42" OLED MASTER THREAD

Murzilka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
1,108
Personally, I will not be going back to the 55" pc gaming, no way. I was too happy disassembling the 2x1.2 meters table dedicated to the 55 incher.
 

Zorachus

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
10,712
I know this is a 42" OLED thread, but I just purchased the Samsung S95B 55" QD-OLED and my god, god tier gaming display if you have the room. Brightness and colors absolutely destroy LG OLEDs, and 144 Hz 4K too.

Good luck with that model, I've read a ton of issues with those new Samsung TV's.
 

Vega

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
7,059
Sounds exaggerated

~1,500 nits (on older firmware) on the Samsung vs ~700-800 nits on the LG, with ~99% DCI-P3 color volume on the Samsung, vs 72% DCI-P3 color volume on the LG's is an absolute massive difference. I know, I've had like six LG OLEDs. WRGB oled is like bargain bin tech compared to QD-OLED and Samsung has leapfrogged LG hordcore.

Personally, I will not be going back to the 55" pc gaming, no way. I was too happy disassembling the 2x1.2 meters table dedicated to the 55 incher.

I thought the same thing until I switched back. I thought for sure going back to a 55" I'd have it packed up within a day. Just the immersion you get in the game world is insane versus smaller screen. My G8 feels like a toy now lol. And going from 120 Hz on OLED to 144 Hz is a larger difference in motion clarity than one would think. 144 Hz on this S95B has around the same motion clarity as my G8 at 200-220 Hz.

Good luck with that model, I've read a ton of issues with those new Samsung TV's.

It took a little fenagling but she's a beaut. You also must keep the older firmware and not upgrade, but it's fine by me as everything works bright and smooth and I only use it for PC.
 

Zorachus

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
10,712
~1,500 nits (on older firmware) on the Samsung vs ~700-800 nits on the LG, with ~99% DCI-P3 color volume on the Samsung, vs 72% DCI-P3 color volume on the LG's is an absolute massive difference. I know, I've had like six LG OLEDs. WRGB oled is like bargain bin tech compared to QD-OLED and Samsung has leapfrogged LG hordcore.



I thought the same thing until I switched back. I thought for sure going back to a 55" I'd have it packed up within a day. Just the immersion you get in the game world is insane versus smaller screen. My G8 feels like a toy now lol. And going from 120 Hz on OLED to 144 Hz is a larger difference in motion clarity than one would think. 144 Hz on this S95B has around the same motion clarity as my G8 at 200-220 Hz.



It took a little fenagling but she's a beaut. You also must keep the older firmware and not upgrade, but it's fine by me as everything works bright and smooth and I only use it for PC.

Do they make a smaller size in that model?
 

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,667
I'd love a curved 4k at 48inch or 8k at 55inch

MBPT56W_d.png


But I could make a flat 55 inch 4k work distance wise untethered from the desk.

I'll have to add a 55 inch to this image later but you could extrapolate. 4 foot viewing distance +/- if you want to get 70PPD to 77PPD and 50-55deg viewing angle is a pretty big command/media center spread for most people though.

~64 PPD at 3.5' would work but I'd rather be at 70+. Could depend on if I was running uw rez on it and what kind of game. I could adjust on the fly as my desk is on caster wheels and my screens aren't and won't be coupled to my desk.


55" 4k at 52inch view ~> 50deg angle 77 PPD

55" 4k at 46inch view ~> 55deg angle 70 PPD

55" 4k at 42inch view ~> 60deg angle 64 PPD


tJWvzHy_d.png
 

RanceJustice

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Messages
6,348
Anyone have an up to date tutorial for setting up the LG OLED 42" C2 Evo for monitor use? Mine got here a few days ago and I just was able to get it out and swap it with my 48" CX. I've not gone through any real settings/updating stuff for monitor use but it seems there are some small but noteworthy differences between the two, or maybe I've just not found the proper settings - just on the C2 itself - yet...

First, as far as OLED 'health' functions, I was fine leaving my 48" CX on with its "if you're not doing anything, dim the screen" option in the hopes of preserving the long term use of the display. However the C2 doesn't seem to have that exactly, there's an option for something akin to "screen shifting" which talks about shifting things a few pixels around or whatever and thhen another "logo dimming" option which doesn't seem to be the case. Are either of these fine to leave on as a monitor? I figure the first could mean things like making things seem out of frame/too over or underscanned because of the pixel shifting and the dimming for logos (which can be set to low, high, or off) I wonder if it would have effects on things like taskbars Is there a whole screen dim option or any other LED preservation stuff that can be left on?

Next, as far as the "game optimizer" mode is concerned it seems there's a "picture selection" mode called "game optimizer" and then there's the ability to actually TURN ON the game optimizer thing which has other features? By default when being hooked up via HDMI with my PC it set me as "game optimizer" but didn't turn on the "game optimizer mode" graphics features. Any of this stuff important? Seems a tad confusing but I'm wondering if the baseline "game optimizer" is jus what it sets when it realizes its getting a connection to a PC-like VRR/active sync source? Not sure.

On the old CX it used to have a very quick "the display is off, but it shows dynamic build in screen saver artwork" mode. The C2 seems to have something similar but it talks about enabling that mode means that is what happens when you push the power button on the remote instead of it going dark? With the CX it used to be something akin to Display idles just on desktop > PC screen saver comes on relatively quickly as I set it to do so > PC display turns off/goes to sleep, the LG TV artwork screensaver thing goes on > eventually the whole display goes dark/off- and pressing the power button on the remote instantly just turns off the display entirely, to blackness. I haven't yet enabled that screensaver LG mode yet but it at least seems a bit different? Can you have it work where you still push the power button to have it to go black immediately but, if left to idle it goes through the process above?

Any other info on things like the "AI" features and whatnot (not sure if they're useful at all using it as a monitor, but maybe if I connect it to a TV/media source or game console etc..) or just general "monitor focused" setup stuff for best quality, longevity and features would be helpful. I see some videos and whatnot but a lot either aren't focused to using it as a monitor and/or are outdated or for older models.
 

SoCali

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 29, 2020
Messages
1,143
C2 is $799 from LG direct right now so Amazon should be price matching soon + 10% back from Prime CC.

$720 for a C2 vs $1399 PG42UQ. Double the price for DP + 100nits higher peak brightness.

EDIT: Amazon price matched $796 now.
 
Last edited:

JSumrall

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
448
C2 is $799 from LG direct right now so Amazon should be price matching soon + 10% back from Prime CC.

$720 for a C2 vs $1399 PG42UQ. Double the price for DP + 100nits higher peak brightness.

EDIT: Amazon price matched $796 now.
Yep, so is Best Buy and Newegg. Newegg also includes a free 4 year extended warranty. Not that I really feel that confident about the extended warranty coverage, but hey, free is free! lol

I pulled the trigger. I couldn't resist any longer at that price point.
 

SoCali

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 29, 2020
Messages
1,143
Yep, so is Best Buy and Newegg. Newegg also includes a free 4 year extended warranty. Not that I really feel that confident about the extended warranty coverage, but hey, free is free! lol

I pulled the trigger. I couldn't resist any longer at that price point.
Buydig also has a 4 year CPS warranty included that says it covers burn in.

At this price its IMO a throw away so I wouldn't even care if it develops burn in a year from now. We are really close to CES where the C3 will be announced though.
 

JSumrall

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
448
Buydig also has a 4 year CPS warranty included that says it covers burn in.

At this price its IMO a throw away so I wouldn't even care if it develops burn in a year from now. We are really close to CES where the C3 will be announced though.
Yeah, I pretty much agree. I was hoping the Corsair 45 would be released at 4k, but maybe next year. I'll definitely enjoy this even after I've stopped using it as a monitor. :)
 

jbltecnicspro

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
8,228
It took a little fenagling but she's a beaut. You also must keep the older firmware and not upgrade, but it's fine by me as everything works bright and smooth and I only use it for PC.
Is it as simple as disabling WiFi and calling it a day?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vega
like this

whateverer

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 2, 2016
Messages
1,810
i told you folks that, given the fact that clearance cx48 panels hit 800, it was only a matter of waiting a year+ to get this down to 600-700

wait 3-6 more months, and you're there!
 

Zorachus

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
10,712
Does 16:9 aspect ratio @ 4k resolution give you more viewing in games compared to 3440 x 1400 21:9?

Like in World of Warcraft if playing at 3820 4k res are you seeing more of the game world, as opposed to 3440 Ultrawide resolution?
 

JSumrall

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
448
Does 16:9 aspect ratio @ 4k resolution give you more viewing in games compared to 3440 x 1400 21:9?

Like in World of Warcraft if playing at 3820 4k res are you seeing more of the game world, as opposed to 3440 Ultrawide resolution?
No.
 

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,667
Does 16:9 aspect ratio @ 4k resolution give you more viewing in games compared to 3440 x 1400 21:9?

Like in World of Warcraft if playing at 3820 4k res are you seeing more of the game world, as opposed to 3440 Ultrawide resolution?

No but you can run a 21:10 resolution (3840x1600) when desired on a 42", 48", 55" etc. 16:9 OLED and get a physically taller ultrawide out of it (compared to most ultrawides) for those game sessions. The black bars are the emitters turned off so are "infinite" black and there is no glowing edges into them either.

Gaming in full 4k 16:9 will have more pixel density and detail in the confines of it's frame even if not the wide aspect ratio. The same 16:9 section and screen elements of the 3440x1440 screen would be based on 2560x1440 instead of 3840x2160. So while you added +440px to each side in a game world's virtual camera, you'd still be viewing the ppi (and PPD depending on distance factor) as a 2560x1440 screen.

. . . .

With larger 4k OLEDs at a good view distance , 50 to 60 deg viewing angle, you can run 4k full 1:1 , or 3840x1600 1:1 whenever you feel like it. You just can't run a good 32:9 or 32:10 on a 4k imo because they'd only be 1080px or 1200px tall. At least until we get 8k gaming screens someyear.
 

Zorachus

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
10,712
Thanks for the detailed explanation. I'm still confused about 2160 height vs. 1440 height but your saying in games I'm not seeing more game world in that height difference? It's the same?

3840 x 2160 is 4k, and 3440 x 1440 is Ultrawide resolution. I just thought the 4k height of 2160 is giving you almost 50% more vertical height over 1440 height? Meaning you'd see a lot more of the vertical height in the game @ 4k?
 

GoldenTiger

Fully [H]
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
26,514
Thanks for the detailed explanation. I'm still confused about 2160 height vs. 1440 height but your saying in games I'm not seeing more game world in that height difference? It's the same?

3840 x 2160 is 4k, and 3440 x 1440 is Ultrawide resolution. I just thought the 4k height of 2160 is giving you almost 50% more vertical height over 1440 height? Meaning you'd see a lot more of the vertical height in the game @ 4k?
It's the aspect ratio that matters to your camera's field of view, not raw pixels. A 21:9 screen will have the same vertical view as a 16:9 one, but more horizontal information to the sides. :)
 

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,667
yes that's how it works with lenses.

With traditional film cameras the resolution grid iimits weren't the same kind of issue so it was more about the physics of the lens.

PC games typically use vertically biased (HOR+) systems with their virtual cameras/layouts because they are trying to emulate a real camera more or less.

However, barring resolution limitations, it would just become a game of leap frog aspect within aspect within aspect ratio if you could zoom your FoV manually in the games to extreme amounts. That's not the case as it stands though.

With the resolutions that are available now, you are always going to have less pixel density, less pixels comprising each on screen object and landscape, architecture, etc than you would on a 4k 16:9 scene. Like I said , based on 2560x1440 rather than 3840x2160 when both framed at the same virtual view distance with the virtual camera. So there is a tradeoff.

==============================================

Thanks but a lot of games use HOR+. HoR+ could technically be considered an application limitation if you want to think of it that way but it's a limitation they do on purpose. What they are doing is emulating a real world lens in cgi suites and game engines, aka virtual cinematography. A wider lens will always show more of the scene/world at the same camera distance since HOR+ is based on height of the frame. Zooming your FoV frame camera distance out in game with a FoV slider in a 16:9 or even a 4:3 screen is not the same thing (in a HOR+ game). It becomes a game of leap frog at nearer comparisons (16:9 frame < inside 21:9 frame < inside of 16:9 frame < inside of 21:9 frame, larger and larger FoVs) but at the same virtual distance/FoV frame point the wider aspect will always show a a wider game world where the height is based on HOR+ (virtual lenses). An ultrawide adds a considerable amount to the sides. Zooming or warping your FoV that far out in 16:9 or 4:3 would no be reasonable. The only way to get the same view with HoR+ without zooming your camera out an extreme amount is if you use letterboxing or some kind of warped fish-eyed lens perhaps.

View attachment 259744 View attachment 259745

------------------------

The point was actually that you could save a bit of taxation on your gpu by running an ultrawide rez instead of running 4k native, but I also said it would have more game world shown, yes, for the above reasons. Hopefully I'll be able to run 3840x1600 letterboxed 1:1 on some games off of a 3080 or "3090" ti eventually with HDR, VRR, 444, 10bit 120hz. I think it would be fun to experiment with on racing games and at a slightly nearer distance than I'd normally be playing games from on a 48" or 55" OLED.

. .

. .

These images show the same scenes in different aspect ratios. They don't show that even when the aspect ratio is larger, the resolution per object within the scene may be lower (or higher in a multi-screen array perhaps). You can probably infer that from some of them.

For example, the bottom-most 3 screen across one could be three 1080p screens. Compare that to a single 4k 16:9 and the middle screen would be much lower rez at 1080p for that same area of the scene.

385363_HOR-plus_scenes-compared_1-sm.jpg


. . .

385364_eyefinity_config-aspects-visualized_sm.jpg
 
Last edited:

Zorachus

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
10,712
Thanks everybody for the recent replies much appreciated.

I'm still a little confused though LOL. Take Windows for example, your desktop and 4K vs. desktop and 3440 UW, in 4k you do get to put more app icons, vertically and in a web pages you do see more of the website on the top and bottom, then you do in 3440 UW. And in 4K you could just have multiple web pages. Open more of them and taller than you can in 3440. My point in 4K desktop youth you are seeing more than you would and the ultra wide resolution.

My question why doesn't that translate to games? I just always thought in 4K you got more vertical height to see in the game world than you do an ultrawide.
 

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,667
It's because in most games and cgi authoring suites, they use virtual cameras that are attempting to emulate how real cameras work. So they are height or vertically justified. Just like when using a real world optical lens that is wider, filming a scene from the same tripod camera, would make the scene wider at the same view distance.

There are a few games/game engines that don't use HOR+ but most use it. Also when playing say a 2-D like battle map, zooming out could give you a lot more vertical viewable more like what you are suggesting (at at more pixels per object like I've been saying) since that kind of game can be so zoom-able.

4k lets you see more vertical on the windows desktop but a very long ultradewide like a 32:9 would still have a lot of horizontal real-esate, though at only 1440px tall. With a 32:9 1440 you are essentially adding a 1280 wide x 1440p tall panel to each side. 1,834,200 pixels more. (5120 - 2560w standard 2560x1440 screen = 2560 / 2 = 1280px more width on each side).

Still that's:
7,372,800 pixels total for 1440 based 32:9
vs.
8,284,400 pixels total for 4k

(4,816,000 pixels total for 3440x1440)

Personally I'm looking forward to when or at least hopeful that someday we get 8k screens at high hz with upscaling tech. Then I could run a 32:10 uw rez on the 8k at 2400 px tall (most likely after upscaling 3840x1200 at higher fps). I'd much rather have the option to run uw resolutions within a wall of screen real-estate and still have that wall of real-estate otherwise than limit myself to a narrow band/belt ultrawide monitor physically.
 
Last edited:

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,667
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games

. . .


Hor+ (horizontal plus) is the most common scaling method for the majority of modern video games. In games with Hor+ scaling, the vertical FOV is fixed, while the horizontal FOV is expandable depending on the aspect ratio of the rendering resolution; a wider aspect ratio results in a larger FOV.[7][8] Since the majority of screens used for gaming nowadays are widescreen,[9] this scaling method is usually preferred as wider aspect ratios do not suffer from reduced FOV with it. This becomes especially important in more "exotic" setups like ultra-wide monitor or triple-monitor gaming.


Static (previously anamorphic) refers to when both the vertical and horizontal components of the FOV are fixed, typically to values comfortable on a widescreen picture, and when the resolution changes the picture is either letterboxed or pillarboxed to maintain the field of view and aspect ratio. Modern games using static scaling typically have a 16:9 aspect ratio.[10]


Pixel-based scaling is almost exclusively used in games with two-dimensional graphics. With pixel-based scaling, the amount of content displayed on screen is directly tied to the rendering resolution. A larger horizontal resolution directly increases the horizontal field of view, and a larger vertical resolution increases the vertical field of view.[11]


Vert- (vertical minus) is a scaling method used by some games that support a wide variety of resolutions. In Vert- games, as the aspect ratio widens, the vertical component of the field of view is reduced to compensate. This avoids distortion of objects in the game world but results in a smaller field of view on widescreen resolutions, and may become especially problematic with extremely wide resolutions, such as those common on multiple-display setups.[citation needed][12]


Stretch refers to a behaviour where the FOV is not adjusted at all, and the image is simply stretched to fill the screen. This method causes significant distortion if used on an aspect ratio different from the one the FOV was originally calibrated for, and is mostly found in games made when most displays had a 4:3 aspect ratio.[13]


. . . . . .

HOR+ "this scaling method is usually preferred as wider aspect ratios do not suffer from reduced FOV with it. This becomes especially important in more "exotic" setups like ultra-wide monitor or triple-monitor gaming." Personally I figure that cameras used lenses that adjusted width rather than height because we are terrestrial beings who are moving in an x,y axis most of the time, that is, on the ground, and most things are happening on the ground plane rather than the sky or the ceiling. I don't think that flipping a widescreen lens camera on it's side is going to give you a lot of gains in filming most things. That also makes sense in most virtual camera based video games. <Insert snarky apple phone vertical video comment here>. In video games, as listed above, HOR+ doesn't have to be the case but it makes the most sense when emulating real-world cameras with virtual ones (among a lot of other virtual optics/physics used in virtual cameras and virtual lighting , etc).
 

Zorachus

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
10,712

elvn you rock :)


So bottom line in gaming, playing on a AW3423DW or LG C2 42, the game world height, the vertical height I see in the game world is no different between the two monitors?
 

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,667
Correct. You'd basically be adding wings to the sides on the ultrawide but at a much lower # of pixels on screen per object or scene element.

You are basically dialing your pixel density / detail level down and adding wings to the sides.


Comparing 4k to 3440x1440:

[empty] [ 3840x2160 ] [empty]

vs.

[+440px] [ 2560x1440] [+440px]


. . .

Comparing 4k to 32:9 at 5120x1440:

[empty] [ 3840x2160 ] [empty]

vs.

[+1280px] [ 2560x1440] [+1280px]


. . . . .

Also, don't forget that you can run a 16:9 or 16:10 uw resolution on a large 4k screen when desired and still get 3840x1600 resolution for example, gaining the extra in game real-estate. 4k just isn't as great for 32:9 or 32:10 since it only ends up with 1080px or 1200px tall. Someday 8k will change that though.

. . . .

Correction on the other previous reply. The G9 Neo is 5120px wide x 1440 tall so it's adding + 1280px to each side. The pixel total was correct at 7,372,800 though.
 
Last edited:

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
20,223
re: gameworld width with widescreen in simpler terms :) ...

If you are to display a 16:9 image on a 32:9 display without stretching the image to fit, it will have black borders at the edges and a 16:9 image in the centre.
As long as the game supports widescreen output, when going to 32:9 (or any other widescreen), the image has extra gameworld added on to the sides where previously it was black.
You see more of the game world on a widescreen display.

You can emulate this on a 16:9 display by lowering the vertical resolution and letting the GPU perform the scaling (so its not stretched back to full screen).
 
Last edited:

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,667
re: gameworld width with widescreen in simpler terms :) ...

If you are to display a 16:9 image on a 32:9 display without stretching the image to fit, it will have black borders at the edges and a 16:9 image in the centre.
As long as the game supports widescreen output, when going to 32:9 (or any other widescreen), the image has extra gameworld added on to the sides where previously it was black.
You see more of the game world on a widescreen display.

You can emulate this on a 16:9 display by lowering the vertical resolution and letting the GPU perform the scaling (so its not stretched back to full screen).


Simpler, and true in pure aspect ratio terms, but you omitted a factor overall.

Due to the resolution limitations of uw screens, you will be lowering the detail level of all objects in the scene when using an uw.

Unless they made 2160 tall ultrawide, you are going to drop the pixel density and detail level per object and on screen element considerably, even if gaining real-estate wings/panels on the sides.

Its like if you used a 4k 16:9 and it's high detail/high pixel density per object, or you used two 2560x1440 screens with invisible middle bezels. (2560x2 = 5120 uw at 1440px tall)

. . . . .

Comparing 4k to 3440x1440:


[empty] [ 3840x2160 ] [empty]
vs.
[+440px] [ 2560x1440] [+440px]

. . .

Comparing 4k to 32:9 at 5120x1440:

[empty] [ 3840x2160 ] [empty]
vs.
[+1280px] [ 2560x1440] [+1280px]

. . . ..

With a large 4k (and eventually 8k hopefully) gaming screen, you can get uw resolutions yet still get 4k resolutions (and desktop/app usage, and full screen media) where prefered.
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
20,223
Simpler, and true in pure aspect ratio terms, but you omitted a factor overall.

Due to the resolution limitations of uw screens, you will be lowering the detail level of all objects in the scene when using an uw.
Absolutely. I assumed it was a given but there is need to point it out :)
 

Skott

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
4,230
Just picked up the LG 42 C2 Evo 4k TV today at BB for $800. Got a 4080 coming in a couple of days. Finally making that leap from 1080p gaming to 4k gaming. Tried like heck to score a 7900xtx but no luck. Said screw it and not looking back. Finally joining the 4k gaming community.
 

Xar

n00b
Joined
Dec 15, 2022
Messages
26
I know this is a 42" OLED thread, but I just purchased the Samsung S95B 55" QD-OLED and my god, god tier gaming display if you have the room. Brightness and colors absolutely destroy LG OLEDs, and 144 Hz 4K too.
I never thought Vincent Teoh and RTings would have both S95B and A95K above G2 and C2. Was kinda surprised by that. Is A95K’s VRR as good as S95B’s now in the latest firmware?
 

Dahkoht

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
453
A riddle for you TV as a monitor experts.

Just got the C2 42 , couldn't resists after going down to 799 and while still doing minor tweaks (waiting on the service remote ) , I have watched couple PC setting videos and got the ECO stuff off , and have full chroma at 120 coming from my 3080ti without issue. Dabbled in few games , World of Warships/Tanks , Valheim , MTG Arena etc and love the way it looks , just will have to either get used to full 4k again or decide to do the custom res ultrawide 3840x1600 as that's what was gaming on.

Here's the really weird quirk have found with one game. Crown of Solasta , a modern almost Baldur's Gate type game.

In full screen mode it forces the TV into a 24hz mode , locked at 24 FPS. Geforce shows it's still in the 100+fps as far as it's concerned , but this isn't a case of the Game Optimizer/TV fps being incorrect , it's definitely 24 fps/hz and hitting the green button to bring up the output shows 24hz , bringing up setting button brings up side settings menu without the game optimizer type screen that normally comes up in everything else. And the mouse stutter alone before even playing the game lets you know it's under 30fps for sure.

As typing this I did find one fix finally was fullscreen window mode and bam , back to normal 120hz , 100+ fps etc. Which I can deal with for this game , but am curious what could it be about this game that forces it to not just less that 120 or 60 hz , but locks it in at 24hz , turns off all the game optimizer functions , but only in full screen. Windowed mode apparently is ok with it.

Just struck me as odd because have done the PC Setting change on input , followed guides and gotten my windows desktop , multiple other games listed running at full screen 120hz full color without issue , but something about this game in full screen forces the output to be 24hz.
 
Top