I run Sea of Thieves on a 240Hz monitor and I think it would be useful if the max FPS could be 240 instead of 144. I find that in most games, when I cap my FPS, my game runs better, so I feel like Sea of Thieves would run better if it were max-capped to 240Hz.
Higher FPS cap?
@foambreaker you did not research the topic very well based on the link you shared previously. The idea that “the human eye can only see up to 60 fps” is based on studies with random average people who don’t necessarily do anything where fps would benefit them. I have no doubt that my dad can’t tell the difference between 30, 60, or 120 fps. However, if you take a group of people who play fast paced games frequently, lower their fps from 120 to 60, or 60 to 30, they will absolutely be able to tell. I definitely can. Other studies have shown that fighter pilots can recognize up to 200 fps. I’d wager that a study on fast paced gamers would garner similar results.
Your 5 second google and your own inability to tell the difference does not = human eye can’t see above 60 fps. That’s absurd.
@foambreaker yeah the human eye doesnt see in fps. so this is wrong. and I agree with the OP higher caps would be nice. some of the standards would be 165, 240, etc
@foambreaker based on what you’ve said here I get the impression that this is the first time you’ve explored the topic. You’ve chosen one opinion out of countless based on a quick google. You are not up to speed on the topic. As I pointed out above there are studies that say otherwise, the one you pointed out is based on random people who could very well be as gaming savvy as your grandparents. Of course random people who don’t necessarily do anything fast on computers can’t tell the difference.
@capt-greldik said in Higher FPS cap?:
@foambreaker based on what you’ve said here I get the impression that this is the first time you’ve explored the topic.
No, it's that I am just not going to be drawn into those "flat earth" discussions.
@foambreaker no flat earth discussions but you don’t mind making absolute statements such as “human eye can’t see beyond 60 fps” without actually being knowledgeable on the subject, which you clearly aren’t.
Gotcha.
@capt-greldik @Foambreaker mods have warned you both. Now please, enough with the bickering so this post doesn’t get closed.
@capt-greldik snide aside, I’m interested in this post staying open as I don’t know much about fps capability as I play on Xbox and I have a fascination about weird facts about the human body, this post was interesting to learn something from. The bickering is unnecessary so I’m trying to break it up before the mod just closes the post for ignoring the warning.
@foambreaker this isn't how the human eye or vision works. please try and do some more research in the future.
Regarding the discussion on what the human eye can or cannot see, that's kind of irrelevant.
The reason higher refresh rates are sought after is for response time not because every frame can be perceived. It means the frames your eye does see are less likely to be delayed. Even on a lower refresh screen, it can have the benefit of the rendered frames being "newer". Though VRR can have a similar effect with frames being displayed as soon as they're rendered. So the games feel snappier to control.
That said, this is more important in highly competitive twitch shooters where reflexes make a massive difference.
Personally, I'm happy with 120hz VRR and being able to keep graphics quality up while the places where the game struggles because of poor CPU optimisation (Port Merrick, for example) don't feel like such massive drops.... But I don't see any real reason not to add higher refresh rate options for folk (unless there's some actual technical limitation within the engine), though I'd probably stay clear of uncapped framerates.
@foambreaker Please stop spreading misinformation and stating that you are using science to back your claim.
First of all the study your claiming for 60fps does not exist it was 90fps and was from a study in 1986 using changes in static images which has for a long time been debunked in not only static images, but if you have not noticed SoT is not a static image.
More recent studies have indicated that humans can detect much higher refresh rates:
The first study shows on average people can see changes at up to 500hz with some people noticing even higher while the second study recommends a minimum of 240 discussing the potential for higher.
If you have a study that argues for less than that please feel free to share it or else don't spread misinformation.
In terms of increasing FPS I think it would be a welcome change, but there may potentially be other technical limitations with unreal and fps. If you did not notice SoT has some bizarre features where certain parts of the physics engine are actually entwined with the fps, so making changes to the fps can result in unintended glitches with the physics engine. This type of problem is actually surprisingly common in a lot of game for people who did not know.
Play SOT at 60fps and then play SOT at 120fps... I'd be genuinely shocked if even the average gamer couldn't tell the difference in an hourglass battle.
It's way more apparent in other more fast paced shooters...COD, Apex, Halo, etc...it's all immediately noticable when you go from 60 to 120+
Anyone that says they can't tell the difference between 60 and 120 is not playing games where it matters.
@workablewings91
I've run at 240 fps for months now. I just run the game without a frame rate lock and have my monitor run at 240 fps in windows settings. This naturally applies a frame cap of 240 to the game.Go to Settings, [System], Display, Advanced display, Choose a refresh rate.
then uncap SoT. It should work from there but I guess I've only had experience with 240 fps on this one monitor.Though if you just want the option for those with like 300 fps monitors, I would agree. More caps won't hurt anyone.
@grumpyw01f said in Higher FPS cap?:
Though if you just want the option for those with like 300 fps monitors, I would agree. More caps won't hurt anyone.
Well that's the complicated part. FPS and the physics engine are actually linked (something surprisingly common in games) and as a result an uncapped fps can actually allow people to exploit the physics engines in weird ways.
@nitroxien said in Higher FPS cap?:
@grumpyw01f said in Higher FPS cap?:
Though if you just want the option for those with like 300 fps monitors, I would agree. More caps won't hurt anyone.
Well that's the complicated part. FPS and the physics engine are actually linked (something surprisingly common in games) and as a result an uncapped fps can actually allow people to exploit the physics engines in weird ways.
Yeah, great example in SoT is ladder launch. You won't go far without high fps.
@foambreaker I definitely can feel the difference between 60 FPS and 120 FPS. I feel a sharpness and smoothness difference in the graphics.
@foambreaker more fps means less input delay = more responsiveness. More reaction time and thus making you better player than max graphics 60fps players.
As this thread was months old and revived today, it will now be locked.
A general reminder to all, please avoid reviving threads aged past 30 days, as it is considered a necro, and is against our Forum Rules.
Bumping Threads
Bumping threads with content that is not providing additional information to the original post is not permitted. Resurrecting very old threads is also not permitted. A warning will be issued and the thread locked. Ignoring the warning will result in a temporary ban from the Forums and a final warning. If the action continues, a permanent ban from the Forums will be issued.
1 out of 27
