RD Series on Simracing.GP

Daily WTCR races on Simracing.GP Weekly GT3 Endurance races on Simracing.GP Weekly GT3 Sprint Races on Simracing.GP Weekly GT4 Sprint Races on Simracing.GP

Curious frame rate bug in Content Manager

I finally remembered to collect evidence of a curious frame rate bug that I sometimes get in Content Manager. I was driving the M6 GT3 round the Autosport Raceway, after installing the balloons, billboards and blimp and I thought my frame rate was a bit laggy. I went to the Assetto Corsa video settings in Content Manager to see what it said, and it said this:

HUbiYSC.jpg


Yeah, I wish, it would not have been as laggy if that actually had been the frame rate. I went for another run, which was actually smoother and the settings said this:

jXYH1j7.jpg


That is always my usual fps no matter what I'm doing, be it solo or racing.

I guess the question is where Content Manager is getting that false reading of 149.1 fps from? There's no way my rig could do that with the settings maxed as they are. There has to be a bug somewhere, but where!?

Curious.........
 
As I understand it, that's an average value since acs.exe is started and ended; it's not a good measure of behavior during gameplay. As an example, if you launch the benchmark and leave running after it finishes without pressing Esc for a while, the avg show in the CM pop up window will be higher because it accounts for how long that results screen with uncapped fps has run during the acs.exe session. The same might be happening to your regarding the time spent on the setup screen, etc where fps should be higher if uncapped.
 
That's true, but, both results are from driving the same car round the same track with the same settings. The only difference is the amount of fps recorded. 74.9 is the standard figure that I get nearly all the time, I don't get where it gets that higher figure from.
 
Humm, I see you're using a 75Hz monitor, but if your avg is usually around that exact 74.9fps and there's no vsync or limiter in the game settings, then this target fps limitation must be enforced elsewhere (so forget about my comment above that was assuming running uncapped). The way this limiting is enforced might just occasionally mess with the CM counter, as incidentally, the reported 149.1fps is almost exactly the double of that value.
 
Top