turbochad69AimIsADickBumFreezemiles per hour is a very misleading metric. i measure my speed in hours per mile. its soooooo different and so much better!!!
Strawman.
What do you mean strawman? Miles per hour has the exact same kind of relationship to hours per mile as FPS has to frametime. It's identical.
Go look at what an fps indicator does, it's literally 1 over the last frametime. Here's cl_showfps for instance https://i.imgur.com/QNjUyPI.png
Actually I don't think it's a strawman but rather a false equivalency. I haven't thought through this yet, so I might be wrong. Either way there's still a difference in that comparison even if it isn't a fallacy. Miles is a form of distance and hour is a unit of time. Both give the exact same amount of information because at the end of the day the fundamental units that make them up (miles and hours) give enough information for the information difference to be nearly imperceptible. (e.g 5 miles per hour and 5 hours per mile both carry the distance traveled and the time it took, but not the variations in between the time/distance units.)
By contrast framecount and frametime, while they both are the same metric type (they're not literally the same metric), carry a clearly noticeable different amount of information from each other; frametime is the time it takes to render a frame which can be handy for tracing the issue to a bottleneck, delayed renders, or just slow processing power in general, while framecount is the amount of frames that can be generated in a specific time frame, which can only give whether you're getting enough frames in a second. A significant factor here is that frametime can will vary a ton in between seconds, and that variation is nonexistent in framecount per time, which is why I consider framecount per time as an inferior metric.
Honestly I should have just been referring to frame pacing from the start.