FPS - what is too low?

[OnCrack]

any decent gaming experience comes at 60+ fps, anything below that is as bad a texture bugs, heavy lag, etc. Recommended requirements should give 60+ fps as minimum, a thing that this game doesn't even with better pc components than those the devs said.

 

[Apex.]

I get 99 usually, until somebody starts using artillery and my fps dips between 40-50

 

[Josef Nader]

Seriously guys, do you have custom/high-end monitors that refresh at faster than 60fps?

'Cause the game can run at 120 fps without your monitor being able to refresh that fast, and most monitors nowadays are locked in at around 60fps.

 

[Oook!]

Minimum FPS > average/highest FPS

 

[u-s-e-r]

Seriously guys, do you have custom/high-end monitors that refresh at faster than 60fps?

'Cause the game can run at 120 fps without your monitor being able to refresh that fast, and most monitors nowadays are locked in at around 60fps.

Yes, I have, and it doesnt matter if your monitor cant render that much anyway, the game will still perform smoother

 

[Hurgh]

tzz with my ancient hardware I'm happy when I have 30 fps (settings medium). With settings low, game crashes...

 

[SolitarioSoldat]

my monitor runs at 66hz(forced), so min 66fps. On a 100hz monitor show me video without telling me what its running and i will tell you what fps they are running all they way up to 100fps. After 100hz/fps its hard to tell.

EDIT: missposted,.............

 

[THD]

Yeeeeah...
I remember you, we were both on top of our respective teams' score.
And I gave you a pretty hard time with my bolt against your semi.

Don't hate the player, hate the game

Well, if you consider having ca 10 frags to 30 giving a hard time, then fine, I won't argue. After all, we all have different standards. GG&WP.

 

[HLudwig]

The same people that say they can tell the difference 30 fps and 60 fps are the same people that swear they can tell the difference from 720p to 1020p.

 

[Josef Nader]

The same people that say they can tell the difference 30 fps and 60 fps are the same people that swear they can tell the difference from 720p to 1020p.

So what if I have to prime my computer before yanking the pull-starter, I play at 1680x1050 graphics, low settings, and 30-40 fps and I love it!

 

[THD]

The same people that say they can tell the difference 30 fps and 60 fps are the same people that swear they can tell the difference from 720p to 1020p.

Can't you? It's 1080p btw.

(Protip: stop watching movies on your 15 inch crt)

 

[Satch]

The average human eye can capture aprox 60fps. I always play 60fps or above.

 

[The Algerian]

Well, if you consider having ca 10 frags to 30 giving a hard time, then fine, I won't argue. After all, we all have different standards. GG&WP.

My team didn't, they were utter noobs after all.
I did give you a hard time, you know it, you wouldn't pull the "camper" excuse (which doesn't work the slightest on RO) and you wouldn't rage (yes your post shows rage) if I didn't.

 

[azianinvazn]

60+ fps is a must.

 

[usmc123]

I can't tell if some of you are joking or not....really you need AT LEAST 60 FPS to play your game? Jesus Christ, you guys must just piss money onto your rigs every year.

It could be that I've been dealing with low-end rigs for years, but 30 fps is just fine for me. I don't have any trouble playing above 30.

20 is the bare minimum. Obvious performance issues and what not make it a headache to play.

I have never even seen 70+ fps, and I manage to be pretty competitive online. You guys either have some hyper-evolved eyes and reflexes that let you take advantage of such an FPS.

I mean, most console games are locked in at 30-60 fps, and there isn't any drop in quality or visual difference to me. Not to mention that most modern LCD monitors are locked in at 60fps.

Frankly, I think you guys are talking out of your bums.

Could not agree more. I think I do perfectly fine online and I also say 20 is my bare minimum with 30 being playable.

The same people that say they can tell the difference 30 fps and 60 fps are the same people that swear they can tell the difference from 720p to 1020p.

That difference is pretty big actually...

 

[Richey79]

I turn my in-game settings down so that I get between 55 and 80 at all times.

Sure, the lighting's beautiful, but it's a competitive FPS. It's just frustrating and doesn't feel responsive enough if it regularly drops under 45 frames.

Make up your own mind whether you can 'see the difference' between 30 fps and 60:

http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html

 

[HLudwig]

http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html

 

[Empty Box]

I usually set everything up in any game to hold 75 FPS or so, which isn't too difficult as I built this system a couple of months ago.

Here though, I'm holding from 40-75 or so, when it's low it's likely there is smoke on my screen. Doesn't seem to matter, going from High+Ultra combo mix to full on low I still only got 80 FPS consistently.... 40 is about my threshold now, before I had ye olde coal fired PC, and 30 was my number. Can't bear that anymore.

I set up things as such though to have some buffer zone. I can easily tell the difference between 30, 60 and 90+. And yes, there is a difference. You may not even see above 60 due to the eye / monitor, but the controls just feel different.

 

[Kasspa]

http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html

Wow that website is awesome, I'm bookmarking it. I always knew I could see a vast difference between 30 and 60+ fps and that little bouncing box just proved it for me. There is definitely stuttering in the 30fps example in comparison to the 60fps one.

 

[MrGoat]

My opinion, anything under 60 fps is NOT ACCEPTABLE!

I have a pretty beefy system (2 gtx460, 3.6ghz quadcore, 4 gig of ram), and I still havent found a game (other than the ro2 beta and maybe crysis) that dips below 60 fps. For the most part ro2 beta is around 80-90 fps, but on maps like fallen fighters, it drops to like 40 outdoors.