Exactly, and at this point they had no choice but to have the game be 64-bit due to it being so much more demanding than their past games so we're certainly past the 4-gig issue. I hope there's no new memory cap that players have to deal with, namely those who mod the game like crazy... especially with stuff like ENB and ultra-highres texture packs.

It's more like old generation of consoles has been casted into the Oblivion (ehm) and so they could go down the 64bit road, less loading screens etc.

I certainly believe they sorted it out.

For me 60 FPS is fine. More of that is just a side effect off turning of v-sync as when its on, mouse is very clunky.

I had to use 3rd party apps to limit FPS to 60 which was kinda lame.

*pulls out six-string guitar*
Oooooh, you gotta have faith...you gotta have faith-a-faith-afaith!
*shakes butt*

Nah, it's not "learned a hard lesson". It's that the consoles now are also 64-bit/8GB memory. So there's no reason to make a 32bit application.

Question, what kind of work exactly did Bethesda need to do to upgrade their engine from 32bit to 64bit? How much can be easily transitioned, and is there anything that has to be completely rebuilt?

It is difficult to say. It all depends on how it was written, if the code did not have anything that would break when the change was made it should just be a case of changing some compiler switches, making sure any libraries they are using are 64bit, and then recompiling. The major problem is determining if that is the case or not.

Here we go again....

Movies and Video Games,, Apples and Oranges...



What do you mean by "diminishing returns, when you get above 60FPS" if I may ask ?

In order of importance:

- input responsiveness: in FO3 particularly, at times it felt like I was playing on an overseas server with a 56k modem.

- mouse sensitivity: in Skyrim, vertical and horizontal sensitivity is still off, to this day. Thankfully I never had issues with mouse accel in BGS games, but you never know, they may still surprise me :/.

- no fricking forced autoaim for the love of Atom.

- no m...micro...cro st...stutter.

- framerate issues, as you mentioned. I can cope just fine with 60 fps offline, but 120 is a whole different dimension.

To be honest, not much. Simply that the difference between 60fps and 120fps is way more noticeable than 120fps to 240fps. And I'm not sure anyone could tell the difference between 240 and 480, although I'm not sure who has the tech to actually test that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=eXJh9ut2hrc#t=401

Well thank God the consoles made a step forward otherwise Beth would still be producing 32-bit games in 2020. ^^

Well I found this article which is a good read, it explains why 24 in cinema or 30 in TV work pretty good but not so much on computer screens.
http://amo.net/nt/02-21-01fps.html
Also a quote from the same article:
" The USAF, in testing their pilots for visual response time, used a simple test to see if the pilots could distinguish small changes in light. In their experiment a picture of an aircraft was flashed on a screen in a dark room at 1/220th of a second. Pilots were consistently able to "see" the afterimage as well as identify the aircraft. This simple and specific situation not only proves the ability to percieve 1 image within 1/220 of a second, but the ability to interpret higher FPS "

Plasma is clocked up to 500 Hz. OLED's are theoretically capable of MHz vertical refresh rates.

in simple terms, i believe the issue occurs because force gets applied every frame, and with fps upwards of 100, force simply just gets added faster than the object can move out of the collision zone.

there were mods to reduce physical impact force for skyrim. so if its a constant, 100% reproducable behavior, you could by trial and error to see which value feels right, if you run 120fps i think 0.5 * physical force would be a good start.

I just don't get how people seem to notice the difference between 60 and 120fps. I had a 120hz display for a few years and I didn't notice any difference, besides Skyrim's physics bug that is. Several times in different games I tried toggling 60-120 to see if I could see it but no. So when that display broke last month I bought a 60hz display to replace it. Night and day my ass...

You did set the refresh rate to 120 hz in windows, right?

An easy way to spot the difference is to focus on something detailed in the world, like text on a sign post, and move your mouse around fairly rapidly. You'll notice that at 120 fps the text will remain legible, whereas at 60 fps you may have to slow your movement down to be able to read it.

As long as I don't need the gigabyte mod lol...

Hopefully they fixed the microstutter problem...

He said it's running on an updated version of the Creation Engine, which is itself nothing more than an updated Gamebryo engine. Which is why Skyrim still has all of the engine bugs of all 4 previous games that uses Gamebryo. The daffy physics, poor lighting performance, bad shadows (which IMO aren't necessarily better than none at all), rain passing through obstructions, water plane clipping bugs, etc.

With what?

What 120Hz display did you have?

Yes I did

Samsung SA700D

I had a Samsung 2233rz, and it was like night and day. People would come over and even ask, "Why do your games look so smooth?" The inverter failed on it, and rather than resolder another one on, I later got a 1440p ASUS ROG Swift that I'm using now, but having to go back to 60 Hz was painful.

I don't even know what to say if you can't see the difference between 60 FPS and 120 FPS on a 120 Hz monitor. Maybe you need to go to an eye doctor?

Well i for one will be disappointed if the power armor rack won't go flying across the room when i pick up a pencil from a nearby shelf.