Hello TF.TV
I usually have an FPS of around 170-220, but mostly it dips down towards the 110-140 zone, this mostly for a second at most, I'm not sure whether I need a fps config or it's fine
FPS config needed or not
posted in
Q/A Help
Hello TF.TV
I usually have an FPS of around 170-220, but mostly it dips down towards the 110-140 zone, this mostly for a second at most, I'm not sure whether I need a fps config or it's fine
I usually have an FPS of around 170-220, but mostly it dips down towards the 110-140 zone, this mostly for a second at most, I'm not sure whether I need a fps config or it's fine
i doubt you can notice the difference unless you have a monitor with 120hz or more
i doubt you can notice the difference unless you have a monitor with 120hz or more
You should be fine, unless you want even more frames.
You should be fine, unless you want even more frames.
Moritzi doubt you can notice the difference unless you have a monitor with 120hz or more
Yea I'm currently using a 60 hertz monitor
[quote=Moritz]i doubt you can notice the difference unless you have a monitor with 120hz or more[/quote]
Yea I'm currently using a 60 hertz monitor
Yea I'm currently using a 60 hertz monitor
If the dipping really bothers you then you could cap it at 120
If the dipping really bothers you then you could cap it at 120
You can get a dx9 config and keep things pretty and removing unnecessary stuff like gibs or ragdolls. (Which can be distracting and lowers fps)
Also the best number to cap at is your screen refresh rate*2+1. Which is 121 in your case and if that's a stable number to you I would really recommend it. (Although it's truly preference)
You can get a dx9 config and keep things pretty and removing unnecessary stuff like gibs or ragdolls. (Which can be distracting and lowers fps)
Also the best number to cap at is your screen refresh rate*2+1. Which is 121 in your case and if that's a stable number to you I would really recommend it. (Although it's truly preference)
Also the best number to cap at is your screen refresh rate*2+1. Which is 121 in your case and if that's a stable number to you I would really recommend it. (Although it's truly preference)
RageIf the dipping really bothers you then you could cap it at 120
Yea I'm going to cap at 120
fluffYou can get a dx9 config and keep things pretty and removing unnecessary stuff like gibs or ragdolls. (Which can be distracting and lowers fps)
Also the best number to cap at is your screen refresh rate*2+1. Which is 121 in your case and if that's a stable number to you I would really recommend it. (Although it's truly preference)
Most likely going to get dx9 frames
Thanks everyone for the help
[quote=Rage]If the dipping really bothers you then you could cap it at 120[/quote]
Yea I'm going to cap at 120
[quote=fluff]You can get a dx9 config and keep things pretty and removing unnecessary stuff like gibs or ragdolls. (Which can be distracting and lowers fps)
Also the best number to cap at is your screen refresh rate*2+1. Which is 121 in your case and if that's a stable number to you I would really recommend it. (Although it's truly preference)[/quote]
Most likely going to get dx9 frames
Thanks everyone for the help
Yea I'm going to cap at 120
[quote=fluff]You can get a dx9 config and keep things pretty and removing unnecessary stuff like gibs or ragdolls. (Which can be distracting and lowers fps)
Also the best number to cap at is your screen refresh rate*2+1. Which is 121 in your case and if that's a stable number to you I would really recommend it. (Although it's truly preference)[/quote]
Most likely going to get dx9 frames
Thanks everyone for the help
Something that people haven't mentioned is input lag. I have found that dx 9 significantly increases input lag, even if you get good frames. I definitely recommend to anyone to try a config or at least just to set dx8 for a week and see if you can come back.
Of course some people are more or less sensitive to it but I'd recommend at least trying it out
Something that people haven't mentioned is input lag. I have found that dx 9 significantly increases input lag, even if you get good frames. I definitely recommend to anyone to try a config or at least just to set dx8 for a week and see if you can come back.
Of course some people are more or less sensitive to it but I'd recommend at least trying it out
Of course some people are more or less sensitive to it but I'd recommend at least trying it out
tornados2111Something that people haven't mentioned is input lag. I have found that dx 9 significantly increases input lag, even if you get good frames. I definitely recommend to anyone to try a config or at least just to set dx8 for a week and see if you can come back.
Of course some people are more or less sensitive to it but I'd recommend at least trying it out
I actually don't notice a difference between the two in terms of mouse movement, but dx9 feels much more responsive in terms of shooting. I still play on dx8 for the extra fps, though.
(For reference, I can't stand playing on lightboost because of the input lag)
[quote=tornados2111]Something that people haven't mentioned is input lag. I have found that dx 9 significantly increases input lag, even if you get good frames. I definitely recommend to anyone to try a config or at least just to set dx8 for a week and see if you can come back.
Of course some people are more or less sensitive to it but I'd recommend at least trying it out[/quote]
I actually don't notice a difference between the two in terms of mouse movement, but dx9 feels much more responsive in terms of shooting. I still play on dx8 for the extra fps, though.
(For reference, I can't stand playing on lightboost because of the input lag)
Of course some people are more or less sensitive to it but I'd recommend at least trying it out[/quote]
I actually don't notice a difference between the two in terms of mouse movement, but dx9 feels much more responsive in terms of shooting. I still play on dx8 for the extra fps, though.
(For reference, I can't stand playing on lightboost because of the input lag)
Snowdreamtornados2111Something that people haven't mentioned is input lag. I have found that dx 9 significantly increases input lag, even if you get good frames. I definitely recommend to anyone to try a config or at least just to set dx8 for a week and see if you can come back.
Of course some people are more or less sensitive to it but I'd recommend at least trying it out
I actually don't notice a difference between the two in terms of mouse movement, but dx9 feels much more responsive in terms of shooting. I still play on dx8 for the extra fps, though.
(For reference, I can't stand playing on lightboost because of the input lag)
That's interesting. I would say that yes, shooting does feel more responsive and for the lack of better comparison I would say it almost feels a bit more quake. But to me I have found mouse movement to also be less sluggish. I cannot tell specifically that it's more input lag, but it definitely feels sluggish.
For reference, I too don't play with lightboost
[quote=Snowdream][quote=tornados2111]Something that people haven't mentioned is input lag. I have found that dx 9 significantly increases input lag, even if you get good frames. I definitely recommend to anyone to try a config or at least just to set dx8 for a week and see if you can come back.
Of course some people are more or less sensitive to it but I'd recommend at least trying it out[/quote]
I actually don't notice a difference between the two in terms of mouse movement, but dx9 feels much more responsive in terms of shooting. I still play on dx8 for the extra fps, though.
(For reference, I can't stand playing on lightboost because of the input lag)[/quote]
That's interesting. I would say that yes, shooting does feel more responsive and for the lack of better comparison I would say it almost feels a bit more quake. But to me I have found mouse movement to also be less sluggish. I cannot tell specifically that it's more input lag, but it definitely feels sluggish.
For reference, I too don't play with lightboost
Of course some people are more or less sensitive to it but I'd recommend at least trying it out[/quote]
I actually don't notice a difference between the two in terms of mouse movement, but dx9 feels much more responsive in terms of shooting. I still play on dx8 for the extra fps, though.
(For reference, I can't stand playing on lightboost because of the input lag)[/quote]
That's interesting. I would say that yes, shooting does feel more responsive and for the lack of better comparison I would say it almost feels a bit more quake. But to me I have found mouse movement to also be less sluggish. I cannot tell specifically that it's more input lag, but it definitely feels sluggish.
For reference, I too don't play with lightboost
Please
sign in through STEAM
to post a comment.