Talk: Frame rate

It would be nice if somebody with an english version of Windows could provide a screenshot of the Guild Wars desktop shortcut's properties window, to add to this article. :) --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 23:54, 25 February 2006 (CST)

Does an article exist for the properties screen? I know there are some userful ones. -password "xyz" and -perf being the two that I use. Anyone know of other handy ones that could go into an article? --Barek 03:25, 26 February 2006 (CST)

There was talk about it a while ago. I don't remember the name of the article though. Karlos might, I seem to recall that he was in the discussion too, back in September or so. --Rainith 10:29, 26 February 2006 (CST)

Indeed I do. :) It's in Command line. --Karlos 10:45, 26 February 2006 (CST)

D'oh! *smacks head* I knew that. At least I did as soon as I saw your edit. :P --Rainith 10:51, 26 February 2006 (CST)

Heh, I'd say below 30 FPS is unacceptable. --Fyren 16:37, 16 September 2006 (CDT)

Well, it's highly subjective. That's why I tried to phrase it as vague as possible, originally ("in general, about..."). 20 to 25 FPS is what I mostly read as the playable minimum for FPS games. You can of course play with a way lower frame rate, but I wouldn't consider that fun anymore. --84-175 (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2006 (CDT)

Kitty changed the line to say "below 15 is unacceptable" from the 20 that was there before. --Fyren 18:44, 16 September 2006 (CDT)

maybe kitty found 16-20 workable...I demand an average(can be fake) to be put up!Onlyashadow, Top 100 11:26, 20 October 2006 (CDT)

You'd be appalled when, at times, I run the game at 3 fps. -- Dashface 02:55, 21 January 2007 (CST)

I regularly run the game at between 5 and 7 FPS. Framerate is less important to me than lack of lag (the former affects how nice the game looks, the latter makes gameplay stuttery and generally rubbish). Cynical 17:50, 26 January 2007 (CST)

That's a pretty silly statement. Frame rate doesn't affect how nice your game looks. Your graphics options do. Frame rate is how fluid the frame transitions are. The frames don't look worse with a lower framerate. If you play with a framerate of 5, you get 5 frames per second, or one frame every 200 milliseconds. That's 200 milliseconds of visual latency to add on top of your network latency, so if you care for latency, 5 frames per second definitely isn't good. mikkel 17:15, 18 May 2007 (CDT)

It should be noted that setting vsynch 'on' will max the FPS at the monitor refresh rate, and to go beyond the monitor refresh rate vsynch should be set to 'off'. For example, when running on an LCD with 60 Hz with vsynch 'on', FPS will cap at 60 FPS. Asya 16:07, 26 September 2007 (CDT)\

this might not be correct info for the article, but i've found turning off post processing effects has the same impact as turning off FSAA, which was about 10 FPS (from 20 to 30) for me. i have a pretty weak video card, but a powerful processor and lots of ram, so milage may vary. --Honorable Sarah 07:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just buyed a new LCD screen with a really high native res of 2048x1152 and although i dont run the game full screen, FPS has drop from around 60 to around 50 (sometimes less when there's lots of action on screen). It seems that increasing size of the windows horizontally had the more impact. But i decreased AA to 2x. All others parameters are at max quality. And i though that my SLI setting was capable of more... Now i hope D3 wont drive it to their it's knees... — TulipVorlax 08:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

D III will have "(very-)slightly-above-StarCraft2"-specs. So, can you run SC2 properly? :P --- -- (contribs) (talk) 10:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The only PC games i have are GW, Future Pinball, TrackMania, Nexuiz (wich i mostly never play), Startopia and Jardinains 2.

In the past i had Neverwinter Night with all chapters. I dont think i'll get GW2 but i was hoping to get D3.

One side note, framerate greatly improved (i think) when i decided to remove post-processing. — TulipVorlax 06:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)