Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ottobon

Has FPS effecting Rate of Fire been adressed?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I remember at dawn of Patch #26 this being mentioned, with a solution on test server, and said they would add it soon, but i don't recall if this was ever put into the game 
https://www.pubg.com/2019/02/20/fps-affecting-rate-of-fire/

I didn't notice anything about it in Patch #27 notes, so whats happened with this?  I would hope if its not in game they add it sooner then later, does anybody know?

Edited by Ottobon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They said they've added some changes to address that issue. Also noting that it wasn't final.
 

I've tested it back when it was an issue but not since. So can't confirm anything based from my original findings. Hasn't been enough people complaining for me to bother testing again.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Downloaded the test server, can confirm it's just as bad. At 60fps the M416 shoots very noticeably slow and at 120+ FPS it's very noticeably faster.

  • RIP 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, RAND0M7 said:

Downloaded the test server, can confirm it's just as bad. At 60fps the M416 shoots very noticeably slow and at 120+ FPS it's very noticeably faster.

Sadly the sounds you hear can't confirm anything. Going to ask ya for more then that. An actual test with numbers to back it all up. It's the only way to avoid speculation and remove what a person feels from the test.

 

For example a 5 second trigger pull for each fps 30, 60, 69, 100, 120, 144 and 240. Each fps should fire off the same amount of rounds of the bug is fixed through those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, RAND0M7 said:

Downloaded the test server, can confirm it's just as bad. At 60fps the M416 shoots very noticeably slow and at 120+ FPS it's very noticeably faster.

 

But but but you told all of us that it was fixed on live and that you could totally tell that they fixed it!!

 

FPS/DPS is still a non issue.

  • RIP 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/23/2019 at 1:29 AM, my_cholula said:

But but but you told all of us that it was fixed on live and that you could totally tell that they fixed it!!

 

FPS/DPS is still a non issue.

 

Well that's very dishonest of you to claim that, you were on that thread and know what I said.

 

I assumed they fixed it since I hadn't tested it and since I was locked at 60fps I couldn't know for sure, but with the amount of suspect individuals killing me, I tested it on the training map and found they just changed the max FPS rate of fire to 70 instead of 69 and that's why it felt different, so it wasn't fixed.

 

I will note that I played it today and noticed another change which may have improved things, I will test it on the training map and report back, I really hope they have mitigated this major problem largely, it really needs a fix.

 

 

Edited by RAND0M7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, RAND0M7 said:

 

Well that's very dishonest of you to claim that, you were on that thread and know what I said.

 

 

And I quote, "Since the new update, I have found the solution that mitigates this issue to be helping much, I have not noticed it to be game breaking like before which is very good. Don't know how much it affects me yet since I haven't played enough, but it's not anywhere near as game breaking as it used to be IMO. Thank you and please keep working on it if you can." - Rand0m7

 

It was then pointed out by multiple people that there had been no changes yet as it was still only on test, yet here you are claiming they fixed it on live and you could tell.

 

You keep using the term "game breaking" over an issue that you yourself have proven cannot even tell the difference. I find that hilarious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, MDK2000 said:

You keep using the term "game breaking" over an issue that you yourself have proven cannot even tell the difference. I find that hilarious.

 

Seriously?

 

This was done on the 7th of March for that thread -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fPOPonnqmI

 

You can clearly hear and see the major difference.

 

I will test it again today to see if there are any major changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RAND0M7 said:

 

Seriously?

 

This was done on the 7th of March for that thread

 

And as I just got done stating, the effect in game in real situations is so minimal that you claimed it was fixed when nothing was actually done to change it. The fact that you completely skipped over that part shows just how much of a troll you are.

 

Stick to the topic at hand, please. Stop trying to show it's an issue when you and your own words have proven that it is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Finished Testing and here are the results -

 

As at 24 March 2019

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5IGbOV41po

 

Time it takes to exhaust a 40 round magazine on the M416 on the Test Server as at 24 March 2019 -

 

Unrestricted 115 - 130 FPS = 03s 657ms (Give or take 50ms)

Locked 60 FPS = 04s 225ms (Give or take 50ms)

 

Imagine you had a 568ms (give or take 50ms) increase in the delay of your monitor? you really think that would have a minimal impact?

 

I think they have mitigated it a little from what it used to be like, but it's still very bad and needs fixing. I don't think I can go back to 60fps yet, which means really poor graphics and a bit of stuttering and tearing.

Edited by RAND0M7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, RAND0M7 said:

Imagine you had a 568ms (give or take 50ms) increase in the delay of your monitor?

 

I mean give or take 100ms, since if you add 50ms to the first and take 50ms from the second it's 100ms difference, so the very best case scenario is 468ms difference, which is still a very large amount. If you got a monitor with that kind of a delay it would be game breaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RAND0M7 said:

 

I mean give or take 100ms, since if you add 50ms to the first and take 50ms from the second it's 100ms difference, so the very best case scenario is 468ms difference, which is still a very large amount. If you got a monitor with that kind of a delay it would be game breaking.

It's not game breaking if someone has a crap monitor. Game has nothing to do with someone having one system to another. You can't blame the game for the decisions of others to buy their PC components.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, Avohei said:

You can't blame the game for the decisions of others to buy their PC components.

 

Only 60hz is not a bad frame rate, it's also not bad hardware. When I built my PC around 60hz (which works perfectly) the only advantage of a higher refresh display was smoother motion, the fact that you can see a couple extra frames which does not provide a huge advantage, nowhere is it advertised that you'll also shoot faster in games if you have a higher frame rate, because this is a problem on the video game side and not on the hardware side.

 

And in the instance of PUBG, as one can see it is a major difference and has a large impact.

Edited by RAND0M7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/23/2019 at 4:59 PM, RAND0M7 said:

Finished Testing and here are the results -

 

As at 24 March 2019

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5IGbOV41po

 

Time it takes to exhaust a 40 round magazine on the M416 on the Test Server as at 24 March 2019 -

 

Unrestricted 115 - 130 FPS = 03s 657ms (Give or take 50ms)

Locked 60 FPS = 04s 225ms (Give or take 50ms)

 

Imagine you had a 568ms (give or take 50ms) increase in the delay of your monitor? you really think that would have a minimal impact?

 

I think they have mitigated it a little from what it used to be like, but it's still very bad and needs fixing. I don't think I can go back to 60fps yet, which means really poor graphics and a bit of stuttering and tearing.

 

And I quote, "Since the new update, I have found the solution that mitigates this issue to be helping much, I have not noticed it to be game breaking like before which is very good. Don't know how much it affects me yet since I haven't played enough, but it's not anywhere near as game breaking as it used to be IMO. Thank you and please keep working on it if you can." - Rand0m7

 

It was then pointed out by multiple people that there had been no changes yet as it was still only on test, yet here you are claiming they fixed it on live and you could tell.

 

You keep using the term "game breaking" over an issue that you yourself have proven cannot even tell the difference. I find that hilarious.

Edited by MDK2000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, MDK2000 said:

It was then pointed out by multiple people that there had been no changes yet as it was still only on test, yet here you are claiming they fixed it on live and you could tell.

 

And then I pointed out that they did change it, instead of 69fps being the fastest on the M416 it was now 70fps, so they just changed the rates which is why guns felt different at 60fps.

 

3 hours ago, MDK2000 said:

You keep using the term "game breaking" over an issue that you yourself have proven cannot even tell the difference. I find that hilarious.

 

And you keep dismissing video evidence I have posted showing the large difference and how it is indeed game breaking. It's better but still very, very bad. I can't go back to 60fps yet which means I'm on low graphics and get stuttering and tearing so I can compete, which is ridiculous IMO.

 

You obviously don't play games at 60fps, I don't understand you and my_cholula's adamant opposition to this, and now coupled with the video evidence I've posted.

Edited by RAND0M7
  • RIP 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, RAND0M7 said:

 

And then I pointed out that they did change it, instead of 69fps being the fastest on the M416 it was now 70fps, so they just changed the rates which is why guns felt different at 60fps.

 

 

Now you're just lying. There was no change, period, when this post happened. All changes were still on the test server.

 

Quote

And you keep dismissing video evidence I have posted showing the large difference and how it is indeed game breaking. It's better but still very, very bad. I can't go back to 60fps yet which means I'm on low graphics and get stuttering and tearing so I can compete, which is ridiculous IMO.

 

Your videos mean nothing. They have zero relevance to actual game scenarios. The reason no one noticed this issue for *2 YEARS* is because no one empties an entire clip all at once, which is the ONLY way this issue is relevant. Which has been pointed out to you repeatedly, yet you ignore that fact and continue to use idiotic terms like "game breaking" over an issue that was invisible for 2 years.

 

 

Edited by MDK2000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, MDK2000 said:

Now you're just lying.

 

Righto, I have the video proof, so I'll let people make their own conclusions about this accusation.

 

5 minutes ago, MDK2000 said:

Your videos mean nothing.

 

lol

 

5 minutes ago, MDK2000 said:

They have zero relevance to actual game scenarios.

 

lol

 

5 minutes ago, MDK2000 said:

The reason no one noticed this issue for *2 YEARS* is because no one empties an entire clip all at once, which is the ONLY way this issue is relevant.

 

Or because we are always told how buggy deathcam and replay are and not to rely on them, and other then that locked at 60fps there is no way to tell unless you try unrestricted at a high frame rate and go back and forth to test them both for a difference your told by posters like yourself doesn't exist (which it clearly does).

 

5 minutes ago, MDK2000 said:

yet you ignore and continue to use idiotic terms like "game breaking".

 

I have video evidence, posters can make up their own mind, it is a large difference, as to 'game breaking' it certainly was at a point, it's still very very bad, don't know about game breaking, but for me I certainly can't go back to 60fps yet since the difference is just far too large.

 

It's playable if you can keep consistently over 100 fps as the screen tearing and stuttering at that point is reduced, but the graphics look crap.

Edited by RAND0M7
  • RIP 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RAND0M7 said:

 

Righto, I have the video proof, so I'll let people make their own conclusions about this accusation.

 

 

Ah yes, once again you are failing to admit you outed yourself and completely proved the FPS/DPS isn't an actual issue by claiming you could tell they fixed the FPS / DPS issue on the live server because it "worked so much better" when in fact no changes had been made.

 

That's ok, you can continue to ignore that little fact, and I'll continue to relink every one to it when you claim it's still an issue.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...