FPS limit 90

[QUAKERxnc]

Guy´s can u increase the FPS limit to 120 plz?

best Monitors has 120 Hz

[Lyserg]

QUOTE (QUAKERxnc @ Oct 5 2009, 09:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Guy´s can u increase the FPS limit to 120 plz?

best Monitors has 120 Hz [/b]

Like there's a real visible difference between 90 and 120. =/

[BLaZor]

QUOTE (QUAKERxnc @ Oct 5 2009, 08:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Guy´s can u increase the FPS limit to 120 plz?

best Monitors has 120 Hz [/b]

You do realise the maximum rate your eyes can actually see is around 60-70 FPS/Hz?
Only fighter pilots can train to have refresh rates up to 120, but let's face it, you're no fighter pilot.

[neagu]

QUOTE (QUAKERxnc @ Oct 5 2009, 09:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Guy´s can u increase the FPS limit to 120 plz?

best Monitors has 120 Hz [/b]

Open the Renegade X UTEngine.ini (which you will find in the config folder of the mod), then look for these lines

CODE

re;overflow:auto'>[Engine.GameEngine]
bSmoothFrameRate=TRUE
MinSmoothedFrameRate=40.000000
MaxSmoothedFrameRate=72.000000

Well if you want 120 fps, then change the max smoothedframerate value.

[DXR_13KE]

QUOTE (QUAKERxnc @ Oct 5 2009, 08:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Guy´s can u increase the FPS limit to 120 plz?

best Monitors has 120 Hz [/b]

what?

[QUAKERxnc]

QUOTE (DXR_13KE @ Oct 5 2009, 10:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

what?[/b]

The online server limitation is 90 FPS.

So it schould be no Problem for the Dev.Team to increase the global limit to 120FPS.

[Lyserg]

QUOTE (QUAKERxnc @ Oct 7 2009, 06:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The online server limitation is 90 FPS.

So it schould be no Problem for the Dev.Team to increase the global limit to 120FPS.[/b]

It's set at the client though as far as I know, not the server.

[=HT=Duro]

human eye cant see more than 60 .. useless

[Lyserg]

QUOTE (=HT=Duro @ Oct 7 2009, 12:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

human eye cant see more than 60 .. useless[/b]

Not quite true. 80-90 is possible, Besides, you can't compair the human sight with frames. We don't see in frames, we see in a continuous lengths.

[QUAKERxnc]

QUOTE (Lyserg @ Oct 7 2009, 10:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's set at the client though as far as I know, not the server.[/b]

´
The older UT2003 got the same Problem we know it from UT2003 LAN Tournaments that my
allie has 250 FPS if he makes server on his own PC and if he joins to a LAN server the frames are limited to 60.

The Dev team would agree with me that is an server setting.

[Lyserg]

QUOTE (QUAKERxnc @ Oct 7 2009, 01:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

´
The older UT2003 got the same Problem we know it from UT2003 LAN Tournaments that my
allie has 250 FPS if he makes server on his own PC and if he joins to a LAN server the frames are limited to 60.

The Dev team would agree with me that is an server setting.[/b]

Still, it's pretty much useless to make it higher. Everything higher then 90, wont really be noticed. It's a waste.

[QUAKERxnc]

QUOTE (Lyserg @ Oct 7 2009, 01:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Still, it's pretty much useless to make it higher. Everything higher then 90, wont really be noticed. It's a waste.[/b]

Now, i know that u guy´s cant noticed more than 90 or 30 or 60 or whatever.

Thats only ur opinion.

So i have to ask you.
If it is 120 FPS, it would be worse playing then 90?

[Lyserg]

QUOTE (QUAKERxnc @ Oct 7 2009, 03:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now, i know that u guy´s cant noticed more than 90 or 30 or 60 or whatever.

Thats only ur opinion.

So i have to ask you.
If it is 120 FPS, it would be worse playing then 90?[/b]

No, it would be the same. Therefore, it's useless to higher the fps limit.

[Woulfe]

Maybe he just knows his computer can hit 120 frames and he wants to use his computer to full extent, even if it's useless? I know if my computer could hit 120 frames on Renegade X I'd want it to. (I normally get around 40-50 on Fields and 20 on Island)

[Lyserg]

QUOTE (Woulfe @ Oct 7 2009, 03:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe he just knows his computer can hit 120 frames and he wants to use his computer to full extent, even if it's useless? I know if my computer could hit 120 frames on Renegade X I'd want it to. (I normally get around 40-50 on Fields and 20 on Island)[/b]

Meh, my comp can also hit 120 fps I'm sure. I just don't need it. Whenever you'd see how useless and obsolete it is, you'd feel the same.

[QUAKERxnc]

QUOTE (Lyserg @ Oct 7 2009, 04:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Meh, my comp can also hit 120 fps I'm sure. I just don't need it. Whenever you'd see how useless and obsolete it is, you'd feel the same.[/b]

Best u talk with a Quake3 Player, 333 FPS is a must have, belive me.

Test it plz play a UT3 game with 200 FPS and then limit it to 60 u will see it sux hard.
And if u have 120 Hz it owns totaly much.

Every second is cuted in 120 Parts/pictures thats a lot of more Informations than only 90/pictures.
Ur eyes are not sync with the simultan Pictures of the Monitors so 120 is better.

The 400 Positions of the Enemy in Second is better then 90 Positions in one Second.
So it does not matter what Monitors can show or eyes can "see" in a second.
The position of the Enemy is more precise in 400FPS then 90FPS.
Higher is almost better.

I cant describe it pervekt my english is not good enought.

[Lyserg]

QUOTE (QUAKERxnc @ Oct 7 2009, 08:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Best u talk with a Quake3 Player, 333 FPS is a must have, belive me.

Test it plz play a UT3 game with 200 FPS and then limit it to 60 u will see it sux hard.
And if u have 120 Hz it owns totaly much.

Every second is cuted in 120 Parts/pictures thats a lot of more Informations than only 90/pictures.
Ur eyes are not sync with the simultan Pictures of the Monitors so 120 is better.

The 400 Positions of the Enemy in Second is better then 90 Positions in one Second.
So it does not matter what Monitors can show or eyes can "see" in a second.
The position of the Enemy is more precise in 400FPS then 90FPS.
Higher is almost better.

I cant describe it pervekt my english is not good enought. [/b]

Lol, dude. you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. The human eye can't even see a difference above 80-90 fps. Everything above that is a waste. A trained eye might be able to get up to 100fps, and I highly doubt you've got a trained sight. You're more likely to limit your brain then to limit the amount of frames your comp can pump out if you've got a decent rig. the amount of information you perceive per second has nothign to do with fps, hell, you'd even be able to play with 15 fps perfeclty fine if you're used to it. If you'd play at 15 fps, and then through a hardware upgrade you'd hit 20, that would seem as a large improvement. 90 to 120 however, wouldn't even be noticable.

[Demigan]

Allright:

You watched any movies on Youtube? an ordinary homevideo shoots 25 frames per second, 25 FPS. Most of them look ugly because of it, but not all if you got a quality camera. For just a short period of time they've been upgrading the standard FPS for those camera's to higher, it's around 30-40 if you get a high quality camera. Ofcourse, if you go looking for it you can easily find 6000 FPS camera's for high-speed capturing.

TV's have had an FPS of 50 for years, I think that around 2002 the FPS was raised to 60. and only when I'm playing Super smash brothers melee I can notice the difference between the 50 FPS setting and the 60 FPS setting.

Now if I go to 70 I might be able to get so used to that that I can see that 60 FPS lags a little behind, but beyond that, you have to rely on lightning fast eyes for a living to get good enough to see it.

Sure, I would say that higher FPS's should be available, but there is no use to making it mandatory or something so that lower-end computers would have more trouble due to the higher refresh rate.

Yours sincerely,

Demigan.

[bali]

i can see the fps differency up to 30-40, but i can feel the fps difference up to 100, or even more. it just wont turn the same way. it just doesnt work as it is supposed to. i think this is an input- thingie

i remember i sucked reeealy much at sniping in original ren, when i had vsync enabled, so i had 60fps constntly. later i force-turned it off and i had like 150-300 fps, and i jumped to a quite acceptable-competant lvl for sniping. i definately wasnt the best, but i was much better than i was before with vsync

QUOTE (QUAKERxnc @ Oct 7 2009, 08:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Best u talk with a Quake3 Player, 333 FPS is a must have, belive me. [/b]

yea, but it was only needed for the game's bunnyhoppping feature's maximum usage.

it is still popular amongst cod4 players, because u can shoot, move 8% faster or something like that.

[Lyserg]

QUOTE (bali @ Oct 10 2009, 01:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i can see the fps differency up to 30-40, but i can feel the fps difference up to 100, or even more. it just wont turn the same way. it just doesnt work as it is supposed to. i think this is an input- thingie
i remember i sucked reeealy much at sniping in original ren, when i had vsync enabled, so i had 60fps constntly. later i force-turned it off and i had like 150-300 fps, and i jumped to a quite acceptable-competant lvl for sniping. i definately wasnt the best, but i was much better than i was before with vsync[/b]

That's pretty much between your ears though. the diffirence between playing 60fps constant or 100+ is neglictable. You just started getting better simple as that.

[dsi1]

It doesn't matter if we can't see the difference between 90 and 120 fps, it is still nice to know you can hit 120, it is good psychologically. Personally, I'd rather it be unlimited, but I'm not sure how fps limits work in the UT3 engine.

What is the point in NOT raising it anyways? A dev has to take a second of his time to change one line of a cfg? I fail to see why we shouldn't raise it.

[Lyserg]

QUOTE (dsi1 @ Oct 10 2009, 03:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It doesn't matter if we can't see the difference between 90 and 120 fps, it is still nice to know you can hit 120, it is good psychologically. Personally, I'd rather it be unlimited, but I'm not sure how fps limits work in the UT3 engine.

What is the point in NOT raising it anyways? A dev has to take a second of his time to change one line of a cfg? I fail to see why we shouldn't raise it.[/b]

The same reason I fail to see why it should be raised. even if it's merely a few seconds work, it's still a few seconds work. It has no further use to enhance gameplay. If you really crave for those 100+ fps being shown, play instant action.. I really do fail to see the point in all this. I already know I can hit that fps, I don't have to be continuously reminded of it. I care more about the current game then whatever my fps is, as long as it's playable.

[bali]

QUOTE (Lyserg @ Oct 10 2009, 02:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's pretty much between your ears though. the diffirence between playing 60fps constant or 100+ is neglictable. You just started getting better simple as that.[/b]

so u r saying that for years i wasnt improving, but by coincident i got better at the sam time i turned off vsync? at 60 fps i couldnt hit nearly anything, later, without vsync i could shoot nice headshoots.
i turned off vsync just for curiosity to see how much fps i can get then. but when i was fighting, and turning fast, i felt something different in the behaviour of the character, and the aiming. and it felt similar to quake, which i have much more fps than 60.

[Demigan]

There's only one argument that votes in favour of increasing the FPS count: Subliminal messages.

While we can't see it on television, one screen of a coca-cola bottle between the 59 others will still be picked up by the subconcious. So if you play more on your subconcious then concious ('hey I just turned a corner and shot someone before I even realised he was there' you will benefit from it. But after 120 FPS, I think it's neglegible.

Yours sincerely,

Demigan.

[Lyserg]

QUOTE (bali @ Oct 10 2009, 12:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

so u r saying that for years i wasnt improving, but by coincident i got better at the sam time i turned off vsync? at 60 fps i couldnt hit nearly anything, later, without vsync i could shoot nice headshoots.
i turned off vsync just for curiosity to see how much fps i can get then. but when i was fighting, and turning fast, i felt something different in the behaviour of the character, and the aiming. and it felt similar to quake, which i have much more fps than 60.[/b]

The only thing turning off vsync will do when you already have a totally smooth gameplay of 60fps or more, is tear the shown frames horixontally. Rofl. Besides, if your monitor's refrashrate it set to 60Hz you wont even see more then 60frames, even though it's saying you're pumping out 120.

[Jngdwe]

If I remember correctly, most movies don't go over 30 frames per second. Some are only 23-24 FPS. 50-60 fps in video would take too much in bandwidth guys, I'm not sure where you get your information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate

edit: This was a response to a post about youtube videos earlier in the topic.

[bali]

Lyserg, i know i cannot see it, please understand this. -.-

the input lags for 60 fps. and the vsync also restricts the frames to 60 (at least for ati cards), if its reached, the game doesnt count more. even if i issued an order, it will be processed only for the next frame, which will come later than the fps would be 200.

[Lyserg]

QUOTE (bali @ Oct 10 2009, 03:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lyserg, i know i cannot see it, please understand this. -.-
the input lags for 60 fps. and the vsync also restricts the frames to 60 (at least for ati cards), if its reached, the game doesnt count more. even if i issued an order, it will be processed only for the next frame, which will come later than the fps would be 200.[/b]

Please rephrase that.

[BLaZor]

QUOTE (Lyserg @ Oct 7 2009, 07:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lol, dude. you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. The human eye can't even see a difference above 80-90 fps. Everything above that is a waste. A trained eye might be able to get up to 100fps, and I highly doubt you've got a trained sight. You're more likely to limit your brain then to limit the amount of frames your comp can pump out if you've got a decent rig. the amount of information you perceive per second has nothign to do with fps, hell, you'd even be able to play with 15 fps perfeclty fine if you're used to it. If you'd play at 15 fps, and then through a hardware upgrade you'd hit 20, that would seem as a large improvement. 90 to 120 however, wouldn't even be noticable.[/b]

Thats exactly what I said before in this thread.

Some people just don't flipping read. YOU CANT SEE ABOVE 60 FPS...

[bali]

a game engine is built up as first the cpu decides, what to do, it reads the user's commands, processes data etc. then it sends a command and parameters to the vga (and sound card, and other parts) to process the image. after the cpu sent this data it starts a new frame, and does all these again. however if a vga is too slow, and it cannot finish the rendering of the frame during the time the cpu proceses the data, the vga gets another comannd with another instructions and parameters to render the next frame. so the vga rendered in 1/3 of the frame and already started the new frame's rendering. in these situations u see as the screen's top 1/3-2/3 changes, but the bottom lags, and cannot keep up. here comes the vsync. it wont let the image's bottom lag, so it will be rendered too. but the vga needs more time for it. so the cpu will not start any new frame until the previous frame is finished. that means if i issue an order, it will be processed later, or worse, it will not be recognized at all. as we all now we dont move the mouse in a smooth straight line, but rather in a first accelerating , then decelerating movement and that isnt totally straight. so if the frame's input part is done when u just started to move ur mouse, and the rendering time (when the vga is rendering, so no input is tanken) is during the movement we accelerate/corrigate, the final outcome will be different than without vsyinc.

this difference is rather low with 60-90 fps, but still enough for a shot that could be a hs to be a miss. and with renegade's 60 fps -> 200fps is a huge jump for me, everything felt under control, as the game reacted to my mouse's movement as it should. renegade has an early version of sage engine. (it is used for EBfD, BfME 1, 2, CnC 3, and RA3's engine is based on it) in CnC3 the input lag is a huge problem. the game is running constantly with 30fps. the game engine couldnt keep up with the gamers. (sounds weird in our high-tech world) RA3 runs with 60 fps, and even if the input has largely inproved the lag didnt fully disapper as i know.

oh and for the end: IF UR MONITOR CANNOT SHOW YOU MORE THAN 60 FPS, U CANNOT SEE MORE THAN 60 FPS <--u can argue with this, but its pointless

[Lyserg]

QUOTE (bali @ Oct 10 2009, 11:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

a game engine is built up as first the cpu decides, what to do, it reads the user's commands, processes data etc. then it sends a command and parameters to the vga (and sound card, and other parts) to process the image. after the cpu sent this data it starts a new frame, and does all these again. however if a vga is too slow, and it cannot finish the rendering of the frame during the time the cpu proceses the data, the vga gets another comannd with another instructions and parameters to render the next frame. so the vga rendered in 1/3 of the frame and already started the new frame's rendering. in these situations u see as the screen's top 1/3-2/3 changes, but the bottom lags, and cannot keep up. here comes the vsync. it wont let the image's bottom lag, so it will be rendered too. but the vga needs more time for it. so the cpu will not start any new frame until the previous frame is finished. that means if i issue an order, it will be processed later, or worse, it will not be recognized at all. as we all now we dont move the mouse in a smooth straight line, but rather in a first accelerating , then decelerating movement and that isnt totally straight. so if the frame's input part is done when u just started to move ur mouse, and the rendering time (when the vga is rendering, so no input is tanken) is during the movement we accelerate/corrigate, the final outcome will be different than without vsyinc.
this difference is rather low with 60-90 fps, but still enough for a shot that could be a hs to be a miss. and with renegade's 60 fps -> 200fps is a huge jump for me, everything felt under control, as the game reacted to my mouse's movement as it should. renegade has an early version of sage engine. (it is used for EBfD, BfME 1, 2, CnC 3, and RA3's engine is based on it) in CnC3 the input lag is a huge problem. the game is running constantly with 30fps. the game engine couldnt keep up with the gamers. (sounds weird in our high-tech world) RA3 runs with 60 fps, and even if the input has largely inproved the lag didnt fully disapper as i know.

oh and for the end: IF UR MONITOR CANNOT SHOW YOU MORE THAN 60 FPS, U CANNOT SEE MORE THAN 60 FPS <--u can argue with this, but its pointless[/b]

dude, tl;dr

And about the ATi(AMD) card thing you said in your previous post, that's pretty much bullshit. I've got a monitor capable of a 75Hz refresahrate, so my Vsync will try to limit my fps to 75. It's all based on the refreshrate setting.. Same goes for nVidia cards when vsync is enabled.. that's about the only thing I understood you wanted to say in your previous post.

[ezcruci]

The only reason the new 120hz Lcd monitor was interduced is because, nivida brought out their new 3d Vision Glasses and wanted to have a monitor that render the frames for each eye in 60hz.

[Qwerty]

QUOTE (BLaZor @ Oct 5 2009, 01:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You do realise the maximum rate your eyes can actually see is around 60-70 FPS/Hz?
Only fighter pilots can train to have refresh rates up to 120, but let's face it, you're no fighter pilot. [/b]

Don't know about you, but I do notice a slight difference between 120 frames per second on 60Hz versus 120Hz.

It is important to remember that the framerate matters less when your bottlenecked by the frequency of output your monitor is capable of. CRTs would be better because of how they work, and most (if not all) LCDs are limited to 60Hz. Lately in the news (places like Slashdot, HardOCP, and Digg) they have developed 120Hz support for LCDs, but this is easy to mistake, because it is only the sockets that support that kind of bandwidth. The actual output of 120Hz is not yet supported.

As for those 120Hz LCD TVs and stuff, they work differently. TV != Monitor.

If you want to check it out, your best bet in experimenting would be finding a CRT monitor and trying out a 120fps Average benchmark at 60Hz and then 120Hz (make sure your CRT supports it natively).

Anyway, this is my opinion. If you disagree, go ahead. I don't care.

EDIT :: Also, the human eye doesn't necessarily see in "frames per second." It's one of those things in science that aren't fully known (as if anything was ever fully known anyway).

[Lyserg]

QUOTE (Qwerty @ Oct 11 2009, 05:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't know about you, but I do notice a slight difference between 120 frames per second on 60Hz versus 120Hz.

It is important to remember that the framerate matters less when your bottlenecked by the frequency of output your monitor is capable of. CRTs would be better because of how they work, and most (if not all) LCDs are limited to 60Hz. Lately in the news (places like Slashdot, HardOCP, and Digg) they have developed 120Hz support for LCDs, but this is easy to mistake, because it is only the sockets that support that kind of bandwidth. The actual output of 120Hz is not yet supported.

As for those 120Hz LCD TVs and stuff, they work differently. TV != Monitor.

If you want to check it out, your best bet in experimenting would be finding a CRT monitor and trying out a 120fps Average benchmark at 60Hz and then 120Hz (make sure your CRT supports it natively).

Anyway, this is my opinion. If you disagree, go ahead. I don't care.

EDIT :: Also, the human eye doesn't necessarily see in "frames per second." It's one of those things in science that aren't fully known (as if anything was ever fully known anyway).[/b]

You might see a very slight difference between 60 and 120Hz screns, siomply because you can se around 80-90 frames. Any higher is a total waste. there's a site named 100fps.com with more info. I've also already said the human sight can't be compared in frames, but it is known that around 80-90 frames is about the limit, and 100 being the utter limit for anyone with trained sight. You're just repeating what everyone else has said in the thread.

[QUAKERxnc]

The ubber skillers Lyserk and Blazor means 120 FPS has not an positiv Effekt.

Guys if we can play online with 90 or 120 u then play with ur maximal sightable vsync 60FPS that shoulb be the best for u.

So but the another n00bs Named bali, Qwerty and QUAKERxnc want to talk with the Devteam to increase it to 120 thats ok for u?

I think my next car would be an AUDI that ok for u, or u want that i has to buy another?

[Demigan]

QUOTE (QUAKERxnc @ Oct 11 2009, 03:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The ubber skillers Lyserk and Blazor means 120 FPS has not an positiv Effekt.

Guys if we can play online with 90 or 120 u then play with ur maximal sightable vsync 60FPS that shoulb be the best for u.


So but the another n00bs Named bali, Qwerty and QUAKERxnc want to talk with the Devteam to increase it to 120 thats ok for u?
I think my next car would be an AUDI that ok for u, or u want that i has to buy another?[/b]

You should buy a med, far better cost/efficiëncy rating. Turn on the radio and start cuisin!

[jvxsTOW]

QUOTE (BLaZor @ Oct 10 2009, 03:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thats exactly what I said before in this thread.

Some people just don't flipping read. YOU CANT SEE ABOVE 60 FPS...[/b]

Sorry man but talk with some people with very good skill and like to play on Unreal 2003 or 2004 or Quake III and they will all tell to you that you can see the difference. I am not a professional gamer, but I can tell to you when I play if my FPS is at 60 FPS or ~53, on UT3, CSS and many others. On old game like Quake III with no V syn, the game is much better at 300 FPS then 60 FPS, game is more reactive and feeling is great.

[QUAKERxnc]

Any one can test this effekt on Darkplaces QUAKE

Darkplaces QUAKE Download

[DeathLink6.0]

I like FPS games - they are my favourite genre and I think I nearly played every important game including the old classics/must-play games like Quake III, UT99, HLDM and so on. That's why I also like fast deathmatches from time to time but I'm not a pro.

I tested the difference between 60 FPS and 300 FPS in normal Quake III Arena game. Personally there is no difference for me.

A reason for this could be my TFT screen but I can't test it with CRT anymore (a good Samsung trashed months ago).

[RypeL]

We didnt include a framelimit. We didnt changed anything related which might be related to a framelimit from stock UT3. So if youre having a problem in that area you are basically having a problem with UT3 and some UT3 setting and not a new setting we included. Also a serverside framelimit in UT3/RenX would be new to me and i dont believe that there is such a thing. Afaik you can get any fps online aswell that youre PC can handle if you dont limit your fps in the settings (most common UT3 config error related to this i think would be to not set benablesmoothframerate=false in the UtEngine.ini file. If that is set to true it will cap youre fps at the fps specified under taht setting in the ini (which can be usefull if you get like 40-60 fps and dont want fps fluctuations then set benablesmoothframerate=true and MaxSmoothedFrameRate=40.

[QUAKERxnc]

QUOTE (RypeL @ Oct 19 2009, 11:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We didnt include a framelimit. We didnt changed anything related which might be related to a framelimit from stock UT3. So if youre having a problem in that area you are basically having a problem with UT3 and some UT3 setting and not a new setting we included. Also a serverside framelimit in UT3/RenX would be new to me and i dont believe that there is such a thing. Afaik you can get any fps online aswell that youre PC can handle if you dont limit your fps in the settings (most common UT3 config error related to this i think would be to not set benablesmoothframerate=false in the UtEngine.ini file. If that is set to true it will cap youre fps at the fps specified under taht setting in the ini (which can be usefull if you get like 40-60 fps and dont want fps fluctuations then set benablesmoothframerate=true and MaxSmoothedFrameRate=40.[/b]

Its only the Server who set this limit. If i start a Server i have no limitations.

If i play singelplayer its always the same. I deaktivate this limitations in every game but only
UT, UT2003, UT3 with some over Punkbuster limitaded CoD4 servers has a Serverlimitation.

We have tested the "benablesmoothframerate=false" setting with the Server admin on http://www.Stalker-Contact.de named "Zocker325"

UtEngine.ini UTGame.ini, UTBase.ini and such stuff but without an effect.

If u guys have another idea to change it tell me.

Now i think its an Enginesetting without *.ini options.

[NodCommander]

Lucky you, im stuck at 20 on all maps but Islands which im around 10 <_

[QUAKERxnc]

Now i found it

if i write True in the *.ini´s its always reseted after Renegade start.

under Video\Advanced Options at the top of the site there is an Option named

"Frameratesmoothing" and we can aktivate it. So now u got unlimeted Framerates

But its always reseted after RenegadeX start.

It looks like the *.ini settings does nothing.

[Demigan]

For the last time: higher then 60 will have no noticable effect.

The only effect it will have is on your subconscious, which is far more powerfull then your conscious mind. It COULD see higher then those 60 frames, up to the point of seeing them independently from eachother. I think that raising it to 90 or even 125 would give some of the real game addicted players some advantage. But higher wouldn't even be seen by your subconscious, so after that, no go.

[MightyBOB]

Well, actually, they've done studies with digital clocks and people jumping off of buildings onto nets, and you can actually see stuff faster when the brain goes into a sort of hyperdrive mode (normally you wouldn't be able to see what the rapidly flashing numbers on the timers are, but during the fall you get that "time slows down" feeling people experience in moments of survival like car crashes and they can read the timers) so maybe you really can see above 60FPS if your adrenaline is really pumping. Of course it could just be subconscious. It's not exactly the same as almost getting run over.

[Mindstorm]

Theoreticly it does matter.

Suppose you have a refresh rate of 70 (your eyes).

Suppose your game fps is 100. When playing the game lets say in frame 50 a enemy will show up. In frame 49 he is not visible yet. Because each frame takes 0.01 seconds to generate you will have a lag of 0.01 second because of the frame rate. So, the higher the refresh rate of the game the faster "you" can spot the enemy. Eventho you can only see 70 frames per second, a faster refresh rates makes sure that the interval you need (for example 0.02 sec to visually see) will become smaller since the monitor will display the image faster.

Now you could say: "but people can only see a difference after 100/70 = 0.014~ second." This is only partly true because 1,:

1. Eyes do not have a refresh rate. The 50-70 is just a rough guess taking the speed eyes send signals to the brains in acountance and some other variiables;

2. Suppose your eye "refreshes" 0.0001 second after a new frame. This would mee you would have to wait 0.01 second + 0.01-0.0001 for the next frame (almost 0.02 s), if you have fot example 200 fps this would be 0.01 sec meaning you still catch the image faster.

This difference is for example 0.01 s (can be smaller/bigger), depending on the monitor refresh rate and FPS. But there is a (noticable) difference.

A lot of "pro" game players prefere high fps in combination with a 120mhz or 200 mhz screen with 0.02 s reaction time. So I suppose for some people the difference is there, even tho it's only small.

Short answer. Yes it matters, 0.01 second can make a difference.

[Demigan]

What Mightybob is referring to is stress. Stress used to be a good thing, it came up when you were in danger. All your senses would go into high boot, eyesight, smell, thinking processes would skyrocket. Stress was the driving reaction that kept you alive through a 10 mile run with a dangerous animal behind you while you had a broken leg, even today stress is something that serves a function in hostages and other situations where people will be virtual gods in quick thinking and control of their body.

However, with people stressing almost continously nowadays, your body gets exhausted (with at the end of it a burn out) and lose all the virtues of stress, but still try to maintain it.

As for Mindstorm: your eyes DO have a refreshrate. That rate is set with the speed at which your eyes can send signals to your brain. A nerve has to restore itself after each energyburts that goes through, now this restoration happens very quickly, but not so fast that you can't speak of a framerate your eyes will see. The nerves don't send signals simultaneously, so your ACTUAL picture you continously see is fractured, and with the signals of previous sendings the whole picture is build up in your brains. Even to the extend of your blind spot: If there is greenery around your blind spot and a large red and while board in the blind spot, your brains will fill in the blindspot with blurred greenery.

[Guest]

lol! this thread is hilarious.

120hz basis for any video game is absolutely usless unless your using the Nvidia 3D glasses and a samsung 120hz monitor.

Renegade X will not support these features as no sort of sdk is released for public modifications to make it work.

The human eye can only see a maximum of ~90fps, and going beyond this point is going to create a very suddle effect and in my opinion stupid use of your graphics processor to produce more then it needs to.

My rig (which consists of 2 GTX 295's, wouldn't have any type of issue at 120hz @2560x1600)

and neither would my ATI eyefinity rig have an issue at 3x2560x1600.

So let me reiterate

120hz monitors for games are usless unless you plan on purchasing the nvidia active shutter glasses.... which isnt supported by renegade x anyways

[maty]

Actually, 3D IS supported by Renegade-X.

NVidia provide 3D drivers that operate based on a pre-registered .EXE list.

As RenX uses UT3.exe, and UT3 is supported, 3D is supported.

----

FPS and refresh rates are very different.

Higher refresh rates don't make seeing things "faster", you wont see anything quicker, what a high refresh rate does is reduces motion blur, movement appears much more crisp. It reduces headaches and nausia associated with low-refresh rate CRTs.

A higher FPS results a faster display of things. A higher FPS will increase how quickly you see and therefore respond to things, a refresh rate will not.

If your FPS is higher than your refresh rate, then the advantage will be negligable. If your refresh rate is higher than your FPS, this will have a small beneficial effect. But, the higher the two values are, the better.

Your eyes aren't "limited" to a frames per second, as your brain sees a constant image. Your brain needs at least 24 frames every second to construct a smooth 1:1 video sequence without gaps (in comparison, a pigeon needs 200 - thats why they never fly away when you walk close, for them they see a lot more information per second). Although above about 60 FPS your brain wont notice any real change. All a higher-than-60-FPS will do is render more in real-time, giving a better chance of reacting faster.

Also, technically, LCD displays do not have refresh rates. They just use "refresh rate" and "Hz" as equivalent when compared to CRT. An LCD will only refresh a pixel when the pixel needs to change colour, so actually the response time (time it takes to change pixel colour) is way more important. The "refresh rate" on your PC is actually your graphic card telling the image to update and NOT your monitor itself.

---------

EDIT:

Proof you can play RenX in 3D:

http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/9218/48539725.jpg

If you have red-cyan glasses you can see it right now! I can do any colour scheme if you have different filters .

[spellman23]

QUOTE (maty @ Nov 9 2009, 04:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, 3D IS supported by Renegade-X.


NVidia provide 3D drivers that operate based on a pre-registered .EXE list.

As RenX uses UT3.exe, and UT3 is supported, 3D is supported.

EDIT:


Proof you can play RenX in 3D:

http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/9218/48539725.jpg

If you have red-cyan glasses you can see it right now! I can do any colour scheme if you have different filters .[/b]

Shiny. Too bad I don't have money to blow on a 3D system.