I can't agree for sure since I have never tried it and you haven't either,
At such speeds you're well in excess of any mouse sampling limit so it's unlikely you'd notice a difference. But that's really not important as if by some chance you did notice a difference then we can use 3000 FPS vs 2000 FPS, or even higher.
Eventually you'll get to the point where you don't notice a difference and then my original point stands because it has basis for fact.
100 frame drop is a big gap and I doubt that you won't notice something.
The gap is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether the maximum and the minimum framerate is above your threshold of smoothness. If they are you won't notice a difference, regardless of the gap between them.
These numbers are REAL, high numbers we can all get and it just goes to show you that fluctuating sucks.
You are getting hung up over irrelevant nitpicks and are completely missing the point of my examples.
Well, that background process was what cause the fluctuation.
And?
If you can notice fluctuation between 20fps difference then why wouldn't you in a 40fps difference.
(1) Because you have to look at as a percentage, not as raw number.
(2) Where did I say you wouldn't notice a difference between 120 FPS and 80 FPS? I didn't. I said it was
better than a constant 60 FPS. If you want to talk about about not seeing differences between the maximum and minimum FPS then you'll see that's precisely why I used the numbers 300 - 200 in my second example.
A consistant 85fps is better than a constantly fuctuating 120-80fps.
That's arguable and beside, you've changed your story now. If you look carefully you'll see that my first example specifically had a minimum higher than the constant amount, the constant amount you claimed was smoother than either my maximum or my minimum. Now you've purposely sneaked in a higher constant value when you know very well that wasn't what you were arguing about to begin with.
No, because 70fps is constant,
You appear to be using the flawed reasoning that all that's needed in order to make something smooth is a constant framerate, which is false.
Using your (flawed) reasoning all you need is a constant framerate and the framerate itself is irrelevant. So is a constant 10 FPS smooth? Or how about a constant 3 FPS? Or constant a 1 FPS? Do you also claim that a 1000 FPS - 100 FPS range is worse than a constant 10 FPS solely because the former fluctuates but the latter doesn't?
Whether or not the framerate is constant is irrelevant. The reason something is jerky is because the current framerate is incapable of smoothly and accurately reproducing the current scene and your senses pick up on this fact. If both the maximum and minimum framerate are above the threshold required for your senses to perceive total smoothness then the amount of fluctuation is completely irrelevent. Or to put it another way, if the minimum framerate is high enough then it's totally irrelevant if the maximum framerate is 1, 10, 100 or 1000 FPS higher.
Facebook
Twitter