|
|
pretty sure most people playing ROBLOX don't have 144 Hz monitors
but if this idea was to be implemented, there should be some form of v-sync |
|
MrEWhiteJoin Date: 2010-11-23
Post Count: 4340 |
b |
|
|
yeah if it is implemented roblox would need v-sync or at least an option to cap it at 60 |
|
|
|
To nonsupporters: You wouldn't be saying this if you had p decent PC and a 144hz monitor.
|
|
MrEWhiteJoin Date: 2010-11-23
Post Count: 4340 |
^ |
|
|
|
"To nonsupporters: You wouldn't be saying this if you had p decent PC and a 144hz monitor."
I have a decent PC
just not a 144 Hz monitor (probably don't need one honestly) |
|
|
ROBLOX doesn't have motion blur, obviously.
Videos have it, as do other games. Higher FPS destroys that, again causing nausea because motion blur is required.
Anyway, the eye takes in light at 13ms(Sorry, I was wrong previously.). This is EQUAL TO 60-62FPS. I don't understand the person who said 60 seconds = 13ms? That doesn't make sense. I'm saying that within 13ms, you'll see those 60FPS on your screen.
The brain doesn't process visual information any higher than 13ms, so you won't notice a DRAMATIC difference higher than 60fps. |
|
|
even if most people dont have a 120hz monitor or you dont notice the difference, it shouldnt be that hard to just up the fps cap for those who are able to utilize it |
|
spacegangJoin Date: 2011-07-03
Post Count: 3863 |
b0t da hum4n 3y3 c4n 0nly see thirty eff pea ess
support |
|
spacegangJoin Date: 2011-07-03
Post Count: 3863 |
lmao enough with the "eye fps" crap. we get it you're 12 year olds trying to sound smart on the internet by researching a topic for 3 minutes |
|
MENG0SJoin Date: 2011-08-19
Post Count: 1465 |
Support. |
|
|
|
@BurnOfFlames
Completely correct!
They can see 150FPS, but it won't be that dramatic of a difference. Anything higher will be unnoticeable. |
|
|
"also the human eye can at best only see about 60 fps so i don't see how it's "unsmooth""
ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?? Go look up "Blind Test 60hz VS 144hz Monitors." Clearly there is a difference! It is very important too because games such as StepMania rely on the highest refresh rate as possible. If you played StepMania with C1000 modifications (I'm not going to bother explaining what it all means), it will look very blurry and unplayable with streams of arrows flying past your screen at 60 Hz. I hate it when people say the human eye can see "up to" 60, that's just ignorant. |
|
|
|
AerolusJoin Date: 2011-09-05
Post Count: 847 |
everyone who says anything about the human eye has never used a 144hz monitor.
They really need to just allow an unlimited FPS setting if it doesn't mess with their physics system or cause significant screen tearing. |
|
|
All people who aren't supporting obviously haven't used a 120hz or a 144hz monitor.
Once you go from a 60hz to a 120 or 144 hz, there is simply no going back.
"Human eye can't see past 60fps"
This is stupid and untrue.
About as stupid as Ubisoft claiming "30fps is more cinematic" |
|
|
I support this. My PC is the destroyer of worlds. |
|
MrEWhiteJoin Date: 2010-11-23
Post Count: 4340 |
You're an idiot if you think games not having motion blur causes a head ache. |
|
|
Two words: Screen tearing
How do I write a sig? |
|
|
"You're an idiot if you think games not having motion blur causes a head ache."
motion blur sucks anyway |
|