Optimisation

[Cask]

I'm looking at buying SOMA but have a reservation about the performance/optimisation problems I have noticed on some reviews. Is the 60FPS lock still present? Is the stuttering fixed when uncapping the lock through the config file?

I really want to play this game on my new hardware without disappointment.

[cantremember]

If you have new hardware you shouldn't be worrying.
I have a normal PC and the game works fine.

Why do you need more than 60FPS, that's about the refresh rate of most monitors, and about the limit a typical human can perceive individual frames.

[Cask]

If you have new hardware you shouldn't be worrying.
I have a normal PC and the game works fine.

Why do you need more than 60FPS, that's about the refresh rate of most monitors, and about the limit a typical human can perceive individual frames.

I've got plenty of horsepower and refresh rate to play with... I'd just like to be able to play with higher frame rates without stutter.

[felixmole]

I really want to play this game on my new hardware without disappointment.

I doubt this will happen, even moreso if you have new hardware. But if performance of SOMA on your hardware is your only concern, not sure this is the kind of game you are looking for? FWIW, I ran it smoothlessly on Linux (with i7 / GTX 780Ti), with all graphics-related options maxed out. Didn't try to change the refresh rate, though (my screen displays 60 FPS), I could check but that would be my sole experience on Linux.

[Abion47]

The frame rate is capped at around 60 FPS by default, but with a bit of simple tweaking of the graphics options, you can remove the cap. I got my game to run at 200+ FPS on Win7 easy. That being said, though, at those rates the game tends to tear quite a bit, so I would not recommend it.

Other than that, I'd have to agree with others here. There's no practical reason to insist that the game be able to run at more than 60 FPS. At 30 FPS, sure, there are arguments to be made to make it go faster, but beyond 60 FPS you're just doing it for the bragging rights.

[Mudbill]

but beyond 60 FPS you're just doing it for the bragging rights.

As an owner of a 144Hz screen, I disagree. 144 FPS is quite the experience, and it's fairly noticable for me when a game runs at only 60.

[Abion47]

but beyond 60 FPS you're just doing it for the bragging rights.

As an owner of a 144Hz screen, I disagree. 144 FPS is quite the experience, and it's fairly noticable for me when a game runs at only 60.

I didn't say that rates faster than 60 FPS wouldn't be noticeable. I said that there's no practical reason to insist on such. 60 FPS is already smooth enough that it's near impossible to discern individual frames. I think that if the OP decided against playing the game for no other reason than it having a 60 FPS cap (which it doesn't have), then they are being both vain and unfair to the game.

[Mudbill]

Yeah I don't think overlooking it for being just 60 is fair since a lot of games are by design, though I haven't been able to get it above that either. It has a refresh rate option in the settings which can be set to 144, but it has never done anything in my experience. I tested it in the early days but I just couldn't get it to output 144 (or anything above 60 for that matter). I made sure V-sync was off as well, tinkered with configs etc. IIRC the FPS was higher, it just didn't push it. I don't know if there are enough 144 Hz users to know if this is a common issue or not, and if someone have gotten it to work at all.

[Cask]

but beyond 60 FPS you're just doing it for the bragging rights.

As an owner of a 144Hz screen, I disagree. 144 FPS is quite the experience, and it's fairly noticable for me when a game runs at only 60.

I didn't say that rates faster than 60 FPS wouldn't be noticeable. I said that there's no practical reason to insist on such. 60 FPS is already smooth enough that it's near impossible to discern individual frames. I think that if the OP decided against playing the game for no other reason than it having a 60 FPS cap (which it doesn't have), then they are being both vain and unfair to the game.

I bought a 144hz monitor for a reason - to have the opportunity to play up to 144 FPS without screen tearing. The human eye cannot capture each individual frame above 60 FPS from what I gather, however, playing at 144 FPS in comparison to 60 FPS is night and day.

I have played 10mins or so of SOMA at my friends house and I have bought the game regardless of the optimisation. Just thought I'd drop that one in

Yeah I don't think overlooking it for being just 60 is fair since a lot of games are by design, though I haven't been able to get it above that either. It has a refresh rate option in the settings which can be set to 144, but it has never done anything in my experience. I tested it in the early days but I just couldn't get it to output 144 (or anything above 60 for that matter). I made sure V-sync was off as well, tinkered with configs etc. IIRC the FPS was higher, it just didn't push it. I don't know if there are enough 144 Hz users to know if this is a common issue or not, and if someone have gotten it to work at all.

Yes, that option does not have any effect with G-Sync/V-Sync on or off.

[Mudbill]

There is no explicit limit to how many frames the human eye can see, but there are a lot of myths. Some say 24 FPS is all you need/can see. Some say 30. Some say 60.

According to a test I read about, trained professionals are able to distinguish refresh rates up to about 250-300 before they no longer notice any difference. But I wouldn't say it's impossible for a human to see more than 300 "FPS" considering eyes don't work with frames per second.

Just wanted to throw that info in there. Sources are a bit tricky to find (from what I remember, didn't bother looking them up right now) because there is so much misinformation about the subject.