Try forcing it as a test, for me it was very noticeable on that 144Hz monitor but not so bad on my current display, which is the point I was making here:
Console Update
- Thread starter David Braben
- Start date
Try forcing it as a test, for me it was very noticeable on that 144Hz monitor but not so bad on my current display, which is the point I was making here:
stormyuk
Volunteer Moderator
To keep it on topic does Odyssey actually have a frame rate cap option on PC? Can't say I've looked. I could try that if it's available. Although my monitor is only gsync compatible so I will be curious what it does with a 30hz signal if it can even cope.
I could actually try the PS5 on the 1440p monitor now that Sony support 1440p resolution although Elite only supports 1080p. That would mean lugging the PS5 upstairs though so might just try a 30hz cap...
Pretty sure I have it capped at 60fps but did it months ago.To keep it on topic does Odyssey actually have a frame rate cap option on PC? Can't say I've looked. I could try that if it's available. Although my monitor is only gsync compatible so I will be curious what it does with a 30hz signal if it can even cope.
I could actually try the PS5 on the 1440p monitor now that Sony support 1440p resolution although Elite only supports 1080p. That would mean lugging the PS5 upstairs though so might just try a 30hz cap...
To keep it on topic does Odyssey actually have a frame rate cap option on PC? Can't say I've looked. I could try that if it's available. Although my monitor is only gsync compatible so I will be curious what it does with a 30hz signal if it can even cope.
I could actually try the PS5 on the 1440p monitor now that Sony support 1440p resolution although Elite only supports 1080p. That would mean lugging the PS5 upstairs though so might just try a 30hz cap...
You can set a max framerate on your Nvidia display settings (Right-click on the desktop, choose 'more settings' (Win11 only), Nvidia Control Panel, Manager 3D Settings, Global Settings, Max Framerate.
Plugging your PS5 into the 144Hz monitor should achieve the same effect if that's easier for you. The point is that pixel response time will affect a users perception of how low a framerate is acceptable to them.
Ouch, I keep forgetting ED didn't get a PS4 Pro update to match the One X update.I could actually try the PS5 on the 1440p monitor now that Sony support 1440p resolution although Elite only supports 1080p. That would mean lugging the PS5 upstairs though so might just try a 30hz cap...
stormyuk
Volunteer Moderator
Tried both Elite and Death Stranding at 30fps (30hz forced, with vsync forced on) and while yeh it was certainly a downgrade in terms of motion and fluidity the LG 144hz panel was fine to be honest. Elite was actually worse in motion than playing on the PS5 forced to 30fps as the PS5 generally runs closer to 60fps in most space situations. Even the on foot stuff of Odyssey was ok at 30fps.
Pixel response time has less to do with motion fluidity than motion clarity. If frame times are less than pixel transition times, you get ghosting. If the refresh rate is too low for a given overdrive setting, you get overshoot, or inverse ghosting. Both can standout as an after image, halo, or smearing, and reduce clarity.
Motion smoothness is primary dependent on frame rate and consistency of frame intervals (both in terms of when the scene is submitted and when it's finally displayed). Blur can actually increase perceived smoothness, at the cost of clarity, by blending frame transitions together.
Latency is another important issue, which depends on frame rate and pixel response, to a degree, but is also heavily influenced by the game's render queue and any processing lag the display has (which can be extremely variable).
Personally, I tend to run everything uncapped and unsynced at as high a frame rate and refresh as I can manage, with as short as render queue as possible, to get what I feel is the best of all worlds. Good smoothness, good clarity, and negligible input latency. VRR is nice in theory, but in practice a sufficiently high refresh rate (I personally stop being able to detect tearing as refresh rate gets significantly above 120Hz...144-165Hz is borderline in some cases, but 240Hz+ means I never really see the advantages of syncing frame rate with refresh rate) renders tearing imperceptible, and VRR usually has costs in terms of overshoot...very few displays have overdrive modes that are ideal across the entire VRR range (even my Samsung G7 has obvious overshoot ghosting near the lower end of the effective VRR range that is completely absent at higher refresh rates).
Motion smoothness is primary dependent on frame rate and consistency of frame intervals (both in terms of when the scene is submitted and when it's finally displayed). Blur can actually increase perceived smoothness, at the cost of clarity, by blending frame transitions together.
Latency is another important issue, which depends on frame rate and pixel response, to a degree, but is also heavily influenced by the game's render queue and any processing lag the display has (which can be extremely variable).
Personally, I tend to run everything uncapped and unsynced at as high a frame rate and refresh as I can manage, with as short as render queue as possible, to get what I feel is the best of all worlds. Good smoothness, good clarity, and negligible input latency. VRR is nice in theory, but in practice a sufficiently high refresh rate (I personally stop being able to detect tearing as refresh rate gets significantly above 120Hz...144-165Hz is borderline in some cases, but 240Hz+ means I never really see the advantages of syncing frame rate with refresh rate) renders tearing imperceptible, and VRR usually has costs in terms of overshoot...very few displays have overdrive modes that are ideal across the entire VRR range (even my Samsung G7 has obvious overshoot ghosting near the lower end of the effective VRR range that is completely absent at higher refresh rates).
Good of you to report back thank you.
Running the game at a higher fps is always going to be desirable in terms of playability (as Morbad goes on to say above), but there is obviously a cost to that - it needs more expensive hardware. The perception of what's acceptable will be down to the individual however.
So faster pixel response allows higher fps to be displayed, but at lower fps it can look more flickery (depending on the user's eyesight, lighting in the room etc). It's subjective as I wrote:
You'd have to have a pretty old display for the response time to be slow enough to get ghosting
I checked the specs on some of my monitors: The 60Hz 4k display (Philips 436M6) has a stated response time of 4ms, my 144Hz displays (AOC 2460G4) are 1ms, both would be good enough to display 144fps (the 4k display maxes out at 64Hz). The oldest monitor I have that I could find specs online for (a Digimate L1918) is 25ms according to it's manual, equivalent to around 40fps or 12ms according to some forum post from the early 2000's (the display is capable of 75Hz refresh rate) & it's a cheap display from the late '90's.
ETA just found the pixel response time for my telly, a 65" Sony Bravia (KD-65XD7504), it's 13ms for comparison.
Last edited:
You'd have to have a pretty old display for the response time to be slow enough to get ghosting
I have never seen an LCD that did not have some ghosting, and my daily display is one of the fastest LCD panels currently in existence.
TestUFO: Ghosting / Pursuit Camera / Pixel Response Test
TestUFO: Ghosting / Pursuit Camera / Pixel Response Test
If a display doesn't produce the exact same clarity with a static image as it does with a moving image, there is some level of ghosting.
Most listed specs are nonsense, usually wildly over optimistic GTG ratings using the strongest overdrive setting (if applicable), or MPRT ratings that rely on strobing, without any particular quality standard for strobing impled.
My particular display (well, the one I game on most often), with the optimum overdrive setting, still can't manage all transitions within the refresh window at 240Hz, and the overshoot ghosting gets progressively worse at lower refresh rates. Again, this is on the display that had the lowest cumulative deviation score of any production LCD display in existence when I bought it, and that is only currently beat by a handful of LCDs (and most every OLED).
Perceptible trails is rare, but not wholly absent. I see ghosting trails every time I move my mouse across the my Windows desktop...and I don't have mouse trails enabled. Some loss of clarity in a moving image is also omnipresent, and will be until we get true sub-millisecond displays running at ~1000Hz.
Edit: clarified my distinction between ghosting as observable trails vs. a degradation of clarity.
Last edited:
stormyuk
Volunteer Moderator
Ghosting was worse at 30fps with Elite (on my 144hz monitor than left at gsync), usually in space names, stations, planets, systems etc. It was mainly text where it is more noticeable, the general graphics were ok (the absolutely awful anti-aliasing in Elite bothers me more to be honest).I have never seen an LCD that did not have some ghosting, and my daily display is one of the fastest LCD panels currently in existence.
TestUFO: Ghosting / Pursuit Camera / Pixel Response Test
TestUFO: Ghosting / Pursuit Camera / Pixel Response Testwww.testufo.com
If a display doesn't produce the exact same clarity with a static image as it does with a moving image, there is some level of ghosting.
It was totally playable at 30fps which still is a sucker punch to those of us with PS5s and Xbox Series consoles as I am sure Odyssey would have worked had, the resources been put there. Clearly FDev didn't think it was financially worth it. A real shame. But, it is what it is.
Last edited:
Yeah, I think it was all or nothing for them. With no modern gen console specific version, if it didn't work on last gen stuff, they were going to toss the whole thing. Getting Odyssey to run on the PS4 or XBox One would have been a feat.
I agree that's why I bought a series X but they didn't even try for next gen from the begining . I knew EDO couldn't run on my Xbox one and accepted that min specs like on PC was needed .
Sorry for bringing up the topic, but did we get any information on which part of the original plans were cancelled together with cancelling of the console release?
In particular whether or not instancing of Horizons and Odyssey players in space is still considering to be added to the game (especially considering release of Horizons 4.0 client).
In particular whether or not instancing of Horizons and Odyssey players in space is still considering to be added to the game (especially considering release of Horizons 4.0 client).
That was old info.
Current info, as in last Thursday info, is:
And in relation to the release with Horizons 4.0
But who knows, maybe they'll be able to eventually stick to the initial plans, so after FD launches the console version, everyone will be able to instance with everyone else
they canceled console version of odissey
He knows.
ofc i know, 5 days ago i transferred my 3000+ hours account from XB to PC
i was pointing out the chances for horizons-odyssey instancing are currently (almost) as low as the chance of FDev releasing Odyssey on consoles.
As soon as the console version of Odyssey is released, Horizons and Odyssey clients will be able to play together, it was in the same post you quoted, didn't you see it?
As soon as the console version of Odyssey is released, Horizons and Odyssey clients will be able to play together, it was in the same post you quoted, didn't you see it?
Shame on you, my friend!