Rocket league 250fps solid at 1440p ?

Guys, lets keep it friendly etc! I did say i know I'm weird for caring this much but this is largely the difference between mainstream gamers and more competitive gamers (a niche in itself).

There is no bigger monitor myth than "nobody can notice the fps difference above the hz, ie 144fps / 144 hz". If you have a competitive fps gaming background in things such as quake or counterstrike then you will notice this. If you are a mainstream gamer then it is unlikely you'd notice or even care.
 
Last edited:
I concur with those that can notice FPS changes higher than the refresh rate. I can completely confirm I have consistently observed this - from CS 1.5 all the way to Unreal 4 - the difference between having FPS match the refresh rate and having FPS higher than refresh rate is certainly noticeable. I implore you to try it for yourself.
 
bobert50 said:
Guys, lets keep it friendly etc! I did say i know I'm weird for caring this much but this is largely the difference between mainstream gamers and more competitive gamers (a niche in itself).

There is no bigger monitor myth than "nobody can notice the fps difference above the hz, ie 144fps / 144 hz". If you have a competitive fps gaming background in things such as quake or counterstrike then you will notice this. If you are a mainstream gamer then it is unlikely you'd notice or even care.
Click to expand...

The higher fps in quake was due to the movement physics changing so that you could get on certain ledges/make certain jumps. You werent seeing higher frames you were reaping the benefits. How can you 'see' frames that arent rendered :|
 
This is a classic subjective ("I can feel it") vs objective ("it shouldn't be possible") argument.

The burden of proof is on the subjectivists (bobert50, shankly1985, Zefan) to do blind tests, not the other way around, because logically the monitor is already refreshing at its max rate. The trouble is if you expect one or the other you'll probably convince yourself of it, so you need to get someone else to change the settings without your knowledge, or make a little script that launches one setting or the other at random and see if you can get it right more often than someone guessing (look up ABX tests).

I can think of two explanations though. Maybe the way the FPS is capped is suboptimal and introduces extra lag. Or maybe the monitor has quite a long refresh interval so multiple frames arrive on the buffer within a single refresh period, resulting in multiple tears but more fluid motion. (The latter is similar to one of the answers in the link below, you could use a fast camera to try and capture it.)

http://superuser.com/questions/3391...ving-fps-higher-than-the-monitor-refresh-rate
 
Last edited:
Zefan said:
I concur with those that can notice FPS changes higher than the refresh rate. I can completely confirm I have consistently observed this - from CS 1.5 all the way to Unreal 4 - the difference between having FPS match the refresh rate and having FPS higher than refresh rate is certainly noticeable. I implore you to try it for yourself.
Click to expand...


This.

Go try it for yourself before saying running a game above the refresh rate of your monitor is a waste of time :p

Granted, it'll make no difference to you in Fallout 4 or WoW, but COD4, CS - yes, and it'll be hugely noticeable etc.
 
jubei said:
The higher fps in quake was due to the movement physics changing so that you could get on certain ledges/make certain jumps. You werent seeing higher frames you were reaping the benefits. How can you 'see' frames that arent rendered :|
Click to expand...

Just a few questions...

Did people many many years ago during the initial quakeworld era cap their fps to the limit of their CRT monitor hz?

Did people in early 00's leave their fps at 60 when playing games such as unreal 2003? Even if their monitors were 99% only 60hz ? :)

Why did quakelive move last year to 250fps from 125fps when no 250hz monitors exist?

Why does pretty much every single even remotely serious counterstrike player cap their fps at 300fps?

Why did the makers of Rocket League recently finally increase the fps cap to 250fps? Despite even known camera issues? Do you think it might have been because people were starting to modify it themselves because above 60 feels much nicer to them? Even if on only 60hz monitors?

Is it possible that the earth is actually round? and not actually flat at all?! :eek: Is that real air you are breathing?! (c) morpheus

Ok ok i'll stop now :o
 
Last edited:
To echo what has already been touched on, personally I can notice a difference in feel when running above refresh rates in certain games. This feeling, though, is nothing to do with what you can physically see or observe with regards to FPS. The game doesn't look any more fluid at 250FPS than 144FPS. What does change is how the game engine manages the additional frames and what this additional "time" allows you to achieve in engine. The example of Quake above is perfect - the additional frame renders, although not visible to the user, will allow you to reach certain ledges / jumps with more consistent accuracy due to the refresh time. The same thing does apply to Rocket League. You usually aren't seeing anything different, however the game will feel different and allow you to apply more precision to movement.

@OP, with regards to DSR, there should be an option in the Geforce Experience control panel to set the DSR you want, rather than having to use a scale. The image quality isn't the same as native resolutions, but if you're aiming for maximum FPS then this will be the easiest way to test. I would imagine that you would need to change GPU to achieve what you're after. My i5 2500k and 970 certainly wouldn't be able to hold that FPS.
 
bobert50 said:
Just a few questions...

Did people many many years ago during the initial quakeworld era cap their fps to the limit of their CRT monitor hz?

Did people in early 00's leave their fps at 60 when playing games such as unreal 2003? Even if their monitors were 99% only 60hz ? :)

Why did quakelive move last year to 250fps from 125fps when no 250hz monitors exist?

Why does pretty much every single even remotely serious counterstrike player cap their fps at 300fps?

Why did the makers of Rocket League recently finally increase the fps cap to 250fps? Despite even known camera issues? Do you think it might have been because people were starting to modify it themselves because above 60 feels much nicer to them? Even if on only 60hz monitors?

Is it possible that the earth is actually round? and not actually flat at all?! :eek: Is that real air you are breathing?! (c) morpheus

Ok ok i'll stop now :o
Click to expand...

If you read my comment you would see that i pointed out that quake physics are affected by the fps, i was around during all those times having played quake since barrysworld days. I had to switch between different fps for different styles of jump in quake 2, and yes people capped fps at 120-125 in quake 3.....Briefly they changed to 333 for some small time but since went back and again it was due to movement. You look at any pro config in quake 3/live and you will see maxfps set to 125.

As for cs, it was built on top of the quake engine, so though i never got into cs being a quake player (its too slow) i imagine it had a similar effect for jumping on crates or bunny hopping.

As i say, if the game engine has nuances that require higher fps it can make a difference to the gameplay, but regardless of that you cant 'see' the change in fps.
 
joeyjojo said:
This is a classic subjective ("I can feel it") vs objective ("it shouldn't be possible") argument.

The burden of proof is on the subjectivists (bobert50, shankly1985, Zefan) to do blind tests, not the other way around, because logically the monitor is already refreshing at its max rate.
Click to expand...

It's actually not on us to prove it, as what we're arguing isn't at all beyond belief. If people don't think it's possible, it's because they're misunderstanding either the argument or how monitors refresh. I put it to you that, in fact, it is on the sceptics to educate themselves as to how partial frame refreshes effect the feeling of fluid and rapid reaction to input in games. The burden of proof should not lie with us based purely on the knowledge shortfall in the opposing party.

A 60hz monitor can refresh 60 full frames every second, but it can refresh a much, much larger number of partial frames per second. This contributes enormously to the feeling of fluidity and as a result the precision of player input. You cover this later in your post, and you're spot on. It's nothing at all to do with being able to "see" it better, it's that things on the screen react more quickly to input.
 
bJN said:
To echo what has already been touched on, personally I can notice a difference in feel when running above refresh rates in certain games. This feeling, though, is nothing to do with what you can physically see or observe with regards to FPS. The game doesn't look any more fluid at 250FPS than 144FPS. What does change is how the game engine manages the additional frames and what this additional "time" allows you to achieve in engine. The example of Quake above is perfect - the additional frame renders, although not visible to the user, will allow you to reach certain ledges / jumps with more consistent accuracy due to the refresh time. The same thing does apply to Rocket League. You usually aren't seeing anything different, however the game will feel different and allow you to apply more precision to movement.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that explanation. That explains it perfectly and thats coming from somebody that thought that going over your monitors refresh rate was pointless.
 
However, I don't believe its what bJN is saying completely, as that doesn't explain what most serious fps gamers experience. They can literally feel it VERY obviously (like myself). It is absolutely 100% not just to enable people to jump further like you found when quake 3 got that 333fps unlock from 120fps for example, where people could jump miles further as a result (until it got fixed).

I don't know for sure if i'm seeing the extra frames but I am certainly seeing an illusion of very noticable additional smoothness a long way beyond 144fps on 144hz in any fps shooter or rocket league, like others have also said. I just cannot imagine anyone who plays rocket league on 60hz that wouldn't benefit hugely from setting their fps for example to 150fps. It would surely feel better and they would surely play much better on it too, as 60fps feels pretty dreadful by comparison. You'd certainly not want to go back to it after trying higher anyway! or at least I couldn't imagine so.

The main reason I am posting though is to answer my own question now that I've tried the DSR thing to test 1440p, just in case anyone else reading this at a later time and searching would like to know the outcome! There is no way i'll consistently be holding above about 130fps on 2600k+970 @ 1440p in RL, so on 1080p I shall remain! :)
 
Last edited:
Zefan said:
You cover this later in your post, and you're spot on. It's nothing at all to do with being able to "see" it better, it's that things on the screen react more quickly to input.
Click to expand...

Could be. Or it could be the first reason I wrote - that it's the capping or vsync introducing lag which is what's felt, not the lower FPS.

You tried triple buffering for comparison? bobert50?

For anyone interested, a couple of links:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2803/6
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2794/3

bobert50 said:
The main reason I am posting though is to answer my own question now that I've tried the DSR thing to test 1440p, just in case anyone else reading this at a later time and searching would like to know the outcome! There is no way i'll consistently be holding above about 130fps on 2600k+970 @ 1440p in RL, so on 1080p I shall remain! :)
Click to expand...

Sorry for the OT, glad you're sorted. You didn't mention which monitors you were comparing but it would be worth checking input lag measurements in future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom