Re: How many frames of lag are there with the following
Posted: 04 Sep 2017, 12:26
Also, when I refer to the feel of the mouse, I don't mean the click latency-type of feel. But the movement of the cursor across the screen.
Who you gonna call? The Blur Busters! For Everything Better Than 60Hz™
https://forums.blurbusters.com/
You're posts are starting to go a little all over the place, so before we continue, what scenario are you specifically talking about now? Are you now only talking about the difference at 120Hz between Fast Sync at 120 FPS and Fast Sync at 240 FPS? Because that would require an entirely different explanation.drmcninja wrote:Yeah, I've read it.
That's a strong placebo effect, considering my accuracy % is different between the two consistently. Could it just be down to better mouse feel due to more input from the mouse at the higher framerate? Even though they're both the same refresh rate, the game engine is taking mouse input twice as often with the other one (240fps vs. 120fps). I would have thought Fast Sync's buffer would make the mouse feel worse (since it's throwing out half the frames, right?), but it feels better.
In other words, the mouse at 240fps is different from 120fps. So with Fast-Sync, the game engine is doing the former (mouse input 240 frames a second), but the GPU is cutting it down to appear like the latter (120 fps hits the monitor screen). But the 120fps delivered to the display with Fast-Sync seem qualitatively different from the 120fps delivered to the display when the game engine is limited to no more than 120fps.
Just as how there's a difference between 240fps/120Hz and 120fps/120Hz (with no refresh sync). The mouse under Fast-Sync feels more like the former than the latter. Like somewhere inbetween the two.
I thought you were saying that Fast Sync @120Hz vs. G-SYNC @120Hz/118 FPS felt more responsive?Then I moved to 120Hz with Fast-Sync ON at 240-260fps (along with some computer upgrades so FPS wouldn't fluctuate), and that was amazing all around (on my laptop I use 120Hz, 118fps G-Sync On, V-Sync On, it also feels good, but not as good as Fast-Sync). 120Hz with Fast-Sync felt almost as good as uncapped/300fps, or just as good. The mouse felt like it had noticeably less input lag than 120Hz/118fps.
In-game limiters are not accurate enough to give you 0.012FPS precision. You're going to have way more input lag compared to 300FPS since the frame limiter can't completely prevent vsync lag.drmcninja wrote:I had to ask because I can actually notice a difference between V-Sync ON, 240.012Hz refresh rate and 240fps in-game cap versus V-Sync OFF, 300fps in-game cap.
Yup, I just installed RTSS as you posted this. I set it to 240.004 since my refresh rate seems consistently at 240.010 to 240.012. Does that seem reasonable? I'm not sure how to use RTSS but the in-game FPS thing is now steady at 240 with no alterations. I thought RTSS was supposed to have it's own FPS display but nothing appears while it's running.RealNC wrote:In-game limiters are not accurate enough to give you 0.012FPS precision. You're going to have way more input lag compared to 300FPS since the frame limiter can't completely prevent vsync lag.drmcninja wrote:I had to ask because I can actually notice a difference between V-Sync ON, 240.012Hz refresh rate and 240fps in-game cap versus V-Sync OFF, 300fps in-game cap.
You would need to use RTSS for this, or cap well below 240FPS with the in-game limiter (like 237-ish) to make this work.
Yeah, Fast-Sync (240fps@120Hz) felt more responsive (not in click latency, but in mouse cursor movement) than G-Sync/V-Sync on 118fps@120Hz by a bit and by a lot over V-Sync 118fps@120Hz. My aim was better, my mouse felt like I really was at 240fps, not 120fps (though it's only displaying 120fps, the engine is doing 240fps).jorimt wrote:You're posts are starting to go a little all over the place, so before we continue, what scenario are you specifically talking about now? Are you now only talking about the difference at 120Hz between Fast Sync at 120 FPS and Fast Sync at 240 FPS? Because that would require an entirely different explanation.
My last post was specifically addressing these comments:I thought you were saying that Fast Sync @120Hz vs. G-SYNC @120Hz/118 FPS felt more responsive?Then I moved to 120Hz with Fast-Sync ON at 240-260fps (along with some computer upgrades so FPS wouldn't fluctuate), and that was amazing all around (on my laptop I use 120Hz, 118fps G-Sync On, V-Sync On, it also feels good, but not as good as Fast-Sync). 120Hz with Fast-Sync felt almost as good as uncapped/300fps, or just as good. The mouse felt like it had noticeably less input lag than 120Hz/118fps.
Okay, then my previous comments stand.drmcninja wrote:Yeah, Fast-Sync (240fps@120Hz) felt more responsive (not in click latency, but in mouse cursor movement) than G-Sync/V-Sync on 118fps@120Hz by a bit and by a lot over V-Sync 118fps@120Hz. My aim was better, my mouse felt like I really was at 240fps, not 120fps (though it's only displaying 120fps, the engine is doing 240fps).
By mouse lag here I don't mean click latency, I mean the actual positions of the mouse cursor on the screen.jorimt wrote:Okay, then my previous comments stand.drmcninja wrote:Yeah, Fast-Sync (240fps@120Hz) felt more responsive (not in click latency, but in mouse cursor movement) than G-Sync/V-Sync on 118fps@120Hz by a bit and by a lot over V-Sync 118fps@120Hz. My aim was better, my mouse felt like I really was at 240fps, not 120fps (though it's only displaying 120fps, the engine is doing 240fps).
And Fast Sync doesn't work like that; just because it's reporting 240 FPS at 120Hz, doesn't mean it's showing you 240 updates a second. You're still only seeing up to 120 updates per second (the rest are dropped, which can cause microstutter), and slower than G-SYNC in those specific scenarios. And since you can only react to what you see being output on screen, mouse input response isn't going to change either; it's still 120 updates per second either way.
E.g. G-SYNC should be/feel more responsive.
Some of this could be explained by conditioning; we adapt/get used to certain lag levels (low or high), and our aim, timing, and anticipation of on-screen reaction adjusts accordingly. I know when I was testing at 240Hz/2000+ FPS (V-SYNC OFF), the lag levels were so low, I was having a hard time syncing my clicks to the response on screen; I was so used to reacting to much more lag that I obviously subconsciously compensated for it over time.
That's the crux of the matter. I expected the same thing, that taking 240 fps / 120 Hz and cutting out half the frames should give an experience that is more stuttery (with regards to mouse cursor position input) than straight 118 fps / 120 Hz G-Sync/V-Sync.I know you were referencing mouse movement/sensor response, but what I said still applies; Fast Sync is going to show the same updates in the same order as G-SYNC with equivalent settings, but less consistently (dropped frames/microstutter), and thus with more latency than G-SYNC in the scenarios we've been discussing.