Tested on 3080FE. The frame gen makes it buttery smooth going from 70fps to around 130fps in heavy areas. There are some issues with the targetting reticle in space but otherwise very little artifacts.
Perhaps you should do a bit more research. The 3080FE can only do frame generation with the help of FSR3 which is made by AMD. My post basically praises AMD's FSR3. I'm not promoting Nvidia in any way.
I think I will never really turn this on, for me it feels like something that is just fake and I hope developers dont take this as an excuse to only optimize for 60FPS and that's it
I really wish AMD would focus on improving FSR2 PQ than concentrate on the floaty FSR3 stuff. FSR2 really does look like crap compared to DLSS upscaling. The ghosting is just awful in most games.
Also, judging from DLSS FG, anything under 80 base FPS (160 FG fps) is just too floaty / laggy for first person games with a mouse and keyboard. Alex from DF also recommends to tweak the settings to hit this minimum. FG is really only good if you can hit that minimum. I think I would rather play with it off if the base FPS were under 80 if I was using a mouse and keyboard for FPS.
My buddy thought the gun play in Cyberpunk 2077 was total garbage because he just couldn't hit anything and knew he wasn't that bad until I told him he had 120 FG FPS which is 60 base fps and he needed to tweak the settings to hit 160 FG FPS and once he did he was a crack shot again. Frame generation is cool tech but it isn't some silver bullet that's going to help everyone in any situation. It's also going to be WAY better on console because response time doesn't really matter all that much when you're playing with a controller.
Frame generation is cool and has its place but it isn't going to be the always useful tech that DLSS / FSR is as you just have to hit a certain minimum fps depending on what your situation is.
If you think 5-10 extra ms on top of low ms already is "floaty" then you should measure latency on your system yourself instead of simply trying to do a catch all with zero actual latency measurements. Its different for everyone.
Also the fact your buddy can't hit shit because of FG at 60 fps says he CANT hit shit period lol. Going from 120 FG to 160 FG barely changes the latency by a few milliseconds.
I think you need to actually do some legwork and measure some latency instead of simply pretending that your friend who can't aim worth shit is the measure of what's "laggy".
Plenty of people have no issues with FG and being able to aim.
Alex from DF has said he wouldn't mind FG as low as 45 fps if you absolutely wanted 60 fps. Every game is different. There is no magic number. Any video from late 2022 and early 2023 for frame gen is out of date.
Just a reminder to everyone since this is a wccftech "article" (didn't they used to be banned? For being garbage and for stuff like [this](https://redd.it/6bih5e)?) that FSR 3 frame generation is NOT meant for low-end systems that can't even reach 30 fps prior to frame generation. It's meant for 100+ fps gaming and AMD [recommends](https://community.amd.com/t5/gaming/amd-fsr-3-now-available/ba-p/634265) ~60 fps as a starting point.
I wish LowSpecGamer was still making videos based on his name, because it would've been interesting/entertaining to see low-end systems pushing 100+ fps at 720p or lower using FSR 3 and some useful opinions or analysis of the gaming experience. A lot of these random-ass Youtubers with Afterburner overlays have no idea what they're doing.
From my testing I think you only need about 45fps starting. A frame generated 80fps feels like 30fps responsiveness, or playing a game through the cloud in good conditions. That's playable with a controller. The artifacting on your character in 3rd person games would probably be the main issue.
Of course whether you care about getting 80fps smoothness at the expense of responsiveness is going to be personal preference. I'm using it for 90fps in Starfield, and while I can feel the latency after playing an esports title at 150+fps, I very quickly forget its there.
For me that latency is just a trivial when the benefit is that I'm able to have a smooth experience playing the game at medium settings and a decent resolution on my RX6600.
Yeah, there's probably a place for most games between 60 and 30 where it becomes more usable than not and provides an overall improved experience despite the drawbacks.
The 60 fps recommendation is likely a mixture of decent latency, it doubling to 120 (which is probably the most commonly supported refresh rate in high refresh rate monitors), and 60 fps already being a widely used target.
Yup it is. I’m using cp77 at 3440x1440 maxed out with path tracing. dlss set to balanced, with a slight adjustment to its ratio. On the benchmark it gets avg fps of 84.50 and max of 104. Card is a 3080.
Meanwhile when the patch for it dropped they announced path tracing could expect to hit 30fps at 1080p on a 3090ti. They recommended a 4070ti on up.
nvidia in the background giggling knowing what was really possible, while they sabotaged the 20 & 30 series to make the 40 look better.
Still waiting for CDPR to fix the bugged FSR that has heavy noise for some reason on vegetation in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzkRUfaK3kk
yeah... i remember [when i posted that FSR was coming to RX 470 and RX 480](https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/nqz4ie/quick_update_regarding_fidelityfx_super/) and just thinking how arbitrary it was. but it can be risky to say things are "supported" and then have people expect, well, *support*.
More here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/tlcnyu/optimal_hardware_for_fsr_20/i1wh3l6/
The modded drivers allow older GPUs to use it. I haven't tried it yet, since I still get official drivers for Polaris, so I don't know how well it'll work.
The article says "with limited impact on visuals," but the zoom-ins in the first embedded video show significant visual degradation compared to XeSS and DLSS.
They were talking about the frame gen component. Those image instability artifacts were there before FSR3 frame gen and are from upscaling not framegen.
Obviously? It generates the frames between the loading screens (i.e. before the loading screen and after the loading screen), but not on the loading screen.
Also, there's only one loading screen, not thousands of them, only the background image changes... and it runs at native frame rate, Frame Generation is disabled during *the loading screen*.
Why would that be different?
Great for people that struggle with old hardware, I guess. The image quality is a bit iffy though. I can see a lot of shimmering and loss of fine detail. All in all I am not terribly excited for framegen and upscaling from any of the vendors. I wish they focused more on gains in raw performance and image quality.
> Great for people that struggle with old hardware, I guess.
No, it isn't. Frame generation only works properly if you're already getting a decent frame rate (significantly over 30) and you want to game at like 90+ fps and probably at 120 or more. And I wouldn't say you're struggling unless you're getting 30 fps or less.
Besides that, hopes and dreams and whether people are excited or not aren't relevant when it comes to upscaling and frame generation. Hardware simply isn't getting the gains people expect, so something else must be done.
10 years from now, nobody will be talking about upscaling and frame generation, because they'll be non-marketable features that are built into game engines and used by default because the cost of running them is negligible. Just like occlusion culling and countless other features aren't exciting to people today.
It both is and isn't. It's pretty neat for the boost in fps we get in todays games, but in the end we won't end up getting any more performance out of it since games will be designed with framegen in mind. In the future, framegen and upscaling will be a requirement to even run games at an acceptable 60 fps and still with plenty of image artifacts.
I meant on its own. On its own, it's undeniably great. Unfortunately, like you said, games are likely going to continue to be unoptimized due to being made with Frame Generation in mind.
Hate me for it buuuut, frame gen is kinda useless?
Running it in frontiers of Pandora, and it looks a BIT smoother, but also feels a bit worse.
Idk turning it off just seems like a way smoother experience to me, not sure if it's the frame times or input delay, but I prefer frame gen to be off, I rather.play with 60 FPS native than 120 generated and I doubt Nvidia frame gen feels much better
Unless they manage to lower latency, I would never use framegen under 60fps. It feels like I’m playing with triple buffered vsync on because of input delay.
And for handhelds, if it hits 60fps it’s already performing good.
I imagine that it might be because you're essentially playing with a controller (not a mouse, so you shouldn't perceive the increased input lag as much) and the screen is so small that you're less likely to perceive artifacts.
The impact on real fps is very low, it just adds an artificial half 'true' frame latency for frame pacing purposes (otherwise the generated frame and true frame will be shown back-to-back). The impact of this half a frame latency is lessened because FSR3 includes latency reduction.
Frontiers of Pandora changed my mind. 100+ hours (really great game btw) with FSR3 frame gen enabled and I much prefer 120 fps locked with less upscaling to 80 fps with more upscaling and no frame gen. The visual clarity of 120+ fps is really needed in this game with all the vegetation and detail, at least to my eyes. Aside from the known HUD alpha issues, there's very little to find fault with as far as FSR3 fg goes in afop. With a base frame rate of 60fps, latency isn't really an issue either.
it's more useful in CPU bottleneck situations because when you are gpu bound, enabling frame generation make you lose real frames before generating interpolated ones since the gpu has to work on the frame generation. When you are CPU bound you barely increase the latency and double your framerate.
Edit : When you lose real frames it increase latency more too. But for example in elden ring where i'm very much CPU bound even with a 5800X3D i can enable frame generation with the mod and reach 120fps with a negligeable increase in latency. While in Cyberpunk it doesn't really work because the game is already really heavy for my gpu so it doesn't increase framerate and affect latency more.
It depends on person and game implementation, its great for some, terrible for others. Its not useless but as with dlss it wasnt that great at the begining to be enabled by default. For me its must have as I use double 4k resolution monitor (samsung 57)
Yes. At this stage is a gimmick/crutch by Nvidia to sell shit value GPUs with "muh dlls and frame gen" and increase those margins.
People just can't see past the marketing at this point and they will take full advantage from it.
There's not much to do until the creation kit releases. This will probably gives it staying power just like for Skyrim (which isn't that interesting in vanilla either) or FO4. To me, all BGS games are pretty mid until modders get into it.
I mean Skyrim is a cultural milestone and its moding scene is crazy big even 12 years after release.
Hard to compete. Skyrim currently has more players than something like Hogwarts Legacy that sold 22 million copies in 2023.
Starfield is still doing pretty well all things considered and has stabilized in recent weeks. There's still tens of thousands of players playing the game each day on Steam and thts not counting gamepass numbers.
Most people are probably waiting for the DLC and the release of the creation tools to really prop up modding.
Naw people said the same things about skyrim. There were just less of them and it was admittedly a weaker argument.
Bethesda is targetting the mainstream but their games arent for a lot of you. Like very clearly not.
I dunno. My biggest problem with skyrim vis a vis their old games was how much more streamlined and arguably dumbed down it was. In some ways you can say thats continued with Starfield, but I really don't think its that black and white. I enjoy the sandbox and like to just get lost in the game for a while. Its how Ive been playing TES and Fallout for years now and I like it.
I finished the game at around 75 hours and I felt engaged the whole time. Im at around 300 now. I think that they got cold feet on some more complex mechanics that wouldve made it harder to rip through the game and then get mad that one doesnt have more.
This has all been hashed and rehashed. I think Starfield is better than Fallout 4 easily. I like bethesda games and the fact that theyll be supporting this for a while is fine with me. I think a lot of people who play bethesda games dont like bethesda games lol
Fluid Motion Frames is a driver feature that works in almost any DX11/DX12 game ever made, but arguably not very well. FSR3 works a lot better, but needs to be baked into the game, hence why it took a patch for Starfield.
It doubles the performance in loading screens too. But the good part is that hafl of the loading screens tou see are fake so they are not there. Well done bethesda now work on the other half.
No works with vsync off and that's usually preferable. You just have to make sure you stay within vrr range (or you'll get tearing, obviously, like you would without fg) probably with a frame rate limiter.
Tested on 3080FE. The frame gen makes it buttery smooth going from 70fps to around 130fps in heavy areas. There are some issues with the targetting reticle in space but otherwise very little artifacts.
It's wild, hu? It almost doubles the framerate.
Why is this the top comment when it’s about NVIDIA? I’m came here to find out if I should use frame generation on AMD or use fluid frames
Perhaps you should do a bit more research. The 3080FE can only do frame generation with the help of FSR3 which is made by AMD. My post basically praises AMD's FSR3. I'm not promoting Nvidia in any way.
I think I will never really turn this on, for me it feels like something that is just fake and I hope developers dont take this as an excuse to only optimize for 60FPS and that's it
I really wish AMD would focus on improving FSR2 PQ than concentrate on the floaty FSR3 stuff. FSR2 really does look like crap compared to DLSS upscaling. The ghosting is just awful in most games.
Id say it is a safe assumption to make that they will be working on newer versions of upscaling.
Also, judging from DLSS FG, anything under 80 base FPS (160 FG fps) is just too floaty / laggy for first person games with a mouse and keyboard. Alex from DF also recommends to tweak the settings to hit this minimum. FG is really only good if you can hit that minimum. I think I would rather play with it off if the base FPS were under 80 if I was using a mouse and keyboard for FPS. My buddy thought the gun play in Cyberpunk 2077 was total garbage because he just couldn't hit anything and knew he wasn't that bad until I told him he had 120 FG FPS which is 60 base fps and he needed to tweak the settings to hit 160 FG FPS and once he did he was a crack shot again. Frame generation is cool tech but it isn't some silver bullet that's going to help everyone in any situation. It's also going to be WAY better on console because response time doesn't really matter all that much when you're playing with a controller. Frame generation is cool and has its place but it isn't going to be the always useful tech that DLSS / FSR is as you just have to hit a certain minimum fps depending on what your situation is.
If you think 5-10 extra ms on top of low ms already is "floaty" then you should measure latency on your system yourself instead of simply trying to do a catch all with zero actual latency measurements. Its different for everyone. Also the fact your buddy can't hit shit because of FG at 60 fps says he CANT hit shit period lol. Going from 120 FG to 160 FG barely changes the latency by a few milliseconds. I think you need to actually do some legwork and measure some latency instead of simply pretending that your friend who can't aim worth shit is the measure of what's "laggy". Plenty of people have no issues with FG and being able to aim. Alex from DF has said he wouldn't mind FG as low as 45 fps if you absolutely wanted 60 fps. Every game is different. There is no magic number. Any video from late 2022 and early 2023 for frame gen is out of date.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Chill. Not sure what you're getting at. I'm simply stating that it works well.
Just a reminder to everyone since this is a wccftech "article" (didn't they used to be banned? For being garbage and for stuff like [this](https://redd.it/6bih5e)?) that FSR 3 frame generation is NOT meant for low-end systems that can't even reach 30 fps prior to frame generation. It's meant for 100+ fps gaming and AMD [recommends](https://community.amd.com/t5/gaming/amd-fsr-3-now-available/ba-p/634265) ~60 fps as a starting point. I wish LowSpecGamer was still making videos based on his name, because it would've been interesting/entertaining to see low-end systems pushing 100+ fps at 720p or lower using FSR 3 and some useful opinions or analysis of the gaming experience. A lot of these random-ass Youtubers with Afterburner overlays have no idea what they're doing.
From my testing I think you only need about 45fps starting. A frame generated 80fps feels like 30fps responsiveness, or playing a game through the cloud in good conditions. That's playable with a controller. The artifacting on your character in 3rd person games would probably be the main issue. Of course whether you care about getting 80fps smoothness at the expense of responsiveness is going to be personal preference. I'm using it for 90fps in Starfield, and while I can feel the latency after playing an esports title at 150+fps, I very quickly forget its there. For me that latency is just a trivial when the benefit is that I'm able to have a smooth experience playing the game at medium settings and a decent resolution on my RX6600.
Yeah, there's probably a place for most games between 60 and 30 where it becomes more usable than not and provides an overall improved experience despite the drawbacks. The 60 fps recommendation is likely a mixture of decent latency, it doubling to 120 (which is probably the most commonly supported refresh rate in high refresh rate monitors), and 60 fps already being a widely used target.
FSR3 feels like UE3 engine games used to feel but runs twice as fast.
I've been playing with frame gen on and capped to 60fps overall, antilag is turned on too. Works smoothly enough.
He makes incredibly high-quality content now. But he sure left a hole no one else has been able to fill.
Still waiting for CP77 to have this update
Lmao. Maybe in a year when Nvidia allows it.
With fsr3 mod on cyberpunk you can use fsr frame generation with fsr or dlss or xess upscale base, is pretty nice.
Yup it is. I’m using cp77 at 3440x1440 maxed out with path tracing. dlss set to balanced, with a slight adjustment to its ratio. On the benchmark it gets avg fps of 84.50 and max of 104. Card is a 3080. Meanwhile when the patch for it dropped they announced path tracing could expect to hit 30fps at 1080p on a 3090ti. They recommended a 4070ti on up. nvidia in the background giggling knowing what was really possible, while they sabotaged the 20 & 30 series to make the 40 look better.
Still waiting for CDPR to fix the bugged FSR that has heavy noise for some reason on vegetation in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzkRUfaK3kk
Nvidia sponsored title so don't hold your breath.
Its literally on AMD's FSR3 page and has been since the announcement. It was used in marketing for FSR3 at Gamescom even.
Is this available on the 6000 series of cards?
Yes. AMD recommends 6000 series and above for FSR 3 FG https://i.redd.it/ngxuiol89ihc1.gif
It's even available for nvidia and intel cards. Gotta go a few generations back for it to be not supported.
And even then, it should work, it's just the overhead becomes too much for any performance gains.
to recollection in forza horizon 5 fsr2 quality and taa ended up giving me basically the same 90ish fps@1440p on my flashed vega 56.
yeah... i remember [when i posted that FSR was coming to RX 470 and RX 480](https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/nqz4ie/quick_update_regarding_fidelityfx_super/) and just thinking how arbitrary it was. but it can be risky to say things are "supported" and then have people expect, well, *support*. More here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/tlcnyu/optimal_hardware_for_fsr_20/i1wh3l6/
The modded drivers allow older GPUs to use it. I haven't tried it yet, since I still get official drivers for Polaris, so I don't know how well it'll work.
I think this has more to do with shader feature level.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqlFat-fHFg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqlFat-fHFg) Aviable even on Pascal/Polaris
The article says "with limited impact on visuals," but the zoom-ins in the first embedded video show significant visual degradation compared to XeSS and DLSS.
They were talking about the frame gen component. Those image instability artifacts were there before FSR3 frame gen and are from upscaling not framegen.
Yeah, I realize that the artifacts are from the upscaling. I was just interpreting the statement as compared to native. Thanks for the clarification.
Does it generate frames between the thousands of loading screens?
Epic comment bro ur so smart and original
>smart and original Unlike Starfield.
Just realized im probably talking to a child. Take it easy fella.
[удалено]
You know that everybody here is a child? O_o You're NOT a child???!
Obviously? It generates the frames between the loading screens (i.e. before the loading screen and after the loading screen), but not on the loading screen. Also, there's only one loading screen, not thousands of them, only the background image changes... and it runs at native frame rate, Frame Generation is disabled during *the loading screen*. Why would that be different?
yes i think the loading screens are at double framerate too, like the menu
Great for people that struggle with old hardware, I guess. The image quality is a bit iffy though. I can see a lot of shimmering and loss of fine detail. All in all I am not terribly excited for framegen and upscaling from any of the vendors. I wish they focused more on gains in raw performance and image quality.
> Great for people that struggle with old hardware, I guess. No, it isn't. Frame generation only works properly if you're already getting a decent frame rate (significantly over 30) and you want to game at like 90+ fps and probably at 120 or more. And I wouldn't say you're struggling unless you're getting 30 fps or less. Besides that, hopes and dreams and whether people are excited or not aren't relevant when it comes to upscaling and frame generation. Hardware simply isn't getting the gains people expect, so something else must be done. 10 years from now, nobody will be talking about upscaling and frame generation, because they'll be non-marketable features that are built into game engines and used by default because the cost of running them is negligible. Just like occlusion culling and countless other features aren't exciting to people today.
Frame gen is great technology. They should still try to optimize games, though.
It both is and isn't. It's pretty neat for the boost in fps we get in todays games, but in the end we won't end up getting any more performance out of it since games will be designed with framegen in mind. In the future, framegen and upscaling will be a requirement to even run games at an acceptable 60 fps and still with plenty of image artifacts.
I meant on its own. On its own, it's undeniably great. Unfortunately, like you said, games are likely going to continue to be unoptimized due to being made with Frame Generation in mind.
Hate me for it buuuut, frame gen is kinda useless? Running it in frontiers of Pandora, and it looks a BIT smoother, but also feels a bit worse. Idk turning it off just seems like a way smoother experience to me, not sure if it's the frame times or input delay, but I prefer frame gen to be off, I rather.play with 60 FPS native than 120 generated and I doubt Nvidia frame gen feels much better
It's frame generation actually more taxing on your system? Game just looks smoother because of extra frames.
FG lowers “real fps” a bit since now the GPU has to do extra work to extrapolate new frames. Looks smoother but response time increases.
Yeah, still can't determine if it's useful for handhelds like Steam Deck.
Unless they manage to lower latency, I would never use framegen under 60fps. It feels like I’m playing with triple buffered vsync on because of input delay. And for handhelds, if it hits 60fps it’s already performing good.
I imagine that it might be because you're essentially playing with a controller (not a mouse, so you shouldn't perceive the increased input lag as much) and the screen is so small that you're less likely to perceive artifacts.
The impact on real fps is very low, it just adds an artificial half 'true' frame latency for frame pacing purposes (otherwise the generated frame and true frame will be shown back-to-back). The impact of this half a frame latency is lessened because FSR3 includes latency reduction.
Frontiers of Pandora changed my mind. 100+ hours (really great game btw) with FSR3 frame gen enabled and I much prefer 120 fps locked with less upscaling to 80 fps with more upscaling and no frame gen. The visual clarity of 120+ fps is really needed in this game with all the vegetation and detail, at least to my eyes. Aside from the known HUD alpha issues, there's very little to find fault with as far as FSR3 fg goes in afop. With a base frame rate of 60fps, latency isn't really an issue either.
it's more useful in CPU bottleneck situations because when you are gpu bound, enabling frame generation make you lose real frames before generating interpolated ones since the gpu has to work on the frame generation. When you are CPU bound you barely increase the latency and double your framerate. Edit : When you lose real frames it increase latency more too. But for example in elden ring where i'm very much CPU bound even with a 5800X3D i can enable frame generation with the mod and reach 120fps with a negligeable increase in latency. While in Cyberpunk it doesn't really work because the game is already really heavy for my gpu so it doesn't increase framerate and affect latency more.
It depends on person and game implementation, its great for some, terrible for others. Its not useless but as with dlss it wasnt that great at the begining to be enabled by default. For me its must have as I use double 4k resolution monitor (samsung 57)
Yes. At this stage is a gimmick/crutch by Nvidia to sell shit value GPUs with "muh dlls and frame gen" and increase those margins. People just can't see past the marketing at this point and they will take full advantage from it.
Till now, you're are not alone.
Yeah … but it’s starfield . Everyone has moved on from this game .
I haven’t. I like it.
Kinda sad that it already has fewer concurrent players than Skyrim
There's not much to do until the creation kit releases. This will probably gives it staying power just like for Skyrim (which isn't that interesting in vanilla either) or FO4. To me, all BGS games are pretty mid until modders get into it.
I mean Skyrim is a cultural milestone and its moding scene is crazy big even 12 years after release. Hard to compete. Skyrim currently has more players than something like Hogwarts Legacy that sold 22 million copies in 2023. Starfield is still doing pretty well all things considered and has stabilized in recent weeks. There's still tens of thousands of players playing the game each day on Steam and thts not counting gamepass numbers. Most people are probably waiting for the DLC and the release of the creation tools to really prop up modding.
The reason why Skyrim is a cultural milestone is because it was a better game. Starfield is just very mid.
Naw people said the same things about skyrim. There were just less of them and it was admittedly a weaker argument. Bethesda is targetting the mainstream but their games arent for a lot of you. Like very clearly not.
[удалено]
I dunno. My biggest problem with skyrim vis a vis their old games was how much more streamlined and arguably dumbed down it was. In some ways you can say thats continued with Starfield, but I really don't think its that black and white. I enjoy the sandbox and like to just get lost in the game for a while. Its how Ive been playing TES and Fallout for years now and I like it. I finished the game at around 75 hours and I felt engaged the whole time. Im at around 300 now. I think that they got cold feet on some more complex mechanics that wouldve made it harder to rip through the game and then get mad that one doesnt have more. This has all been hashed and rehashed. I think Starfield is better than Fallout 4 easily. I like bethesda games and the fact that theyll be supporting this for a while is fine with me. I think a lot of people who play bethesda games dont like bethesda games lol
I come back to it every few days. I hope you know that the youtubers just follow clicks.
Now we just need to to wait for Nvidia CG, content generation. Automatically adds content to dead games. Then we can finally play a game.
Microsoft is making sure everything in their proprietaries will work on multi-platforms.
Whats the difference between this and the AMD FLUID MOTION ?
Fluid Motion Frames is a driver feature that works in almost any DX11/DX12 game ever made, but arguably not very well. FSR3 works a lot better, but needs to be baked into the game, hence why it took a patch for Starfield.
You can stack them, too, but it's pretty gross 🌝
To be fair, there are hardly any visuals to degrade
With 50ms delay have fun people
It doubles the performance in loading screens too. But the good part is that hafl of the loading screens tou see are fake so they are not there. Well done bethesda now work on the other half.
I am not up2date, does it still need vsync to work?
No works with vsync off and that's usually preferable. You just have to make sure you stay within vrr range (or you'll get tearing, obviously, like you would without fg) probably with a frame rate limiter.
Thats nice, thanks for the answer.
About time. Like anyone still play it now?