If poster typed what they meant, then maybe they wouldn't have tried to correct the multiple users missing the context of what they were trying to say.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
So, how do I get the feeling of "smooth" 30 FPS on PC, just like consoles usually achieve?
- Thread starter SleepSmasher
- Start date
If poster typed what they meant, then maybe they wouldn't have tried to correct the multiple users missing the context of what they were trying to say.
I might catch hell for this, but not being able to get a comfortable 30 FPS lock further reinforced my idea to stick with consoles over upgrading my PC
I recently tried the RE2 demo on my rig, and was met with frame-rates that constantly bounced between 70 and 40, which led to some slight dizziness. Trying to lock it down to 30 FPS just felt sluggish.
Instead of wrestling with settings for an hour, I figure it'd be a whole lot easier to grab it on Xbone, and not only have a steady frame-rate, but access to 4K visuals as well.
I recently tried the RE2 demo on my rig, and was met with frame-rates that constantly bounced between 70 and 40, which led to some slight dizziness. Trying to lock it down to 30 FPS just felt sluggish.
Instead of wrestling with settings for an hour, I figure it'd be a whole lot easier to grab it on Xbone, and not only have a steady frame-rate, but access to 4K visuals as well.
Also you need to remember tvs have motion handling tech inbuilt putting in interpolated frames even if no motion smoothing is activated whereas monitors forgo certain things like that to get latency as low as possible. Best test would be to play using the same monitor or tv for both and switch between inputs
but you have a gsync monitor
the answer for you is literally 'just target 30fps without an fps lock, and go'
I'm so confused
the answer for you is literally 'just target 30fps without an fps lock, and go'
I'm so confused
OP
OP
Gsync is good, but not that good. There's clearly a lack of smoothness even with Gsync engaged. Plenty of people in this thread agree that this is an actual issue.
As someone who is using a TV for both PC and PS4 I can confirm OPs experience. 30 fps appearing smoother on console is not based on display tech.
Sometimes pushing up the graphic options to max etc and running 30 fps is a good way to go. However for some games like Ghost Recon Wildlands and Arma 3 I can't get a nice, perfectly frame synced 30 fps no matter what I do. It's most visible when turning around slowly - there's huge visible jitter. Actually Uncharted 4 had similar issue in one of the starter areas but after certain point the game fixed itself. I think it was when Nate is escorted out of the prison and he climbs up the tower near the beach.
60 fps is possible with bit of tinkering but Arma 3 will always drop frames here and there no matter what because it's CPU bound and just doesn't behave nicely. I have i7-6700k, GTX 1080 and 2560x1080 screen. Every time I play something new on PC I need to spend the first hours tweaking something. It's compulsory. Sometimes I have spent more time tweaking the game than playing it. Like modding and tweaking Skyrim for example. This is why consoles are nice, no matter what happens you are still stuck with only one choice - be it good or bad.
60 fps is possible with bit of tinkering but Arma 3 will always drop frames here and there no matter what because it's CPU bound and just doesn't behave nicely. I have i7-6700k, GTX 1080 and 2560x1080 screen. Every time I play something new on PC I need to spend the first hours tweaking something. It's compulsory. Sometimes I have spent more time tweaking the game than playing it. Like modding and tweaking Skyrim for example. This is why consoles are nice, no matter what happens you are still stuck with only one choice - be it good or bad.
Last edited:
Please correct if I'm wrong but wouldn't a game that doesn't have any motion blur effects look more stuttery at 4k than if it ran at a resolution with more blur such as 1080p or 720p. Blurry video looks smoother than sharp video. When people say laggy do they mean "stutter" or "input lag"?
Or you could just upgrade your PC and cap the framerate at 60.
There's always going to be a lack of smoothness because 30 FPS isn't smooth, even with perfect frame-pacing. 30 FPS is playable. It has never been and will never be smooth on any platform. That's why this whole topic seems so silly to me. If you want a smooth framerate, you should be targeting at least 60 FPS.
What exactly does "smooth for being at the frame rate" even mean? 60 FPS is smooth and Horizon definitely doesn't feel like that. "Smooth" and "30 FPS" don't belong in the same sentence. I'm getting flashbacks to the whole "feel of 60 FPS" DmC debacle.
Last edited:
The way I see it, I'm better off saving the money it'd take to upgrade, and use that for whatever the next Xbox is
The X is already handling most modern games better than my PC can. I'd rather take that safer route than take a chance of less-than-stellar PC ports
You keep missing the point and bringing 60fps into it. We all know 30fps isn't smooth compared to 60. This thread is about 30fps and how some people find it worse on PC even with on the same TV with the same frame times shown by RTSS. Locked 60fps on PC feels the same to me as it does in console. Locked 30fps doesn't not feel the same on PC to me.
are you using a gamepad on both? mouse tends to feel more obviously bad at 30FPS
also are you sure you are getting a decent frame delivery, like 33.3ms refresh properly without stutters (because the PC can't even handle 30fps, or for other reasons like bad vsync config and so on)?
also are you sure you are getting a decent frame delivery, like 33.3ms refresh properly without stutters (because the PC can't even handle 30fps, or for other reasons like bad vsync config and so on)?
These threads are always interesting. I assumed this phenomenon was real because of how many times it comes up but interesting to see people say otherwise / there apparently being a lack of anything concrete explaining why.
-->
-->
OP
OP
Said that before and going to say it again - this is completely subjective. If 60 FPS was such a big deal to the "standard" user, consoles wouldn't sell.
No, it is that good - it's just broken in Borderless/Windowed mode right now, so many people have the wrong impression of G-Sync.
Use G-Sync in Full-Screen Exclusive mode and you will see better smoothness than any console game.
Unless that 30 FPS option is listed as a V-Sync setting, there is a high chance of it being poorly frame-paced.
60 FPS being far smoother than 30 FPS isn't really subjective. What's subjective is your tolerance for lower framerates. The average console player tolerance is much higher than the average PC player tolerance, which is why I don't find 30 FPS to be smooth or enjoyable at all. "Playable" isn't good enough for me.
Mate no one cares about that here, we're talking about 30fps. Obviously if everyone could do 60 at acceptable settings on their PC this wouldn't even be a thread.
That's the problem with this issue. There is no technical reason for why a 30 fps lock would be any different on PC than on console. Smoothness isn't an abstract concept, it's scientifically measurable. To the best of my knowledge, no developer has ever said that there's anything different between console and PC when it comes to frame delivery. Many people use 30 fps locks on PC and achieve stable frametimes. I used Nvidia's half refresh rate adaptive V-Sync before I upgraded my CPU for some open world titles and it worked as intended. So this is still a mystery.
I'm not sure why you're dismissing the issue at hand. 30fps locks are for those with older gpus or people who want to play at higher resolutions. 60fps sometimes isn't possible, and telling people to upgrade certainly doesn't help.
Personally, I've experienced the same issue running AC: origins and FFXV at 30fps, and it always felt off, compared to an average 30fps console game. Though, I suppose FFXV had framepacing issues on all consoles. This made me gravitate towards my PS4 pro for most multi-platform games rather than my PC, until I upgrade sometime this year.
I'm still having issues with the forum taking me to the wrong "new" post sometimes, so I skipped over this.
There's an easy explanation:
Most "30 FPS" options in games are (typically bad) frame rate limiters unless they are a V-Sync option, and most people trying to run games at 30 FPS use frame rate limiters - then they complain that it's not smooth and properly frame-paced.
When you have a 60Hz display, it has to update every 16.67ms. If there is no new frame prepared in time, it will repeat the previous one.
When you want to display 30 FPS at 60Hz there are 60 "time slots" available that frames can be placed in.
Bad frame-pacing is when, rather than there being a new frame displayed every other refresh, those 30 frames are unevenly distributed across those 60 available refreshes.
Any frame-rate limiter has the potential to cause this issue, but some are better than others. RTSS tends to be the best option for a well-paced 30 FPS at 60Hz, but even so, it is not perfect - especially if you are using it on a system that is just barely achieving your target frame rate.
Half-Refresh V-Sync is different. Essentially what it does is treat your 60Hz display as though it is a 30Hz display.
So rather than there being 60 refreshes that those 30 frames may be distributed in, there are only 30 available to the game.
If the game is running at 30 FPS, you essentially cannot have frame-pacing issues because there is only one way that 30 frames can be distributed across 30 refreshes.
The only reason to avoid using half-refresh V-Sync is if you care more about latency than smoothness/frame-pacing, or if you have an AMD GPU. Unfortunately AMD does not offer a half-refresh V-Sync override in the driver like NVIDIA does.
If your display supports a 30Hz input, selecting that and using V-Sync rather than 60Hz should have the same effect. I believe the "Special K" mod tool can also force a "Present Interval" of 2 on many games, which is the same thing as NVIDIA's half-refresh V-Sync option.
If you really want a "smooth" 30fps experience, just cap the framerate at 34/35 fps.
It's a massive difference for just a couple of extra frames.
It's a massive difference for just a couple of extra frames.
All of this makes sense, but is there a console (hardware? software?) implementation that is making people say they feel the console 30fps is smoother than a poorly implemented frame-limiter implementation on PC?
If they're properly frame-paced, I assume they are essentially doing the same thing and using half-refresh V-Sync, while examples of 30 FPS games with bad frame-pacing; e.g. Bloodborne, are likely using frame rate limiters.
If you all have an Nvidia card, can you do a little experiment? Disable any external frame limiting software and use the half refresh V-Sync option in the Nvidia control panel. Do you see any difference in smoothness? Also, please report if you're playing on a monitor or TV and with a controller or a mouse. Maybe we can get to the bottom of this.
If I have g-sync I would never target a locked 30fps personally. Just play the damn game and enjoy, g-sync is that good. Use a controller and sit back from the screen.
OP
OP
Just tried it on my monitor and TV. On my monitor:
- disabled G-Sync
- monitor set to output at 60 Hz
- disabled RTSS
- set half refresh rate on Nvidia's CP for the MHW profile
- disabled v-sync and frame limiter in game
Playing on my TV, exact same steps besides the G-Sync part. Results for both are... I guess, a little better? PS4 Pro still seems smoother on my Pro on the same TV, different HDMI output (but same settings). Any motion interpolation tecnique was also disabled on the TV.
I guess I should try a different game since Monster Hunter World seems to be the worst case scenario for this kind of test. Not sure if things indeed got a little better or if just placebo.
Two solutions work but one is an arse.
One is half rate vsync.
The other is to set your refresh rate to 30hz, and play the games literally at 30hz (vsync optional). Obviously you would want to change it back after but it works better than a 60hz output with only 30 FPS because that's just yuck.
I'm playing Breath of the Wild through Cemu with a 30fps lock on a 144hz gsync monitor and genuinely can't tell the difference between the framerate on this monitor vs my Switch playing the game natively.
Multiplatform games (the majority of games available on consoles) generally do not have perfect frame-pacing or even stable framerates. It's mostly the first-party exclusives that do. Neither AC:O nor FFXV has a stable 30 FPS or consistent frame-pacing on PS4 Pro or Xbox One X. This myth of "smooth 30 FPS" as the standard on consoles has no basis in reality.
Cool, thanks. Did you monitor the framerate of the PC version? Was it a stable 30 throughout?
It honestly depends on the monitor.
Some handle non refresh rate frame rates better than others. And of course it depends how the game handles things too.
I've seen 30fps look fine on PC and horrendous depending on the factors above.
As stated by others it's also dependent on frame times. If it's not a steady 33.3ms per frame, it'll look like shit, that's the same on consoles too of course.
I've played through Dishonored 2 on PC at a 30fps lock and it felt fine. Smoother even than on PS4, although I concede that it's not an example of a perfectly framepaced title on consoles at all. However, I did find it to be very pleasant in terms of my PC experience with it. It felt smooth and not stuttery. I know exactly what you mean when you talk about 30fps on PC feeling off.
I have to say though, that if you're playing on a monitor and sitting close to it, it'll look and feel worse. My PC is connected to both a monitor on one side of the room, and also a TV on the other. Unless I'm played a specifically keyboard/mouse-focused title (RTS, FPS, etc.) then I play with an Xbox controller on the TV. Even playing at 30fps (I've also done this with The Witcher 3 and Batman Arkham Knight) feels just as it does on a console.
If you can try it, give it a go.
I have to say though, that if you're playing on a monitor and sitting close to it, it'll look and feel worse. My PC is connected to both a monitor on one side of the room, and also a TV on the other. Unless I'm played a specifically keyboard/mouse-focused title (RTS, FPS, etc.) then I play with an Xbox controller on the TV. Even playing at 30fps (I've also done this with The Witcher 3 and Batman Arkham Knight) feels just as it does on a console.
If you can try it, give it a go.
With RTSS 30 lock (And I mean cemented at 33.3ms), a double buffered vsync (triple buffer gives more input lag but tolerates fps dips better) and motion blur it should be at least as "smooth" as a console title.
EDIT:
So I tired out the game I got on console (PS3) and PC as well, and runs (supposedly) 30 fps. It's Resident Evil 5, wich is MT Framework (obviously a very different build of it), like Monster Hunter World. Even using Dualshock 3 on both.
Maybe I should do some control panel fine tuning, because on PC there's a bigger deadzone on the stick but it is the same exact feel switching back and forth. Except when the ps3 inevitably drops frames and becomes a choppy mess, which is quite frequent.
So unless the PC port has some quirks it should be the exact same experience as on console. There is no secret sauce.
One funny thing is I had to force performance mode in Windows control panel for the cpu and in Nvidia control panel for the gpu, so they won't clock themself too low to drop frames under such a minor task as running Resi 5 at 30 fps.
Also my first playthrough of the Witcher 3 back in 2015 was at 30 fps on PC, because my Radeon 270X couldn't possibly achieve a locked 60. Fortunately at 30 it had enough overhead that it was still a way better experience than any other console version at the time.
EDIT:
So I tired out the game I got on console (PS3) and PC as well, and runs (supposedly) 30 fps. It's Resident Evil 5, wich is MT Framework (obviously a very different build of it), like Monster Hunter World. Even using Dualshock 3 on both.
Maybe I should do some control panel fine tuning, because on PC there's a bigger deadzone on the stick but it is the same exact feel switching back and forth. Except when the ps3 inevitably drops frames and becomes a choppy mess, which is quite frequent.
So unless the PC port has some quirks it should be the exact same experience as on console. There is no secret sauce.
One funny thing is I had to force performance mode in Windows control panel for the cpu and in Nvidia control panel for the gpu, so they won't clock themself too low to drop frames under such a minor task as running Resi 5 at 30 fps.
Also my first playthrough of the Witcher 3 back in 2015 was at 30 fps on PC, because my Radeon 270X couldn't possibly achieve a locked 60. Fortunately at 30 it had enough overhead that it was still a way better experience than any other console version at the time.
Last edited:
OP
OP
FPS counter isn't enough, it won't detect microstuttering that fucks framepacing
OP
OP
I know but I didn't even enable RTSS to make sure it wouldn't interfere somehow.
Oh yeah, glossed over that point.
Speaking of which, could be an excellent addition to the Steam tools... included frame-limit or framerate switcher per-game
Were you running the game on exclusive fullscreen or borderless? According to Pargon that combination should provide the best results. I'd like to help in testing but I don't know which games would be the best candidates.
XBX is upscaled 1620p with a mix of med/high settings, maybe tone down the visuals to get a solid 60fps, i dunno why people put their games to Ultra settings & Native 4K, then claim XBX is better because they can't get 60fps.
We all know this is a terrible take, but for those who are unsure why framerate isn't everything, think about Hidden Object games, or turn based strategy, or games where you want to read details on the vista. Consider Nintendo making Ocarina of Time vs a 60fps equivalent on N64. There are so many reasons framerate is less important, and sometimes the least important thing.
Though a high frame rate is not required for turn-based gameplay, trying to play something like Civilization or XCOM at low frame rates is painful. Point & Click or hidden object games still often have camera movement, and cursor input feels bad at low frame rates.
Hardware is good enough now that every game should be targeting 60 FPS or higher.
Everyone talks about how Gsync makes 40-60FPS feel smooth, but I highly disagree. It feels just as bad as ever really with the only benefit being that there isn't a judder from duplicate frames anymore but there is still a judder due to lower framerate. Gsync is most beneficial when you are hitting 100+ FPS, it's difficult to hit 144FPS in games these days and it is there that Gsync helps a lot in when you have FPS wildly ranging from 100-144 and it still feels just as smooth as if it was never dropping frames while providing all the benefits that running at 100+ FPS brings about.
I wouldn't want to play the Firaxis Xcom games at 30FPS. Actually I've tried them on consoles and didn't like it one bit because I am constantly manipulating the camera in those games and not having the smoothness of 60FPS or more for that feels not optimal.
I used to do this a lot, set up my PC specifically for 30fps. 60hz monitor, so I would lock v sync to half refresh rate and use a controller. Besides a few good years, like 2007-2008 and 2010-2012, none of my setups have been fast enough for 1080p 60fps in newer games.
The controller is a must. Feels awful with a mouse.
The controller is a must. Feels awful with a mouse.