forum
whats a good fps on Osu?
posted
Total Posts
67
you're not supposed to make a new thread just for this
OT : 120 is good enough for a decent play. end of discussion
OT : 120 is good enough for a decent play. end of discussion
420 fps is for really pro
OT: Whatever fps seems smooth to you
OT: Whatever fps seems smooth to you
500 fps is pro.
However, I run with 120 fps.
However, I run with 120 fps.
No love for 60 FPS
I hate you guys
I hate you guys
120 / 240 is fine if you ask me.
Under 120 and I start to notice the circles kinda lagging. (On my laptop when I go somewhere)
I usually just leave it unlimited since I get 500-ish on my desktop.
Under 120 and I start to notice the circles kinda lagging. (On my laptop when I go somewhere)
I usually just leave it unlimited since I get 500-ish on my desktop.
EasyMillions
I had 420 fps once
ONCE
ONCE
QQ... why AMD for the love of God. Though the difference is marginal, Intel's CPUs are better - though they're WAY overrated when it comes to prices....
IppE
Dat AMD K10 microarchitecture. Still better than most plebs here have.
Filthy Casual
Use your TV as a monitor if you think 120fps is the limit. The human eye can't really differentiate between 120 and 2220, but showing off is what counts the most.
most monitors and TV's refresh at 60hz afaik, you have to pay a heap more money to get a 120 or 144hz monitor.
It's hard to tell any difference between 60 and 144 frames per second but IDK, it might make a difference for reading super high AR like 10.33, since the frame where the circle apprears will be displayed a few miliseconds faster.
It's hard to tell any difference between 60 and 144 frames per second but IDK, it might make a difference for reading super high AR like 10.33, since the frame where the circle apprears will be displayed a few miliseconds faster.
"Most" doesn't include all of them. Money isn't a valid variable in this discussion either, as we're talking about every monitor/TV in general.
Sure, a few milliseconds sounds nice and all, but the thing you should be improving instead is your reaction time. It's WAY more efficient to make your reaction time 80ms from 190ms, than to spend 2k Euro and buy the best monitor ever that would arguably shave off 2-3ms at best.
Sure, a few milliseconds sounds nice and all, but the thing you should be improving instead is your reaction time. It's WAY more efficient to make your reaction time 80ms from 190ms, than to spend 2k Euro and buy the best monitor ever that would arguably shave off 2-3ms at best.
(wow all my text spontaneously got deleted the second beofore I posted...)Aurani wrote:
"Most" doesn't include all of them. Money isn't a valid variable in this discussion either, as we're talking about every monitor/TV in general.
Sure, a few milliseconds sounds nice and all, but the thing you should be improving instead is your reaction time. It's WAY more efficient to make your reaction time 80ms from 190ms, than to spend 2k Euro and buy the best monitor ever that would arguably shave off 2-3ms at best.
yeah I never said it's make a massive difference, the 2-3 milliseconds might help with high AR though, obviously you're not just going to rely on your equipment instead of improving your skills. 144hz *might* give expert players a very small advantage.
If you've already spent 2K on a gaming PC, you may as well spend a little more to get a gaming monitor that can take advantage of the higher fps.
Actually such a high-end gaming PC would cost around 3-4k Euro here. That means both buying every part of it and getting everything OC'd by a professional, not doing it yourself. Then we could talk about a high-end monitor - but honestly, I don't think anyone needs such a thing. If you're going to spend 3-4k + God knows how much for a monitor as well on just a silly and trivial game, you must be extremely out of your mind........ or have so much cash you literally use it as toilet paper.
Technically any computer can be used to play osu!, just as long as it's not a potato...Aurani wrote:
Actually such a high-end gaming PC would cost around 3-4k Euro here. That means both buying every part of it and getting everything OC'd by a professional, not doing it yourself. Then we could talk about a high-end monitor - but honestly, I don't think anyone needs such a thing. If you're going to spend 3-4k + God knows how much for a monitor as well on just a silly and trivial game, you must be extremely out of your mind........ or have so much cash you literally use it as toilet paper.
This is the same case with people who buy tablets for osu, most think they won't buy one because "they don't just want it for osu," but little do they no tablet users can have different hobbies like DRAWING WOW
tl;dr if you have the $, do whatever you want but if not then save your damn money
IMO, 3-4K Euros is a ridiculous estimate. I built what I consider a high end overclockable gaming PC for around $2200 AUD inlcuding OS, getting profesionals to build and OC'd would cost a few hundered more.Aurani wrote:
Actually such a high-end gaming PC would cost around 3-4k Euro here. That means both buying every part of it and getting everything OC'd by a professional, not doing it yourself. Then we could talk about a high-end monitor - but honestly, I don't think anyone needs such a thing. If you're going to spend 3-4k + God knows how much for a monitor as well on just a silly and trivial game, you must be extremely out of your mind........ or have so much cash you literally use it as toilet paper.
Spending more money is not practical and goes into the realm of enthusiast builds for people who like to play with 3 monitors etc.
Why need 3 monitors when you can just get panoramic night vision goggles
What I meant by "high-end" what what I myself consider the top of the top. A high-end one could be made for as little as 1100 Euro if you look everywhere and do all the work yourself, but what I was referring to was your "enthusiast build". That's basically what I did and it's nothing all that special. Humans are greedy beings, greedy to their core, and always think that they need the best of the best, when in reality they don't need it at all. After you build such a machine, you actually start wondering why you did it, since the feeling you have is not all that different from the one you had when you were on your previous 900 Euro PC.
Tl;Dr No need for anything extreme, just roll with whatever you can afford and it'll be your best and most efficient investment.
P.S. I don't have 3 monitors - I have 1 cheapo and it's still fine.
Tl;Dr No need for anything extreme, just roll with whatever you can afford and it'll be your best and most efficient investment.
P.S. I don't have 3 monitors - I have 1 cheapo and it's still fine.
hmm so what are the specs of your pc?
I'd rather not continue into that territory, as I'm weird and touchy when it comes to my PC.
Just heed my advice and don't ever spend serious money on it unless you absolutely need it for making money and raising a family.
Just heed my advice and don't ever spend serious money on it unless you absolutely need it for making money and raising a family.
But a higher fps does reduce latency, and at high OD/ on mania mode could make quite a large differenceFilthy Casual wrote:
Well most monitors can't update much faster than 120FPS so going over that really isn't too important unless of course you just want to show off.
80ms seems a little unrealistic, no?Aurani wrote:
"Most" doesn't include all of them. Money isn't a valid variable in this discussion either, as we're talking about every monitor/TV in general.
Sure, a few milliseconds sounds nice and all, but the thing you should be improving instead is your reaction time. It's WAY more efficient to make your reaction time 80ms from 190ms, than to spend 2k Euro and buy the best monitor ever that would arguably shave off 2-3ms at best.
Increasing the fps from 60 upwards can give you 15+ms less latency, but of course you have to factor keyboards/mice input lag
I just gave an example of how much better it is to improve your own reaction time, rather than spending so much money. Even IF you assumed that all the peripheral devices had zero lag and transferred data immediately, giving you that 15+ ms less latency - don't you think that it sounds a tad bit weird to improve a road with one little bump in it, rather than fix a road with a 5 by 5 metre hole in it?
Your reaction time can be improved to the point where you would still be able play better than others even with the shittiest machine.
Your reaction time can be improved to the point where you would still be able play better than others even with the shittiest machine.
It appears we are on a different things
I personally find reaction times less useful than reduced latency
Ar10 runs about 450ms, so 200ms of reaction should be sufficient, but with frame latency there is a difference between the approach circle appearing to hit and when it actually hits, and it is more noticible on high ar.
Fixing frame latency and improving reaction time improves 2 different areas
Improving reaction time gives you more time to seek the cursor to the note for jumps, while reducing frame latency makes the on screen depiction of whats actually happening more accruate.
And because you can't "get used" to frame latency thanks to its random nature, i would not consider it a small bump
I personally find reaction times less useful than reduced latency
Ar10 runs about 450ms, so 200ms of reaction should be sufficient, but with frame latency there is a difference between the approach circle appearing to hit and when it actually hits, and it is more noticible on high ar.
Fixing frame latency and improving reaction time improves 2 different areas
Improving reaction time gives you more time to seek the cursor to the note for jumps, while reducing frame latency makes the on screen depiction of whats actually happening more accruate.
And because you can't "get used" to frame latency thanks to its random nature, i would not consider it a small bump
60 is pretty standard but doesn't have any problems at all. But if you're running at 120fps+ with a 120hz monitor then you're in for a treat. =w=
Such smooth very fps
Such smooth very fps
I think 120 fps is still playable (for me at least, 60 fps is barely playable for osu!)... but 240 fps or more is definitely better
*I use 60 fps frame limiter until around 20k PlayCount I think (before I knew that disabling Aero in Win7 is Greatly affect fps in osu!) =w=
*I use 60 fps frame limiter until around 20k PlayCount I think (before I knew that disabling Aero in Win7 is Greatly affect fps in osu!) =w=
In your previous post you mentioned it would add (and I quote): "15+ms less latency..."
That means you were the one to put it on the same level and frequency, not me.
Also, I'll add a question if I may - What difference does it make to improve one variable (in this case the frame latency) if your own eyes are so to say "random" as well? Our brain is quite unique when it comes to how we perceive things. As the information which enters (I'm referring to the information your eyes pick up) has to get processed, our brain has to counter that by predicting what will happen in the next fraction of a second. That means it's quite susceptible and prone to failure. That would only be one argument - another one would be that your whole body is changing during the day (fluctuating amounts of hormones, cell divisions, blood pressure levels, internal temperature et cetera et cetera) affecting your gameplay by quite a bit.
What the crux of that messy thing I wrote up there was, is that no matter what you do and how you see it, improving your machine's capabilities is still very much inefficient compared to what you could do with your body (for example, change and adapt to a new diet that takes care of your concentration and improves your sensory processing) to make up for it.
That means you were the one to put it on the same level and frequency, not me.
Also, I'll add a question if I may - What difference does it make to improve one variable (in this case the frame latency) if your own eyes are so to say "random" as well? Our brain is quite unique when it comes to how we perceive things. As the information which enters (I'm referring to the information your eyes pick up) has to get processed, our brain has to counter that by predicting what will happen in the next fraction of a second. That means it's quite susceptible and prone to failure. That would only be one argument - another one would be that your whole body is changing during the day (fluctuating amounts of hormones, cell divisions, blood pressure levels, internal temperature et cetera et cetera) affecting your gameplay by quite a bit.
What the crux of that messy thing I wrote up there was, is that no matter what you do and how you see it, improving your machine's capabilities is still very much inefficient compared to what you could do with your body (for example, change and adapt to a new diet that takes care of your concentration and improves your sensory processing) to make up for it.
Well when I said 80ms was unrealistic I was refering to you saying "make your reaction time 80ms from 190ms" which would not be possible (except for the rare exceptions)
When i talked about latency it was refering to screen latency, not reaction time. Although it does indeed grant you more time to react as if you had a better reaction time, it also reduces the "randomness" factor of your hits (if you are playing visually). I won't say you are wrong, but do keep in mind the lower your current reaction time is, the harder it becomes to improve, and eventually even 15ms of improvement would be very hard.
When you say the random effect of latency doesn't matter, because we are already random at hitting on time, it would be like saying that making more accruate guns are pointless because our hand can never keep still while firing a gun anyway. Our random hit error is added onto whatever random delay that frame latency might add to the gameplay, thus it would affect how often we hit 300s/rainbow 300s.
I'll simplify my point further:
Improving your reaction time would help you get more time to move to the circle. Beyond that, how ACCRUATELY you might hit it is more or less up to your skill, how well you predicted the note's timing, and up to a certain point improvements to reaction time would help less and less till the benefit is negligible.
However, should your monitor be slightly late by a varaible amout each frame from what is actually happening in the game, that would add errors to your prediction regardless of your reaction time, which when stacked with the natual hit error might make a difference in the score.
When i talked about latency it was refering to screen latency, not reaction time. Although it does indeed grant you more time to react as if you had a better reaction time, it also reduces the "randomness" factor of your hits (if you are playing visually). I won't say you are wrong, but do keep in mind the lower your current reaction time is, the harder it becomes to improve, and eventually even 15ms of improvement would be very hard.
When you say the random effect of latency doesn't matter, because we are already random at hitting on time, it would be like saying that making more accruate guns are pointless because our hand can never keep still while firing a gun anyway. Our random hit error is added onto whatever random delay that frame latency might add to the gameplay, thus it would affect how often we hit 300s/rainbow 300s.
I'll simplify my point further:
Improving your reaction time would help you get more time to move to the circle. Beyond that, how ACCRUATELY you might hit it is more or less up to your skill, how well you predicted the note's timing, and up to a certain point improvements to reaction time would help less and less till the benefit is negligible.
However, should your monitor be slightly late by a varaible amout each frame from what is actually happening in the game, that would add errors to your prediction regardless of your reaction time, which when stacked with the natual hit error might make a difference in the score.
I already stated before that I used the "190 to 80 ms" as just an example, not for someone to take it literally, despite it actually being possible.
While I do understand your point (and you have quite a fair point there), let me remind you that we're discussing such microscopic variables that are quite useless to a normal and casual player, it defeats the whole purpose of this discussion. Not even the top players in this game are calculating anything that we mentioned here, as it is trivial - this is a program used exclusively for altering the brain chemistry to make time go by faster - or in other words, for fun. We've went deeper into this than we should've, to be honest, as every individual is different, and you can't possibly predict whether or not doing anything of the aforementioned would help them improve - let alone discuss about it actually being a feasible method of improving a casual Osu player.
While I do understand your point (and you have quite a fair point there), let me remind you that we're discussing such microscopic variables that are quite useless to a normal and casual player, it defeats the whole purpose of this discussion. Not even the top players in this game are calculating anything that we mentioned here, as it is trivial - this is a program used exclusively for altering the brain chemistry to make time go by faster - or in other words, for fun. We've went deeper into this than we should've, to be honest, as every individual is different, and you can't possibly predict whether or not doing anything of the aforementioned would help them improve - let alone discuss about it actually being a feasible method of improving a casual Osu player.
Well i could say that a casual osu player that doesnt touch ar10 wouldnt really benefit from increased reaction time anyway or decreased frame latency, what they mainly need is map reading skills and cursor control.(650ms of ar9 is more than enough) but i did state what I was saying mainly affects high od/osumania
And I doubt a casual player would invest thousands in a gaming pc anyway,
And I doubt a casual player would invest thousands in a gaming pc anyway,
You know, a mod needs to cut this discussion from here and sticky it to G&R, so random mongrels would stop complaining about trivial stuff all the time and actually read up on something that describes their problems in details.
i usually sit between 1000-1500
but Some people say that you can't detect the difference past 60 FPS (in video games), others say 100 is where you can't perceive the difference. It's definitely media dependent.
but Some people say that you can't detect the difference past 60 FPS (in video games), others say 100 is where you can't perceive the difference. It's definitely media dependent.
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_c ... ns_see.htm
Read up on it, or for tl;dr - anything below 500 is arguably still enough to be noticeable depending on the situation.
Read up on it, or for tl;dr - anything below 500 is arguably still enough to be noticeable depending on the situation.
Here's all their questions in a nutshell:
Fps lag
What skin does <insert player name> use
How do i change the sensetivity
How do i get better
Tablet or mouse
How do i hold tablet/mouse
Cannot update/open
And since knowing how to use search is a such a "rare" talent and job skill that might get you a post on "technical assistance department" i would doubt any amount of FAQ or stickied posts would help.
Also, I doubt there's motion blur in osu, but I can't quite explain the osumania notes appearing to split up on high scroll speeds
Fps lag
What skin does <insert player name> use
How do i change the sensetivity
How do i get better
Tablet or mouse
How do i hold tablet/mouse
Cannot update/open
And since knowing how to use search is a such a "rare" talent and job skill that might get you a post on "technical assistance department" i would doubt any amount of FAQ or stickied posts would help.
Also, I doubt there's motion blur in osu, but I can't quite explain the osumania notes appearing to split up on high scroll speeds
Don't forget the constant circlejerking after each and every one of those topics has been answered on.
If only there would be more diligent people with exuberant arguments and a touch of sarcasm - like you, this place would be teeming with intellectually advanced conversations and I would've called it "utopia". Sadly, most of the time it is completely the opposite of it.
Well, you'd get a beer from me (or whatever you like) if I were there, mate.
If only there would be more diligent people with exuberant arguments and a touch of sarcasm - like you, this place would be teeming with intellectually advanced conversations and I would've called it "utopia". Sadly, most of the time it is completely the opposite of it.
Well, you'd get a beer from me (or whatever you like) if I were there, mate.
At least i'm glad to know there are people similar to you who are willing to justify/discuss their points.
Then again, we can't help those "it works because it does for me, simply because it does" posts.
However, I wouldn't mind renaming the forum to "general complaints" since thats what it really is anyway, and moving actual discissions/bug reports that go beyond "its not working!" to where they can get the attention they deserve.
Then again, we can't help those "it works because it does for me, simply because it does" posts.
However, I wouldn't mind renaming the forum to "general complaints" since thats what it really is anyway, and moving actual discissions/bug reports that go beyond "its not working!" to where they can get the attention they deserve.
Adding (or renaming) one with the name "General Complaints" would quite literally mean making a second Off-topic, just with a different goal in mind. Unless someone enforces strict rules with rather severe punishments for G&R, I see no way of it ever improving beyond this point. It's just going to have to serve as a melting pot for every problem and idea random players might have.
I know people that run osu! ranging from 4000 - 6000 fps...
Meanwhile I'm over where with like 400-500 MAX lol
I knew some people that ran it under 100 and can do relatively well on insane maps eh
Meanwhile I'm over where with like 400-500 MAX lol
I knew some people that ran it under 100 and can do relatively well on insane maps eh
Those kind of people probably have high-end machines and run it with everything turned off and with a reeeeeeeeeeally low resolution, as I can't imagine them having a 3 times better PC unless we're talking about server machines here.... though why would you fucking play Osu with something that has THAT kind of power and that wasn't meant for being used by an individual for games but for running servers....
I'd just like to make a point,
you say Aurani that it's best to improve your reaction speed rather than your equipment, this is obvious, but it's implying that you can only choose one thing to improve. The top players are of course going to try and develop their skills and reaction speed as much as they can, but it's obvious that to get the best possible performance you should try and improve every variable possible, including your equipment.
you say Aurani that it's best to improve your reaction speed rather than your equipment, this is obvious, but it's implying that you can only choose one thing to improve. The top players are of course going to try and develop their skills and reaction speed as much as they can, but it's obvious that to get the best possible performance you should try and improve every variable possible, including your equipment.
I never mentioned that option since it was irrelevant for the discussion - though I do agree on it. They definitely want to both improve their own sensory processing and actions as well as get the best equipment they can lay their hands on.
I run like 3 fps but ya know whatever floats your boat
Aurani wrote:
"Most" doesn't include all of them. Money isn't a valid variable in this discussion either, as we're talking about every monitor/TV in general.
Sure, a few milliseconds sounds nice and all, but the thing you should be improving instead is your reaction time. It's WAY more efficient to make your reaction time 80ms from 190ms, than to spend 2k Euro and buy the best monitor ever that would arguably shave off 2-3ms at best.
also, you aren't gaining "2-3ms"
if you have a bad monitor you're gaining 20-40 in input lag, disregarding benefits from +refresh rate
B1rd wrote:
most monitors and TV's refresh at 60hz afaik, you have to pay a heap more money to get a 120 or 144hz monitor.
It's hard to tell any difference between 60 and 144 frames per second but IDK, it might make a difference for reading super high AR like 10.33, since the frame where the circle apprears will be displayed a few miliseconds faster.
again, low input lag shows more of a difference
144hz is amazing for taiko and other scrolling rhythm games
it did seem to make ar10.86\11 look smoother to me though(may be the input lag though, again, my old monitor had ~50ms delay)