forum
Variable framerate limit [invalid]
posted
Total Posts
58
tnxpeppy wrote:
http://osu.ppy.sh/forum/viewtopic.php?p=152326#p152326
graaaaaah
Yes. I would like a 100hz option for my 100hz monitor :<
Or an actual 100hz vsync, not a 60hz one
Or an actual 100hz vsync, not a 60hz one
The problem is not the fps, but input lag.
[mm201] Experimental method to reduce input lag with vsync
D3D fullscreen is still having problems with my method, probably related to structuring which allows the bloom filter to work. It might also cause additional judder on very low-spec machines.
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=35580Shael wrote:
mfking bump of justice
Shael_old
ok no more mfkin bumps of justiceSakura Hana wrote:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=35580Shael wrote:
mfking bump of justice
With anything above 600fps my graphics card makes weird noises... I think osu! needs more options than 60-120-unlim...
Bump..
This is a very old topic, I was contemplating to make a newer topic due to the age of this but anyways..
I think osu! need more options to its FPS limiter. As a computer/technology enthusiast I like to get the most performance out of my machine but at a set amount that is reasonable to the hardware specs.
Anyone with a modern-high end computer can achieve well over 4,000-6,000 FPS while running osu! Now, this isn't to brag or anything it's simply useless to have such high FPS, but our options are very limited. Running our computers with such FPS causes more usage, thus more electrical conductivity which in some cases could even cause damage to the users hardware without proper cooling.
Here's an example of new purposed limits..
60
120
250
500
1000
2000
unlimited
etc..
This is a very old topic, I was contemplating to make a newer topic due to the age of this but anyways..
I think osu! need more options to its FPS limiter. As a computer/technology enthusiast I like to get the most performance out of my machine but at a set amount that is reasonable to the hardware specs.
Anyone with a modern-high end computer can achieve well over 4,000-6,000 FPS while running osu! Now, this isn't to brag or anything it's simply useless to have such high FPS, but our options are very limited. Running our computers with such FPS causes more usage, thus more electrical conductivity which in some cases could even cause damage to the users hardware without proper cooling.
Here's an example of new purposed limits..
60
120
250
500
1000
2000
unlimited
etc..
If it's causing damage, your hardware is damaged. I don't believe in adding more options, sorry.
I'm sorry that you believe that the 120 fps limit you introduced back in 2009 still cuts it when when people out there have multi-GPU/cards now, and having osu! use up to 80% or more of a high end card (which can pull up-to 300WATTS+) is just ridiculous for such a non-graphical intense game.
And the only option for us (your users) is to use 120 FPS limit which causes a noticeable delay while hitting fast notes.
And the only option for us (your users) is to use 120 FPS limit which causes a noticeable delay while hitting fast notes.
"640k is enough for anyone"
-Bill Gates, 1981
You are missing the point here. If 120fps is not enough, then the latency is coming from a mis-configuration. Make sure you have pre-render frames set to zero, vsync set to off etc.
Also, keep in mind the difference between 120 and 2000fps is (in worst case scenario) 3.9ms added latency. osu! is only accurate to 10ms on Windows 7+ due to limitations in the Windows audio subsystem. You are better off switching back to XP if you think this kind of latency has any effect on your gameplay. There is also low-latency vsync mode which is implemented in the test build that you can go try out.
The fact that the year has changed doesn't make an fps setting any less effective.
Also, keep in mind the difference between 120 and 2000fps is (in worst case scenario) 3.9ms added latency. osu! is only accurate to 10ms on Windows 7+ due to limitations in the Windows audio subsystem. You are better off switching back to XP if you think this kind of latency has any effect on your gameplay. There is also low-latency vsync mode which is implemented in the test build that you can go try out.
The fact that the year has changed doesn't make an fps setting any less effective.
So to clarify, you're fine with users wasting electricity with high-end cards that could draw 300+wattage of power?
76% usage of a 560 TI.
Hell, we all might as well just drive huge 4x4 trucks that guzzle gas, who cares about the ecosystem.
76% usage of a 560 TI.
Hell, we all might as well just drive huge 4x4 trucks that guzzle gas, who cares about the ecosystem.
Please use 120fps or low-latency vsync.
you lieMarkie wrote:
"640k is enough for anyone"
-Bill Gates, 1981
also, I'm not sure how you did your math peppy. 120 fps is 8 ms/frame. 2000 fps is 0.5 ms/frame.
I'm left to choose between 120 FPS which is pretty unplayable on very high BPM maps, or unlimited and use 300watts+ of power.
Hmm, tough choice, I really wish I had players reading this that actually use unlimited FPS over 120 FPS limit to make an input in this topic, as I'm just trying to get the point across.
The point is 120FPS is no where near the same as playing with a higher fps, instead we're stuck using unlimited which users with high-end machines can pull way more than needed FPS thus being a huge waste of resources. Instead of actually listening to me as a supporter, you just mark the topic off as invalid, which in fact it is valid.
Hmm, tough choice, I really wish I had players reading this that actually use unlimited FPS over 120 FPS limit to make an input in this topic, as I'm just trying to get the point across.
The point is 120FPS is no where near the same as playing with a higher fps, instead we're stuck using unlimited which users with high-end machines can pull way more than needed FPS thus being a huge waste of resources. Instead of actually listening to me as a supporter, you just mark the topic off as invalid, which in fact it is valid.
Are you telling me that GTX560 Ti uses 300+ watts of power?
That's pretty HC since GTX580 + sandy bridge drains that much watts in 100% load. And GTX560 Ti has been designed to draw ~200W at max load.
And you can always use external programs to limit your fps anyways.
Or just use the "economical" unlimited mode. Then your card will be maxed out only during plays, not while chatting and doing other random stuff
That's pretty HC since GTX580 + sandy bridge drains that much watts in 100% load. And GTX560 Ti has been designed to draw ~200W at max load.
And you can always use external programs to limit your fps anyways.
Or just use the "economical" unlimited mode. Then your card will be maxed out only during plays, not while chatting and doing other random stuff
300watts was just a rounded number, there's plenty of cards on the market that use a lot more power.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphi ... b-review/8
I'm just trying to make a point.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphi ... b-review/8
I'm just trying to make a point.
Not all games that you will pay for will support custom FPS these days (and osu! is free, you only choose to pay for supporter status), and peppy obviously have his reasons for not adding this, since it haven't been added for these 3 years it has been requested.
That's 3Dmark, which uses pretty much CPU on the side too, osu! barely uses 1 thread, so you can instantly exclude around 20-40W from those for osu!
That's 3Dmark, which uses pretty much CPU on the side too, osu! barely uses 1 thread, so you can instantly exclude around 20-40W from those for osu!
That's how it always goes, developers add stuff that they see is useful or if they listen to the community and there's a huge need for that, they will add it. This seems pretty low majority, since people has been just fine with 120fps & unlimited modes until now
Did you check your pre-rendered frames setting? Did you try low-latency vsync mode? I'm not trying to say you are wrong here, but I believe there are already alternatives in your case.
As for the math, we can assume that your monitor is running at 60hz. We need to assume (for simplicity) that the CPU and GPU are running out of phase (as in vsync off with no synchronisation). A frame renders roughly every 16.6ms with whatever is currently drawn to the buffer. With a 120fps limit (which actually ends up slightly higher due to internal latency optimisations), in the worst case, the last frame drawn was drawn 8.4ms earlier. In the best case it is drawn 0.0001ms earlier. The average between these is 4.2ms, so I guess the different is more like 4.175ms. The figure I gave before was a ballpark -- the important part is it is already low enough that it shouldn't matter.
More than providing a higher fps limit, I think you guys would enjoy a hardware mouse cursor. That way you are not getting any frame-induced input latency. THAT SAID, low latency vsync (for the nth time) should be about ON PAR with this, so I highly recommend you try it. If it works well, I can merge it into the next build without much of an issue.
For the energy conscious, use 120fps. For those wanting no sacrifices, use unlimited (preferably the new during-gameplay-only option). If you are still worried about your card drawing power, I highly suggest investing in a greener card. Other games will be drawing just as much if not more power, too.
As for the math, we can assume that your monitor is running at 60hz. We need to assume (for simplicity) that the CPU and GPU are running out of phase (as in vsync off with no synchronisation). A frame renders roughly every 16.6ms with whatever is currently drawn to the buffer. With a 120fps limit (which actually ends up slightly higher due to internal latency optimisations), in the worst case, the last frame drawn was drawn 8.4ms earlier. In the best case it is drawn 0.0001ms earlier. The average between these is 4.2ms, so I guess the different is more like 4.175ms. The figure I gave before was a ballpark -- the important part is it is already low enough that it shouldn't matter.
More than providing a higher fps limit, I think you guys would enjoy a hardware mouse cursor. That way you are not getting any frame-induced input latency. THAT SAID, low latency vsync (for the nth time) should be about ON PAR with this, so I highly recommend you try it. If it works well, I can merge it into the next build without much of an issue.
For the energy conscious, use 120fps. For those wanting no sacrifices, use unlimited (preferably the new during-gameplay-only option). If you are still worried about your card drawing power, I highly suggest investing in a greener card. Other games will be drawing just as much if not more power, too.
They're fine with it because the average user doesn't know how much resources are being used while using unlimited. This is just a simple call to help some users save energy.
Geforce removed the option to change pre-rendered frames from their newest drivers.
I did give it a few trys with various settings on the test build.
Geforce removed the option to change pre-rendered frames from their newest drivers.
I did give it a few trys with various settings on the test build.
As another alternative, if you get the nvidia performance tools add-on you can set per-app profiles. You could set your GPU's clock to as low as you deem necessary when osu! is running, which would achieve the same effect as a lower FPS limiter (but be more efficient and reliable).
I know there are many alternatives towards getting the FPS I so desire, the point of me even making a post in this section was just to give out an idea of more functionality in osu! instead of relying on external programs to do so. Same basic idea as irc in-game chat feature.
I myself could careless about how much power is being used, while playing a game. I know which card I bought and how much it punches.
In the end it was a basic request for future functionality that gives users more choices to help making the game playable performance & energy wise. I might've got carried away going on about it and I'm sorry. I just would've liked a more detailed response given then..
Thank you!
I myself could careless about how much power is being used, while playing a game. I know which card I bought and how much it punches.
In the end it was a basic request for future functionality that gives users more choices to help making the game playable performance & energy wise. I might've got carried away going on about it and I'm sorry. I just would've liked a more detailed response given then..
In which case the posts you have made as follow-ups now have been a lot more detailed and understanding.peppy wrote:
If it's causing damage, your hardware is damaged. I don't believe in adding more options, sorry.
Thank you!
How can we change the frame limiter...Soaprman wrote:
Yeah, frame limiter decreases heat. I want to be able to still limit framerate, but not to 60fps. Say, 120fps. Something that won't result in my computer overheating but is (hopefully) high enough to keep things from lagging.
I'm using windows 7