(08-14-2016, 01:19 PM)Mudbill Wrote: (08-14-2016, 06:08 AM)Abion47 Wrote: 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 haven't experienced 144Hz myself, but I'd still bet that I can see some (if not most) of the frames. In other words, it's going to be similar experience as going from 30 to 60 but even better due to the extra 24Hz.
(09-24-2016, 12:07 AM)Mudbill Wrote: 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.
I remember reading this somewhere too. Yet to be seen in the future. I've also come across some
EIZO's 240Hz monitor, but I'm not sure how much of those Hz's are actually some tricky marketing bullshit to make us buy their product. Another thing I'm waiting to see is the "maximum" resolution for monitors and other devices. Saw some people complaining that VR devices had too small resolution, as they could see the lines between the pixels. Waiting for a VR device with a 8K monitor per eye.