What's better /v/, a stable 30fps or a fluctuating 50-60fps?

>>389896540
Well the human eye can only see up to 24 fps, so probably a stable 30.

>>389896540
stable 30
a fluctuating 50-60 often times performs worse than just constant 30
>>389896628
delet this

>>389896628
is this bait? you stop seeing frames at around 60.

>>389896540
>What's better /v/, a stable 30fps or a fluctuating 50-60fps?
a stable 50.

>>389896796
Gottem.

>>389896540
Depends on the size of your dick.

>>389896796
do you still have a multisync crt or something

fluctuating 50-60fps
anyone pretending constant low framerates are better is a consolecuck apologist

>>389896540
50-60fps is no where near as bad as stable 30fps

>>389896540
no self-respecting human conforms to sub-60FPS.

Stable 30 unless playing a game with mouselook aiming, then it's fucked either way.

>>389896540
30 if it's puzzle or turn based

50-60 everything else

>>389896540
>accepting anything under 60 fps
>ever

File: l4bN_f-maxage-0_s-200x150[1].gif (646KB, 200x150px) Image search: [Google]

646KB, 200x150px

i prefer a 50-60, because in most games your getting 60 for MOST of it and then sometimes in heavy graffix its dropping to 50-60, which to me is an okay trade off, having 95% of the game at 60 and suffering a little.
but if the ENTIRE game is consistently 50-60? gets harder to decide. racing gaymes? no. shooters, eh, maybe, its easier to compensate for that.
singleplayer cinematic garbage with storrrryyyy? yeah sure, crank the graphics and enjoy the movie

stable 30, fluctuating anything is hell

>>389896540
stable 144

>>389896540
120fps

Fluctuating 50-60 easily

I don't understand how people can play games at 60fps, everything it looks weird when you move the camera and everything is going double speed

I can take stable 40 over stable 30

Fuck stable 30

>>389899776
imagine getting so used to black and white tv, color tv looks weird, and 50 years later your the old man yelling at the clouds about how wind up cars and newspapers were the best

>>389900261
>your

File: 297[1].jpg (50KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 800x450px

>>389900584
>grammmeerrr and correct spellllling during informal conversationnnnnn!
oh yeah, because >your is a proper sentence and not based on the context of what site your visiting

>>389896540
I would be fine with stable 30 if games actually were stable

>>389896540
Stable 30fps, assuming the game was built to run at that speed. Random small frame drops absolutely wreck my eyes.

>>389896540
50-60 is barely noticeable, i don't play anything at 30fps anyway so that isn't even an option

>>389896540
depends on the amount of motion present in the scene

>>389896773
you don't actually see in frames
different parts of your eye react at different rates, and rules of thumb regarding framerate are about achieving the illusion of continuity

>>389896773
Wrong.

stable>unstable always

>>389896540
144 or uninstall

>>389896540
As long as it's only between 50-60 then the latter, definetly. I'd take a locked 30 over wild swings from, say, 35-60 though.

reminder that one of the talents in cinematography is setting up your shots so that the motion in a scene doesn't look like shit at the film's framerate

File: 1474873394996.gif (295KB, 700x704px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 700x704px

Real Lain hours! Who up?

>>389901539
mostly, but you can see a change in light thats shorter then 1 millisecond so you can soooorta say your eyes see at over 1000 fps. its the difference between staring directly at a nonmoving object and tracking moving objects. for all intents and purposes, a computer screen is the center of your vision and dosent change THAT much. staring down a scope in a game at a corner and waiting for it to change, you should be able to perceive changes that small. looking around your screen at a larger area and adjusting your point of view starts messing with this.

>>389903054
>>389901539
and it gets to the point that unconscious reactions are faster then conscious ones and theres nothing useful about those reactions in relation to a computer screen and videogame. it might only take 1 millisecond to see a change, but its still 200 milliseconds to react or so, and a 5 millisecond change in light verse a 10 millisecond change in light means nothing if your still waiting 195 to 190 milliseconds to make a decision. any sort of advantage you get having 1000 fps eyes over 500 fps eyes ends up being less then a percent and gets super insignificant super fucking fast. the difference between 30 fps and 60 fps was like a 3% reaction time or so when i crunched some numbers a while ago, and 1.2% or so going 60 fps to 120 fps, so going higher and higher is just diminishing returns

>>389900826
>your

>>389903521
>">your"

>>389896773
How can frames be real if our eyes aren't real?

>>389896540
Fluctuating 50-60fps on a high refresh rate Freesync monitor.

A consistent 144 fps or higher you basic bitch.

>>389904550
name 144 games that do this

>>389904857
literally every single game that isn't fps locked if you're not poor

>>389901903
fast motions become blurred when recorded by a camera and this effect hides the low framerate in movies. doesn't take special consideration

>>389907668
I can't stand panning shots in movies anymore after switching to PC. The framerate is atrocious.

Stable is always better as the change in framerate makes you perceive latency, which in return feels uncomfortable. Though coming from a 144Hz screen I'd not be able to live with 30fps anymore and not play the stuttery mess of a game as result.