whats the difference? i got mine on 60 in bf2
This determines how frequently the image on screen is refreshed. Set too low and you will see the picture flicker rather than remain steady. The eye cannot percieve anything over about 78htz, but there is a problem with a setting of 60htz. Although the picture will appear flicker-free, your eyes and brain are seeing the flicker and working to adjust. This is very tiring, and you will find that long sessions looking at a 60htz screen will strain your eyes, and make your brain tire. For best results set to 70htz or 80htz. You may not be able to 'see' any differance, but you will notice that you feel mentally fresher. Incidentally, this is why 100htz TV's can appear unnatural and processed, their refresh rate being higher than the eyes, and Sony, Panasonic etc have had to come up with some sophisticated tech to try to fool the perception of the viewer.
That's actually not true. The human eye can perceive a great deal more than 78 htz.broncobullfrog wrote:
The eye cannot percieve anything over about 78htz
Just put it one the highest it'll safely go, so you don't strain your eyes. I use 1280x960@85hz.
OK pedant, i was going to rewrite that sentence but i thought only the obtuse would not see what i meant. The fact that i go on to mention the fact that 100htz causes problems should have given that away. 78htz is the figure above which the eye can no longer percieve any flicker, which is the point in question.TriggerHappy998 wrote:
That's actually not true. The human eye can perceive a great deal more than 78 htz.broncobullfrog wrote:
The eye cannot percieve anything over about 78htz
my monitor cant hav any higher than 1280 at 60htz crappy thing
Do you have any kind of link or factual proof of this? Where in the hell did you get this number? Some people can detect subtle changes in refresh rates while others are fine with 60hz. Just depends on the person.broncobullfrog wrote:
OK pedant, i was going to rewrite that sentence but i thought only the obtuse would not see what i meant. The fact that i go on to mention the fact that 100htz causes problems should have given that away. 78htz is the figure above which the eye can no longer percieve any flicker, which is the point in question.TriggerHappy998 wrote:
That's actually not true. The human eye can perceive a great deal more than 78 htz.broncobullfrog wrote:
The eye cannot percieve anything over about 78htz
one thing to note is that if you're running an LCD the refresh rate may not have much of an effect, because the redraw rate will 'fill the gap' between frames
who cares why just put it on the highest ok.
well someone needs a hug.Andrew wrote:
who cares why just put it on the highest ok.
can the lady in your sig hug me? please
I thought this was common knowledge. Look in any medical journal.slidero wrote:
Do you have any kind of link or factual proof of this? Where in the hell did you get this number? Some people can detect subtle changes in refresh rates while others are fine with 60hz. Just depends on the person.broncobullfrog wrote:
OK pedant, i was going to rewrite that sentence but i thought only the obtuse would not see what i meant. The fact that i go on to mention the fact that 100htz causes problems should have given that away. 78htz is the figure above which the eye can no longer percieve any flicker, which is the point in question.TriggerHappy998 wrote:
That's actually not true. The human eye can perceive a great deal more than 78 htz.
Or, find out what htz rating your monitor runs on. I have mine set on the same, 85 htz
I can't play video games at 60hz, it hurts my eyes.
most ppls eyes start to hurt at 60hz, put on highest then ok.
even though this maybe a n00by question: does changing refresh rates affect the graphics/performance of bf2?
even though this maybe a n00by question: does changing refresh rates affect the graphics/performance of bf2?
cheers guys, that'll explain y i get a sore head if i play to long its on 70htz now
Exactly right.... proof of my pudding. I walked into a new classroom (as teacher) and all the CRTs were set to 60htz. It was like some crazy flicker light show for me, but others said they couldn't see anything. So I went around and changed them all up to maximum refresh, I was happy (flicker free), no one else could tell the difference, then... the strangest of things happened. A few days later, there was a remarkable drop in instances of headache and eyestrain. Which goes to prove a point, some brains might not be able to register change, but it doesn't mean there's no effectslidero wrote:
Some people can detect subtle changes in refresh rates while others are fine with 60hz. Just depends on the person.
Actually teach your anecdote supports what I was saying, and contradicts slidero. As you say, while not everyone could percieve the flicker, it was in fact affecting them all. Thats the point I was making, a refresh rate of 60htz may indeed look okay to many, but but the eye and brain are working overtime to compensate, hence the strain. This applies to everyone. Anyway, glad the guy with the original query got sorted.thinner44 wrote:
Exactly right.... proof of my pudding. I walked into a new classroom (as teacher) and all the CRTs were set to 60htz. It was like some crazy flicker light show for me, but others said they couldn't see anything. So I went around and changed them all up to maximum refresh, I was happy (flicker free), no one else could tell the difference, then... the strangest of things happened. A few days later, there was a remarkable drop in instances of headache and eyestrain. Which goes to prove a point, some brains might not be able to register change, but it doesn't mean there's no effectslidero wrote:
Some people can detect subtle changes in refresh rates while others are fine with 60hz. Just depends on the person.
Ahh I am sorry But your both wrong. the Correct answer isslidero wrote:
Do you have any kind of link or factual proof of this? Where in the hell did you get this number? Some people can detect subtle changes in refresh rates while others are fine with 60hz. Just depends on the person.broncobullfrog wrote:
OK pedant, i was going to rewrite that sentence but i thought only the obtuse would not see what i meant. The fact that i go on to mention the fact that 100htz causes problems should have given that away. 78htz is the figure above which the eye can no longer percieve any flicker, which is the point in question.TriggerHappy998 wrote:
That's actually not true. The human eye can perceive a great deal more than 78 htz.
" Who gives a shit ?"
Triumph The insult dog !
It might - I've not been able to figure out whether BF2 does this (my frame rate never gets up to 75 (which is my monitors highest refresh @ 1024)), but, if BF2 locks screen draws to the refresh then, which it might, or not, that will limit the maximum frame rate you can get in-game. So, in a nutshell, higher refresh may give higher average framerate and smoother gameplay and lower refresh may give lower average frame rate and less smooth gameplay.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
most ppls eyes start to hurt at 60hz, put on highest then ok.
even though this maybe a n00by question: does changing refresh rates affect the graphics/performance of bf2?
Having said all that, most games don't lock redraws anyway. Oh and also, you can force the video card to not lock redraws through the driver settings (ATI definately and nVidia did last time I had an nVidia card (some time ago)).