What’s your Doom framerate?

[Gore]

I played on 100+ fps, and I used smooth doom. 35 is meh, but everyone has an opinion.

[Some1NamedNate]

240fps for me.

[Arrowhead]

I play uncapped, it can range from 85-240+ depending on the map.

[VoanHead]

I flip-flop between 35 FPS on some days and 60 FPS on other days. If I’m playing like old ass wads from the 2000s or 90s then I have it set to 35 FPS, 320x200, so I can get that feel like I was actually playing it in the 90s/2000s.

[magicsofa]

Apparently our eyes can actually see up to 60 fps or more, although personally I wonder how much this is affected by "blending" frames. For example, fighter pilots have supposedly been recorded spotting a plane from a single frame on a 250 fps video. But in my mind, even if the brain is processing 25 frames per second, the light from each 10 frames of a 250 fps video are still hitting your eye. Maybe the pilot is just better at picking that one frame out of the blend, rather than actually processing each individual frame?

Anyway I like 35fps because it feels "heavier." Things appear to have more weight when they move, whereas at higher frame rates everything glides around like it's made of paper.

 

10 hours ago, idbeholdME said:

240 for me.

 

Also, higher frame rate IS objectively better if you are talking about reaction times. With 240, I have about a 12ms advantage over anyone who plays at 60. That is like cutting down your ping by 12 in an online game for absolutely free.

 

Exceptional human reaction time is between 100 - 200 ms. There ain't no way you are able to capitalize on a 12ms advantage.

[Murdoch]

42 minutes ago, magicsofa said:

Apparently our eyes can actually see up to 60 fps or more, although personally I wonder how much this is affected by "blending" frames.

 

Of course they can see 60 FPS+. It may vary from person to person for whatever reason, but more FPS definitely looks and feels smoother to me. Our eyes compensate to a certain degree based on what we have gotten used to.

 

42 minutes ago, magicsofa said:

Maybe the pilot is just better at picking that one frame out of the blend, rather than actually processing each individual frame?

 

Or they picked up a shape and logically deduced based on the perceived distance and size that it must be another plane?

[leodoom85]

34 minutes ago, magicsofa said:

Exceptional human reaction time is between 100 - 200 ms. There ain't no way you are able to capitalize on a 12ms advantage.

12 ms are nothing when a rocket or a cheap shot goes to the head and you died. 

 

Denied.

 

To go back to the topic in question, the majority started at 35 or less fps. 60 and more has been a blessing (or a curse to few, in terms of being subjective). Personally, I wouldn't mind using the capped framerate but, it's just that I'm too used for the smooth movement of my screen going at 60 fps that it could be a bit hard to digest 35 fps.

 

BUT, there are other FPS games that uses 30 fps and we get accostumed by it without much of an issue :D

[ketmar]

6 hours ago, magicsofa said:

Exceptional human reaction time is between 100 - 200 ms. There ain't no way you are able to capitalize on a 12ms advantage.

but you can! (with good netcode.) the sooner you'll see the enemy, the sooner you'll shoot. it's still 100ms, but your shot can land in N, not in N+12. not that it matters much for Doom, tho, but maybe some people can react on those 3 pixels from interpolated mid-frame fast enough to win a tic.

[Remilia Scarlet]

Usually I leave vsync turned on, so it's basically at a constant 60fps.  I don't really use any engines that cap it at 35.

 

Without vsync, in Doom 2 map01, it easily hits the hard-coded FPS cap in K8vavoom (around 240fps I think?).  In GZDoom, it hits around 535 fps on Vulkan without vsync and around 825 fps on OpenGL.  Obviously more complex maps will drop those numbers :-P  This is at 3840x2160.

[Doomkid]

17 hours ago, idbeholdME said:

Also, higher frame rate IS objectively better if you are talking about reaction times. With 240, I have about a 12ms advantage over anyone who plays at 60. That is like cutting down your ping by 12 in an online game for absolutely free.

If I'm feeling motion sickness from the odd feeling that high/uncapped framerates in Doom give me, not to mention the weird "floaty" mouse movement that doesn't start and stop on a dime - It's not a worthwhile trade for 12ms lol.

 

15 hours ago, DuckReconMajor said:

Preferring an uncapped framerate isn't objectively better, but studies have shown if you prefer a lower framerate you are objectively a bad person (when Objective Goodness is measured (by levels of Goodium in the bloodstream)

This is a gold-star post right here!

 

7 hours ago, magicsofa said:

Anyway I like 35fps because it feels "heavier." Things appear to have more weight when they move, whereas at higher frame rates everything glides around like it's made of paper.

Yeah, the increased framerate makes everything appear to move differently. It makes the game feel "off" and thus less enjoyable for me, as I came to love the experience that unaltered Doom gave/gives me.

[Gibbon]

42 minutes ago, Doomkid said:

If I'm feeling motion sickness from the odd feeling that high/uncapped framerates in Doom give me, not to mention the weird "floaty" mouse movement that doesn't start and stop on a dime - It's not a worthwhile trade for 12ms lol.

 

This is a gold-star post right here!

 

Yeah, the increased framerate makes everything appear to move differently. It makes the game feel "off" and thus less enjoyable for me, as I came to love the experience that unaltered Doom gave/gives me.

It definitely feels that way.  It just feels like doomguy is slipping around on butter at 60fps or higher.  I guess it is because I have always played it at its original frame rate since '94.  But since it was in PAL we actually were capped at 25fps so 35 is pretty nice now :)

[Pixel Fiend]

I'm back to beautiful crispy capped 35 FPS like Doomkid uses. Washes out all the terrible bad taste left from trying out ^gzdoom. 

 

I mean, there's something special in playing Doom in 35 FPS. It's part of its original character which is truly impeccable.

[Skronkidonk]

Honestly I have no clue what my frame rate is but I'm guessing its around 60

[El Juancho]

On 8/4/2021 at 8:31 PM, Gibbon said:

35fps always.  60fps is not needed for Doom, it isn't Call of Duty..

Well, with a 144hz monitor and "uncapped" framerate doom plays a lot better IMO, the game feels smooth af.

[sittinkittin]

The past week I've only been playing Doom at 35 FPS, in mostly Crispy Doom. The mouse feels more responsive at 35, for sure. Less smooth, but more responsive. The gnarly, murky-ass software renderer look + the 35 FPS with its snappy feel is just to die for.

[Crock Wilson]

I'm pretty weird when it comes to this. If I'm playing Doom, 35fps feels great and in Halo 2 30fps feels perfect. Pretty much anything else I want 144. At first 144 made me a little nauseous, but then I got used to it. I still usually play Doom at 144 though, just because I'm used to it. I always stick to the software renderer though.

[Okej5722]

My fps is usually in the 30's, mainly since I use PRBOOM+ and crispy doom.

[rampancy]

for me it really depends on the monitor. on a crt 30+ is fine, but on my oled anything under 60 feels like a stuttering mess. with gzdoom im doing 120 locked and its great. 

[AnotherGrunt]

Heh, it is really funny to read how 60FPS or 144FPS isn't enough. At least for me.

 

Doom is one of few games surprisingly playable in the sub-30fps range. I don't know how but it is so.

 

So 15-35fps is my staple. Recently I've scratched numbers like 4.8fps and I can concur, this number is simply unplayable.

 

I can really recommend vanilla-ish WADs (DTWID, D2TW ID) on 80486 equivalent to everyone who never had this experience.

[boom_compatible]

before (???-2019)
single player/lan: 60fps at native LCD resolution until my hardware start scream "yamete kudasai" on complex maps
online: n/a

 

after (2019-now)
single player: 35fps. Uncapped when I need to heat my room or undust CPU fan
online:  35fps at 640x400 windowed for less eyes movements and for some reason 35fps feels better with high(+250ms) ping =/

 

[AwesomeGuy05]

60 Fps because I have a good laptop =)

[ifreakinlovedoom208]

I play with 35 fps when playing with Crispy Doom and Chocolate Doom.

 

Other source ports? Uncapped framerate.

 

Idk why i play 35 fps on Crispy even though it supports uncapped framerates as well, but eh.

[DiR]

When I'm playing in a cafe or something and I want to save on battery, of course I cap it to 35. Otherwise I cap it to 140 (overkill but for some maps you never know how much it can dip)

 

(the leftover 25hz sit on a bunch and sub out with the tired ones)

Edited February 25, 2023 by DiR

[Helm]

let me see if I understand this correctly: The OG game logic steps at 35 fps anyway, and if you give an input, it will be executed at next step so your early input will have to wait a few miliseconds.

Practically, if visually you have more frames, you can see that stray cyberdemon rocket flying towards you slightly earlier. Even if your next input is going to be processed at next 35 fps increment, visually you have more frames in between so you *see what you will input against earlier* and your brain is anticipating the movement you inputted and even can adjust it or forecast further in the future while you 'wait' for the miliseconds. There is also the potential to input movement one machine cycle earlier or more if the fps is really high and one has the reflexes. 

Is this correct? If so, there is probably a marginal benefit to people who have those reflexes. These are similar concerns to input lag in fighting games, where even 1 or 2 fps of input lag make a big competitive difference for fighting game gods.

I have no idea what my settings are, whatever DSDAdoom defaults to, I suppose. (goes and checks) I'm uncapped. I'll experiment with 35 fps to see how that feels.

[Shepardus]

1 hour ago, Helm said:

let me see if I understand this correctly: The OG game logic steps at 35 fps anyway, and if you give an input, it will be executed at next step so your early input will have to wait a few miliseconds.

Practically, if visually you have more frames, you can see that stray cyberdemon rocket flying towards you slightly earlier. Even if your next input is going to be processed at next 35 fps increment, visually you have more frames in between so you *see what you will input against earlier* and your brain is anticipating the movement you inputted and even can adjust it or forecast further in the future while you 'wait' for the miliseconds. There is also the potential to input movement one machine cycle earlier or more if the fps is really high and one has the reflexes. 

Is this correct? If so, there is probably a marginal benefit to people who have those reflexes. These are similar concerns to input lag in fighting games, where even 1 or 2 fps of input lag make a big competitive difference for fighting game gods.

I have no idea what my settings are, whatever DSDAdoom defaults to, I suppose. (goes and checks) I'm uncapped. I'll experiment with 35 fps to see how that feels.

The way most, if not all, source ports uncap the framerate is by essentially running the game a tic ahead and interpolating between the current state and the next tic. So when you use uncapped framerate, you actually suffer from a bit more input lag.

[PKr]

No idea how anyone could prefer ~30 fps range over anything that is remotely smooth or a, vice versa, complete slideshow to be honest.

https://www.testufo.com/framerates#count=6&background=stars&pps=960

 

I personally can't see anything at ~30 fps (unless you don't move the camera at all). I can't focus on an image, be it the next frame or the previous frame thanks to an extreme stroboscopic effect at such low framerates (those who don't know what a stroboscopic effect is: https://blurbusters.com/the-stroboscopic-effect-of-finite-framerate-displays/). It's also way below any reasonable flicker fusion thresholds (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_fusion_threshold) so I personally see ~10-50 framerate range as if the object in motion was flickering back and forth. On top of it all there is simply WAY TOO MUCH missing info between individual frames when panning camera around. In other words for me ~10-<50 fps is a stuttering, double-imaged, flickering blurry mess.

 

Now, to be honest that "magical" 60 fps isn't perfect either. It's just that it was a most common refresh rate back in the day, so many compare 30 fps with 60 fps purely because of technical limitations of fixed refresh rate monitors and extreme popularity of 60hz monitors. When I got my first variable refresh rate monitor however, I experimented with it a lot, and discovered that it's somehwere around ~95hz/fps where animation starts to be completely smooth for me. Surely, anything higher than that is even better, but it's ~95hz that I would call a "minimum" or a "standard" for gaming, unlike the popular "30 vs 60" argument.

 

Speaking of Doom framerates, I cap it at 105 fps most of the time, because it's 35x3 that can be perfectly interpolated by most source ports without introducing any additional input lag, it's above my "minimum standard" so the game looks completely smooth, and it's overall a reasonable cap for my hardware (ie fps never dips below 105).

[Geniraul]

I just took a look at my FPS counter and it turned out that I'm playing with 60 FPS in GZDoom.

But when it comes to classic IWADs, I prefer to run DOSBox.

[Ulukai]

76 fps in my case.

 

I think playing at 35fps is an old habit (the 90s), a habit that some people have leaved behind and others haven't. I think 60+ is simply better that 30-35 fps in any video game.

Edited February 25, 2023 by Ulukai

[pantheon]

35fps only on my 144hz Gsync monitor. Otherwise it just feels slippery and wrong. 35 has that gritty, crisp, precise feel that plants crave.

[indigotyrian]

On 8/3/2021 at 9:00 AM, Doomkid said:

Just got triggered by a video with over a million views by a popular YouTuber named Noodle saying that higher framerates for video games are “objectively better”.

 

When I play Doom, I pretty much need it to be capped at 35. Anything else feels loose, my tight controls and ability to stop turning on a dime are gone, and it almost triggers motion sickness in me. Weird to know that not being able to aim as well and feeling nauseous are “objectively better”, seems like the sort of thing that pretty obviously falls under the realm of subjectivity.. 🤔 (Similarly Classic NES and SNES games, like the Mario ones for example, feel floaty and “off” when using anything but their native framerate).

 

That’s just my opinion on this clearly subjective topic though. How do you feel?

 

I'd say that, in most cases, a higher framerate is always preferable for a video game, particularly an action game where quick reflexes are important. More frames means a tighter feedback loop which means (again, in most cases) a tighter, more responsive-feeling game.

 

However in the case of older games designed for a lower framerate, the original framerate would be preferable unless the game itself is changed to accommodate the higher framerate. This is why you'd prefer Doom at 35 FPS; vanilla Doom and other Doom ports that keep the 35 hz tickrate feel floaty and weird when above that tickrate so everything falls apart. The added advantage of higher framerates goes out the window when the game itself adheres to 35hz and it feels worse.

 

The source ports I like to play Doom in don't adhere to that 35 hz tickrate so they don't feel floaty or weird, so I like playing Doom at an uncapped framerate (on my monitor that means 144 FPS).

 

---

 

The topic of framerate got annoyingly charged during the 7th generation because developers making console games were tasked by their publishers to make games that were more graphically impressive than the 6th generation while running at HD (720p or 1080p) on hardware that really wasn't suited to the task. Therefore a lot of concessions were made, one of them being framerate. A lot of games that would be running at 60 FPS on the 6th gen got locked to 30 FPS so the 7th gen consoles could actually deliver on what publishers wanted.

 

A lot of bullshit cope got thrown around, chief among it all being the absurd claim that "30 FPS is more cinematic," assumedly because 30 FPS is closer to the 24 FPS that movies are shot at. This was also during the time when the question of whether video games were art was being debated, and a lot of people in the western hemisphere of the gaming industry had (and still have!) an enormous inferiority complex about making video games, so they want to ape everything they can about cinema so they can feel like they're making big boy art. If a tighter-tuned, better-feeling experience had to be axed in order to assuage the feelings of certain people then so be it.

 

Naturally this led to a lot of pushback and even to this day the topic of whether video games should be running at 30 FPS or beyond 30 FPS is being discussed, usually as a proxy for other more obnoxious things, and often used as an excuse to belittle other people.