Interesting. I heard that human eyes cannot perceive anything over 60 fps. Are you serious with your pilot statement?
Just because your PC is sub-par (seriously, 1360x768 resolution?) that doesn't mean 60 FPS is "best." What is "best" depends on your definition of "best." Obviously if you're a competitive Overwatch player, the higher the framerate the better. If you play turn-based games you don't need 144 FPS but it certainly looks better. Some people are willing to lower the quality (like you) to get higher framerates and others are perfectly fine raising the quality as high as possible, regardless of the resulting framerate. I recently got a 144Hz monitor and the difference is night and day between 60 and 144 FPS. Naturally, the difference between the OP's beloved 30FPS and 144FPS would be an even bigger difference.
You heard wrong, friend.
What does resolution and quality have to do with one another? Unless you are standing like 5cm from the screen or if you are playing on a 70 inch monitor, you don't need high resolutions. The only thing resolution changes is the density of the pixels, meaning that as long as you don't see them separately (eg: like when on a handheld system), it's good already. Turning the resolution all the way up to 1080 on any monitor bellow 30 inches is overkill. I never said 144 was bad, but 60 is optimal for not ultra-spec PCs. As for the "competitive Overwatch player", overwatch doesn't need that many frames anyway, especially how it uses a fill-in method of raising the rate past 75, where it doesn't matter anymore. You seem to think that frames make you move faster or lower your response time, they don't, frames are just what's shown, not what's happening. If you wanted no input lag, you would be playing using a HD CRT monitor.
There's an airbase where they train pilots just 15 minutes away on foot from here, so we get to meet some (fellow uni students, only they go to military uni) and they've said that it's true. For Greece though it's 1/200-235 frames and anything above is not needed as there's no war or anything going on.
Everything. You don't need to have your face next to a monitor to see the difference between 720p and 1080p. A stretched 720p image can look similar to a 1080p image with low quality settings. Blurriness can be a big problem when dealing with text-heavy games.
Can't seem to find that information anywhere. Link?
The higher your framerate the more likely you are to have the most recent/accurate frame. I'd say that's rather important in competitive environments (but also rather helpful in general).
Proper motion blur sure improves apparent visual quality and is very well suited for films, but it will not improve your stimuli-reflex reaction time, and regarding the "fallacy" well, tell that to a F1 pilot avoiding an accident or to anybody that avoids a punch or a ball coming to their face without even thinking about it.
Yeah, uniform frame pacing is way more important than raw FPS, but people normally only do the FPS talk for some reason.
It has to do with what you are used to too. If you have been using a screen with 30 FPS, you can't tell the difference by moving to 60 straight away, but if you are used to 60, it's glaringly obvious if you move down to 30. That's why people who play on consoles often claim they can't tell the difference. However, something like from 30 to 100+ is obvious for everyone with eyes.
A little correction, refresh rate and FPS are basically the exact same thing, only difference is that refresh rate has to do with the frequency crystal used for the screens, so while refresh rate is in Hz, it's the same as FPS (eg: rf of 60Hz is 60FPS). No need to separate those two. Also, while the picture supposedly shows the "difference", it's not really accurate. You can't compare 60 and 24FPS on the same screen all the time, as one of the two will actually get chopped because of round ups/downs. So you can only compare things like 30 and 60 on a 60Hz monitor (basically it needs to be dividable by the same number for both, so something like 30 and 60 in a 75Hz monitor aren't displayed properly and same goes if you are on 144 where everything needs to be at least slightly chopped distorted unless you resort to fill-ins).The fps is important on screens, and the refresh rate will also affect the fluidity. The minimum fps has more to do with performance, costs, the type of screen used, refresh rate, and blur than with perception.
Here's an illustration of what I tried to explain :
Well said, and so if your monitor had 120Hz refresh rate you could perfectly see the difference between 60FPS and 24FPS without chopping, and 120Hz is actually a quite common refresh rate.
@
Xdqwerty:
