??
The conclusion of the video is like the exact opposite. they show how performance jumped across the board, and they even say the largest impact was on more casual players who didn’t already have lots of muscle memory and game sense to rely on.
Literally the video ends with him saying “Will it make you a better gamer? Undoubtably” and how he was shocked at how big the difference in performance was even from 144->240.
The main reason that I cap at 72 FPS is it’s nice and stable and I also get lower fan noise
Would much rather have that lower fan noise than a barely visible improvement in smoothness
I went from 60hz to 240hz about 3 years ago and noticed a big improvement in performance.
This is true- but the ability to coordinate and use this is most definitely bounded by reaction time. I suggest you look up the studies on some of these folks.
No one ever said this, you conjured this in your own mind.
You can dispute it all you like, but its clear that to get the full impact of higher refresh rates you need a faster coordinated response to get the advantage of it. I also know that the image processing of the nervous system has limits, it’s not “infinite” in the least. Simple fact is the faster ie smoother the visual past a point no one can make out or take advantage of the difference. Likewise, most normal players cannot use the information fast enough to really make much use of the difference going from 144 to 240 or higher presents. They just cannot. Sure maybe a 1-2% difference from 144 to 240 for an _average _ player, but that’s about it. OTOH we know that Dafran for instance has very high image processing combined with reaction time, so he can process and use the visual information in ways most people cannot. This was actually studied by someone a few years back.
It just is what it is.
There are limits but probably well beyond what’s ordinary. We know that visual acuity and and contrast sensitivity function can be trained well beyond accepted standards of normality. There was a woman who could see the moons of Jupiter with the naked eye. For most people though you’re unlikely to see much of a difference above 90hz.
This is correct
People need to differentiate between FPS and refresh rate
Yes a higher frame rate will give you lower input latency as well as allow you to see the most up-to-date frames
In the Linus Tech Tips video at 32 minutes in with the “double doors test” this is clearly demonstrated by the test with 300 FPS at 60hz showing a drastic improvement in line with the same improvement from higher refresh rate
So you don’t need a crazy high refresh rate monitor. 75 Hz or 90 Hz should be more than enough
The main thing is the framerate to get the most up-to-date frames
I think you say this based on movies which usually run at 24
But like 60fps is very noticeable, I’d say that is less about what you say and more than 20ish frames is the minimum for the eye to not see laggy or sturdy (if that makes sense)
Personal attack, flagged as inappropriate.
Provide evidence to refute what I’ve said or don’t. Again you might want to take note of that result in the Linus Tech Tips video at 32 minutes in.
Higher frame rate is the more important aspect than higher refresh rate.
Unlike some people I take truth and integrity seriously so I don’t appreciate your allegations that I am flagging in bad faith.
I’m just saying, unless you’re a pro gamer you probably don’t NEED the diminishing returns between 144>240. The jump from 60>144 is much more noticeable and important, and people with a budget need to choose between jumping up to 300, or upgrading from 1080p>1440p. I think jumping up in resolution is a better investment for most people.
It is ultimately bounded by the transmission speed of the nervous system.
Again, though, let’s not mistake that of pro players or people at one end of the spectrum with “average” - you cannot substantially change your inborn reaction times. There is little evidence for this .
On this woman and Jupiter’s moons - link it, and even then if she could (which would be under the most ideal circumstances possible) you cannot “train” to this kind of extreme.
I am at age 56 blessed with still having about 150ms time or so best case, which is a bit low for my age, most kids are around 120-130. It is possible to train compensating techniques such as prediction, but nothing is going to substantially drop that number for anyone.
I will say though that I can definitely sense the difference between 120hz and 144hz, no question, but it’s hard to describe - its more a sense something is a bit “off” when going down from 144 to 120… coming up strangely it doesn’t. My desktop monitor is 120, while my game laptop is 144.
Pretty cool breakdown: https://backyardbrains.com/experiments/reactiontime
https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/smallest-visible-object/?fb_comment_id=557264831040733_672228922877656
"Veronica Seider (b. 1951) possessed a visual acuity 20 times better than average. "
There’s growing evidence that various aspects of vision can in fact be trained including but not limited to visual acuity and contrast sensitivity function.
Check out Delphine Bavelier’s research into the topic.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51811015_Brains_on_video_games
According to the 20th century ophthalmologist William Bates there is no limit to visual acuity. He reported several cases of supernormal vision including a girl who could see the moons of Jupiter with the naked eye shown by her drawing them which corresponded perfectly to actual telescopic views. Then there was Lord Macaulay who was reported to have a level of microscopic vision. Those who fully mastered his techniques were said to have gained supernormal vision dependent upon their level of “central fixation”. I personally have had flashes of greatly enhanced visual acuity.
Let’s be honest. those are very extreme examples. But tell you what; when you can hit Dafran levels let me know 
Is not really. Eyes aren’t mechanical. They don’t have a fps counter. But it’s basically correct. Your eyes stop seeing “frames” anymore after 24fps. That’s what movies are made in. Your eyes notice brighter things more sensitively than darker things.
What more important IMO is the latency. 60hz is 16ms latency while 120 hz is 8ms. A game running 120fps internally on a 60hz monitor will feel more responsive than 60fps internally and 120hz monitor.
Heh. I can complete Super Hexagon hyper hexagonest level with a score of 240 seconds and that’s good enough for me!
Also couple more papers for you:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871325/
https://www.pnas.org/content/111/47/16961
Not exactly, you can have an less then average reaction time and still track targets just fine as soon as you focus on it. For the same reason that people can play rhythm games with inputs that go as low as 15ms window.
In other words, you may “predict” information as you expect something happening at a certain speed and direction. Without a high FPS, an fast moving target that changes direction can be seen as multiple images instead of a single blur that gives you an “average” of its most updated image.
There’s no point to discuss this since I already made an entire thread talking about this subject Blizzard PLEASE add an Motion Blur option on the engine
I actually indicated this a compensating measure.
Stroboscopic effect isn’t bound to just some individuals. Blur Busters have an entire article about this if you wanna read. Or as I said already, the Motion Blur video from Digital Foundry.
I would post images to explain those things better. But I can’t.
You can’t pinpoint where the target is. But with a higher Refresh Rate, you have more information to “blend” because your persistence of vision.
It’s very easy to show this in videography. Just watch some videos recorded with fast shutter speed and slow shutter speed. You’ll notice that a faster shutter speed seems to show crispier images but a less smooth movement. If the FPS is way to low in this case, you may seen an bouncing ball as a “flickering ball” instead of a “trace” of a ball. Or an spinning wheel as an static wheel. It can be EXTREMELY distracting because your brain don’t expect movement to be like this.
I’ll quote something from my own topic here:
Stroboscopic effect
The stroboscopic effect is sometimes used to “stop motion” or to study small differences in repetitive motions. The stroboscopic effect refers to the phenomenon that occurs when there is a change in perception of motion, caused by a light stimulus that is seen by a static observer within a dynamic environment. The stroboscopic effect will typically occur within a frequency range between 80 and 2000 Hz, though can go well beyond to 10,000 Hz for a percentage of population.
An advantage might not be to “react” faster, but to “adjust” your POV faster. If you can read at least the direction of a moving target (instead of a flicker of multiple individual images), it WILL be easier to focus when it goes to a slow enough speed.
Of course they can, but not the way people might expect. People seems to be way to worried about “input lag” when talking about higher refresh rates. Input lag isn’t the “biggest” advantege of higher refresh rate.
You can’t react if you can’t see or focus in your target. This is why tests like that “reaction time test” is pointless comparing to actual gaming. A game will feel responsible already within about 40ms of total input latency (the entire chain of input/output lag). But it doesn’t matter how responsive it might be if yuo struggle to “read” visually the environment.
This is debatable. Why would you think it will not help? Just because an gold player will still be gold with an higher refresh rate? Well. The same applies for every “professional” gear in amateur hands. But at least a higher refresh rate would raise the overall motion fidelity and immersion.
What? First… Where you got this number? Second. Why would be Dafran an “argument”, and how he have “very high image processing”, what this does even mean?
I’m sorry. But this is the worse thing you typed here by far. Pros doesn’t have an “special” brain or body. Of course that genetics might help in some sense but you don’t need to be an “mutant” to play at highest levels of gaming, and certainly you don’t need to be a “mutant” to notice a difference between 60 Hz and 240 Hz displays.
htt ps://www.testufo.c om/ there are dozens of tests you can see for yourself here. You don’t need to be “special” to notice those artifacts.
As I said already. An LCD screen and overall displays aren’t good enough to translate visual information with enough fidelity to trick our brains to believe where seeing something “real” or “natural”. And it might never be good enough.
Resolution might be already at that point. But refresh rate, not even close.
Audio on the other hand, might be already (with the proper hardware).
You can’t compensate for information you don’t have.