Left 4 dead fps limit command

Is there a fps limit command for left 4 dead?

I try “max_fps nuber” in the “set launch options” and didn’t work Also left 4 dead do not have console.

I try fps_max to the console but didn’t work

Because in online games you have to be competitive, so 60fps(v-sync) is not very good. I like to have 90fps constant.

Actually scrtap that, if yu monitor can only do 60hz then it cannot display anymore than that and if an lcd probably won't even consistantly reach that.

I think you are probably the sort that believes it makes a dfference having more than can actually be displayed.

I was not talking abount the human eye.

Read what i wrote before responding. Your monitor cannot display 90FPS, you cannot "feel" any difference as it is not there.

confidence boost?

*shrug*

Fraps or i can see if i have 91 i can see screen tearing if i have 60fps(v-sync) i cannot see screen tearing. both 91fsp and 60fps are very smooth but when I have 91fps I am much better player.

No, the truth is you do not know what fps you have.

Let me tell you something, very important.

fraps or any other counter does not tell you how much fps is on screen, it tell you how much times the frame buffer on the gfx cards changes.

An lcd screen does not provide a contant fps at any one time with normal gameplay, it varies depending on how much of a change of state is needed, a sky for instance of constant blue with be able to change colours a maximum of 60 times as that is how much signals the monitor can accept.

However in the same frame there may be a part of it rapidly changing colours, the lcd's need time to change state and so you may only get 30 changes of state per second for those frames.

Do you see what i mean here, with crt's you could knoew exactly how much fps you were getting if it was at or under your refresh ratem with lcd's you do not exactly know.

Many people including yourself, no matter how many times i or others around the net post such information, learn this.

Look up some decent lcd reviews and they will tel you the same.

Screen does not refresh, no image is drawn.

Read my post above your and all the others i have posted in, i know fine well how an lcd works.

There is no refresh rate as far as the image is concerned. That quote you provided is complete and utter bollocks.

No, that is the response time ffs. The screen is not redrawn.

The refresh rate, if you are going to use the term in regards LCD's, as i pointed out in my above post is how many signals or refreshes the monitor's electronics can handle.

The actual LCD's have no such refrsh rate. They have a response time, the time it takes to change state but that is not constant nor limited to 60mhz. Absolutely no connection whatsoever.

Seriously, go do some reading and get back to me when you have been educated. I have had these discussions far too many times and yet still people like you andf the OP cannot get their head around the change in tech.

I ain't making no mistake.

You keep using terms wrongly.

The screen is not drawn each time, that is a wrong term.

There is no refresh. It is wrongly used.

You are trying to explain to me how i am wrong by misusing terms.

You are telling me nothing i hav not already typed out.

I have already said that the 60hz refers to how many signals the monitor can accept which is correct(it can not send more signals than it can accept), I have already said that how much fps you can have is determined moreso by the response times than how many signals the monitor can process.

Indeed, i am wondering what sort of BS you are going on about. Nothing you have typed and no amount of wiki quoting make me think you know what you are talking abount.

Not in the grand scheme of things no.

Response time, is the time taken for a liquid crystal to change state

This number is not constant. Now if it take an LC 10ms to change state then the maximum amount of times per second it can do that will be 100fps(1000 / 10)

However, the amount taken varies on what the state transition is so you may go as high as 20ms which will only allow 50fps.

So as i thought you do not know how an lcd works or how the response time affects fps.

If i am wrong, and that means everyone else who knows what they are talking about, then provide a lihnk to prove me wrong, something other than wiki.

Lads . . . stop bickering!

We all got our own exact ideas on whats right and whats not right.

Good so far...

Wrong again. You want links, here you go:

http://knol.google.com/k/joshua-bu [...] v8gxam7/2#

http://easyhdtv.blogspot.com/2007/ [...] -time.html

http://tv.about.com/od/glossary/g/responsetime.htm

http://hometheater.about.com/od/te [...] efresh.htm

Summary: Response time, as I've been saying, is the time it takes for a pixel to change color. While this does effect blurriness, it has NO effect on framerate.

Now, either provide some links to your point of view, or just drop it.

lol this has been funny reading, as far as most people know or care about they just work, maybe its witchcraft!! I would suggest a period of relaxation perusing lemonparty

The thing, is, in certain games, 60FPS gives you a screen distortion when turning really quickly. When walking in one direction, 60FPS is indistinguishable from 120 but turning is where it gets messy. This is what people are talking about when they feel the difference between 60FPS and anything higher.

Having the extra FPS count isnt a waste when you factor in FPS dips. It is a buffer value, not a waste IMO.

You do a turn in under a second so you never quite know the exact FPS drop during that turn. IMO, it isn't the FPS that make you a worse player, it is the time it takes to focus your eyes on a target after swinging around really quickly and getting that slight distortion in your screen.

If you turn down your settings you probably won't get this distortion because your GPU will be able to keep up with a quick turn. Motion blur is such a wonderful thing. It makes games like Crysis very playable at 40FPS.

1000 / 10 =?

1000 / 20 =?

1000 / 30 =?

You hit a valid point with the buffers; that does affect things somewhat when FPS dips (as you have a frame ready to go, which helps if FPS starts to dip). And the distortion you speak of is more of an issue with not using Vsync, but I refuse to start another "Vsync and Input Lag" thread, so I'll just stop there.

I hate vsync. More times than not, I get a slight mouse lag (looking left to right for example). It does smooth the performance but the lag annoys the jollys out of me. FC2 does it to me when I have vsync on.

The more FPS the bigger your epeen is right? I don't game with anything less than 200

..I hate math, still, you did prove my point while correcting me:

As you just stated, assuming a 10ms moniter, the most the pixels themselves can change state is 100 times. However, this is still higher then the screen refresh rate, which for (almost) all LCD moniters is 60. As 60 < 100, the refresh rate is the limiting factor, not the response time.

I already stated that if the response time were lower then the refresh rate then you would have a scenereo where the pixels couldn't change quickly enough to keep up with the frames being sent to the moniter. And as you so kindly showed, at least using a LCD with 10ms Response time and 60Mhz refresh rate, that does not happen.

Now, if you had a LCD running at 120Hz with a 10ms response time, then even though the screen would refresh 120 times, the pixels themselves could only could only change 100; in that case, you would have Response Time limiting displayed FPS. Of course, you will also find that most LCD moniters that support such high refresh rates typically have <10ms Response Times.

For example, a 120Hz moniter will typically have a 6ms or lower response time, meaning that the pixels can change states routhly 166 times per second, far more then the maximum 120 times the screen can be told to re-draw. Hence, Refresh Rate, and not Response Time, is the limiting factor.

16ms = 62.5 (more then the 60Hz the moniter can accept, although due to variance, there will be some blurriness using a moniter at 60Hz with a 16ms response time). Even at the lowest possible end of LCD moniters that are still sold, the Response Time is still (slightly) greater then the refresh rate (hence, the figure why 16ms is the minimum for gaming).


In short: While in theory Response Time can limit how many FPS is displayed, in reality, Refresh Rate is the limiting factor in all but a miniscule fraction of LCD moniters.

Hence why I used AVERAGE whenever I could. And if you can't understand something as simple as Refresh Rate, then its clear there is no hope for you.

As I said from the start:
Refresh Rate: The amount of times a screen is re-drawn per second (60Hz for most LCD's)
Response Time: Latency (average) for a pixel to change state

And as I said in my previous post, due the fact that the Refresh Rate will always be lower then the Response Time, that means the Refresh Rate is the limiting factor.

For the last time:
REFRESH RATE:
Refresh = to change or update
Rate = change within a specific amount of time


Heres some reading for you:
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?p=1319030 (This exact topic)

I'll post a few quotes from that posting:

The point I was making...


Granted, as I even said, the Response time is an AVERAGE time it takes for a pixel to change state. Granted, in a 16ms Response Time 60Hz setup (1000/16 ~ 62) there will be significant blurring due to all the pixels not being able to change state fast enough to keep up with the incoming frames (assuming a bell curve, around 33% of all pixels would not update prior to the next frame being sent). Thats probably why most LCD's now have much lower response times of at least 10ms.

Granted, blurring due to latency will always be an issue with LCD technology, for the reasons explained in the Toms reviews and above. But its been largly eliminated due to lower refresh rates, and has no bearing on the actual amount of times the screen re-draws itself per second.

Again:

Refresh Rate: Amount of times signal sent to re-draw screen
Response Time: Latency for change of screen to occur

Refresh Rate < Response Time, so Refresh Rate is the limiting factor.


Now, get some sources of your own or go away. Even I'm getting tired of this...

Well, strangerstranger has more overall posts but his motto is ATI forever, which clearly means he is confused as ATI does not exist, therefore gamerk wins on a technical foul.