC and it reset my 144hz monitor to 60 and I played DB and it took me about 2 seconds to notice. And I still was getting 144+ FPS. If I had dropped to 60 it would have felt like muddy to play with by comparison.[/quote]
I’m not making an argument I’m just making a suggestion.
Don’t waste your computers power for fps you don’t need.
[quote=“BlackFro;76739”][quote=“Amerika;76695”][quote=“BlackFro;76649”][quote=“Raw;76640”][quote=“BlackFro;76634”][quote=“Kirays;76598”]I know my laptop would be able to just run it at medium settings.
However, I want to avoid more heat.
Also, I like to have it as clean as possible. [/quote]
What kind of laptop do you have because mine can’t dare run it on medium settings without unstable fps.
Really all you need to play a fps game efficiently is 60 fps.
Anything higher is probably overkill.[/quote]
I know a lot of people with 144hz refresh rate monitors that would tend to disagree with that statement.[/quote]
Ok but speaking scientifically:
The average human response time to visual frames is between 150-300 miliseconds. Round that off to about 225 milliseconds or 0.225 seconds. You do the math.
Why have more fps per second than the human brain can perceive?
Even the “Final Cut Pro 7 User Manual” agrees :).
There is no reason to show more frames per second than the viewer can perceive. The exact limit of human motion perception is still up for scientific debate, but it is generally agreed that there is an upper threshold after which people can’t appreciate the difference.
People who make this argument, which isn’t even a good one outside of film, always seem to forget that you’re playing a game and not watching it. Higher and consistent framerate is pretty much always better. 60 FPS will feel much more responsive than 30 FPS, 120FPS more responsive than 60fps in regards to movement. Especially when you factor in the very tiny movement a mouse can make and is needed for general aiming. Yes, there is diminishing returns but you have to start getting pretty high up (higher than 144fps) to stop noticing. For example, Linus did a test that compared a casual player’s ability to tell the difference between 60fps/60hz and 120fps/120hz. The casual guy was hit and miss but Linus very quickly knew every single time it was 60 or 120.
If you have a 120hz monitor and can achieve 120fps then put a cap on it there. Then set it to 60hz and cap your fps at 60 (just cap it, don’t turn on vsync). You’ll notice super quickly the difference in fluidity. Last week I plugged in a TV to my PC and it reset my 144hz monitor to 60 and I played DB and it took me about 2 seconds to notice. And I still was getting 144+ FPS. If I had dropped to 60 it would have felt like muddy to play with by comparison.[/quote]
I’m not making an argument I’m just making a suggestion.
Don’t waste your computers power for fps you don’t need.[/quote]
I like the game looking good, I’ve seen some of the custom configs and I couldn’t do that to have a few extra fps. I get 60fps constant now and it’s all my monitor can handle, if I turn vsync off I’m hitting around 100fps which on my rig is very respectable.