Maintenance for the week of May 18:
• NA megaservers for maintenance – May 18, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EDT (13:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – May 18, 8:00 UTC (4:00AM EDT) - 13:00 UTC (9:00AM EDT)
• NA megaservers for maintenance – May 18, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EDT (13:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – May 18, 8:00 UTC (4:00AM EDT) - 13:00 UTC (9:00AM EDT)
Plz fix FPS
-
zivak.zivakeb17_ESO wrote: »zivak.zivakeb17_ESO wrote: »zivak.zivakeb17_ESO wrote: »
But I'm not losing any frames like you are.
60Hz is a standard, so I don't see why should I loose any more or less frames...
Also, if there is no FPS fluctuation, the frame should linger for at least 2 monitors refresh cycles, so I dont see why should I or anyone else loose any frames at all...
The point with the HDTVs is often made because typically they operate on 30Hz...
Did you know that 60Hz means the picture is only changing 30 times per second?
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/refresh-rate1.htm
Any yet you are claiming that you notice a difference, but your monitor is only delivering 30fps max. Wow. Take placebos much?
And that is the difference between standard LCD monitor and interlaced television technology...
If you only took the time to read and understand your own source links
How did what you say make any sense? I was talking about interlaced.
Well, basically that is the TV technology - not used by laptop or PC monitors, so unless you are assuming I play on a TV...
And even interlaced technically displays 60 frames per second... As I said, read your own link...
Well, I'm looking for more information about progressive 60Hz and frame rates, and it appears they are not tied together, but you are so quick to criticize that I think you should provide some source links about things you are saying. From all the information I have read, higher fps makes animation look better, but standard movies are 24fps, so it is far from unplayable. So no matter what you were trying to prove, my original statement was that 25fps is not unplayable, and if you think that is not true, then you provide some proof, because I play the game at 25fps and it looks fine.
Here's a good description of refresh rate:
http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_7.html
"If your FPS is higher than your refresh rate at any time, your monitor will not actually be able to display all of these frames, and some will come out with a graphical glitch known as Tearing."
Literally the first paragraph of the first link I posted explains it...
In your last paragraph you are talking about your GPU processing the frames faster then your monitor is able to display (I talked about it already)
Standard PC monitor works at 60hz (60 refresh cycles per second) PC games do not have native motion blur, since the stuff is rendered, not captured - hence you need higher FPS to get the illusion of fluid movement - as opposed to TV or Movies.
You can add the motion blur (per object) to rendered (videogame) scene, but it would cost too much computing power, so it is easier to just use that power to render more frames...
TLDR: I already provided a link at the start of this discussion, for a rendered scene to appear fluid, you need higher FPS then for a movieEdited by zivak.zivakeb17_ESO on July 31, 2014 3:18AM2 -
Audigy✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭GamerzElite wrote: »DaedricCheese wrote: »You could blame the lighting engine they made for 1.2.4, or your PC if it's getting old already.
BTW i love the way you named Customer support as Crowd Control.
U mean AMD FX 8350 with R9 290x can't handle ESO.....
Correct. Your problem isn't the AMD GPU but the CPU. I run a 280x and an i5, no FPS issues here.
While 40-50 FPS are not what I would expect either from my system, its absolutely fine.
You can either wait for a multi core fix or you upgrade - personally I would just wait, ZO must be aware of those issues after all they are in the game since Beta.
As a temporary fix try to OC your CPU, run the windows core fix and check your temperatures.2 -
A good FPS guide:
http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_5.html
A quote from your link which I btw read about 7 years ago while tweaking oblivion:
"Game Type: For games which have a lot of fast motion and hectic action, particularly deathmatch-style first person shooters like Team Fortress 2, Counter-Strike or the Battlefield series, higher minimum framerates may be required (e.g. a minium of 40FPS) to make things feel sufficiently smooth and responsive. This is in part because the large amount of fast action means that the content of each individual frame is noticeably different from the previous one, so low FPS is much more noticeable in such games. Conversely, games which are much slower in pace such as RTS or RPG games can get away with lower minimum framerates. As an extreme example, if you were staring at a wall in a game, you could go down to 5 or even 1 FPS and not notice any difference. So the speed of gameplay impacts on the perception of smoothness and hence alters the minimum FPS requirement."
Now is ESO closer to a shooter or an RTS or RPG game?
Now I know ESO is technically an RPG, but it has an FPS control scheme and rendering-wise it is certainly closer to counterstrike then to baldur's gate or diabloEdited by zivak.zivakeb17_ESO on July 31, 2014 3:36AM2 -
SFBryan18✭✭✭✭✭
✭zivak.zivakeb17_ESO wrote: »A good FPS guide:
http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_5.html
A quote from your link which I btw read about 7 years ago while tweaking oblivion:
"Game Type: For games which have a lot of fast motion and hectic action, particularly deathmatch-style first person shooters like Team Fortress 2, Counter-Strike or the Battlefield series, higher minimum framerates may be required (e.g. a minium of 40FPS) to make things feel sufficiently smooth and responsive. This is in part because the large amount of fast action means that the content of each individual frame is noticeably different from the previous one, so low FPS is much more noticeable in such games. Conversely, games which are much slower in pace such as RTS or RPG games can get away with lower minimum framerates. As an extreme example, if you were staring at a wall in a game, you could go down to 5 or even 1 FPS and not notice any difference. So the speed of gameplay impacts on the perception of smoothness and hence alters the minimum FPS requirement."
Now is ESO closer to a shooter or an RTS game?
I would say it is an MMORPG with not a lot of quick action, so yea...
And I read the link you posted. It asked several questions, but never concluded what a good fps is.3 -
zivak.zivakeb17_ESO wrote: »A good FPS guide:
http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_5.html
A quote from your link which I btw read about 7 years ago while tweaking oblivion:
"Game Type: For games which have a lot of fast motion and hectic action, particularly deathmatch-style first person shooters like Team Fortress 2, Counter-Strike or the Battlefield series, higher minimum framerates may be required (e.g. a minium of 40FPS) to make things feel sufficiently smooth and responsive. This is in part because the large amount of fast action means that the content of each individual frame is noticeably different from the previous one, so low FPS is much more noticeable in such games. Conversely, games which are much slower in pace such as RTS or RPG games can get away with lower minimum framerates. As an extreme example, if you were staring at a wall in a game, you could go down to 5 or even 1 FPS and not notice any difference. So the speed of gameplay impacts on the perception of smoothness and hence alters the minimum FPS requirement."
Now is ESO closer to a shooter or an RTS game?
I would say it is an MMORPG with not a lot of quick action, so yea...
And I read the link you posted. It asked several questions, but never concluded what a good fps is.
The link explains why 24FPS is enough for a movie and not for a videogame (motion blur) ...
And if while playing ESO there is not a lot of quick action and the scene is not changing much, I understand why 25FPS is enough and 13FPS is still playable to you... You must be staring at the auction all day...
Edited by zivak.zivakeb17_ESO on July 31, 2014 3:43AM3 -
SFBryan18✭✭✭✭✭
✭zivak.zivakeb17_ESO wrote: »zivak.zivakeb17_ESO wrote: »A good FPS guide:
http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_5.html
A quote from your link which I btw read about 7 years ago while tweaking oblivion:
"Game Type: For games which have a lot of fast motion and hectic action, particularly deathmatch-style first person shooters like Team Fortress 2, Counter-Strike or the Battlefield series, higher minimum framerates may be required (e.g. a minium of 40FPS) to make things feel sufficiently smooth and responsive. This is in part because the large amount of fast action means that the content of each individual frame is noticeably different from the previous one, so low FPS is much more noticeable in such games. Conversely, games which are much slower in pace such as RTS or RPG games can get away with lower minimum framerates. As an extreme example, if you were staring at a wall in a game, you could go down to 5 or even 1 FPS and not notice any difference. So the speed of gameplay impacts on the perception of smoothness and hence alters the minimum FPS requirement."
Now is ESO closer to a shooter or an RTS game?
I would say it is an MMORPG with not a lot of quick action, so yea...
And I read the link you posted. It asked several questions, but never concluded what a good fps is.
The link explains why 24FPS is enough for a movie and not for a videogame (motion blur) ...
And if while playing ESO there is not much of action and the scene is not changing much, I understand why 25FPS is enough and 13FPS is still playable to you... You must be staring at the auction all day...
Here's the conclusion from the link I posted:
"So to come back to the question of how many FPS is enough, in my experience, and for most practical purposes, a framerate of around 60 FPS is completely sufficient as a maximum FPS. Even 25 or 30FPS can be totally sufficient in slow or medium-paced games - particularly if the game has motion blur, softer edges, and does not display significant variability or stuttering. "
Exactly what I was saying about how my computer delivers a flawless picture so frame rate is not as big an issue for me. And my tests were done out in the trees of Glenumbra during the rain when I would hit the low points. I would run around and see the difference, one place in particular has a huge fps hit if you leave Daggerfall and run south to the first Wayshrine, keep going and there will be a pond at the bottome of a path. The lows are noticeable, but not unplayable.Edited by SFBryan18 on July 31, 2014 3:51AM3 -
zivak.zivakeb17_ESO wrote: »zivak.zivakeb17_ESO wrote: »A good FPS guide:
http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_5.html
A quote from your link which I btw read about 7 years ago while tweaking oblivion:
"Game Type: For games which have a lot of fast motion and hectic action, particularly deathmatch-style first person shooters like Team Fortress 2, Counter-Strike or the Battlefield series, higher minimum framerates may be required (e.g. a minium of 40FPS) to make things feel sufficiently smooth and responsive. This is in part because the large amount of fast action means that the content of each individual frame is noticeably different from the previous one, so low FPS is much more noticeable in such games. Conversely, games which are much slower in pace such as RTS or RPG games can get away with lower minimum framerates. As an extreme example, if you were staring at a wall in a game, you could go down to 5 or even 1 FPS and not notice any difference. So the speed of gameplay impacts on the perception of smoothness and hence alters the minimum FPS requirement."
Now is ESO closer to a shooter or an RTS game?
I would say it is an MMORPG with not a lot of quick action, so yea...
And I read the link you posted. It asked several questions, but never concluded what a good fps is.
The link explains why 24FPS is enough for a movie and not for a videogame (motion blur) ...
And if while playing ESO there is not much of action and the scene is not changing much, I understand why 25FPS is enough and 13FPS is still playable to you... You must be staring at the auction all day...
Here's the conclusion from the link I posted:
"So to come back to the question of how many FPS is enough, in my experience, and for most practical purposes, a framerate of around 60 FPS is completely sufficient as a maximum FPS. Even 25 or 30FPS can be totally sufficient in slow or medium-paced games - particularly if the game has motion blur, softer edges, and does not display significant variability or stuttering. "
Exactly what I was saying about how my computer delivers a flawless picture so frame rate is not as big an issue for me. And my tests were done out in the trees of Glenumbra during the rain when I would hit the low points. I would run around and see the difference. The lows are noticeable, but not unplayable.
Except ESO is not a slow or medium paced game - the scene is changing drastically with every sweep of the mouse (as opposed to slow or medium paced games like RTS),
Also it has no per-object motion blur (meaning if you stand completely still and someone runs towards you, he is not blurred) or post processed full scene motion blur (blurring of the scene as you move your view)Edited by zivak.zivakeb17_ESO on July 31, 2014 3:54AM2 -
SFBryan18✭✭✭✭✭
✭zivak.zivakeb17_ESO wrote: »zivak.zivakeb17_ESO wrote: »zivak.zivakeb17_ESO wrote: »A good FPS guide:
http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_5.html
A quote from your link which I btw read about 7 years ago while tweaking oblivion:
"Game Type: For games which have a lot of fast motion and hectic action, particularly deathmatch-style first person shooters like Team Fortress 2, Counter-Strike or the Battlefield series, higher minimum framerates may be required (e.g. a minium of 40FPS) to make things feel sufficiently smooth and responsive. This is in part because the large amount of fast action means that the content of each individual frame is noticeably different from the previous one, so low FPS is much more noticeable in such games. Conversely, games which are much slower in pace such as RTS or RPG games can get away with lower minimum framerates. As an extreme example, if you were staring at a wall in a game, you could go down to 5 or even 1 FPS and not notice any difference. So the speed of gameplay impacts on the perception of smoothness and hence alters the minimum FPS requirement."
Now is ESO closer to a shooter or an RTS game?
I would say it is an MMORPG with not a lot of quick action, so yea...
And I read the link you posted. It asked several questions, but never concluded what a good fps is.
The link explains why 24FPS is enough for a movie and not for a videogame (motion blur) ...
And if while playing ESO there is not much of action and the scene is not changing much, I understand why 25FPS is enough and 13FPS is still playable to you... You must be staring at the auction all day...
Here's the conclusion from the link I posted:
"So to come back to the question of how many FPS is enough, in my experience, and for most practical purposes, a framerate of around 60 FPS is completely sufficient as a maximum FPS. Even 25 or 30FPS can be totally sufficient in slow or medium-paced games - particularly if the game has motion blur, softer edges, and does not display significant variability or stuttering. "
Exactly what I was saying about how my computer delivers a flawless picture so frame rate is not as big an issue for me. And my tests were done out in the trees of Glenumbra during the rain when I would hit the low points. I would run around and see the difference. The lows are noticeable, but not unplayable.
Except ESO is not a slow or medium paced game - the scene is changing drastically with every sweep of the mouse, also it has no per-object motion blur (meaning if you stand completely still and someone runs towards you, he is not blurred) or post processes motion blur (blurring of the scene as you move your view)
It's pretty slow compared to shooters. What are you really seeing move other than your character and the landscape? There are hardly any explosions. No vehicles driving around. Do you have to aim down your sights faster than your opponent? What is moving so fast? Avatars? You really want to say this game is fast paced? Now that's where you fail.Edited by SFBryan18 on July 31, 2014 3:59AM2 -
zivak.zivakeb17_ESO wrote: »zivak.zivakeb17_ESO wrote: »zivak.zivakeb17_ESO wrote: »A good FPS guide:
http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_5.html
A quote from your link which I btw read about 7 years ago while tweaking oblivion:
"Game Type: For games which have a lot of fast motion and hectic action, particularly deathmatch-style first person shooters like Team Fortress 2, Counter-Strike or the Battlefield series, higher minimum framerates may be required (e.g. a minium of 40FPS) to make things feel sufficiently smooth and responsive. This is in part because the large amount of fast action means that the content of each individual frame is noticeably different from the previous one, so low FPS is much more noticeable in such games. Conversely, games which are much slower in pace such as RTS or RPG games can get away with lower minimum framerates. As an extreme example, if you were staring at a wall in a game, you could go down to 5 or even 1 FPS and not notice any difference. So the speed of gameplay impacts on the perception of smoothness and hence alters the minimum FPS requirement."
Now is ESO closer to a shooter or an RTS game?
I would say it is an MMORPG with not a lot of quick action, so yea...
And I read the link you posted. It asked several questions, but never concluded what a good fps is.
The link explains why 24FPS is enough for a movie and not for a videogame (motion blur) ...
And if while playing ESO there is not much of action and the scene is not changing much, I understand why 25FPS is enough and 13FPS is still playable to you... You must be staring at the auction all day...
Here's the conclusion from the link I posted:
"So to come back to the question of how many FPS is enough, in my experience, and for most practical purposes, a framerate of around 60 FPS is completely sufficient as a maximum FPS. Even 25 or 30FPS can be totally sufficient in slow or medium-paced games - particularly if the game has motion blur, softer edges, and does not display significant variability or stuttering. "
Exactly what I was saying about how my computer delivers a flawless picture so frame rate is not as big an issue for me. And my tests were done out in the trees of Glenumbra during the rain when I would hit the low points. I would run around and see the difference. The lows are noticeable, but not unplayable.
Except ESO is not a slow or medium paced game - the scene is changing drastically with every sweep of the mouse, also it has no per-object motion blur (meaning if you stand completely still and someone runs towards you, he is not blurred) or post processes motion blur (blurring of the scene as you move your view)
It's pretty slow compared to shooters. What are you really seeing move other than your character and the landscape? There are hardly any explosions. No vehicles driving around. What is moving so fast? Avatars? You really want to say this game is fast paced? Now that's where you fail.
You fail at realizing that as far as technology goes, it is not different then any shooter...
So cars and explosions are the measurement of scene complexity?
Are horses and fireballs not good enough for you?
If I want to play a sci-fi game, do I need even more FPS because there are spaceships and lasers?
You clearly think you are on the minecraft forums
Edited by zivak.zivakeb17_ESO on July 31, 2014 4:06AM6 -
SFBryan18✭✭✭✭✭
✭zivak.zivakeb17_ESO wrote: »zivak.zivakeb17_ESO wrote: »zivak.zivakeb17_ESO wrote: »zivak.zivakeb17_ESO wrote: »A good FPS guide:
http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_5.html
A quote from your link which I btw read about 7 years ago while tweaking oblivion:
"Game Type: For games which have a lot of fast motion and hectic action, particularly deathmatch-style first person shooters like Team Fortress 2, Counter-Strike or the Battlefield series, higher minimum framerates may be required (e.g. a minium of 40FPS) to make things feel sufficiently smooth and responsive. This is in part because the large amount of fast action means that the content of each individual frame is noticeably different from the previous one, so low FPS is much more noticeable in such games. Conversely, games which are much slower in pace such as RTS or RPG games can get away with lower minimum framerates. As an extreme example, if you were staring at a wall in a game, you could go down to 5 or even 1 FPS and not notice any difference. So the speed of gameplay impacts on the perception of smoothness and hence alters the minimum FPS requirement."
Now is ESO closer to a shooter or an RTS game?
I would say it is an MMORPG with not a lot of quick action, so yea...
And I read the link you posted. It asked several questions, but never concluded what a good fps is.
The link explains why 24FPS is enough for a movie and not for a videogame (motion blur) ...
And if while playing ESO there is not much of action and the scene is not changing much, I understand why 25FPS is enough and 13FPS is still playable to you... You must be staring at the auction all day...
Here's the conclusion from the link I posted:
"So to come back to the question of how many FPS is enough, in my experience, and for most practical purposes, a framerate of around 60 FPS is completely sufficient as a maximum FPS. Even 25 or 30FPS can be totally sufficient in slow or medium-paced games - particularly if the game has motion blur, softer edges, and does not display significant variability or stuttering. "
Exactly what I was saying about how my computer delivers a flawless picture so frame rate is not as big an issue for me. And my tests were done out in the trees of Glenumbra during the rain when I would hit the low points. I would run around and see the difference. The lows are noticeable, but not unplayable.
Except ESO is not a slow or medium paced game - the scene is changing drastically with every sweep of the mouse, also it has no per-object motion blur (meaning if you stand completely still and someone runs towards you, he is not blurred) or post processes motion blur (blurring of the scene as you move your view)
It's pretty slow compared to shooters. What are you really seeing move other than your character and the landscape? There are hardly any explosions. No vehicles driving around. What is moving so fast? Avatars? You really want to say this game is fast paced? Now that's where you fail.
You fail at realizing that as far as technology goes, it is not different then any shooter...
So cars and explosions are the measurement of scene complexity?
Are horses and fireballs are not good enough for you?
So basically If I want to play a sci-fi game I need even more FPS because there are spaceships?
You clearly hhink you are on the minecraft forums
Horses and fireballs are in motion, just not all the time. This is not a fast paced game. It is a role playing game with a story to follow, and then a small amount of combat. Besides that, no matter how good you increase the landscape graphics, the avatars and NPC's always come out a little cartoonish, so fluid movement is not only unnecessary, it's overkill.
If you have a great system which can push it to the max, good for you, but 25fps is more than adequate for this game. I know from experience, and would even upload my gameplay if HD didn't take so much time to do so. You are trying to argue that higher fps is better, and of course that is true, but where you fail is when you try to enforce that lower fps is not playable. That is very wrong and I believe there is some kind of elitism behind the attitude.Edited by SFBryan18 on July 31, 2014 4:09AM2 -
zivak.zivakeb17_ESO wrote: »zivak.zivakeb17_ESO wrote: »zivak.zivakeb17_ESO wrote: »zivak.zivakeb17_ESO wrote: »A good FPS guide:
http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_5.html
A quote from your link which I btw read about 7 years ago while tweaking oblivion:
"Game Type: For games which have a lot of fast motion and hectic action, particularly deathmatch-style first person shooters like Team Fortress 2, Counter-Strike or the Battlefield series, higher minimum framerates may be required (e.g. a minium of 40FPS) to make things feel sufficiently smooth and responsive. This is in part because the large amount of fast action means that the content of each individual frame is noticeably different from the previous one, so low FPS is much more noticeable in such games. Conversely, games which are much slower in pace such as RTS or RPG games can get away with lower minimum framerates. As an extreme example, if you were staring at a wall in a game, you could go down to 5 or even 1 FPS and not notice any difference. So the speed of gameplay impacts on the perception of smoothness and hence alters the minimum FPS requirement."
Now is ESO closer to a shooter or an RTS game?
I would say it is an MMORPG with not a lot of quick action, so yea...
And I read the link you posted. It asked several questions, but never concluded what a good fps is.
The link explains why 24FPS is enough for a movie and not for a videogame (motion blur) ...
And if while playing ESO there is not much of action and the scene is not changing much, I understand why 25FPS is enough and 13FPS is still playable to you... You must be staring at the auction all day...
Here's the conclusion from the link I posted:
"So to come back to the question of how many FPS is enough, in my experience, and for most practical purposes, a framerate of around 60 FPS is completely sufficient as a maximum FPS. Even 25 or 30FPS can be totally sufficient in slow or medium-paced games - particularly if the game has motion blur, softer edges, and does not display significant variability or stuttering. "
Exactly what I was saying about how my computer delivers a flawless picture so frame rate is not as big an issue for me. And my tests were done out in the trees of Glenumbra during the rain when I would hit the low points. I would run around and see the difference. The lows are noticeable, but not unplayable.
Except ESO is not a slow or medium paced game - the scene is changing drastically with every sweep of the mouse, also it has no per-object motion blur (meaning if you stand completely still and someone runs towards you, he is not blurred) or post processes motion blur (blurring of the scene as you move your view)
It's pretty slow compared to shooters. What are you really seeing move other than your character and the landscape? There are hardly any explosions. No vehicles driving around. What is moving so fast? Avatars? You really want to say this game is fast paced? Now that's where you fail.
You fail at realizing that as far as technology goes, it is not different then any shooter...
So cars and explosions are the measurement of scene complexity?
Are horses and fireballs are not good enough for you?
So basically If I want to play a sci-fi game I need even more FPS because there are spaceships?
You clearly hhink you are on the minecraft forums
Horses and fireballs are in motion, just not all the time. This is not a fast paced game. It is a role playing game with a story to follow, and then a small amount of combat. Besides that, no matter how good you increase the landscape graphics, the avatars and NPC's always come out a little cartoonish, so fluid movement is not only unnecessary, it's overkill.
If you have a great system which can push it to the max, good for you, but 25fps is more than adequate for this game. I know from experience, and would even upload my gameplay if HD didn't take so much time to do so. You are trying to argue that higher fps is better, and of course that is true, but where you fail is when you try to enforce that lower fps is not playable. That is very wrong and I believe there is some kind of elitism behind the attitude.
Now I fail to realize why "realism" games should have higher fps then "cartoonish" ones as far as animations go...
Also, if 100 players all running around shooting arrows, spells and siege weapons, or 30+ trash mobs in dungeon all doing the same is not enough action for you I dont know what is...
The pace part in your links is not about how fast you run or what you do while running, its all about the scene complexity and ESO has a lot more common with an FPS then with classic RPGs or RTS games the author was referring to when talking about it...
I am getting kind of tired by this btw. You fail to grasp even the most elemental technological concepts behind this discussion, links you provide to back up your statements directly contradict you, and in the end you result to calling me elitist based on your assumptions...
If you are used to playing at sup-par FPS and you don't mind it, I am glad you can enjoy the game, but the fact is that the majority of people would not
I am not even considering the fact that the OP's hardware is more then adequate to handle this game and that he clearly stated that until some point his FPS was more then double then what he is getting now and you swooped in and started telling people they do not know what are they talking about...
Just please, in the future, refrain from projecting your own expectations based on below average experiences on other people. Thank you wery much
RegardsEdited by zivak.zivakeb17_ESO on July 31, 2014 4:37AM4 -
SFBryan18✭✭✭✭✭
✭zivak.zivakeb17_ESO wrote: »Just please, in the future, refrain from projecting your own expectations based on unnecessary performance on other people. Thank you very much
Regards
Fixed this so you can take your own advise. Until a couple years ago, most games ran at 30fps, so your expectations are far too exaggerated.
And I would really love to see you try to say games like Grand Theft Auto 5 do not appear to have fluid motion when that game can go as low as 20 fps on console and still have all the excitement of a high speed chase.Edited by SFBryan18 on July 31, 2014 4:49AM3 -
zivak.zivakeb17_ESO wrote: »Just please, in the future, refrain from projecting your own expectations based on unnecessary performance on other people. Thank you very much
Regards
Fixed this so you can take your own advise. Until a couple years ago, most games ran at 30fps, so your expectations are far too exaggerated.
Had to bite...
If by few you mean 15 and by games you mean Age of Empires 2 then you are correct...
BTW Quake3 is 1999, hadn't seen ppl playing it at 30FPS even back then...
Edit: Ok, maybe back then...Edited by zivak.zivakeb17_ESO on July 31, 2014 4:48AM2 -
zivak.zivakeb17_ESO wrote: »Just please, in the future, refrain from projecting your own expectations based on unnecessary performance on other people. Thank you very much
Regards
Fixed this so you can take your own advise. Until a couple years ago, most games ran at 30fps, so your expectations are far too exaggerated.
And I would really love to see you try to say games like Grand Theft Auto 5 do not appear to have fluid motion when that game can go as low as 20 fps on console.
This is just sad
Console VS PC - again, different tech... I am refraining from posting anything else in this thread... just go google it...
Sorry for the double...Edited by zivak.zivakeb17_ESO on July 31, 2014 4:52AM4 -
SFBryan18✭✭✭✭✭
✭zivak.zivakeb17_ESO wrote: »zivak.zivakeb17_ESO wrote: »Just please, in the future, refrain from projecting your own expectations based on unnecessary performance on other people. Thank you very much
Regards
Fixed this so you can take your own advise. Until a couple years ago, most games ran at 30fps, so your expectations are far too exaggerated.
And I would really love to see you try to say games like Grand Theft Auto 5 do not appear to have fluid motion when that game can go as low as 20 fps on console.
This is just sad
Console VS PC - again, different tech... I am refraining from posting anything else in this thread... just go google it...
Sorry for the double...
How is TV different if I'm playing in 1080p on PS3? I did Google it. If you are going to argue against me, then you should explain better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate
"Frame rates in video games refer to the speed at which the image is refreshed (typically in frames per second, or FPS). Many underlying processes, such as collision detection and network processing, run at different or inconsistent frequencies or in different physical components of a computer. FPS affects the gaming experience in two ways: low FPS does not effectively give the illusion of motion and affects the user's capacity to interact with the game, while FPS that varies substantially from one second to the next depending on computational load produces uneven, "choppy" movement or animation.
The first 3D first-person game for a personal computer, 3D Monster Maze, had a frame rate of approximately 6 FPS, and was still a success. In modern action-oriented games where players must visually track animated objects and react quickly, frame rates of between 30 and 60 FPS are considered acceptable by most, though this can vary significantly from game to game. Modern action games, including popular console games such as Halo 3, are locked at 30 FPS maximum, while others, such as Unreal Tournament 3, can run well in excess of 100 FPS on sufficient hardware. Additionally some games such as Quake 3 Arena perform physics, AI, networking, and other calculations in sync with the rendered frame rate - this can result in inconsistencies with movement and network prediction code if players are unable to maintain the designed maximum frame rate of 125 FPS. The frame rate within games varies considerably depending upon the complexity of the individual frame to render, or with the hardware configuration (especially in PC games). When the computation of a frame consumes more time than intended, the frame rate decreases. This instability causes stuttering and screen tearing.
Frame rate in video games is a delicate trade off between picture fidelity and render time (which translates into FPS). Unlike movies, video games depend on the interaction between consumer and game. Lower frame rates affect this feedback loop with choppy motion and additional input delay. However a trend to low frame rate high fidelity titles was perceivable in the last years. This is mostly because of the mismatch between console platforms steady stated computational power and the demand of higher fidelity graphics. For many game studios the shift to 30FPS is a notable gain considering that lower frame rates are less apparent for the untrained eye than reduced picture quality.
A culture of competition has arisen among game enthusiasts with regard to frame rates, with players striving to obtain the highest FPS possible, due to their utility in demonstrating a system's power and efficiency. Indeed, many benchmarks (such as 3DMark) released by the marketing departments of hardware manufacturers and published in hardware reviews focus on the FPS measurement. LCD monitors of today are built with three major refresh rate in mind. The most common is 60 Hz, which can be used at any resolution without requiring high quality computer systems to render, and then 120 Hz and 144 Hz. The 120 Hz standard also supports what is known as 'lightboost' technology in some monitors, where strobing lights behind the monitor reduce ghosting at high FPS rates.
Beyond measurement and bragging rights, such exercises do have practical bearing in some cases. A certain amount of discarded “headroom” frames are beneficial for the elimination of uneven (“choppy” or “jumpy”) output, and to prevent FPS from plummeting during the intense sequences when players need smooth feedback most.
Without realistic motion blurring, video games and computer animations do not look as fluid as film. When a fast moving object is present on two consecutive frames, a gap between the images on the two frames contributes to a noticeable separation of the object and its afterimage in the eye. Motion blurring mitigates this effect, since it tends to reduce the image gap when the two frames are strung together. The effect of motion blurring is essentially superimposing multiple images of the fast-moving object on a single frame. Motion blurring makes the motion more fluid for some people, even as the image of the object becomes blurry on each individual frame. Motion blur can also induce headaches when people play a game that requires concentration.[20]
A high frame rate still does not guarantee fluid movements, especially on hardware with more than one GPU. This effect is known as micro stuttering."
Edited by SFBryan18 on July 31, 2014 5:23AM2 -
150 fps when i pvp but when i go around a hacker i drop to 3-10 fps .. go figure .. ive been telling this to you assclowns forever.. high ping 900ms completes end raid in 2 minutes.. right because thats doable
if you've ever noticed in any other online game that when hackers come around the weirdest *** happens glitches bugs highest ping etc ever0 -
SFBryan18✭✭✭✭✭
✭I'm still waiting for an explanation about how 20fps on console is different than 20fps on PC, and how this game is considered "fast paced" compared to games like GTA5 where you are literally speeding through the map at high speeds. The anonymous elitist trolls in this thread who are too cowardly to respond and who hide behind their LOL button are pathetic. You proved nothing and you've left me wondering if there is a difference between a PC monitor and 1080p HDTV. It's people like you who ruin a community with your "better than" attitudes and your lack of information. Truly a disgrace, and the moderators are nowhere to be found. If the OP wanted some kind of support from the developers, the people who continued this thread made it clear that it is not deserved. So keep crying about your fps, because I have no sympathy for your kind. And I also would like them to increase performance, but I'm not going to *** on everyone else just to get it.Edited by SFBryan18 on July 31, 2014 6:15AM8 -
GamerzElite✭✭✭I'm still waiting for an explanation about how 20fps on console is different than 20fps on PC, and how this game is considered "fast paced" compared to games like GTA5 where you are literally speeding through the map at high speeds. The anonymous elitist trolls in this thread who are too cowardly to respond and who hide behind their LOL button are pathetic. You proved nothing and you've left me wondering if there is a difference between a PC monitor and 1080p HDTV. It's people like you who ruin a community with your "better than" attitudes and your lack of information. Truly a disgrace, and the moderators are nowhere to be found. If the OP wanted some kind of support from the developers, the people who continued this thread made it clear that it is not deserved. So keep crying about your fps, because I have no sympathy for your kind. And I also would like them to increase performance, but I'm not going to *** on everyone else just to get it.
I don't understand whats ur problem?3 -
SFBryan18✭✭✭✭✭
✭GamerzElite wrote: »I'm still waiting for an explanation about how 20fps on console is different than 20fps on PC, and how this game is considered "fast paced" compared to games like GTA5 where you are literally speeding through the map at high speeds. The anonymous elitist trolls in this thread who are too cowardly to respond and who hide behind their LOL button are pathetic. You proved nothing and you've left me wondering if there is a difference between a PC monitor and 1080p HDTV. It's people like you who ruin a community with your "better than" attitudes and your lack of information. Truly a disgrace, and the moderators are nowhere to be found. If the OP wanted some kind of support from the developers, the people who continued this thread made it clear that it is not deserved. So keep crying about your fps, because I have no sympathy for your kind. And I also would like them to increase performance, but I'm not going to *** on everyone else just to get it.
I don't understand whats ur problem?
Mostly that I play the game at 25fps, and don't see any difference from when I play GTA5 on console, yet someone who gained a lot of support in this thread told me that my expectations are below average and claimed PC is different than console, but left before explaining how. And also, the moderators haven't appeared in over an hour.Edited by SFBryan18 on July 31, 2014 6:22AM2 -
p_tsakirisb16_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭GamerzElite wrote: »DaedricCheese wrote: »You could blame the lighting engine they made for 1.2.4, or your PC if it's getting old already.
BTW i love the way you named Customer support as Crowd Control.
U mean AMD FX 8350 with R9 290x can't handle ESO.....
Here we go again....
Is your CPU mate. Overclock it at least to 4.8Ghz (you need good cooling not the stock HSF), and move the game to cores 1-7 (not core 0).
Is known that AMD has pathetic cores, yes many ( 8 ) but they are pathetic when comes to power.
And on top two cores per module (4 modules) share the same FPU (Floating Point Unit), which is needed to calculate the extra lighting etc. Only 2 games support properly the FX83xx. BF4 and Thief. And those still lack behind in DX11 until you use Mantle (you need AMD GPU).
Also I would advice you to try switch the game to DX9 from the settings.
I had a FX8350 overclocked at 5Ghz, with two 7950s in CF. My i5 laptop with a GTX550M was feeling much more powerful when I was playing TW Rome 2 (CPU intensive game) last year.
So I sold the lot, bought an i7 and my 780Ti and haven't looked back.
Even an ancient i5 2500 is more powerful on TESO than an FX8350 unfortunately, even if overclocked to 5Ghz.
Edited by p_tsakirisb16_ESO on July 31, 2014 7:02AM2 -
So are you saying that your spec is fine or that the OP is somehow imagining the FPS hit?p_tsakirisb16_ESO wrote: »GamerzElite wrote: »DaedricCheese wrote: »You could blame the lighting engine they made for 1.2.4, or your PC if it's getting old already.
BTW i love the way you named Customer support as Crowd Control.
U mean AMD FX 8350 with R9 290x can't handle ESO.....
Here we go again....
Is your CPU mate. Overclock it at least to 4.8Ghz (you need good cooling not the stock HSF), and move the game to cores 1-7 (not core 0).
Is known that AMD has pathetic cores, yes many ( 8 ) but they are pathetic when comes to power.
And on top two cores per module (4 modules) share the same FPU (Floating Point Unit), which is needed to calculate the extra lighting etc. Only 2 games support properly the FX83xx. BF4 and Thief. And those still lack behind in DX11 until you use Mantle (you need AMD GPU).
Also I would advice you to try switch the game to DX9 from the settings.
I had a FX8350 overclocked at 5Ghz, with two 7950s in CF. My i5 laptop with a GTX550M was feeling much more powerful when I was playing TW Rome 2 (CPU intensive game) last year.
So I sold the lot, bought an i7 and my 780Ti and haven't looked back.
Even an ancient i5 2500 is more powerful on TESO than an FX8350 unfortunately, even if overclocked to 5Ghz.
This is IMO the most helpful answer yet, but still I dont see why his FPS would drop... He stated that it was fine beforeEdited by zivak.zivakeb17_ESO on July 31, 2014 7:20AM1 -
ozm8ey✭✭✭zivak.zivakeb17_ESO wrote: »
So are you saying that your spec is fine or that the OP is somehow imagining the FPS hit?p_tsakirisb16_ESO wrote: »GamerzElite wrote: »DaedricCheese wrote: »You could blame the lighting engine they made for 1.2.4, or your PC if it's getting old already.
BTW i love the way you named Customer support as Crowd Control.
U mean AMD FX 8350 with R9 290x can't handle ESO.....
Here we go again....
Is your CPU mate. Overclock it at least to 4.8Ghz (you need good cooling not the stock HSF), and move the game to cores 1-7 (not core 0).
Is known that AMD has pathetic cores, yes many ( 8 ) but they are pathetic when comes to power.
And on top two cores per module (4 modules) share the same FPU (Floating Point Unit), which is needed to calculate the extra lighting etc. Only 2 games support properly the FX83xx. BF4 and Thief. And those still lack behind in DX11 until you use Mantle (you need AMD GPU).
Also I would advice you to try switch the game to DX9 from the settings.
I had a FX8350 overclocked at 5Ghz, with two 7950s in CF. My i5 laptop with a GTX550M was feeling much more powerful when I was playing TW Rome 2 (CPU intensive game) last year.
So I sold the lot, bought an i7 and my 780Ti and haven't looked back.
Even an ancient i5 2500 is more powerful on TESO than an FX8350 unfortunately, even if overclocked to 5Ghz.
This is IMO the most helpful answer yet, but still I dont see why his FPS would drop... He stated that it was fine before
I'm saying I have the exact same cpu as he does and the game runs fine so either his cpu is faulty or something else is wrong with his game.
0 -
GamerzElite✭✭✭zivak.zivakeb17_ESO wrote: »
So are you saying that your spec is fine or that the OP is somehow imagining the FPS hit?p_tsakirisb16_ESO wrote: »GamerzElite wrote: »DaedricCheese wrote: »You could blame the lighting engine they made for 1.2.4, or your PC if it's getting old already.
BTW i love the way you named Customer support as Crowd Control.
U mean AMD FX 8350 with R9 290x can't handle ESO.....
Here we go again....
Is your CPU mate. Overclock it at least to 4.8Ghz (you need good cooling not the stock HSF), and move the game to cores 1-7 (not core 0).
Is known that AMD has pathetic cores, yes many ( 8 ) but they are pathetic when comes to power.
And on top two cores per module (4 modules) share the same FPU (Floating Point Unit), which is needed to calculate the extra lighting etc. Only 2 games support properly the FX83xx. BF4 and Thief. And those still lack behind in DX11 until you use Mantle (you need AMD GPU).
Also I would advice you to try switch the game to DX9 from the settings.
I had a FX8350 overclocked at 5Ghz, with two 7950s in CF. My i5 laptop with a GTX550M was feeling much more powerful when I was playing TW Rome 2 (CPU intensive game) last year.
So I sold the lot, bought an i7 and my 780Ti and haven't looked back.
Even an ancient i5 2500 is more powerful on TESO than an FX8350 unfortunately, even if overclocked to 5Ghz.
This is IMO the most helpful answer yet, but still I dont see why his FPS would drop... He stated that it was fine before
I'm saying I have the exact same cpu as he does and the game runs fine so either his cpu is faulty or something else is wrong with his game.
You might be right, But Mr. Einstein a little question, How my same setup gave me 50-70 FPS till patch 1.2.3? According to you all intelligent guys, My PC cant run ESO, at the same time BF4 gave me solid 60 FPS, played Wolfenstein: The New Order at Ultra setting. Customer Support admitted there is some problem from their side and here in forum, My PC is faulty. LOLEdited by GamerzElite on July 31, 2014 7:55AM1 -
gendarkb16_ESO✭✭✭ok, quote from my other post in the aliance war.I used to play beta/release at 1920 and also doing videos with fraps at the same time, all with my old 560gtx and fps were fine.
Then with craglorn patch something broke and later with 1.2.3 something was terrible more broken.
Of course all add to the problem (zerg balls, camps used as tp, AOE heals spammed to get ultimate, etc) making people coming more clustered, but that wasn't a problem in release.
Today to celebrate the EU server migration I bought a new gtx 770 and of course the problem persist (i knew it before purchasing).
The thing is that if I are alone or with very few people around i get 70-90 fps, then when there is a moderate group fight of 15-30 people the fps go down to 35-50 and when there is already more people(30-60) the fps go down to 20-29... ofc in big action sieges the fps can drop to 15... THIS DIDN'T HAPPENED AT REALEASE/BETA WITH v1.0 ... i played way better then with my 560gtx than today with my 770gtx. (of course that don't happen only to my, you just have to read the chat or speak with guildmates).
I am not talking about the lag here (also an issue), i am talking about the fps lost that happens when there is people/battle near you, even if you are not watching the fight or you are not there, even if you put in first person and stare at the floor... you get 20 fps, only for being near a battle.
The thing is that nowhere in 1.3 notes says that there is a fix for this... and the old post of (hotfix for fps lost) has been unsticked and lost.
So there is someone at Zenimax looking at this please ? even only acknowledging the issue its good for me.
2 -
Arthur_Spoonfondle✭✭✭✭nicholaspingasb16_ESO wrote: »
You cannot possibly know what framerates he should be seeing.
You don't know what screen resolution he is running at.
You don't know what addons he is using.
You don't know what in-game graphics quality settings he is using.
You don't know if he is forcing a high AA setting in the video drivers.
You don't know what other processes he has running in the background.
That lot is just for starters.
0 -
p_tsakirisb16_ESO wrote: »GamerzElite wrote: »DaedricCheese wrote: »You could blame the lighting engine they made for 1.2.4, or your PC if it's getting old already.
BTW i love the way you named Customer support as Crowd Control.
U mean AMD FX 8350 with R9 290x can't handle ESO.....
Here we go again....
Is your CPU mate. Overclock it at least to 4.8Ghz (you need good cooling not the stock HSF), and move the game to cores 1-7 (not core 0).
Is known that AMD has pathetic cores, yes many ( 8 ) but they are pathetic when comes to power.
And on top two cores per module (4 modules) share the same FPU (Floating Point Unit), which is needed to calculate the extra lighting etc. Only 2 games support properly the FX83xx. BF4 and Thief. And those still lack behind in DX11 until you use Mantle (you need AMD GPU).
Also I would advice you to try switch the game to DX9 from the settings.
I had a FX8350 overclocked at 5Ghz, with two 7950s in CF. My i5 laptop with a GTX550M was feeling much more powerful when I was playing TW Rome 2 (CPU intensive game) last year.
So I sold the lot, bought an i7 and my 780Ti and haven't looked back.
Even an ancient i5 2500 is more powerful on TESO than an FX8350 unfortunately, even if overclocked to 5Ghz.
I am playing with AMD 8150 at 4GHz with 8gb ram and a amd 7850. I have all my settings at ultra except shadows and am getting around 59 to 62 fps without v-sync on. Don't think it's his cpu if I can get better with a bulldozer which is pretty crappy compared to the 8350. ( I did see a frame drop after the 1.2 patch but with the hot fixes it's nearly back to what it was but is still about 10fps short)Edited by sparafucilsarwb17_ESO on July 31, 2014 12:59PM1
