Frame times hovering between 16.67ms and 33.33ms do not have the same effect when the frame rate is 30fps or 40fps or 60fps.Agree about responsiveness. Frame times constantly hovering between 16.67ms and 33.33ms isn't great for playability. Remains to be seen for what percentage of the time it stays at 16.67ms. VG Tech, where you at?
Still, fluctuations between 16.67/33.33ms are better than larger frame time spikes
Frame rates are derived from frame times, not the other way around. The "last a longer period of time" information is covered by the percentage of the time frames are delivered at a certain frame time.
Longf thing me noFrame rates are derived from frame times, not the other way around. The "last a longer period of time" information is covered by the percentage of the time frames are delivered at a certain frame time.
TOTK delivers frames at higher than the intended frame time 3.9% of the time. Completely fine and performs well.
Bayonetta 3 delivers frames at higher than the intended frame time 17.17% of the time w/ an additional 0.4% of stutters. The stutters are a bummer, but what are my options for playing the game in a better state? None.
Jedi Survivor delivers frames at higher than the intended frame time 25.63% of the time w/ an additional 0.4% of stutters. The stutters are a bummer, but what are my options for playing the game in a better state? None. The PC version is a disaster, and the Series X version performs worse than PS5.
Ultimately, I'll play the game I want to play on the best possible platform. That is why "best performing" is very meaningful
When did I say otherwise?
Like the 0.2% in Dead Space remake
You may not think you have a better option but that doesn't make the objectively poor versions playableUltimately, I'll play the game I want to play on the platform that delivers the best possible experience. That is why "best performing" is very meaningful
I played in the 30 FPS modeIts no surprise then that the game in your signature is also known to have shitty performance and has 1st and 5th percentiles in the ~30fps.
The more you know ...
When you want DMC V combat in FF16 but the Performance mode so bad you had play a spiritual successor to DmC instead...I played in the 30 FPS mode
Yes, just as I said 0.4% of stutters in Jedi Survivor on PS5 is a bummer, 0.2% of stutter isn't good eitherLike the 0.2% in Dead Space remake
Frame time counts, which is what the percentage is based on is not measured in ms, however. It is literally telling you the number of frames out of the total rendered frames during the test that are delivered at a particular frame time. It does not involve the measurement unit of frame time itself.I mean, a spike is literally measured in ms, while low frame rates are averaged over a longer period of time
Frame rate is irrelvant. TOTK delivers only 1227 out of 31474 (3.9%) frames at 50ms. The input response is fine based on the frame time count breakdown for the rendered frames.The input response in all these console versions is awful due to low frame rate issues and directly impacts gameplay negatively
The only thing that can objectively be proven here is that the option I chose is bestYou may not think you have a better option but that doesn't make the objectively poor versions playable
Yes, just as I said 0.4% of stutters in Jedi Survivor on PS5 is a bummer, 0.2% of stutter isn't good either
"only"
Math says otherwiseThe only thing that can objectively be proven here is that the option I chose is best
It's a statement relative to the target platform and its intended frame time. Is a drop from the intended frame time of 33.33 ms to 50 ms 3.9% of the time bad? The input response is affected for sure, but input still registers. A drop to 66.66 ms? Yeah, that's terrible for a game that targets 33.33 ms or 30 fps, and can cause input registry issues.
Please elaborate, math teacherMath says otherwise
When you want DMC V combat in FF16 but the Performance mode so bad you had play a spiritual successor to DmC instead...
My condolences
Which From Soft game targeting 30 fps on a console are we talking about, and what was the frame time when said input didn't registerNot necessarily. Case in point: From Software games
Agreed.
www.makeuseof.com
I'm glad your back. Do stick around. We aren't much left here ol regulars.Agreed.
My system has excellent resource management, it automatically shuts down unnecessary applications and minimizes background load when I run a PC game. I also buy original.
However, some game developers have come up with bad PC ports that are notorious for stuttering or performance issues.
Bad PC Ports Weren't Developed With PCs in Mind
Consoles aren't as powerful as high-end or even mid-range PCs. However, the components inside a console are all predictable. With this consistency in parts, developers can code their game in a way that makes the most out of the hardware it's expected to play on.
Consoles usually have a shared pool of system and graphics memory. While on computers with dedicated graphics cards, the system and graphics memory aren't shared. Changing that very fundamental part of how the game works is quite tricky and could sometimes mean a massive overhaul, leading to performance issues.
Console games are developed to run as efficiently as possible on the hardware that they're given. Considering that console games are sold to console gamers first, the developers have all the reasons to make the game cater to that market the most, leaving the PC gamers as an afterthought.
Ports have tight deadlines; working on an old existing project isn't seen as very profitable, so they're often quite rushed. To keep the main developers working on new projects, porting the game to PC is often outsourced to external companies with tight deadlines.
Corporate Greed Rushes PC Ports
Some ports have the potential to be good but are limited by investors that don't understand what it takes to make a game. You've probably heard of rushed game releases for the sake of keeping investors happy; the same happens with ports.
Ports have tight deadlines; working on an old existing project isn't seen as very profitable, so they're often quite rushed. To keep the main developers working on new projects, porting the game to PC is often outsourced to external companies with tight deadlines.
The infamous The Last of Us Part II is an example of this outsourcing. The game was ported to PC by Iron Galaxy—the same studio outsourced to port The Last of Us Part I to PC. Part I was also a bad PC port, with both games suffering memory and CPU management issues.
There are many more things that corporate greed is ruining; check out how the rising costs of games are affecting the industry as a whole to learn more.
Why Are AAA PC Ports So Bad?
Why are great games on the Xbox and PlayStation no good on your high-end PC?
This is not a PC hardware problem.
And yet, there are tons of complex games on game engines that do not have this issue at all, inclooooding Unreal Engine. Huh, fancy that.
Which open world Unreal Engine game are we talking about? Fortnite on UE5 is stutter CiTy. Fancy that huh
Chandoo:
170 + countries where Steam sells but PSN doesn't will lose access unless they use VPNfaraany3k said:
Chandoo:
faraany3k:
Necrokiller:
Chandoo:
Necrokiller:
You reap what you sow. This is what happens when you take away choice from consumers. Even with 88% split going to developers, they can't recoup costs. Meanwhile, Helldivers 2 is a massive hit for Sony thanks in big part to Steam.iampasha said:
iampasha:
faraany3k:
Necrokiller:
Necrokiller:
www.pcgamer.com
EternalBlizzard:
Chandoo:
I have heard that it is now unplayable in countries which do not support handful of third world...
