120 FPS vs 300 FPS

General Discussion
172

Well. This is a point that we should clarify. Visual Accuity and Motion Sensitivity/Detection are separated things.

This is why it’s so hard to draw a line where everyone will be “pleased” enough.

For me for example, resolution barely matters. With proper anti-aliasing methods, I might not even be capable to say the difference between 4k and 1080p. But for some people, they can EASILY perceive the difference.

Motion on the other hand is something that I can notice very easily. So there’s a “range” where different people may be sensitive for different artifacts. I already explained this in my Motion Blur Implementation Topic, hence the reason why I asked for an OPTION in game.

Stroboscopic Effect is EXTREMELY noticeable for me, even at 240 Hz. But it might not be for you.

To quote Blur Busters article here:

" This Effect Happens In Video Games Too!

Not everybody is sensitive to in-game stroboscopic stepping artifacts… Different people have different priorities when it comes to displays. Different people are sensitive to different display limitations. Perhaps you are more sensitive to flicker than tearing. Or more sensitive to color than brightness. Tearing versus stutter. Latency versus motion blur."

As you seem to like to link some articles, here’s one interesting quote from here: htt ps://www.researchgate.n et/publication/347570073_With_Motion_Perception_Good_Visual_Acuity_May_Not_Be_Necessary_for_Driving_Hazard_Detection

“Purpose: To investigate the roles of motion perception and visual acuity in driving hazard detection. Methods: Detection of driving hazard was tested based on video and still-frames of real-world road scenes. In the experiment using videos, 20 normally sighted participants were tested under four conditions: with or without motion interruption by interframe mask, and with or without simulated low visual acuity (20/120 on average) by using a diffusing filter. Videos were down-sampled to 2.5 Hz, to allow the addition of motion interrupting masks between the frames to maintain video durations. In addition, single still frames extracted from the videos were shown in random order to eight normally sighted participants, who judged whether the frames were during ongoing hazards, with or without the diffuser. Sensitivity index d-prime (d’) was compared between unmasked motion (n = 20) and still frame conditions (n = 8). Results: In the experiment using videos, there was a significant reduction in a combined performance score (taking account of reaction time and detection rate) when the motion was disrupted (P = 0.016). The diffuser did not affect the scores (P = 0.419). The score reduction was mostly due to a decrease in the detection rate (P = 0.002), not the response time (P = 0.148). The d’ of participants significantly decreased (P < 0.001) from 2.24 with unmasked videos to 0.68 with still frames. Low visual acuity also had a significant effect on the d’ (P = 0.004), but the change was relatively small, from 2.03 without to 1.56 with the diffuser. Conclusions: Motion perception plays a more important role than visual acuity for detecting driving hazards. Translational relevance: Motion perception may be a relevant criterion for fitness to drive.”

1 Like
173

True

False. I have a film degree and the reason movies are in 24fps is because most people feel like 24fps movement looks closest to how we see real life. But like you said the eye is not mechanical and can’t be restricted to any fps science, and we do not stop seeing frames after 24. How can any gamer actually believe that? Just restrict your game to 24fps and see if you notice a difference between that and 60+ fps. There’s a huge difference, and the difference between 60 and 144 is just as big.

2 Likes
174

Could have sworn I’d said something similar to this in a few words. Why are people trying to argue that our eyes are like cameras is beyond me. It’s truly scary how misinformed people are. And this is one subject we’re talking about. Who knows what other crazy things people believe. Scary.

175

There is no question that the reaction times of most pros are above average. Not sure where and why you think this isn’t the case. Now, most of it is game sense and positioning, but there is no doubt some of it in many cases is enabled by reaction times.

You can think what you want, I have been in high and low level games, and unquestionably higher level players tend to have faster reflexes.

176

Even though my 240Hz monitor helps with tracking fast moving enemies, I actually still find AD strafing annoying in this game, especially at close range. Everyone just moves way too quickly to the left or right. Adding movement acceleration could fix this, but then again this game is already designed to work with zero movement acceleration in mind. If it was to get added, it will make already slow moving heroes like zenyatta incredibly susceptible to being sniped by hitscans given his massive hitbox.

177

The 360hz+ panels are IPS.

178

How’s that? From what source? They just conditioned themselves after hours and hours of training and repetition. This works for EVERYTHING really, it doesn’t make then “special”. I’m PRETTY sure that each of those pros shows average results regarding reaction time in proper testing.

I would add skilled mechanics to that. And this is how you have a “pro” gamer.

Pro gamers are good because they practice a LOT, and mostly important. They practice in correct or better ways then your average gamer. Not because they’re “mutants”.

They don’t react “faster”, just “better”. More efficient, more precise.

You’re misinterpreting things. Reflex and reaction time isn’t the same thing.

Genetics might help, but not by a lot. And no genetics can make you an human with 40ms of reaction time.

179

Kinda weird to assume that pros aren’t typically genetically gifted to begin with. Of course, they have conditioned themselves by grinding insane amounts but thats on top of their already natural genetic talent. That applies to any sport btw

180

Yep… And I explained WHY in my topic: Blizzard PLEASE add an Motion Blur option on the engine

There are some visual artifacts that is easier to notice on Overwatch because the fast pace nature of the game tied with instant movement acceleration and vivid colors/outline. Stroboscopic effect is one of then. You’re absolutely correct.

EVERYONE who’s not blind suffers about this in some degree. It’s just the natural effect of the persistence of vision. And honestly one of the most (if not the most) easier argument to explain why there’s no such thing as “high enough FPS value”.

Just move your mouse arrow in circles. You can see very clearly multiple arrows at the same time, instead of a “trail” of then. If it was an continuous light, you would see just a circle.

Another example… Some mouse who have RGB do strobe and others don’t. Razer mouse usually doesn’t strobe, so if you move it in circles and observe, you’ll see an trail of the image.

XTRFY on the other hand strobe, so if you do the same… It will have the SAME effect as the cursor on the screen. Another example would be those rotating LED clocks that people make with arduino.

For those who STILL don’t understand what is stroboscopic effect, it can be “simulated” quite easily with a photo with slow shutter speed.

http s://p ostimg.cc/fVV C681S (just glue the link and see).

This photo is from my display an 240 Hz display.

This is one of the artifacts that you cannot solve entirely, even with 500 Hz displays or beyond. They just raise the handicap of where the effect happens… For 500 Hz would be an movement higher then 500pixels/sec.

Hence why I created an topic asking for motion blur in the first place. Motion blur is one of the most (if not the most) misunderstood effect on gaming. And a PROPER per object motion blur to be believable MUST have an high FPS value.

Of course, raising frequency display AND FPS is the gold standard. But it might be impossible.

There are an interesting article on Blur Busters about FRAT (Frame Rate Amplification Tech) that it might be an solution. But it will STILL need an proper display, and god knows how expensive it might get to 1000 Hz territory~.

You’re probably the type of player that focus your eyes more on the crosshair. Trying to focus on the TARGET instead might help. But the trade-off would notice the stroboscopic effect on other point.

1 Like
181

Can u link an research about this subject? Those pro players was proper tested?

Honestly, we don’t even need any of this to test… Just watch in slowmotion some plays and see if any of then reacted faster then 160ms in any situation that they couldn’t predict (like hearing or expecting the player to be there).

Don’t forget, someone who have “faster” reaction times should be consistently faster. So it shouldn’t be something that “might” happen sometimes.

I can wait.

Edit: While I’m waiting, you can see some “pros” trying for themselves an simple test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rF9oA-syvfg

182

There was a nice documentary of the physical abilities of Ronaldo. You won’t reach that level without superior genetics and a will to put in 100% to match it.

The same holds for most other pros to varying degrees. They are not just work animals, they also have a slight genetic edge.

The average reaction time is 200ms. Around 120ms is top1%, iirc. Obviously, having 120ms reaction time alone won’t make you a pro gamer, but it will put you in a better position to achieve this goal with hard work.

Edit: Btw, everyone in the comment section of that video said that the map must be broken due to too high values. Some even tested it themselves after recording their values on human benchmark. So…

183

Everything you’re talking about is mostly physical prowess. Reaction time on the other hand is mostly an natural “handicap” from our nervous system. The information just can’t move faster then physics can allow. Not even good genetics can “break” this, unless maybe if you’re another species or something.

120ms reaction time in a play is something. But consistently? I don’t think so.

184

Yea… Great source of information… Might be an really reliable source.

As I said. You can just pause the video and count the frames. It’s really not that hard.

Some other players just use human benchmark. No one of then is extremely scientific. But fortunately. For something like 100ms, we can measure even with an cheap smartphone.

185

So you are telling me Ronaldo being able to jump higher than a basketball player, being more agile than an Olympic runner, and many other features is just due to “physical prowess” rather than being genetically gifted (to an even higher degree than other pro athletes)?

That’s an outrageous statement lol

186

It’s peer review in a sense. The results were considered unrealistic so a large group of people independently tried themselves and reached consensus that it is neither verifiable nor reproducible. Seems like a solid source to me

187

I’m not saying that this “physical prowess” isn’t because the genetics. I’m saying that comparing this with reaction time is stupid.

As I said already. You can’t have an genetics that “break” rules of physics.

Pros for the most part have average reaction time. But since they’re skilled, the “reaction” is usually efficient, that’s it.

188

Yea… Social media is the primary source of information for some people. I’m not surprised.

Discussing this is pointless… You can test for yourself. Just download the map, record in slowmo your reaction and count the frames. If you can count, you can measure. You don’t have to be an PHD in science to see if the map is broken or not.

189

Well, obviously those are two different dimensions of a genetical advantage. But it’s similar enough to warrant a comparison and strengthen the claim that good genetics put you in a better position to become a pro player (of any sort)

I never claim that it did? Let’s imagine there are two players wanting to become pros. In this scenario, they are both spending the same amount of time on grinding and getting better at the game in the exact same way. The only difference between them is that one has a 200ms reaction time, while the other has 120-130ms reaction time.

Wouldn’t you agree that the latter has a massive advantage over the former and much better chances at becoming pro?

190

Now that a claim you have to provide sources for. Your previous video was methodologically quistionable. The average is 200ms btw. I would claim that there is not a single pro gamer with a reaction time of 200.

191

Is this different from screen tearing? If it’s screen tearing, I don’t experience any of that (at least to annoying degrees) on my 240Hz monitor especially with FreeSync on. I’m also using Alienware AW2521HF which doesn’t have that much ghosting. But if I set the overdrive setting to “extreme”, I definitely start noticing the horrible ghosting. But having FreeSync on actually gets rid of that, which allows me to have best of both worlds: smoother gameplay experience + fastest display response time.

Also is this stroboscopic effect an isolated issue with Overwatch or any FPS game? Valorant feels slightly smoother when I spin my camera around quickly. But I always thought this was related to the graphics.

This is more to do with the mouse cursor not updating fast enough as you move it around quickly. You will notice less of this with a mouse that has a 8000Hz polling rate compared to 1000Hz or 500Hz.

Has this motion blur mechanism been applied successfully in other competitive FPS games without any downsides? If this feature won’t negatively impact the visual clarity of the game, especially for those who already have a 240Hz or higher refresh rate monitor, with a beefy gaming PC that can consistently hit those frames, then I don’t see why it shouldn’t be added.

If it does cause disadvantages in visual clarity to those who already have a high refresh rate monitor and a beefy PC that can support those frames, then perhaps this ‘motion blur’ feature can be added as an option under settings for the casual players who are on their potato PC. But at that point, if you’re not taking the game too seriously, you could just turn on Vsync which will increase your input latency but as a trade off you get better visual clarity from reduced screen tearing.