Originally posted by Captain Canard:

But when I bump the monitor to 144 Hz and lock at 72 fps, it feels smoother, despite the internal 60 fps limit.

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, it sound like you found a fix.
- If your concerned about wasting electricity due to running game at higher FPS than 60, why not just get monitor with 60hz refresh rate?

Personally never had anything like this using Bazzite, a Radeon RX 6800 XT and an ACER 180MHz 1440p monitor.
FPS seems to be pretty accurate using the internal (shift+F11) monitoring from what I can tell.
The only issue I've had is the weird audio popping that appears to only occur when playing SE.

But it is funny that you mention something "weird" going on. Dude, that's just Space Engineers in general, whether you're using Windows or Linux. lol

this is a really hard issue to diagnose, especially without total setup info. As you state it is a perception issue so if the FPS tools are saying 60fps its safe to assume its going at 60fps. Is it possible you have some system or monitor level tool/feature running on windows or your monitor that does not work on linux that is obfuscating the problem? I know a while back there where some monitors that used post processing tools for aimbot or some junk that caused a controversy in competitive shooter games.

I don't know if this helps in anyway, but you mentioned Vsync which to my knowledge is Nvidia. Nvidia and Linux are not the best to pair together. Again, I don't know if that is the problem but it might be something to look into.

Originally posted by Fives5555:

I don't know if this helps in anyway, but you mentioned Vsync which to my knowledge is Nvidia. Nvidia and Linux are not the best to pair together. Again, I don't know if that is the problem but it might be something to look into.

I'm on AMD, and I use Vsync with all my games. It isn't an Nvidia thing, it's a standard.

Even if the game only outputs 60 fps, if your gpu and monitor run at a higher rate, the game may "feel" more responsive - especially if you're used to running at a higher rate.

I'm not sure that the game is still locked at 60 fps. If it isn't, and you're running your gpu at 72 fps, and the monitor at 144 hertz, you're getting 12 more 'unique' frames per second, and they're all being displayed twice per second. So yeah, that would definitely seem smoother.

ProtonDB is a treasure trove for tinkering tips.
https://www.protondb.com/app/244850

Originally posted by pepsigamer02:

this is a really hard issue to diagnose,

I'm looking more for "I know exactly what you're talking about because I experienced it too until I did XYZ". It seems nobody is in that camp, however.

As for 72 fps feeling smoother than 60 fps, normally this would be a no-brainer, but people insist that SE is internally locked to 60 fps, so it makes no sense to me.. I also don't know why 60 feels like 30.. Maybe 72 is actually 48, but that's high enough so I don't notice it? (I'm not as sensitive as some of you are to < 200 fps.)

Someday maybe I'll record a video and look at it frame by frame and see what the REAL framerate is.

ok I sat down and did some research. SE is not capped in its frame-rate in any practical way, so to solve the problem would be to just enable Vsinc and set you max FPS to just below your monitors refresh rate (or the desired refresh rate). the "internally locked FPS" is someone (or a lot of people) conflating UPS with FPS. UPS is Updates Per Second and refers to the games physics simulation not anything to do with the display. FPS is not caped and I just started up the game and ran it at 120fps measured via several tools

Originally posted by pepsigamer02:

ok I sat down and did some research. SE is not capped in its frame-rate in any practical way,

There's a pretty big thread on SE 2 debating just this. You should pop in there and set them straight. I'm being serious, not snarky. If you are correct, then this disinformation needs to be put to a stop.

so to solve the problem would be to just enable Vsinc and set you max FPS to just below your monitors refresh rate (or the desired refresh rate).

The reason I choose 72 fps on my 144 Hz monitor is that it's pretty rare that I hit 144 fps, and in places that I do, it's just making my laptop uncomfortable hot for little gain (because I'm on a loading screen or just looking into empty space). My eyes (and my lap) are very happy with 72 fps, which is a 1/2 vysnc lock and also rock-solid.

I still feel like 60 fps on 60 Hz "feels" like 30 fps in SE (Linux-only), but if the 60 fps internal cap is fiction, then I'd much rather run at 72 fps. The latter definitely feels smoother, which shouldn't be the case if the game was internally capped at 60 (especially since 60 = 48 when vysnced to 144 Hz).

Honestly I would just be happy if the game would just not randomly crash in proton or have weird audio problems...I could live with a slight FPS drop

Most frames are fake frames above 30-60 which is half the whole debate about Frame rates is about XD
So from what i've seen it could be the monitor or card's or even something in linux itself using some enhancement software, when you cap it at 60 its still enhancing the 60 frames so the games doing 60 but the monitors trying to bump it up with clones between frames...

Just bump the monitor up to 144 Hz and lock at 72 fps like you said above :)
This new software in everything now will do the rest :)

...Or partition you hard drive and install windows on it then play on that, linux users got to remember there is software in monitors YOU need to account for now...
Windows does it all for you XD

The world's most proficient "SE in Linux" guy has yet to answer, so he must be off playing SE 2 these days. While most people guess (me included), he usually knows.

Originally posted by engus:

Most frames are fake frames above 30-60 which is half the whole debate about Frame rates is about XD

LuL
Please tell me next how the human eye can not determine over 60hz.

Originally posted by Captain Canard:

I still feel like 60 fps on 60 Hz "feels" like 30 fps in SE (Linux-only), but if the 60 fps internal cap is fiction, then I'd much rather run at 72 fps. The latter definitely feels smoother, which shouldn't be the case if the game was internally capped at 60 (especially since 60 = 48 when vysnced to 144 Hz).

From what little I've read about it, human visual perception is much more complicated than we realize, and a lot happens after the photons hit our retinas, so simply talking about framerate can be misleading.

At a guess, I'd say one of the things going on is that our visual system adapts readily to a consistent framerate, but has more trouble with an inconsistent framerate. Like, I've played older games with fixed framerates of 30 FPS and read it as smooth animation, I think because it was consistently 30 FPS. I've played games, like SE, where it jumps from 40 to 120, and I see it as janky.

Originally posted by Grat Dalton:

Originally posted by engus:

Most frames are fake frames above 30-60 which is half the whole debate about Frame rates is about XD

LuL
Please tell me next how the human eye can not determine over 60hz.

Yeah, when I used to work in an office for a software company back in the '90's, I got used to looking at high end CRT monitors. I literally HAD to turn off my office lights(florescent), because the 60 Hhz flicker would give me a nasty headache.

Very old studies showed that "most" people could only determine 30-33 frames per second - this is why they could drop a "buy popcorn" frame in once per second, and your brain would detect it, but most people wouldn't consciously detect it. Hence subliminal messaging... But those days are long gone, and your brain and eyes do indeed adjust to higher frame rates.

But I'm not saying your brain is seeing each individual frame when you're viewing a stream of 60 FPS, just that you can "see" the difference between 60 and 30 FPS.

But I really wonder what

Originally posted by Grat Dalton:

means when he said "Most frames are fake frames above 30-60". Because, simply put, if a game can output 60 unique frames per second, then 100% of the frames over 30 per second are not "fake". But again, I'm not sure what he means by fake. Does he mean not unique, aka duplicates? So if a game can only produce 30 FPS, and the GPU and the monitor are running at 60 FPS, does he consider half the frames to be fake? Or would he accept that all that's happening is each frame is being shown twice per second, because that's really what's happening. The terms we use matter.