Frame limiter should be enabled by default
Redglyph
Member Posts: 14
v82.8193.20.1 (looks like those MS or Jetbrains neverending version numbers...)
I've been wondering for a while why, when I started NWN EE, my computer would make a strange noise. It reminded me of CRT monitors forced with a limit frequency or H/V refresh time. At some point I though I fixed the problem by adjusting the framerate but it was still making those noises in some menu entries, or it was on and off.
Finally I tried the framerate limiter that I hadn't seen before - there are other framerate options and it was obvious to me that they were driving the framerate limit. But they weren't unfortunately, so even if I set 1080p60, it would generate more than the double, for nothing.
The framerate limiter solved the issue, now my CPU and GPU aren't trying to outdo themselves.
=> I strongly suggest to put that ON by default, to avoid that so many other users run into the same problem, or let their hardware consume a lot more for nothing.
I've been wondering for a while why, when I started NWN EE, my computer would make a strange noise. It reminded me of CRT monitors forced with a limit frequency or H/V refresh time. At some point I though I fixed the problem by adjusting the framerate but it was still making those noises in some menu entries, or it was on and off.
Finally I tried the framerate limiter that I hadn't seen before - there are other framerate options and it was obvious to me that they were driving the framerate limit. But they weren't unfortunately, so even if I set 1080p60, it would generate more than the double, for nothing.
The framerate limiter solved the issue, now my CPU and GPU aren't trying to outdo themselves.
=> I strongly suggest to put that ON by default, to avoid that so many other users run into the same problem, or let their hardware consume a lot more for nothing.
0
Comments
how are your graphics drivers? are they new or old?
This is absolutely an issue for high performing machines that blow through frames. Most people cap a thread and without CPU headroom the GPU takes a break.
However, defaulting the game to 60 is not a good idea, and it's not a good idea for you with your 3070 either. What you should do is turn on Vsync, which isn't in the in-game options right now, and has to be enabled by editing settings.tml.
This is a little over my head, but vsync is more of a system/GPU setting than an NWN setting (The new framerate limiter is cute and just for NWN, and handy for things like lowering the framerate down to 10 FPS when the window is inactive because you're AFK while you make a post on the forums or something). Vsync is a graphics card dependent feature, in my case, I think, it's always "freesync", which makes sure that my game frame draws do not draw faster than 60 times per second (will take a break and wait if it finishes early every frame, like the limiter), because I have a 60 hz freesync monitor, AND it will make my monitor slow down, and refresh say 50 times per second, if that's all my graphics card or CPU can do in the current scene (now the monitor is waiting), and this is to make sure that the pixels on my monitor are in a pretty much 1:1 ratio with NWN's draw speed.
If you have a 10700k and a 3070, you certainly might be able to take advantage of a 120hz, 144hz, or even a 240 hz for NWN:EE gameplay, unless you were playing NWN in 4k, 5k, or 8k or something, though even then it would depend upon the complexity of the scene. If the screen updates when the game does with Vsync (there's a few different kinds of Vsync, along with Freesync, or Gsync, etc.), then the game's presentation will avoid tearing and desync problems.
But if the game ships with a max FPS of 60 to everyone, you'll have more people upset that they have to discover a feature to disable the frame limiter than you'll have people upset that they have to discover a feature to enable the frame limiter.
It really depends on your system settings, though, I have to edit my graphics card settings to turn off global vsync in order to get those crazy high FPS you noticed, which I want to do at times, in order to test the performance impact of whatever ridiculously over-budget high poly high resolution asset I'm screwing around with, as well as to gauge performance increases/decreases across the game's development stages (enhanced lighting, pathfinding change bonuses to FPS, etc)
It wouldn't be crazy to enable vsync by default, though, then when someone does show up with that 240hz monitor, and doesn't have global vsync enabled, they will still have a theoretical max of 240hz and can enjoy as much as those many frames without their devices trying to surpass that. Additionally, having vsync in the graphics menu would also be nice, for a few patches it was in the Debug menu before the debug menu got imported into the new menu.
But since it doesn't exist, I think it's less extravagant to reduce the excessive computing power by default and let the 240Hz monitor owners look into the settings - those are usually aware of the framerate of their monitor, it will come more naturally to them.
For now, I'm not keen on forcing VSYNC as a general settings for all applications, so I left the limiter. It has the advantage of reducing the FPS further in the menu, and when the game is in background.
Well, yes, that's very sensible, you're very right, and that's why it has been added even though vsync has always been a limiter.
You could use both without it being either redundant or silly. They serve different purposes, but, your original post of "my computer is working harder on this game than necessary at all" is better addressed with vsync on by default for all, and those who want desync'd frame limits (really fast clickers!?, or performance measurers like me!) could employ limiter numbers for different contexts, like the background inactive and static element contexts, could come in to gently cap AFK computer wattage.
I'm wondering how animations feel with a higher-frequency monitor which can display 120 or more frames per second. Do you have one of those?
No. I've heard it's pretty great, but I'm in the 4k camp instead, and moving above 60hz in 4k is a challenge even with the latest cards (I have a Radeon VII, not the newest) that have come specifically to make 4k gameplay more realistically achievable. That's your RTX 3000's (nice) and the Radeon 6000's.
Once you're in 4k, getting more than 60 HZ usually means a huge decrease in color quality, doubling or tripling in price, or a doubling of power consumption/heat output, and often combinations of those as well, and that's before you factor in the price of getting a graphics card that can handle triple digit framerates in 4k.
I am very curious, I've been looking around at even going to 75 or 120 hz (I think 144 hz is the current high refresh rate gold standard), but it hasn't been a viable option for me at 4k, and my graphics card (and my X5690 CPUs which are definitely not as fast as yours) can't really do more than 80-100 FPS in 4k (with max settings) anyways, and, I do not want to drop below 4k (where this all becomes a lot easier) to something like 1440p, because I really enjoy the 4k density. It's easier for reading text, zooming out to get an overview on custom content, and I don't really like aliasing, nor the performance costs of top shelf AA required to mostly fix it in lower resolutions.
But I've heard great things. If I were in your shoes I'd go for it. Especially if you're not married to 4k / color accuracy / both like I am. People really seem to enjoy playing in 1080 at 150ish buttery smooth FPS, and have said that it's nice being able to hit it with NWN:EE's older polycount compared to newer titles. However, I will say that newer titles and assets are often much more efficient, and typically surpass NWN:EE easily, even before you account for nwmain's single-threading.
Edit: That is to say that I can get a 4k60 monitor I am very happy with for $300-$400. If I wanted to get a monitor that was as good, but higher refresh rate, I'd be paying like $1300. The monitors less expensive than that (last I checked I guess) look worse to me than the $300 60 hz one. (US prices)
Ah yes, I can understand that getting both the resolution and the framerate can be a costly path. Thanks for your feedback!
I may give it a go next time I change my old monitor, since I'll most probably remain 1080 only. Even that doesn't seem too cheap...