What fps is acceptable?

[Deleted member 38366]

I see people on here complaining that they only get 60 fps....... if you turned your counter off would you even know? What can the human eye discern?

Now, I am only getting 20 fps and I can sure as hell discern that - it runs like a dog.

Depends.... For young people doing highly competitive fps, 150-200fps is considered acceptable for 100% intuitive and reactive & precise actions.

The human eye can see far in excess of that, it's the brain that limits how much of that data it can process and how fast. This is highly individual.

For normal, average Gameplay, the Display refresh rate is the common benchmark line that should be aimed for. That varies from 60 upto ~120fps, depending on the Display Device used.

 

[GroG79]

It’s all a little bizarre. Why is it hitting some rigs so much more than others? And why the hell does down clocking make it run better?

Indeed something is up. It is not like Newton is suddenly invalid with EDO release.

Start with cleaning all the options. Clear GFX setting, clear ED gfx settings. Remove custom setting everywhere including overclocks. Remove nvidia after effects etc. Perhaps re-install/update drivers where applicable. Confirm temperatures. Also best way to test fps/performance is using frontline. This seems to be the hardest for the hardware.

 

[cmdr Temeleen]

Theres simple answer to that when it coes to odyssey. With recommended pc on 1080p youre supposed to average at 60fps - so thats your acceptable number; in reality if you spend most of the time in stations / settlements with recommended pc on 1080p youre looking at 30-40fps.

 

[CMDR Jayce MacLeod]

I have a 144 monitor, so yes I can see and feel quite clearly the difference between 60fps and 144fps.

For me, in any game, the more fps the better, but I understand that Oddessy just released, so I'm being paient.

 

[avow555]

45+ would suit me.
Odyssey has most certainly not been optimised.

 

[Sunyavadin]

For me, in any game, the more fps the better, but I understand that Oddessy just released, so I'm being paient.

How can anyone defend a game releasing WITHOUT first being optimised for stable framerates? HOW?
Release is supposed to mean it's 1.0, it's gone through several months of QA testing and polish, and all that remains should be the kind of bugs that no amount of testing can account for showing up when players do stuff you didn't expect them to do!

 

[CMDR Jayce MacLeod]

How can anyone defend a game releasing WITHOUT first being optimised for stable framerates? HOW?
Release is supposed to mean it's 1.0, it's gone through several months of QA testing and polish, and all that remains should be the kind of bugs that no amount of testing can account for showing up when players do stuff you didn't expect them to do!

Welcome to the 21st century. Games would have never been released in such shape years ago (Except game like E.T. on the atari 2600 lol), but sadly those days are long gone. This is how game development is nowadays. Its corporate, not the devs. Honestly, they really should have called it a beta for the time being. Either way, I've honestly had an very good time with Odyssey so far. I'm running around 60-70 fps in most places now, dipping below 60 in some places. Space is still 144 fps for me on my 1080ti.

Crashed a few times, sure, but nothing earthshattering over the weekend. Others may be having a troubling time though, and I hope they work out their issues soon.

Your results may vary - but from a technical standpoint I've been have a pretty good time of it.

 

[ImmerseMe]

It actually is fairly subjective but some objective facts can be derived. An FPS game with an APM and TTK paradigm such as Elite can, objectively, be played perfectly effectively down to around 40 FPS, likely as low as 30 perhaps.

However a game such as Call of Duty (any of them) may actually need more FPS, at least to remain competitive or play the super hard difficulties. I've never seen any FPS campaign that required above 40 on Normal difficulty.

As for subjective taste I'm quite lenient here. I wouldnt even notice my FPS dropping to 50 during intense firefights, it's really only down around 40 that I start to notice and consider turning down some graphics.

I suspect I could detect FPS above 60 if I tried but I've never had reason to try.

 

[ImmerseMe]

How can anyone defend a game releasing WITHOUT first being optimised for stable framerates? HOW?
Release is supposed to mean it's 1.0, it's gone through several months of QA testing and polish, and all that remains should be the kind of bugs that no amount of testing can account for showing up when players do stuff you didn't expect them to do!

Well that's simple. FPS just isnt that big a concern for I dunno maybe half of the gaming population?

Especially in a non-competitive title geared toward long term progress. In Fortnite? Yeah sure it'd matter.

Remember that huge numbers never even turn on FPS counters, third party or otherwise. So unless the FPS drops to around 40 they literally wont even notice. Some of the older gamers wont even notice until 30

 

[Logan Terrick]

Once it starts to drop below about 80 fps it starts to bother me. People who say that you can't tell the difference with high fps have just never played a fast paced game with a high fps. You can absolutely tell the difference. I have a 165 Hz monitor so that I can play at high frame rates and enjoy the smooth motion. When using things like TrackIR to look around in game having a high fps helps massively at making it as smooth as possible. When it drops to below 80 fps you can definitely notice the difference.

 

[ImmerseMe]

Around 60FPS is my minimum for acceptable for a game like this.

For slower paced games 30FPS is fine but I notice it in aspects of EDO when it dips this low.

Really? Isnt Elite a fairly slow paced game comparatively though? Perhaps you mean that basically any action game needs to be 60 but turn-based stuff like city builders can go lower?

 

[Sunyavadin]

Remember that huge numbers never even turn on FPS counters, third party or otherwise. So unless the FPS drops to around 40 they literally wont even notice. Some of the older gamers wont even notice until 30

There are literally people complaining of Odyssey giving them framerates in the TEENS when they can play Horizons at 60 and above.

 

[Ted Striker]

30fps is fine but there is a difference between that and say 60fps. Here's a little demo, I recommend randomly clicking the button and then guessing what it's running at without looking at the toggle.

Yeah that's a very noticeable difference even though the 30 fps is still fine to play.

Wish I could average 30 fps in Odyssey. I uninstalled it for now. It's nearly unplayable. Horizons though is fine, with higher settings. I might get a slight fps drop in a heated haz rez with all kinds of effects flashing on screen at the same time, maybe.

 

[Logan Terrick]

There are literally people complaining of Odyssey giving them framerates in the TEENS when they can play Horizons at 60 and above.

It's much worse than that for me. Horizons (with the same settings) I can get average 120 fps in supercruise, 90 fps in normal space - outside a station or with other ships and 62+ fps docked in stations. 62 fps being my absolute lowest, anywhere.

With the same settings in Odyssey I get average 60 fps in supercruise, 45 fps in normal space - outside a station or with other ships, 26+ fps docked in stations and average of 15 fps on foot.

 

[ImmerseMe]

There are literally people complaining of Odyssey giving them framerates in the TEENS when they can play Horizons at 60 and above.

Have you perhaps responded to the wrong person, or in the wrong post?

 

[Deleted member 275623]

No it doesn’t. But most people do see a moving image at around 18 fps even if they see the flicker.

Many forms of neuro-divergence make people more sensitive to flicker of much higher frame rates.

And even an untrained eye can detect at up to 1,000 fps even if they’re not consciously aware of a difference.

Frame rate allows us to talk about a measurable variable.

You cant compare movie fps to a video game its completely different

 

[Episparh]

I am fine with everything above 60.
Bellow 60 it starts to look like a sideshow.

 

[Sunyavadin]

Have you perhaps responded to the wrong person, or in the wrong post?

You:
"Remember that huge numbers never even turn on FPS counters, third party or otherwise. So unless the FPS drops to around 40 they literally wont even notice. Some of the older gamers wont even notice until 30 "

Me:
"There are literally people complaining of Odyssey giving them framerates in the TEENS when they can play Horizons at 60 and above."

You were claiming that most people won't notice FPS drops until they hit 30 or so. The implication, correct me if I am wrong, seeming to be that the framerates Odyssey is causing are not a big deal, as most people won't notice them, but people who can get a steady 60 in Horizons are reporting FPS drops in some cases of over 50%. that's noticeable. REALLY noticeable. Especially when you can load up Horizons and physically see the difference between the two clients on the same hardware.

 

[MajorHavoc]

All current Sony TVs have good smoothness. Samsungs are good because they come with built in freesync.

Thank you for the reply, I was joking a bit about the Sony crt, modern panels are very sharp but the 'sample and hold' as Morbad says is not great for rapid motion verses even decades old crt technology. I am currently running on a BenQ XR3501, VA panel with decent contrast but has issues with light sources on dark backgrounds when in motion, so not ideal for ED. The star field practically disappears especially when pitching in Odyssey, fine when static. Anyone have experience with Oled ?

 

[Slange Lands]

When I do PvP FA off in the asteroid fields, I am happy at 100, resigned at 80, at 60 I begin to start thinking of logging out, if it were to go below 30 I would immediately quit the game. The PA aiming is hard enough as it is. Low frame rate in addition to player and npc lag =

There's a huge range of difference in what people are able to discern on their screens.

I started gaming at 19 playing Lode Runner on a Macintosh SE. Graphics nowadays seem remarkable and miraculous to me. However, imagine if one started gaming in the late nineties at age 5 and by age 10 was already conversant with anti-aliasing, supersampling,etc., and routinely fiddled with video options. That person, starting so young, would have a vastly more sophisticated perception of what is going on onscreen.

I think some incredulity to the negative criticism is mostly due to differences in what that person has been trained to see. It's certainly no one's "fault". And of course playstyle matters, too. If one PvPs, one is extremely negatively effected by low frame rate compared to someone who is a trucker or explorer.