Both are unfair advantages, so both should be removed according to the fair-police.
1 Like
The conversation is about graphics, makes it about framerate. Higher FPS don’t help you spot through terrain easily.
1 Like
ah yes because going past 60FPS is the same as, a layer of terrain not being rendered, objects sometimes not rendering, and shadows just barely existing, totally on par.
2 Likes
Higher FPS paired with higher refresh rates offer other benefits and if you’re here fighting for balanced gameplay both should be discussed in pairs, as they’re linked and offer an unfair advantages to the people using them.
Yes it is.
Struggling to hit constant 60 FPS on your shitbrick is a whole different experience to playing on smooth 240 FPS with appropriate screen.
1 Like
Lol higher refresh rates don’t really matter because of server desync. They make your game look smoother but won’t give you the unfair advantage that ULQ does.
It does matter, you’re just coping now.
My argument was that ULQ could be affecting the features that can be added, along with 9 year old entry level hardware being affordable, to the point where an F/A-18 ingame cost the same as a GTX1080 in the used market.
Game optimization, in certain aspects, has been an issue for features, one was planes not rendering past a set distance and radars being useless past that set distance.
And if we are talking fairness, seeing someone earlier than they see you, or them thinking they are in cover is a bigger issue of fairness.
Sure thing buddy, if it makes you feel any better. I hope you realize your inputs are not instantaneous, there is delay between your PC and server side.
I doubt ULQ is affecting anything to be fair with you.
GTX 1080 definitely doesn’t cost 80€ (or 40€ on “sale”) in plenty of countries.
You forgot to add in your opinion.
How is not seeing the enemy sooner not advantageous?
Everyone will have delays, which does nothing to stop the benefit of higher refresh rate monitors and FPS.
Where I live I see the 1080 for 80 euro, I presume the CRO in your name means Croatia, and checking quickly a single croatian site, there is a difference 20 euro difference, 30 if you want the TI.
Also it is your opinion that a higher frame rate and a monitor with a higher refresh rate makes you more capable of shooting a target, than not rendering shadows, that small bit of purely visual terrain, even the LOW setting has, not being rendered or the fact some objects do not render unless you zoom in. Those clearly give a larger advantage than a smoother experience.
You do understand that not everyone lives in Croatia or in your country ?
Not to mention that giving 100€+ for an almost decade old GPU is risky to say the least, as it might become a paper weight pretty soon.
I never said it makes you more capable of doing something than ULQ, just stated it’s an unfair advantage.
No it doesn’t.
2 Likes
clearly you’ve never gamed on low end hardware. When I first started wt, i was playing on a old gateway hand me down work laptop that got around 20-30 fps on ulq. there’s obviously still people that NEED ulq
5 Likes
Frames are capped to your monitor refresh rate bud
1 Like
?
There’s nothing stopping Gaijin from limiting the game to run at 60 FPS maximum, so higher FPS alongside refresh rates won’t be abused.
Meanwhile you can change your monitor to run at 60Hz.
How exactly are ‘high frame rates’ being abused, they do nothing in this game especially in conjunction with desync. A literal .1 of a second makes 0 difference in this game, it’s not taro.
1 Like
This is going from an argument of “Tech has advanced and supporting legacy hardware can be detrimental” to “I shouldn’t need to upgrade and you should instead be limited to lower performance”
Why should the game be balanced around the lowest of low settings and not the medium settings, which often reflect the average PCs specs? Why should any feature be held back due to the lowest possible specs not keeping up?
High frame rates and high refresh rate does give you a competitive advantage. Stop pretending it doesn’t.
1 Like