PS5 - a patent dive into what might be the tech behind Sony's SSD customisations

[Remij 4,687]

2 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

You contradicted your own logic because you're trying to associate perceptible latency with higher framerate and then go on to say 60 FPS is fine on consoles because of response time on TV's yet that would intrinsically work against them because you would be compounding more latency at 60 FPS vs. say 100 FPS with the latency of the television. This logic would necessitate a higher framerate would be better suited on a console as to not further bolster the accompanied latency from the TV.

 

Above 60 you gain better optics, the fidelity of motion is increased, you get more visual information but you don't gain perceptibly better control, from 30 to 60 you do. 

I'm not contradicting my own logic.  I'm saying feeling of responsiveness with the increase in FPS above 60 on consoles is largely lost due to the fact that you're dealing with controllers.. which are inherently less responsive input devices.  They also react and respond completely differently based on each game requirements.  Each game is fine tuned with a myriad of settings which change the curves, accelerations, and dead zones... not to mention auto aim and other methods of helping mitigate the inaccuracy of controllers.  Above 60fps, you're still contending with a shitty input method.. it's not really going to make a huge difference.  TV latencies only add to it.  

 

 

On PC you have raw capture, and insanely responsive input devices which you can immediately feel the effects of.   Just use Windows at 144hz and move the mouse around.  Incredibly responsive.  Turn the monitor to 60hz and it feels like shit.  Literally. 

[DynamiteCop 2,087]

21 minutes ago, Remij_ said:

I'm not contradicting my own logic.  I'm saying feeling of responsiveness with the increase in FPS above 60 on consoles is largely lost due to the fact that you're dealing with controllers.. which are inherently less responsive input devices.  They also react and respond completely differently based on each game requirements.  Each game is fine tuned with a myriad of settings which change the curves, accelerations, and dead zones... not to mention auto aim and other methods of helping mitigate the inaccuracy of controllers.  Above 60fps, you're still contending with a shitty input method.. it's not really going to make a huge difference.  TV latencies only add to it.  

 

 

On PC you have raw capture, and insanely responsive input devices which you can immediately feel the effects of.   Just use Windows at 144hz and move the mouse around.  Incredibly responsive.  Turn the monitor to 60hz and it feels like shit.  Literally. 

We're not discussing input methods, we're discussing response from inputs. A to B to C and back to A. 

 

That's the caveat right there, that's not a metric of input response, the response is exactly the same as an input but the visual information you're being fed as a frequency is different. It doesn't "feel like shit", it looks like shit and you're conflating that with input.

 

If you have two of the same monitor operating at 60hz/60 FPS vsynced and the other operating at 120hz/120 FPS vsynced being fed a single input and you click something that displays a single frame and it cycles in both monitors refresh you will get that frame at exactly the same time on both displays. If the 60hz monitor is between a cycle the response is recorded identically but to you the frame was never received. 

 

At 60 FPS the perceptual difference in motion is apparent but the response of action is identical because there's not enough missing data to conflate that to diminished control. At 30 FPS there is a substantial loss of information and to such a high degree that not only control becomes an issue but so does motion, this is why 30 FPS console games institute such effective levels of motion blur to mask the loss of that visual information. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 26, 2019 by DynamiteCop!

[Remij 4,687]

5 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

We're not discussing input methods, we're discussing response from inputs. A to B to C and back to A. 

 

That's the caveat right there, that's not a metric of input response, the response is exactly the same as an input but the visual information you're being fed as a frequency is different. It doesn't "feel like shit", it looks like shit and you're conflating that with input.

 

If you have two of the same monitor operating at 60hz/60 FPS vsynced and the other operating at 120hz/120 FPS vsynced being fed a single input and you click something that displays a single frame and it cycles in both monitors refresh you will get that frame at exactly the same time on both displays. If the 60hz monitor is between a cycle the response is recorded identically but to you the frame was never received. 

 

At 60 FPS the perceptual difference in motion is apparent but the response of action is identical because there's not enough missing data to conflate that to diminished control. At 30 FPS there is a substantial loss of information and to such a high degree that not only control becomes an issue but so does motion, this is why 30 FPS console games institute such effective levels of motion blur to mask the loss of that visual information. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The immediate response to movement is there because you're getting 2x the cycles.  120 frames every second compared to 60.  From the instant you input a command, the next cycle is updated and visually represented to you.  It FEELS more responsive because there's 2x the cycles.  You're getting more instant visual feedback and smoother visual feedback.  And it's extremely noticeable from 60 to 120+.  Is it as noticeable as 30 to 60?  No, of course not... but it's absolutely there.  And I actually AM talking about input methods... and the resulting fact that improved response above 60fps doesn't translate as well to a input device like a controller as it does to something that is captured raw such as a mouse.

[DynamiteCop 2,087]

10 minutes ago, Remij_ said:

 

 

The immediate response to movement is there because you're getting 2x the cycles.  120 frames every second compared to 60.  From the instant you input a command, the next cycle is updated and visually represented to you.  It FEELS more responsive because there's 2x the cycles.  You're getting more instant visual feedback and smoother visual feedback.  And it's extremely noticeable from 60 to 120+.  Is it as noticeable as 30 to 60?  No, of course not... but it's absolutely there.  And I actually AM talking about input methods... and the resulting fact that improved response above 60fps doesn't translate as well to a input device like a controller as it does to something that is captured raw such as a mouse.

You're missing the point here though, you can perceptibly notice a difference in response of control from 30 to 60 because the cycles are so spread apart at 30 that it's nearing the threshold of still images. From 60 to 120 however you cannot. You're able to perceive that there's a heightened level of motion, that there's a level of perceptual fluidity not seen at 60 but control wise it's not possible to distinguish that in the form of input and then received response from that input. 

 

We can make out the overarching level of visual fluidity as a whole across an entire screen as it has increased but pinpointing a difference in control response is simply not something we are capable of perceiving.

Edited May 26, 2019 by DynamiteCop!

[Remij 4,687]

9 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

You're missing the point here though, you can perceptibly notice a difference in response of control from 30 to 60 because the cycles are so spread apart at 30 that it's nearing the threshold of still images. From 60 to 120 however you cannot. You're able to perceive that there's a heightened level of motion, that there's a level of perceptual fluidity not seen at 60 but control wise it's not possible to distinguish that in the form of input and retrieved response. 

 

No.. it's also perceptible going from 60 to 100+fps.  There's a perceptible improvement.  Of course it suits certain games better than others... nobody is arguing that.. but the feeling and visual improvement is there.

 

 

 

 

Quote

A game might have anywhere from 5-15 ms of processing time for the input and game engine, and then your graphics card and display join the fray. If you're running at 30fps, your graphics card would add an additional 33ms of latency—60fps would add 16.7ms, and 144fps would cut that down to 7ms. But running at more than 60fps without a higher refresh rate display doesn't do much good, as you get either tearing or a dropped frame. To get the full benefit, you need a fast monitor as well.

The immediate feeling of improved response is extremely noticeable.  Especially so when you try to go back after the fact.  Is it as important on a console where the input method is a controller?  No of course not.. because current controllers are inherently inaccurate input methods.

 

All I'm saying is on PC, 100+ fps makes a huge difference in the feel of a game.  On consoles.. it wouldn't.  You're still playing with a controller.   They could make a game run internally at 100fps, but the game input control still has to be tuned for people with 60hz monitors, which means there's a different deadzone size, different acceleration curve, different outer bound curve, auto aim parameters.. ect ect...  Controllers aren't as precise as input methods... that's a simple fact.  So there's less to be gained from substantially higher response times.  60fps on a good low input lag monitor will feel great on console.. because controllers are good for that.

 

Mind you of course 100+ fps games will LOOK smoother and nicer at higher fps regardless of console or PC... so long as the monitor can display those frames..

[DynamiteCop 2,087]

4 minutes ago, Remij_ said:

 

No.. it's also perceptible going from 60 to 100+fps.  There's a perceptible improvement.  Of course it suits certain games better than others... nobody is arguing that.. but the feeling and visual improvement is there.

 

 

 

 

The immediate feeling of improved response is extremely noticeable.  Especially so when you try to go back after the fact.  Is it as important on a console where the input method is a controller?  No of course not.. because current controllers are inherently inaccurate input methods.

 

All I'm saying is on PC, 100+ fps makes a huge difference in the feel of a game.  On consoles.. it wouldn't.  You're still playing with a controller.   They could make a game run internally at 100fps, but the game input control still has to be tuned for people with 60hz monitors, which means there's a different deadzone size, different acceleration curve, different outer bound curve, auto aim parameters.. ect ect...  Controllers aren't as precise as input methods... that's a simple fact.  So there's less to be gained from substantially higher response times.  60fps on a good low input lag monitor will feel great on console.. because controllers are good for that.

 

 

Did you seriously just post Nvidia's infographic trying to sell you more expensive graphics cards?

 

Are you actually that retarded?

Edited May 26, 2019 by DynamiteCop!

[Remij 4,687]

3 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

Did you seriously just post Nvidia's infographic trying to sell you more expensive graphics cards?

 

Are you actually that retarded?

I'm telling you there's a perceptible improvement in responsiveness and visual smoothness..  I can feel it myself.

 

I can go on for days posting testimonials..

 

 

Funny thing is... if this was an Xbox slide posting some retarded Xbox stat, you'd claim it was gods word.  

[DynamiteCop 2,087]

18 minutes ago, Remij_ said:

I'm telling you there's a perceptible improvement in responsiveness and visual smoothness..  I can feel it myself.

 

I can go on for days posting testimonials..

 

 

Funny thing is... if this was an Xbox slide posting some retarded Xbox stat, you'd claim it was gods word.  

Again you are conflating optics outside of the range of nuanced perception with ability of control, you're not grasping any of this. 

 

I don't care about testimonials from a bunch of shit tier casuals on Reddit, I don't care about some dumb infographic from Nvidia trying to tell you that your KDR is going to increase the more money you spend; Source Nvidia™. 

 

It's nonsensical and it's not rooted on anything based in reality. You can absolutely make out this drastic increase in scene wide fidelity of motion, control however you will not, it's an illusion. 

 

 

Edited May 26, 2019 by DynamiteCop!

[Remij 4,687]

4 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

Again you are conflating optics outside of the range of nuanced perception with ability of control, you're not grasping any of this. 

 

I don't care about testimonials from a bunch of shit tier casuals on Reddit, I don't care about some dumb infographic from Nvidia trying to tell you that your KDR is going to increase the more money you spend; Source Nvidia™. 

 

It's nonsensical and it's not rooted on anything based in reality. You can absolutely make out this drastic increase in scene wide fidelity of motion, control however you will not. 

 

 

I'm not conflating anything.  Jesus christ dude..

 

There's a REAL measurable, as well as perceptible difference in going from 60 to 120fps on PC.  End of fucking story.  On consoles, the perception is diminished because the input devices are less precise.

 

Get a fucking clue dude.

[DynamiteCop 2,087]

Just now, Remij_ said:

I'm not conflating anything.  Jesus christ dude..

 

There's a REAL measurable, as well as perceptible difference in going from 60 to 120fps on PC.  End of fucking story.  On consoles, the perception is diminished because the input devices are less precise.

 

Get a fucking clue dude.

There's a scene wide perceptible difference i.e. because it's such a drastic change spanning motion across the whole of what you're seeing you can perceive the difference to great effect. Control however remains unchanged, I can dump on people in Counter-Strike at 60hz to the exact same effect I can at 144hz, it's merely a more pleasing viewing experience. I can snap to the same angles at the same speed, my accuracy is unchanged, my KDR's remain the same. There's absolutely no difference in the way the game, my inputs or the effect of my control is altered by changing this.

 

As I said it's an illusion piggybacking on the increase in motion fluidity that people associate with newfound greater control, it's not a real thing, it's a placebo. 

[Remij 4,687]

Just now, DynamiteCop! said:

There's a scene wide perceptible difference i.e. because it's such a drastic change spanning motion across the whole of what you're seeing you can perceive the difference to great effect. Control however remains unchanged, I can dump on people in Counter-Strike at 60hz to the exact same effect I can at 144hz, it's merely a more pleasing viewing experience. I can snap to the same angles at the same speed, my accuracy is unchanged, my KDR's remain the same. There's absolutely no difference in the way the game, my inputs or the effect of my control is altered by changing this.

 

As I said it's an illusion piggybacking on the increase in motion fluidity that people associate with newfound greater control, it's not a real thing, it's a placebo. 

lmao no way.