The B*tch & Moan Thread (Part 3)

[needforsuv]

3 hours ago, Edward85 said:

30fps is plenty for single

I disagree

60 should be the target

[Edward85]

3 minutes ago, needforsuv said:

I disagree

60 should be the target

now, with better hardware, sure, but it was 30 for 25+ years and no one complained

[needforsuv]

13 minutes ago, Edward85 said:

now, with better hardware, sure, but it was 30 for 25+ years and no one complained

Yeah, but once you got 60fps theres no reason to go back

I started 60fps with a GTX560 in 2012 and since then 60 has been a target for sure.

No reason to gimp your fps on purpose for more visual niceness.

PS2 games at 60fps is the bomb too

 

ALSO, it wasn't nobody complained, I'm sure people used to/loving 60interlaced frame tv would've loved more fps in their games

 

not hd has also been 'fine' for 25+ years, but do you see people choosing CP2077 on OG ps4 over better consoles? nope!

Edited April 17, 2022 by needforsuv

[Edward85]

8 minutes ago, needforsuv said:

No reason to gimp your fps on purpose for more visual niceness

I WHOLEHEARTEDLY disagree, I am all about graphics, the ONLY game I go for FPS over graphics is Call of Duty, I don't play any twitch shooters or anything like that but I'm sure I would also go for frames in those, but for ANY single player game I go for ultra graphics, even if I only get 30 fps, because 30 is fine for ANY single player game, and now that physics isn't tied to fps in GTA Online I don't even care about 60 in Online

[VitoCorleone1992]

I'm from the opinion that you dont need more fps's than your human eye/brain is capable of process.

[Edward85]

33 minutes ago, VitoCorleone1992 said:

I'm from the opinion that you dont need more fps's than your human eye/brain is capable of process.

it's... a bit more complicated than that, we can perceive differences above 24hz, we actually see differences in movement above 200hz but we don't see "flicker" in light above 90hz, but even more important than hz is stability, part of the reason I target 30 in some games (I don't have a 3080, only a 3050) is because sure I might be able to get between 40 and 60 fps it won't be stable, if the frame time is stable you will barely notice a difference, the most noticed difference is when panning fast and even then it's only at the edge of the screen, which is part of the reason games have motion blur, to blend any perceived motion when panning fast

Edited April 17, 2022 by Edward85

[Lord Bizkit]

I could care less, as long as I'm not around the casino (where it would probably drop to 10 FPS); I'm good homie.

[needforsuv]

46 minutes ago, Edward85 said:

and now that physics isn't tied to fps in GTA Online

Only because they did a boggy fps cap on physics. I bet you the pc version will still be tied to at least 60fps on pc

I prefer to have FPS headroom than not, but I did enable 2/1 res scaling for GTAV despite it now maxing out my 1080ti in cases when I upgraded from a 980ti, but only because GTA has that terrible dithering. Engine/cpu usage limitations means I wasn't exactly not getting fps dips even with 1/2 res scaling, so until I get a cpu/mobo upgrade, this'll do.

 

20 minutes ago, Edward85 said:

stability, part of the reason I target

Even locked 30 isn't that nice.

There's gsync/freesync for making varying fps pace much better, especially with the RTX20xx / GTX16xx onwards which has compatibility problems with the things I run older drivers on the 1080ti which doesn't include g-freesync for anyway.

 

20 minutes ago, Edward85 said:

only a 3050

 

Won't be getting 30fps solid much longer lol with those pixel and texture fillrates or with any RT on

Honestly, even my 2014 laptop manages more than 30fps in games (NFSHeat) where it's below the minimum system requirements except maybe watchdogs 2
 

 

46 minutes ago, Edward85 said:

but for ANY single player game

Not even RCT would be fine at 30fps.

120hz flicker would still be noticable depending on the intensity curve



But back on topic: I argee the ESRB re-rating, along with the business as usual steam branch updates do indicate PC will be getting new stuff.

 

 

  

3 minutes ago, Brian X said:

I could care less, as long as I'm not around the casino (where it would probably drop to 10 FPS); I'm good homie.

You should see cayo, my fps goes from like 10 to 60 depending on where I am and where I look.

Edited April 17, 2022 by needforsuv

[Edward85]

15 minutes ago, needforsuv said:

Only because they did a boggy fps cap on physics. I bet you the pc version will still be tied to at least 60fps on pc

why? if we are getting the same upgrades why would they tie physics to fps? and it's not tied to 30, and was never tied to 60, it was just tied to the framerate, faster made faster, now it isn't tied at all, which is a good thing

 

16 minutes ago, needforsuv said:

Even locked 30 isn't that nice.

disagree

 

17 minutes ago, needforsuv said:

Honestly, even my 2014 laptop manages more than 30fps in games (NFSHeat) where it's below the minimum system requirements except maybe watchdogs 2

at what settings? as I said, I try to get the best settings possible

 

17 minutes ago, needforsuv said:

Not even RCT would be fine at 30fps.

I disagree

[needforsuv]

47 minutes ago, Edward85 said:

and it's not tied to 30

it is if it's the same as running 30 fps

 

47 minutes ago, Edward85 said:

now it isn't tied at all,

it is, at 30 for the ps5/xbs versions

gta v runs nicely at 60fps. Capping the physics to 30 is silly. Yeah sure, having 100-200fps people go supersonic would be stupid, but no reason to bonk physics down to 30 fps when it will probably cause problems on pc with unlocked framerates.

 

47 minutes ago, Edward85 said:

at what settings? as I said, I try to get the best settings possible

not bare minimum at less than HD, surprisingly. And bro, I like my games to have lifelike motion.

GTAV is decent enough visually past high. Any newer games would raise the baseline and more fps for headroom is better than dropping below 30fps if you target 30.

 

47 minutes ago, Edward85 said:

I disagree

Even a potato would run RCT at 60 tho, if you're talking about the first 3.
 

30fps is so 20 years ago. When given the option, smoother wins out. Personally, 1080p is more than enough (with good aa/rasterisation), and the horsepower headroom should be used to power more fps instead of res/settings.

Sure, have your fancy reflections that wasn't possible 10 years ago, but I feel RT in general could be passed for most things. Games already look nice enough since 10 years ago. But having fps where it was 20/30 years ago? No thank you! Especially with high polling rate mice and stuff like that. It'd be like saying many minute (more than 2) load times are fine because they have been.

If I wanted to feel like I was watching a movie, I'd watch a movie.

If I want to feel immersed, more fps is for sure.

 

I've only even been used to gaming on PC, so unlocked fps above 30 has more or less always been there for me. And racing games for sure are better at 60fps. I just haven't had a game where I'd find 30fps to be fine where 60 is a real possibility, not even very simple stuff because not even flash was limited to 30fps. If my desktop is 60fps, then games should run as close to that as possible.

Point is, 60fps should be the standard since it's just such a joy, and if one decides to run higher settings at 30, the physics should still feel as smooth even if the fps isn't. 30 only made sense as a cap for PS5/XBS because that was the default, less stuff to change option. And the smoke and other animations are all weird because of that.

 

 

Edited April 17, 2022 by needforsuv

[Quinn_flower]

60fps??? and here i thought 144 was the normal 

[needforsuv]

26 minutes ago, Quinn_flower said:

60fps??? and here i thought 144 was the normal 

144 is nice... but too much to give up and need too much power for most games not made before 2012 or so (Dirt 3 barely gets 144 with my 1080ti  old 980ti) and overcranked res on 1080p at 60 is better imo.


If you target 60, at least you know the dips won't be as slideshow-y. PS4/XB1 originally did 30 fps with gta v, now it's like 15 online. Of course, if you throw away enough frames, you could get maybe a solid 30, but open world games will always be a wildcard when things get wild.

In gta stunt races or adversary modes without much city or shadowing props, etc. you will naturally get more fps than you do in the city to begin with.

Edited April 17, 2022 by needforsuv

[VitoCorleone1992]

2 hours ago, Edward85 said:

it's... a bit more complicated than that, we can perceive differences above 24hz, we actually see differences in movement above 200hz but we don't see "flicker" in light above 90hz, but even more important than hz is stability, part of the reason I target 30 in some games (I don't have a 3080, only a 3050) is because sure I might be able to get between 40 and 60 fps it won't be stable, if the frame time is stable you will barely notice a difference, the most noticed difference is when panning fast and even then it's only at the edge of the screen, which is part of the reason games have motion blur, to blend any perceived motion when panning fast

GTA San Andreas did that with vehicle, the effect was cool, but not always you would be able to control the vehicle you were driving.

 

Also, does that motion blur was the cause to be so present in GTA 3? The cutscens were very blurish, the ones that have quick movement like the bank heist escape.

[Alpha 1122]

On 4/16/2022 at 7:57 AM, Tez2 said:

https://www.esrb.org/ratings/38445/Grand+Theft+Auto+V/

 

GTAV is rated for PC, PS5 and Xbox Series. Not surprising, but interesting nonetheless.

Can someone plz help me with this? But my question how long after did we get the official announcement from Rockstar themselves when we first saw for GTA Trilogy Ratings? I just wanted to know the time frame? 

[Zapper]

Around 90-100fps is a good mark for balancing both graphics and performance for moden visually intensive AAA titles on PC. And DLSS, upcoming FSR 2.0, XeSS will become more and more important for obtaining acceptable performance in RT intensive titles. FSR should be a godsend for console audiences too for mid-late gen titles. I wouldn't even bother with 30fps unless that was only way to play something I really want to, like RDR2 before it came out on PC. 

 

Rockstar is already using FSR in GTA V's performance mode for current gen versions so very likely they'll keep on using it in VI too. That bodes well for a potential 60fps mode even if it runs at a lower internal resolution.

[Mexicola9302]

58 minutes ago, Zapper said:

Around 90-100fps is a good mark for balancing both graphics and performance for moden visually intensive AAA titles on PC. And DLSS, upcoming FSR 2.0, XeSS will become more and more important for obtaining acceptable performance in RT intensive titles. FSR should be a godsend for console audiences too for mid-late gen titles. I wouldn't even bother with 30fps unless that was only way to play something I really want to, like RDR2 before it came out on PC. 

 

Rockstar is already using FSR in GTA V's performance mode for current gen versions so very likely they'll keep on using it in VI too. That bodes well for a potential 60fps mode even if it runs at a lower internal resolution.

I never heard of XeSS thanks for that. It looks pretty good.

 

Edited April 17, 2022 by Mexicola9302

[needforsuv]

1 hour ago, Zapper said:

unless that was only way to play something I really want to, like RDR2

I waited for gta on pc just because I would not play gta with a controller

I did play NFS the run at 30fps just because the 60fps exe did not have the unlocked vehicles I want, but fb is meh with racing IMO. handling always feels off.

 

 

49 minutes ago, Mexicola9302 said:

It looks pretty good.

as long as it doesn't have as bad artifacts as the current ps5 gtav TAA does.
Maybe it'll actually run better than gta's 2/1 res scaling on my 1080ti. Either that or maybe fsr?

Gta since IV has terrible rasterisation at native res. Only way to reduce dithering is increase res or res scaling because V mouse is tied to res, increasing res messes up the mouse input speed.

Edited April 17, 2022 by needforsuv

[Big Molio]

Still nobody in the race lobbies 

[Malibu Club]

7 hours ago, VitoCorleone1992 said:

I'm from the opinion that you dont need more fps's than your human eye/brain is capable of process.

You're gonna need more fps if you want to be competitive in an online game. A bullet on a screen getting 152 fps is going to hit you faster than your 32 fps bullet will hit your opponent.

[Spider-Vice]

I'm not sure why the DLC Speculation Topic is becoming arguments about PC graphics settings or what you prefer or not.

[Mexicola9302]

Well there isn't much to speculate about anymore. We all want a map expansion, but that's not gonna happen, PC players are still waiting for the new content, the next contract is probably Rosalia etc. it's always the same. So why not talk about a bit of offtopic things.

 

I mean at least it's still about gaming and not politics or some sh*t.

[Zapper]

I wonder how much smoother GTA+ will feel like at 140+fps when E&E finally comes to PC.

Edited April 17, 2022 by Zapper

[rollschuh2282]

12 hours ago, Edward85 said:

just lower some of the other settings, also this 60 fps thing is nuts to me, 30 fps has been fine for 25+ years and now all of a sudden anything under 60fps is unplayable, the ONLY games that need high FPS are competitive online games, especially twitch shooters, and yeah, if you PvP only maybe you'd like a few more frames, me I go for frames over graphics in COD only, any other game and I go for graphics of frames, 30fps is plenty for single player games and casual online experiences

with a 3080 you should be able to run almost any game from the last 15 years on ultra at a solid 30+ frames, one caveat, that's at 1080p, maybe 1440 for some games, 4k is also not necessary, though I'm sure there's also plenty of games that would run at 30+fps 4k ultra

oh trust me...i was in the same boat when i had a toaster laptop...and could only play V at 30 fps...but once i got my PC...boy...i NEVER WANT TO GO BACK!
it´s sooo much more enjoyable.
30 fps now looks choppy to me.
and...slow.
i can´t explain it.
but i take 60fps over graphics any day.
 

[Spider-Vice]

I have a 144hz monitor and going back to 60 FPS is VERY noticeable for me. Lol, it feels choppier in comparison. My 2nd monitor is 75hz and the difference between both is HUGE on the desktop for me, it's one of those things you really may not know until you experience it.

Regardless, I'm still not sure why this discussion is being had, it's gonna be a 2010-styled dead-end with arguments about frame rate and eyes and preference probably lol.

 

27 minutes ago, Zapper said:

I wonder how much smoother GTA+ will feel like at 140+fps when E&E finally comes to PC.

You joke about GTA+, but they did fix the issues with vehicle speed being tied to frame rate in the current-gen console versions, and that would be a great improvement on PC too. That also means HSW stuff is probably not gonna be hypersonic at 120 FPS  

[needforsuv]

14 minutes ago, Spider-Vice said:

My 2nd monitor is 75hz and the difference between both is HUGE on the desktop for me

to be fair, at least with windows 7, having one 144hz monitor and one running 60 makes the animations and stuff choppier if you have windows spanning monitors, much more so than if both were on 60.

In my experience, Windows doesn't like mixed refresh rate monitors, the animation and UI gets mega confused.

 

  

14 minutes ago, Spider-Vice said:

but they did fix the issues with vehicle speed being tied to frame rate in the current-gen console versions, and that would be a great improvement on PC too.

I don't agree. Having physics stuck at 30fps will be a downgrade and make it less smooth.

I doubt the 'fix' is one that'll come to pc.

 

They might limit the physic fps instead of it being upcapped at this point, or at least how much the suspension can move, but when they said speed improvements across they board they clearly were having a laugh because everything not HSW is slower than it would be on pc, especially the pariah which is still faster than a 811.

Edited April 17, 2022 by needforsuv

[rollschuh2282]

18 minutes ago, Spider-Vice said:

You joke about GTA+, but they did fix the issues with vehicle speed being tied to frame rate in the current-gen console versions, and that would be a great improvement on PC too. That also means HSW stuff is probably not gonna be hypersonic at 120 FPS  

the thing i like is how cloth physics on vehicles won´t freak out like a massive tornado is about to drop lol.
i can´t wait for it to drop on PC, then i can finally drive them without the cloth freaking out like hell haha

 

[Zapper]

14 minutes ago, Spider-Vice said:

You joke about GTA+, but they did fix the issues with vehicle speed being tied to frame rate in the current-gen console versions, and that would be a great improvement on PC too. That also means HSW stuff is probably not gonna be hypersonic at 120 FPS  

That's why I made that joke. Just got around to watch a YT video on the fps v vehicle speed.

Not gonna lie, that is actually a huge improvement in these new versions. I guess it couldn't have been very easy to decouple the frame rate from vehicle speeds either. I didn't think they'd ever fix it in this game tbh.

[Spider-Vice]

14 minutes ago, needforsuv said:

I don't agree. Having physics stuck at 30fps will be a downgrade and make it less smooth.

what. That's literally how it's designed, game systems should never ever be attached to frame rate, that's not how physics engines or math calculations (in this case for vehicle handling) are supposed to work. All proper physics engines have a fixed designed tick rate.

 

Not just physics engines - RDR2 on PC had a huge issue where cores depleted way too fast because of high frame rates, it was then fixed. Nothing should be tied to frame rate, it's easier from a programming standpoint and is a mistake/time saving measure many console-centric game devs make, but it can cause problems. This is why many old games also start running like crazy at higher frame rates when you unlock them. The original trilogy GTA's are nigh on unplayable at high FPS because of this, issues with vehicle physics, character suddenly dying when climbing fences due to bad collision detection, etc.

 

That logic, to simplify it tremendously, is like saying Minecraft furnaces, block breaking, etc should be faster just because you're running at 300 FPS. Spoiler alert, it's not, because that's not how it's supposed to work. Blocks break at the same speed at 30 or 100 FPS, furnaces cook your food at the same speed at 30 or 100 FPS. Because there is a fixed tick rate, and this is what's optimal as it is how it's designed. A game's tick rate should never be influenced by frame rate.

[rollschuh2282]

9 minutes ago, needforsuv said:

I don't agree. Having physics stuck at 30fps will be a downgrade and make it less smooth.

ok, go play the original trilogy games (not DE) and play at 60 fps or higher and tell us how much of a upgrade it is being able to be thrown across the street bc you run over a incline, or dying in SA when you climb over some small walls.

[Spider-Vice]

17 minutes ago, needforsuv said:

In my experience, Windows doesn't like mixed refresh rate monitors, the animation and UI gets mega confused.

 

No issues on Windows 10. Everything animates and runs smoothly on my 144hz monitor even having my 75hz monitor connected.