Project Reality Forums

What will give you more of an advantage in PR? High refresh rates (120 Hz<) or (ultra) high resolution (2160p<)?

Right now there are no 2160p< monitors available that also support higher refresh rates like 120 Hz<. So you got to choose between either one of these features if you want to get a high end monitor for PR.

For twitch games like CS:GO the answer is clear, higher refresh rates are more advantageous than sheer resolution because most engagements take place at very close range and quick aim and aquisition are of great importance.

For a game like PR the answer is not as clear cut though. Many long range engagements make higher resolution seem very attractice for spotting, identifying and engaging stuff at distance and fast and precise aiming is not as important because of the nature of the engine. But a higher refresh rate would of course be benificial too for hitting fast moving targets and for smoother gameplay in general.

If you had to choose between either one, which would you go with and why? Anyone have any experience with one or both?

I guess this old forum post is true:

https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/how-can-i-unlock-fps-cap-in-bf2.248959/#post-2770819

"there is a 100PS cap in the rendering engine, unlocking it will just show the same frames more than once, i.e. any FPS above 100FPS are useless "

The brain can only process 30 FPS, and thats split between 2 eyes, so you eyes in fact can only see 15 FPS. Anymore then that you get motion blur. So i cap my FPS at 30.

On a serious note, High res is better for PR generally. But its not as simple as res verses refresh rate. You also have to account for input lag, panel type, etc.

1440p 144Hz and DSR to 5K is what I use. Best of both worlds.

But what about 5k@60Hz with DSR to 10k? Seriously now though, the more i learn about your battlestation sydney, the more urgent my need to upgrade mine becomes.

High res is better for PR generally. But its not as simple as res verses refresh rate. You also have to account for input lag, panel type, etc.

I think i would prefer high res too, it seems to be better suited for the game meta, but i still would like to hear from someone that has tried both options just to get their input.

Input lag is of course a very great factor, but irrelevant in this case because i strictly want to compare high refresh rates vs (ultra) high resolution panels with the assumption that their input lag is the same.
Same with panel type, let's just assume they are the same, even though personally i would only go with at least IPS and never TN because the contrast and colours are just not good enough imo.

About response time, does anyone else think it is mostly overrated? I saw many tests where experienced people couldn't even tell the difference and appearantly the real values also vary significanly from what is usually advertised (2ms G2G). I even saw a test where an IPS actually beat a TN panel with lower measured response time even though it was advertised that that TN panel had a much lower RT than the IPS in question.

Get a 4k screen so you can be a hacker like Geronimo.

mectus11 wrote:Get a 4k screen so you can be a hacker like Geronimo.

I saw the thread already but I was too lazy to answer, I guess now I have to.

I play(ed) on a 40 inch 4k monitor.

Basically in any situation where a low resolution pleb like Mectus wished he had magnification you will have an advantage. Prime examples are vietnam and falklands.

This is not only true for infantry but also for every vehicle without zoom. The .50 cal mtlb actually becomes usable with a high resolution screen. Same goes for Humvee, .50 techie, the french shitbox apc and so on.

I have also experience with a 1080p 144hz g-sync monitor. Anything that moves is much clearer @144hz. So for PR the two things that stood out to me are recoil control and hectic situations like a close range firefight with lots of suppression effects and fast movement.

Ideally I'd like to have both but for PR I prefer 4k over 1080p 144hz.

Thank you for the insight! You confirm my suspicion that higher resolution is indeed the way to go with this game.
But who knows, they might release high resolution monitors with higher refresh rates soon too (latest gen displayport already supports 2160p@120Hz).

DogACTUAL wrote:Thank you for the insight! You confirm my suspicion that higher resolution is indeed the way to go with this game.
But who knows, they might release high resolution monitors with higher refresh rates soon too (latest gen displayport already supports 2160p@120Hz).

They are almost here.
https://www.asus.com/Monitors/ROG-SWIFT-PG27UQ/

Estimated MSRP is around 3K USD though, which is a bit too steep, even for me with my $1400 monitor.

Another factor is input lag.

The 4K TVs are awesome, and 60FPS is pretty fine, but they tend to have quite a bit of input lag which sucks sack for CQB. I have a 144Hz 1440p monitor, but PR doesn't usually hit 144Hz, so it's not THAT big of a bonus.
If you can hit those FPS consistently I'd say 144Hz would be the biggest factor for CQB and general inf stuff.
For assets and long range inf, resolution will be the biggest thing.

4K in PR gives the biggest advantage. Though 144hz makes not want to kill myself and makes the game far more enjoyable.

"there is a 100PS cap in the rendering engine, unlocking it will just show the same frames more than once, i.e. any FPS above 100FPS are useless "

Is this true though? Anyone with the knowledge can chime in?

DogACTUAL wrote:Is this true though? Anyone with the knowledge can chime in?

Could be, but I notice some difference with my 144hz when I unlock FPS. Maybe placebo.

I feel a difference between 100 and 144FPS, it's not placebo.

"What will give you more of an advantage in PR? High refresh rates (120 Hz<) or (ultra) high resolution (2160p<)?"
-The question is a little weird.
-Resolution and refresh rate always go proportional(the bigger the monitor you have, you should have bigger refresh rate)
-You can buy an ultra, mega, giga monitor,but keep in mind that you need very strong GPU to use that monitor.
-For a comfortable game Pr, you do not need a very strong machine.
-And the FFG is right over 30fps is just an invention of some imagination (as if we were not human beings but some robots who see something impossible)

And one question, did you try to play PR on a 3D monitor?(I mean, just starting the game, then you're combining 3D and game)
-It raises the game to a higher level

My advice is to buy a quality 3D monitor, not some huge board that will hang you on the entire wall and play games.

FFG;2186139[b wrote:]The brain can only process 30 FPS, and thats split between 2 eyes, so you eyes in fact can only see 15 FPS[/b]. Anymore then that you get motion blur. So i cap my FPS at 30.

On a serious note, High res is better for PR generally. But its not as simple as res verses refresh rate. You also have to account for input lag, panel type, etc.

not sure if baiting, but my eyes can see the difference. I locked FPS at 30 and all movement, aiming and everything became sluggish and delayed as expected.

Jacksonez__ wrote:not sure if baiting, but my eyes can see the difference. I locked FPS at 30 and all movement, aiming and everything became sluggish and delayed as expected.

Theres a reason why in real life you cant see helicopter blades spinning, because they are spinning at such a high FPS that the motion blur makes them invisible.

This topic was touched on by PCGamer over a year ago (likely paid by consoles to placate the plebs into accepting sub 60fps games)

how many frames per second can the human eye really see/

It becomes more about what your brain can process in a second than how many frames are rendered in that second. Resolution will give you a better picture of what is happening in front of you, while frame-rate might only give you a small boost in reaction time.

Ping is the biggest factor for online gaming imho. You can have 200+ fps but if you have 200+ ping to match it you're going to play poorly.

Murphy, you're right, ping gives you the advantage or takes you away.
-Like a sword, it has two blades(positive or negative)

lakinen wrote: -Resolution and refresh rate always go proportional(the bigger the monitor you have, you should have bigger refresh rate)

That's not true at all, if anything it's the inverse, since larger monitors usually have higher resolutions and thus lower refresh rate due to limitation in technology. 1080p 144Hz monitors have been on the market for ages, but 4k 144hz monitors are brand new.

But obviously none of it matters since the human eye can only see 24fps xD