Gzdoom wont go over 200fps? Help

[DutchDoomer]

Im having an issue it seems like my gzdoom is capped at 200fps i know it can go higher but i cant figure it out how do i remove the limit?

[Erick]

You can type vid_maxfps into the console and have an integer between 35 to 1000. The default cap is 200FPS when using GZDoom for the first time. GZDoom should be able to remember what value you have set next time you use it.

[Reisal]

You really don't need more than 60 FPS, to be honest..

[Edward850]

1 minute ago, Glaice said:

You really don't need more than 60 FPS, to be honest..

What if you have a 240Hz monitor?

[Fuzzball]

16 minutes ago, Edward850 said:

What if you have a 240Hz monitor?

Then the first world problems are REAL

[Reisal]

45 minutes ago, Edward850 said:

What if you have a 240Hz monitor?

Why one would want a 240Hz monitor is beyond me. 60, 90, 100, 120, 144Hz but could argue on the technical limitation of the human eye (if there is one) but I won't go there as I don't go there since my monitor is 60Hz.

[Illasera]

On 1/7/2018 at 11:09 PM, Glaice said:

You really don't need more than 60 FPS, to be honest..

 

A little meltdown here, I hate these answers, such useless answers belongs to the most useless people in the world.

The guy asked you a question, you can ask him what he is trying to achieve, but don't tell him what he should and shouldn't do , just answer the fucking question.

or if you don't know the answer , step back.

Such discouraging answers are a part of why people don't want to learn.

 

However, you can leave a side-note to take into account that going over the frequency the monitor can provide; May lead to tearing if the GPU driver won't fix on its own end.

 

On 1/7/2018 at 8:07 PM, GuyNamedErick said:

You can type vid_maxfps into the console and have an integer between 35 to 1000. The default cap is 200FPS when using GZDoom for the first time. GZDoom should be able to remember what value you have set next time you use it.

 

Now that's stupid, it should be between 0 and infinite, What if i want to stress test the system or skip frames?

No limit on FPS can be useful for banchmarking and even spotting bottlenecks within the software.

 

On 1/8/2018 at 0:01 AM, Glaice said:

Why one would want a 240Hz monitor is beyond me. 60, 90, 100, 120, 144Hz but could argue on the technical limitation of the human eye (if there is one) but I won't go there as I don't go there since my monitor is 60Hz.

 

- 240hz monitor can be used for stereo-vision.

 

- The linux kernel uses for both Completely Fair and brainfuck-scheduler/MuQss , 144 fps, and that's what x11 and wayland/weston windows managers respect (Confirmed, MuQss quantum duration is 6ms for all tasks with the same priority (1/144 = 6.9444e-3)

 

"The rr_interval tunable is set at 6ms by default. The reason for this is the threshold for human perception of jitter is just under 7ms. Kolivas predicts a common case of between zero and two running tasks per CPU and, in such a scenario, a task will need to wait no longer than 6ms to get service."

- The MuQSS CPU scheduler.

 

"BrainFuck Scheduler uses "dithering" to try and
minimise the effect the Hz limitation has. The default value of 6 is not an
arbitrary one. It is based on the fact that humans can detect jitter at
approximately 7ms, so aiming for much lower latencies is pointless under most
circumstances. It is worth noting this fact when comparing the latency
performance of BFS to other schedulers." - Brain Fuck Scheduler.

 

So i guess that's what the guys at the linux kernel see as optimal for scheduling, I will take that as an answer.

Edited January 11, 2018 by Illasera

[Reisal]

5 hours ago, Illasera said:

A little meltdown here, I hate these answers, such useless answers belongs to the most useless people in the world.

The guy asked you a question, you can ask him what he is trying to achieve, but don't tell him what he should and shouldn't do , just answer the fucking question.

or if you don't know the answer , step back.

Such discouraging answers are a part of why people don't want to learn.

You don't need to be passive-aggressive in response. On my own, I've been confined to 60Hz monitors the entire time I've been using computers (since 1991-1992). The idea with 60+ Hz monitors is you wish to show off if you got some top notch hardware if you can even get a fluid frame rate for 120, 144 or even 240 Hz. Achieving 60 FPS is doable with 1080p but it starts becoming an issue getting such frame rate at 4K (3840x2160, double of 1080p) depending on your computer setup. How you'd achieve that on 120, 144 or even 240 Hz monitors is beyond me besides spending thousands of dollars on cutting edge equipment.

To the OP: See if @Graf Zahl can answer you, maybe @Rachael, @Maes or even @dpJudas?

[Kaido]

lol

[Koko Ricky]

I can't even get 30fps most of the time in ZDOOM, so I would just learn to live with your amazingly fast computer.

[Gez]

8 hours ago, Illasera said:

Now that's stupid, it should be between 0 and infinite

Yeah allowing people to set a max FPS value of 0 is the not-stupid approach here... :p

[unkind]

With a gsync monitor, or a monitor on fastsync i believe it doesn't matter. Still runs fine at lower fps. 240hz monitor you need like twin titans and a 1k processor to get 240 on today's unoptimized shit games. And i do believe gzdoom has a huge area of improvement in that area too even though i love it.

[Erick]

13 hours ago, Illasera said:

 

Now that's stupid, it should be between 0 and infinite, What if i want to stress test the system or skip frames?

No limit on FPS can be useful for banchmarking and even spotting bottlenecks within the software.

The FPS cap for Doom on DOS is 35FPS, which is also the cap for Chocolate Doom and ZDoom wasn't able to go over 35FPS until some years later. I don't know why would you want to have an FPS cap of 0, sounds kind of silly...

 

I have a 60Hz monitor and to put it simply, GZDoom is very feature heavy and my CPU is kind of out of date (which is where most bottlenecks will come from in ZDoom related ports), thankfully I can scale down the resolution to maintain a good FPS, which is usually over 100 anyways. Although I don't think you would need to do a stress test on Doom since most source ports don't have high system requirements, so kind of sounds redundant to have say 1000FPS as your cap since you'll be reaching high framerates you won't even see unless you have some expensive 240Hz monitor.

 

Also I believe the framerate can be uncapped in PrBoom+ and Crispy Doom, though even still, I find the FPS stable and smooth at 60 in most gameplay situations.

[Illasera]

On 1/9/2018 at 6:53 PM, Glaice said:

You don't need to be passive-aggressive in response. On my own, I've been confined to 60Hz monitors the entire time I've been using computers (since 1991-1992). The idea with 60+ Hz monitors is you wish to show off if you got some top notch hardware if you can even get a fluid frame rate for 120, 144 or even 240 Hz. Achieving 60 FPS is doable with 1080p but it starts becoming an issue getting such frame rate at 4K (3840x2160, double of 1080p) depending on your computer setup. How you'd achieve that on 120, 144 or even 240 Hz monitors is beyond me besides spending thousands of dollars on cutting edge equipment.

Made a rant but decided to edit it out, wasn't helpful

 

Thank you for your opinion...

 

On 1/7/2018 at 8:07 PM, GuyNamedErick said:

You can type vid_maxfps into the console and have an integer between 35 to 1000. The default cap is 200FPS when using GZDoom for the first time. GZDoom should be able to remember what value you have set next time you use it.

 

This is a valid answer for the OP.

 

On 1/9/2018 at 10:12 PM, Gez said:

Yeah allowing people to set a max FPS value of 0 is the not-stupid approach here... :p

 

That is actually correct, My argument here was stupid and exaggerated, I was trying to highlight the benefits of lowering the frame-rate, but 0 is nonsensical indeed, Maybe 10 will be a good minimum hard-limit.

 

To address the question once more, going below the designated minimum frames per second can help in debugging by slowing things down and provide frame skipping BUT the proper way to do it without touching the logical frame rate is to use a time-scaling method.

Edited January 11, 2018 by Illasera

[Percival232]

whhyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy?

 

[Kaido]

Keep on with that attitude of yours and you will get banned soon . Just a friendly reminder . Because , we don't want a talented and knowledgeable member like you getting restrictions now do we?  I am sure you will make positive contributions in the future.

Edited January 11, 2018 by A7MAD

[Edward850]

On 1/10/2018 at 5:53 AM, Glaice said:

The idea with 60+ Hz monitors is you wish to show off if you got some top notch hardware if you can even get a fluid frame rate for 120, 144 or even 240 Hz.

The idea of high framerate monitors is to have things display at a higher framerate. A higher framerate means more information presented to the user over a period of time, which allows for faster responses from the user to the game itself, due to the nature of how the human brain reacts to visual information. You don't see things at a shutter speed, it's a constant stream of information, so the sooner the information is displayed the sooner you can react to it. For twitch gameplay this is absolutely vital.

 

Plus more fluidity looks good, as you can see a difference between 60Hz, 120hz and 240hz, and you don't really need top notch hardware to reach these framerates.

Edited January 11, 2018 by Edward850

[Illasera]

 

14 hours ago, Edward850 said:

The idea of high framerate monitors is to have things display at a higher framerate. A higher framerate means more information presented to the user over a period of time, which allows for faster responses from the user to the game itself, due to the nature of how the human brain reacts to visual information. You don't see things at a shutter speed, it's a constant stream of information, so the sooner the information is displayed the sooner you can react to it. For twitch gameplay this is absolutely vital.

 

Plus more fluidity looks good, as you can see a difference between 60Hz, 120hz and 240hz.

 

On starting point, Consider that in any frequency;

Let T be a given a LOGICAL frame with X time-stamp, and have 2 players, Player A with 60 hz monitor at 60 fps, and Player B with 120 hz monitor at 120 fps, both users will see the first frame at T0, and will have the same time to react, rather if player A with 60 fps will see the next frame after 16 ms, while player B with higher frequency will see it before-hand, the only thing that will change as you said is a smaller s/lerping results , aka fluidity  as you claimed, Taking into account that most games measure events in time-units and not frames (ID tech 1 is the exception).

 

Edit : But maybe you are right if both players do not share the same "starting" frame, Let's say that due to different frequencies, Player B with higher frequency may see player A popping into his/her viewport due to more logical frames.

Edited January 12, 2018 by Illasera

[Edward850]

14 minutes ago, Illasera said:

I think you are wrong, Consider that in any frequency;

Let T be a given time-stamp, both users will see the first frame at T0, and will have the same time to react, rather if player A with 60 fps will see the next frame after 16 ms, while player B with higher frequency will see it before-hand, the only thing that will change as you said is a smaller s/lerping equations , aka fluidity  as you claimed, Taking into account that most games measure events in time-units and not frames (ID tech 1 is the exception).

We've had to test this extensively with our own interpolation systems, so higher framerates do allow for new information sooner. Consider an object moving into the viewport from outside the player's view; the object will move into the viewport sooner at a higher framerate, as the interpolation has more slices to present. This also works the same if the player is the one that's moving, thus moving objects into their viewport. This means the information is presented to the user 8ms sooner at 120FPS rather than 16ms for 60FPS.

 

It also allows for less information lost; objects moving faster have more screen time at higher framerates, and in rare cases, any screen time.

[Illasera]

1 minute ago, Edward850 said:

We've had to test this extensively with our own interpolation systems, so higher framerates do allow for new information sooner. Consider an object moving into the viewport from outside the player's view; the object will move into the viewport sooner at a higher framerate, as the interpolation has more slices to present. This also works the same if the player is the one that's moving, thus moving objects into their viewport. This means the information is presented to the user 8ms sooner at 120FPS rather than 16ms for 60FPS.

You are right and i thought about it again, while editing my post, Yes, i stated it in my edit, Thank you.

You kinda beat me into it before i could finish editing :) 

 

Also, Not sure if extensive research was needed, once you think about it , its kinda logical.

[Edward850]

20 minutes ago, Illasera said:

Also, Not sure if extensive research was needed, once you think about it , its kinda logical.

We had to test it simply to make sure our interpolation code was working. Knowing that was the result was simply incidental information.

[bioshockfan90]

The real question here is...

 

how good of a framerate can you hypothetically achieve in general? could we someday be living in 10,000 FPS? 

 

Nah, i'm just talking out of my ass.