5 ms·
40 fps could be a much more workable minimum, it looks quite smooth, wish it was more commonplace of a target instead of 30.
by pxoe 21d ago
40 fps could be a much more workable minimum, it looks quite smooth, wish it was more commonplace of a target instead of 30.
- maccard 21d ago40fps is probably 30fps with poor frame pacing. Most displays are 60Hz so there’s no benefit to being any non fraction of that, and you are likely to have issues with pacing if you are at a non standard frame rate.
- gucci-on-fleek 21d ago> Most displays are 60Hz This was true even a couple years ago, but these days, most mid-range and above TVs [0], phones [1], and monitors [2] support 120Hz, which is a nice integer multiple of 40Hz. But lots of these devices default to 60Hz (or slower), so you can't really rely on most people having this enabled. [0]: https://www.rtings.com/tv/tools/table/196699 https://www.rtings.com/tv/tools/table/196699 [1]: https://www.gsmarena.com/results.php3?nDisplayFramesMin=120 https://www.gsmarena.com/results.php3?nDisplayFramesMin=120 [2]: https://blurbusters.com/faq/120hz-monitors/ https://blurbusters.com/faq/120hz-monitors/