Originally by: johny B5

---

before the patch, i had 150 fps and higher with the highest settings, now i only have about 60 fps. why? please remove these stupid restrictions. this is not doom 3.

i recently bought a new grafic card, and cannot make use of it. i like my old fps back, wether i am able to see them or not. when i am in a battle situation with less frames than 60 frames, this is not acceptable.

ccp, please remove this useless restriction fast!

---

Originally by: johny B5

---

before the patch, i had 150 fps and higher with the highest settings, now i only have about 60 fps. why? please remove these stupid restrictions. this is not doom 3.

i recently bought a new grafic card, and cannot make use of it. i like my old fps back, wether i am able to see them or not. when i am in a battle situation with less frames than 60 frames, this is not acceptable.

ccp, please remove this useless restriction fast!

---

Originally by: Elizabeth Joanne

---

Unless you have a CRT display or one of those new-fangled 120 fps panels, you'll never see more than 60 fps anyway. That's the refresh rate of most panels, and there's no way going beyond that.

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

That's not quite true. LCDs don't work in the same way as CRTs.

---

Originally by: NeoTheo

---

you have your interval set, that locks the FPS to same as your refresh rate of your monitor.

change it back to imediate.

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

Originally by: Elizabeth Joanne

---

Unless you have a CRT display or one of those new-fangled 120 fps panels, you'll never see more than 60 fps anyway. That's the refresh rate of most panels, and there's no way going beyond that.

---

That's not quite true. LCDs don't work in the same way as CRTs.

---

Originally by: Grez

---

Not being able to see more than 60 fps from your monitor is a myth, and anyone who says otherwise is just proving they know absolutely nothing.

---

Originally by: Grez

---

Not being able to see more than 60 fps from your monitor is a myth, and anyone who says otherwise is just proving that I know absolutely nothing.

---

Originally by: Elizabeth Joanne

---

Originally by: Grez

---

Not being able to see more than 60 fps from your monitor is a myth, and anyone who says otherwise is just proving they know absolutely nothing.

---

[citation needed]

---

Originally by: Grez

---

Not being able to see more than 60 fps from your monitor is a myth, and anyone who says otherwise is just proving they know absolutely nothing.

Turn on advanced options in your graphics menu in EVE and change "Interval Default" to "Interval Immediate". It effectively turns vsync off, increases CPU and GPU usage thus increasing the amount of heat generated inside your PC, reducing it's lifetime and increasing power consumption for no significant benefit, whereas now, it's set to driver default.

---

Originally by: Grez

---

Not being able to see more than 60 fps from your monitor is a myth, and anyone who says otherwise is just proving they know absolutely nothing.

Turn on advanced options in your graphics menu in EVE and change "Interval Default" to "Interval Immediate". It effectively turns vsync off, whereas now, it's set to driver default.

---

Originally by: Angelik'a

---

It's usually the feeling of smoothness rather than anything actually picked up by your eye. For example if you're playing a first person shooter at 25fps (why any more, your eye cant see it anyway amirite?)

---

Originally by: Grez

---

All I did was state that not being able to see past 60fps is rubbish, and not a reason to lock your computer to a certain fps.

---

Originally by: Grez

---

It's also not a reason to use vsync.

---

Originally by: Grez

---

Idd, the last two posts have hit it on the head.

Human eyes can perceive up to, and just about past 200fps. Some people cannot, some people can - it's a bit like hearing range for eyes, but, well yeah, you get the idea...

Locking your fps to your monitors refresh rate can also have detrimental effects. Lookup vsync and what it does.

All I did was state that not being able to see past 60fps is rubbish, and not a reason to lock your computer to a certain fps. It's also not a reason to use vsync. Vsync should only be used if you experience tearing of textures/scenes (the issue of a frame being dropped halfway through being rendered).

---

Originally by: Grez

---

Idd, the last two posts have hit it on the head.

Human eyes can perceive up to, and just about past 200fps. Some people cannot, some people can - it's a bit like hearing range for eyes, but, well yeah, you get the idea...

Locking your fps to your monitors refresh rate can also have detrimental effects. Lookup vsync and what it does.

All I did was state that not being able to see past 60fps is rubbish, and not a reason to lock your computer to a certain fps. It's also not a reason to use vsync. Vsync should only be used if you experience tearing of textures/scenes (the issue of a frame being dropped halfway through being rendered).

---

Originally by: Grez

---

Idd, the last two posts have hit it on the head.

Human eyes can perceive up to, and just about past 200fps. Some people cannot, some people can - it's a bit like hearing range for eyes, but, well yeah, you get the idea...

Locking your fps to your monitors refresh rate can also have detrimental effects. Lookup vsync and what it does.

All I did was state that not being able to see past 60fps is rubbish, and not a reason to lock your computer to a certain fps. It's also not a reason to use vsync. Vsync should only be used if you experience tearing of textures/scenes (the issue of a frame being dropped halfway through being rendered).

---

Originally by: Grez

---

There's no such thing as "smoother movement" with you remove the vsync locking, that's utter rubbish.

---

Originally by: Pan Crastus

---

Originally by: Grez

---

Idd, the last two posts have hit it on the head.

Human eyes can perceive up to, and just about past 200fps. Some people cannot, some people can - it's a bit like hearing range for eyes, but, well yeah, you get the idea...

Locking your fps to your monitors refresh rate can also have detrimental effects. Lookup vsync and what it does.

All I did was state that not being able to see past 60fps is rubbish, and not a reason to lock your computer to a certain fps. It's also not a reason to use vsync. Vsync should only be used if you experience tearing of textures/scenes (the issue of a frame being dropped halfway through being rendered).

---

You don't get it.

No matter what you do to EVE (or any other game for that matter), you will not see more than 60 (or whatever the vsync rate of your display is) different images per second on your display. EVE will just render more images and you will see only some of them / mixed-up parts of them on one of the 60 images your display will show within a second.

There's no such thing as "smoother movement" with you remove the vsync locking, that's utter rubbish.

---

Originally by: Polly Prissypantz

---

As someone stated earlier in this thread, while the display may only be pumping out 60 frames per second, in fast-paced games such as most FPS's, it generally does feel more responsive with v-sync turned off.

---

Quote:

---

The rule of thumb is you have to have outnumber them 2:1 before you even think about engaging them

---

Originally by: Lonzo Kincaid

---

what's the frame rate for human eyes?

---

Originally by: Grez

---

Not being able to see more than 60 fps from your monitor is a myth, and anyone who says otherwise is just proving they know absolutely nothing.

---

Originally by: Elizabeth Joanne

---

Unless you have a CRT display or one of those new-fangled 120 fps panels, you'll never see more than 60 fps anyway. That's the refresh rate of most panels, and there's no way going beyond that.

That aside, if you absolutely, definitely need to see more than 60 fps on the meter, look at your graphics setting. Perhaps the patch made changes to the interval, and switching back to "Interval immediate" should turn off VSync and any triple buffering.

---

Originally by: Sirani

---

Originally by: Elizabeth Joanne

---

Unless you have a CRT display or one of those new-fangled 120 fps panels, you'll never see more than 60 fps anyway. That's the refresh rate of most panels, and there's no way going beyond that.

That aside, if you absolutely, definitely need to see more than 60 fps on the meter, look at your graphics setting. Perhaps the patch made changes to the interval, and switching back to "Interval immediate" should turn off VSync and any triple buffering.

---

*sigh*

its not just about what you can see, trying playing the game at 150 FPS and then at 60 FPS, it *feels* slower and more sluggish

---

Originally by: Leeluvv

---

The human eye is usually happy with a static image being refreshed at approx 75 FPS, but this is lower for a moving image, usually 25 FPS.

---

Originally by: johny B5

---

before the patch, i had 150 fps and higher with the highest settings, now i only have about 60 fps. why? please remove these stupid restrictions. this is not doom 3.

i recently bought a new grafic card, and cannot make use of it. i like my old fps back, wether i am able to see them or not. when i am in a battle situation with less frames than 60 frames, this is not acceptable.

ccp, please remove this useless restriction fast!

---

Originally by: Pottsey

---

Perhaps you're confusing the FPS responsiveness diffrence with a mouse lag problem some people get with vsync. There are cases where vsync cause a mouse lag problem but that's not a FPS problem. Its not the extra FPS that stop the mouse lag.

---

Originally by: Gabriel Loki

---

Originally by: Lonzo Kincaid

---

what's the frame rate for human eyes?

---

They dont have one.

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Turning VSynch off just so you can SHOW OFF your "omfg, 279 FPS EVE, wtfbbq" is downright stupid, because it's KNOWN to have contributed a lot to premature frying of several video cards.

---

Originally by: Cipher7

---

your eyes would get tired more quickly for no benefit.

---

Originally by: Cipher7

---

Anything above 30fps is fine and really almost the limit of our human perception.

---

Originally by: Petra Katell

---

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

You're welcome.

---

Originally by: Grez

---

Limiting a game to output at a certain frame rate can also cause detrimental effects to how the game is processes. Hence, a game can definitely, and will almost always feel, more responsive.

---

Quote:

---

Unless you want to see ugly tearing or fry your graphics card, use "Interval One" and be happy with 60 FPS

---

Quote:

---

Anything above 30fps is fine and really almost the limit of our human perception.

---

Originally by: Red Wid0w

---

Oh, and those 120hz LCDs are rubbish, they interpolate between frames basically.

---

Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha

---

Basically to "feel" the frame rate, all you have to do is to turn your head sideways then look at the screen while turning it (not too fast). You'll see a feeling of "discontinuity" which is very detrimental if you play a game where you tend to "follow" movements around.

---

Originally by: Malphilos

---

Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha

---

Basically to "feel" the frame rate, all you have to do is to turn your head sideways then look at the screen while turning it (not too fast). You'll see a feeling of "discontinuity" which is very detrimental if you play a game where you tend to "follow" movements around.

---

I hear that if you smash yourself in the face with a hammer you'll feel a bit of "discontinuity" too.

But why the hell would you do either of those things?

---

Quote:

---

I hear that if you smash yourself in the face with a hammer you'll feel a bit of "discontinuity" too.

But why the hell would you do either of those things?

---

Originally by: Elizabeth Joanne

---

Unless you have a CRT display or one of those new-fangled 120 fps panels, you'll never see more than 60 fps anyway. That's the refresh rate of most panels, and there's no way going beyond that.

---

Originally by: Phantom Slave

---

There seems to be some misconception and alot of personal bias in this thread.

I prefer v-sync on. It's a personal preference. Some people prefer V-sync off, it's their choice.

***SCREEN TEARING, and what it means to you!***

Screen tearing can ONLY be seen on a moving object, faster moving objects means more tearing. If you're sitting in station just looking at your ship, you won't see tearing because there isn't alot of fast movement. Go outside the station and spin your camera around really fast. If your monitor is set at 60 Hz and your framerate is above that, you will notice that if you spin the screen fast enough the station will effectively be split up into parts for very VERY brief moments.

If you do not notice this with v-sync off then don't bother turning it on. If you DO notice it but it doesn't bother you then leave v-sync off. I notice it and it bugs me, so I use v-sync.

It's ALL personal preference. Some people just may not even notice it because they don't care. If you like v-sync then use it, if you don't then don't bother.

To those that are saying that v-sync lowers your system heat then you're not entirely correct. V-sync produces 2 frames for every frame the monitor shows, and if you have Triple Buffering on then you're producing 3 frames for every 1 that shows. It helps keep your framerate smooth because if something happens that slows down the GPU then it has extra frames to fall back on.

---

Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha

---

I have 11/10 visus though.

---

Originally by: Grez

---

A game pumping out 150 fps, is running quicker, more responsive and generally doing everything it can/should do, a lot quicker than a game doing that at 60 fps, hence, a game running at 150 fps will feel more responsive, even if you can only see 60 fps from the monitor.

For example, the game is running on the computer, not the monitor. The hardware is plugged into the computer, not the monitor. Just because the monitor is displaying it at 60/75fps (in their most common settings), does not mean that the game is running at that speed.

Limiting a game to output at a certain frame rate can also cause detrimental effects to how the game is processes. Hence, a game can definitely, and will almost always feel, more responsive.

Those of us with computers that can handle the extra fps, are all free to do it, if you lock your FPS to your refresh rate using vsync, the computer is still going to be working as hard on other things, the only component that's not, is the graphics card, and they are designed to be worked at 100% (most gaming ones anyway).

---

Originally by: Polly Prissypantz

---

All you geniuses going on about not being able to see more than 60fps are missing the ****ing point. It's not about what you see, it's about how the game feels and responds.

---

Originally by: Xianbei

---

wow the amount of armchair science in this thread is amazing

and how people can pound their chest and scream about something and be so wrong
is a testament to what the internet has become. the internet at your very fingertips
and you cant even be bothered to research before you post.

i was going to offer some constructive info and links but really there is no point

you can lead an idiot to information but you cannot make him un-stupid

---

Originally by: Grez

---

Not being able to see more than 60 fps from your monitor is a myth, and anyone who says otherwise is just proving they know absolutely nothing.

Turn on advanced options in your graphics menu in EVE and change "Interval Default" to "Interval Immediate". It effectively turns vsync off, whereas now, it's set to driver default.

---

Originally by: Phantom Slave

---

V-sync produces 2 frames for every frame the monitor shows, and if you have Triple Buffering on then you're producing 3 frames for every 1 that shows. It helps keep your framerate smooth because if something happens that slows down the GPU then it has extra frames to fall back on.

---

Originally by: Catherine Frasier

---

Originally by: Angelik'a

---

It's usually the feeling of smoothness rather than anything actually picked up by your eye. For example if you're playing a first person shooter at 25fps (why any more, your eye cant see it anyway amirite?)

---

No you're not "rite". Your eyes process a continuous stream of information and can easily detect the difference between 25 fps and 60 fps when there is motion in the image.

The "feeling of smoothness" comes from what your eyes (and brain) perceive (what else could it possibly be)?

---

Originally by: Catherine Frasier

---

Originally by: Polly Prissypantz

---

All you geniuses going on about not being able to see more than 60fps are missing the ****ing point. It's not about what you see, it's about how the game feels and responds.

---

Pomo nonsense. Correction. Italicized Pomo nonsense.

This is a mechanical system. It either displays more frames per second or it doesn't. It either processes more update or input cycles per second or it doesn't. There's nothing "feely" about it, period.

---

Originally by: CCP Whisper

---

No it is not an official statement. Not everything surrounded by blue bars is an official statement which can be quoted as fact until the end of time. Deal with it.

---

Originally by: Gabriel Loki

---

Originally by: Lonzo Kincaid

---

what's the frame rate for human eyes?

---

They dont have one.

---

Quote:

---

EVE is like a sandbox with landmines. Deal with it.

---

Originally by: Red Wid0w

---

Yeah listen to what people are telling you. YOU NEVER HAD 150 FPS. YOUR MONITOR CAN ONLY DISPLAY 60 (more than likely). All you are doing with your 150fps is wasting processing power, thus reducing the responsiveness of your background apps. Turn VSYNCH on and lock your fps to 60 and there WILL BE NO DIFFERENCE TO EVE. However, everything else on your pc will run faster.

Oh, and those 120hz LCDs are rubbish, they interpolate between frames basically.

---

Originally by: Phantom Slave

---

To those that are saying that v-sync lowers your system heat then you're not entirely correct. V-sync produces 2 frames for every frame the monitor shows, and if you have Triple Buffering on then you're producing 3 frames for every 1 that shows. It helps keep your framerate smooth because if something happens that slows down the GPU then it has extra frames to fall back on.

---

Originally by: johny B5

---

before the patch, i had 150 fps and higher with the highest settings, now i only have about 60 fps. why? please remove these stupid restrictions. this is not doom 3.

i recently bought a new grafic card, and cannot make use of it. i like my old fps back, wether i am able to see them or not. when i am in a battle situation with less frames than 60 frames, this is not acceptable.

ccp, please remove this useless restriction fast!

---

Originally by: Polly Prissypantz

---

Grez is correct. All you geniuses going on about not being able to see more than 60fps are missing the ****ing point. It's not about what you see, it's about how the game feels and responds.

---

Originally by: Polly Prissypantz

---

Eve is slow enough that you won't really notice the difference but in some faster-paced games there is a definite difference in how the game performs when limiting or not limiting the frame rate. We're not talking about how it looks.

---

Originally by: Polly Prissypantz

---

This is an older, but still useful thread on the subject.

---

Originally by: Polly Prissypantz

---

Liberal use of italics brought to you today by the Learn to ****ing Read Association.

---

Originally by: Sjobba

---

Second:
Whether or not your game is rendering at 60, 150, 250, or a 1000 frames per second... it will NOT change how smooth the game feels. Window positions and such are all calculated on different threads, separately, away from the graphics.
(Assuming the programmers designing it used multi-threading, which is a fair assumption, really)

---

Originally by: johny B5

---

Originally by: NeoTheo

---

you have your interval set, that locks the FPS to same as your refresh rate of your monitor.

change it back to imediate.

---

thanks, it worked! I didn'd know these settings before and didn't change them. that's why i was confused.
Here's how to do it:
1. Go to Grafiks & Displays
2. Check box "Advanced settings"
3. Set "Present intervall" to "Intervall immediate"

---

Originally by: Feilamya

---

EVE is an old game. For most old games, it's actually a very safe bet that they work entirely single-threaded, except maybe for one or two dedicated threads that handle sound rendering or networking (and I doubt EVE uses any amount of multi-threading for networking). Some may actually use a dedicated graphics rendering thread, which would mean your argument holds.

---

Originally by: Alexander Nergal

---

sidenote, I can feel the difference between 200 and 300 fps so I guess I'm just a god

---

Originally by: Sjobba

---

You expect there to be a difference between the two, so you see it whether or not it is there.
There is a psychological term for this... which I can't quite remember at the moment.

---

Originally by: Elizabeth Joanne

---

Alas, not so. TFT displays also have this phenomenon called input lag that isn't often discussed because it can be outright horrendous. The Dell 2707WFP for example has 46 milliseconds of input lag. This means you are effectively at least 2 frames in the past at all times.

---

Originally by: Elizabeth Joanne

---

If you are worried about frame rates and its effect on your reaction times, choose a monitor with a very low input lag first. TFT Central has measured the input lag on a bunch of models. Manufacturers typically don't advertise this figure.

---

Originally by: MechaViridis

---

If any of you guys have played competitive counter-strike, quake, etc, you will know that fps higher than 60 DOES matter. It has something to do with netcode/extrapolation of movement, so for eve this isn't as important.

---

Originally by: johny B5

---

before the patch, i had 150 fps and higher with the highest settings

---

Originally by: Armoured C

---

i am fine with 45 FPS across 2 screen and can watch and be in a large fleet battle 60FPS is aduqate enough i think

---

Originally by: Weight What

---

Originally by: Armoured C

---

i am fine with 45 FPS across 2 screen and can watch and be in a large fleet battle 60FPS is aduqate enough i think

---

Maybe it's enough for you and your primitive eyes, however, those of use with cybernetic ocular implants can process scenes of up to 200FPS.

---

Originally by: Armoured C

---

ahh i have cybernetic forumfingertypo version snake plants :)

---

Originally by: Weight What

---

Originally by: Armoured C

---

ahh i have cybernetic forumfingertypo version snake plants :)

---

We shall see :))

---

Originally by: Decard Sune on 23/03/2008 12:12:37

---

Carebear is a derogatory term used by those who feel that every player should be nothing mroe than a target for their pleasure. These individuals usually ha

Originally by: Decard Sune on 23/03/2008 12:12:37

---

Carebear is a derogatory term used by those who feel that every player should be nothing mroe than a target for their pleasure. These individuals usually ha

Originally by: Decard Sune on 23/03/2008 12:12:37

---

Carebear is a derogatory term used by those who feel that every player should be nothing mroe than a target for their pleasure. These individuals usually ha

Originally by: Onus Mian

---

Can you eyes even see things changing at faster than 60fps? Its been a while since I did that at school but from what I remember the rate at which pigmants in your eye can be replaced limits how many frames you'd seen in a second regardless of how high the fps was.

---

Originally by: Decard Sune on 23/03/2008 12:12:37

---

Carebear is a derogatory term used by those who feel that every player should be nothing mroe than a target for their pleasure. These individuals usually ha

Originally by: Agent Known

---

Set it to Interval Immediate and leave it be. Burn up your graphics card for all I care. This threadnaught needs to die.

---

Originally by: Henry Loenwind

---

Superb analysis

---

Originally by: Gabriel Loki

---

Originally by: Lonzo Kincaid

---

what's the frame rate for human eyes?

---

They dont have one.

---

Originally by: Weer Treyt

---

Please do the following test:

1.1 Switch your graphics settings to interval immediate.
1.2 In a station take one item on your cursor and drag it left and right over the whole screen, till you get a feeling for the icon lagging behind your movements.
1.3 You realize that the icon is lagging behind only by a tiny amount.

2.1 Switch your graphics settings to interval one (or more).
2.2 Do the same as in 1.2.
2.3 Realize that the icon is lagging behind noticeably more than with interval immediate settings.

---

Originally by: Pan Crastus

---

Interesting test, but it doesn't show a higher refresh rate. What it shows is that EVE is rendering 1 or more (seems like more) frames in advance, so the frames you see are 2-3 60ths of a second behind the hardware mouse cursor. I don't know why it is so clearly visible, but it seems to suggest that EVE's double/triple-buffering could be improved...

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Edited by: Akita T on 17/04/2009 16:58:02

Turning VSynch off just so you can SHOW OFF your "omfg, 279 FPS EVE, wtfbbq" is downright stupid, because it's KNOWN to have contributed a lot to premature frying of several video cards.

Also, like many, MANY people have said here before, if the monitor can only display 60 (or 75, or 100, or 120, whatever), there's no BENEFIT in turning VSynch off ("Interval immediate") other than the FPS e-p33n number on the FPS monitor. At best, you will see half a frame and half of the other with a bit of tearning in-between, but that's just stupid.



In EVE, at pretty much all times, VSynch should be turned on (Interval one) and left that way forever.
It has no serious drawbacks (some MIGHT argue that it doesn't "feel that dynamic anymore" because they were used to the tearing effect) but a lot of benefits compared to the alternative (longer vidcard life, for starters).

---

Interval immediate:
f1 f2 f3 f4 f5 f6
1111 1111 2222 3333 4444 6666
1111 2222 2222 3333 4444 6666
1111 2222 3333 3333 4444 6666
1111 2222 3333 4444 4444 6666

Interval one:
f1 f2 f3 f4 f5 f6
1111 1111 3333 3333 5555 6666
1111 1111 3333 3333 5555 6666
1111 1111 3333 3333 5555 6666
1111 1111 3333 3333 5555 6666

Originally by: Chribba

---

So, in order for LEAST wear&tear (heat) - vsync+interval one is the way to go? I'm fine with 20fps if that means my GPU sticks at 50C rather than 85 I'm all happy. What to do?

---

Originally by: Chribba

---

So, in order for LEAST wear&tear (heat) - vsync+interval one is the way to go? I'm fine with 20fps if that means my GPU sticks at 50C rather than 85 I'm all happy. What to do?

---

Originally by: Shintai

---

Originally by: Grez

---

Idd, the last two posts have hit it on the head.

Human eyes can perceive up to, and just about past 200fps. Some people cannot, some people can - it's a bit like hearing range for eyes, but, well yeah, you get the idea...

Locking your fps to your monitors refresh rate can also have detrimental effects. Lookup vsync and what it does.

All I did was state that not being able to see past 60fps is rubbish, and not a reason to lock your computer to a certain fps. It's also not a reason to use vsync. Vsync should only be used if you experience tearing of textures/scenes (the issue of a frame being dropped halfway through being rendered).

---

First of all the human eye dont know if its 30 FPS or 2mio FPS. Does the screen flicker for you in the cinema?

Secondly..LCDs...60hz...60FPS..Bingo. anything above FPS simply wont get shown. the frames are discarded. !

---

Originally by: Taedrin

---

Originally by: Chribba

---

So, in order for LEAST wear&tear (heat) - vsync+interval one is the way to go? I'm fine with 20fps if that means my GPU sticks at 50C rather than 85 I'm all happy. What to do?

---

Yes. Interval Immediate tells the graphics card to do as much work as it possibly can, while interval one (vsynch) allows it to take a break between frame refreshes. BTW, I think we've actually already gone over this in this thread

---

Originally by: Red Wid0w

---

Yeah listen to what people are telling you. YOU NEVER HAD 150 FPS. YOUR MONITOR CAN ONLY DISPLAY 60 (more than likely). All you are doing with your 150fps is wasting processing power, thus reducing the responsiveness of your background apps. Turn VSYNCH on and lock your fps to 60 and there WILL BE NO DIFFERENCE TO EVE. However, everything else on your pc will run faster.

Oh, and those 120hz LCDs are rubbish, they interpolate between frames basically.

---

Originally by: johny B5

---

thanks, it worked! I didn'd know these settings before and didn't change them. that's why i was confused.
Here's how to do it:
1. Go to Grafiks & Displays
2. Check box "Advanced settings"
3. Set "Present intervall" to "Intervall immediate"

---

Originally by: masternerdguy

---

the human eye sees up to around 22fps, so anything above that is wasted anyway.

---

Originally by: Kyra Felann

---

lower framerates like in movies look smooth to the eye because of motion-blur, which most games don't have.

---

Originally by: Decard Sune on 23/03/2008 12:12:37

---

Carebear is a derogatory term used by those who feel that every player should be nothing mroe than a target for their pleasure. These individuals usually ha

Originally by: Lt Angus

---

I love this thread
I bet half these guys paint stripes on their cars to make them go faster

---

Originally by: Decard Sune on 23/03/2008 12:12:37

---

Carebear is a derogatory term used by those who feel that every player should be nothing mroe than a target for their pleasure. These individuals usually ha