ILLWILL

ILLWILL

View Stats:
Exostenza 17 May, 2023 @ 10:10am
Why is 120 FPS max and not 240 or higher?
My monitor is 240hz and my PC can usually handle running games up in the 200s quite easily and I am sad to see this game has a max of 120 FPS which seems like a strange artificial limit.

Any reason for this?
< >
Showing 1-10 of 10 comments
iPie  [developer] 18 May, 2023 @ 6:36am 
In order for the game to have 60fps, one frame needs to be rendered for 18ms. Accordingly, for 120fps it will be 9ms, and for 240fps - 4.5ms. The frame render can be conditionally divided into two parts, the part that is processed on the GPU and the part that is processed on the CPU. Graphics are calculated on the GPU, and game logic is calculated on the CPU. And the final value of rendering one frame will depend on the maximum value of the render time on the GPU or CPU. For example, you have a top-end video card and graphics rendering takes 4ms, but the processor needs 9ms to calculate the logic, so one frame will be rendered for 9ms and you will get 120 fps.
Usually, the game logic in games is quite simple, and the vast majority of modern games rest on the video card. Accordingly, the better the video card, the higher the fps.
In ILLWILL the situation is a bit different. Because of the large number of enemies, and because of the large number of corpses and body parts that appear when they die. There is a heavy load on the processor. And even on the top processor that exists at the moment, in large battles the game will not be able to produce a stable 240fps.
Exostenza 18 May, 2023 @ 9:38am 
I appreciate the answer, although it makes me think, why not just give the user the ability to choose for themselves? Let's say I can do a good 180 fps; then I would prefer that over 120. And in the future, when PCs get better, people will be able to have the options to run the game at higher FPS. It seems the thought process about this is a bit flawed, as the whole point of PC gaming is to let the user's PC run a game to the best of its capabilities, and putting an artificial limit on it just smacks of a console game rather than a PC game. It seems this thinking has informed your graphics options as well, where the user has minimal control over the specific settings. I just think you need to think of this game as a PC game and not a console game and give the users the freedom to choose what they want, rather than just locking it all down because you're afraid some people will complain they can't run it as well as they would like, despite their lacking hardware.

I have only played the demo and then about 1.6 hours of the full game, and I can say that I am really liking it, and I think you have a lot of talent - don't let making strange console-like decisions of locking things down artificially hamper your games.

Think of The Witcher 2 when they put it out with insane settings that no modern computer at the time could handle. They did that because they knew in the future there would be PCs that could handle it, and people playing their game at that point would run those crazy settings, and that worked very well for them. This is PC, not console - give us the freedom to choose for ourselves.

Thanks for your hard work and obvious talent.

P.S. I think the art in this game is so cool and you deserve a lot of credit for creating such amazingly artful environments and atmosphere.
Twista 2 Jun, 2023 @ 2:09am 
Originally posted by Exostenza:
I appreciate the answer, although it makes me think, why not just give the user the ability to choose for themselves? Let's say I can do a good 180 fps; then I would prefer that over 120. And in the future, when PCs get better, people will be able to have the options to run the game at higher FPS. It seems the thought process about this is a bit flawed, as the whole point of PC gaming is to let the user's PC run a game to the best of its capabilities, and putting an artificial limit on it just smacks of a console game rather than a PC game. It seems this thinking has informed your graphics options as well, where the user has minimal control over the specific settings. I just think you need to think of this game as a PC game and not a console game and give the users the freedom to choose what they want, rather than just locking it all down because you're afraid some people will complain they can't run it as well as they would like, despite their lacking hardware.

I have only played the demo and then about 1.6 hours of the full game, and I can say that I am really liking it, and I think you have a lot of talent - don't let making strange console-like decisions of locking things down artificially hamper your games.

Think of The Witcher 2 when they put it out with insane settings that no modern computer at the time could handle. They did that because they knew in the future there would be PCs that could handle it, and people playing their game at that point would run those crazy settings, and that worked very well for them. This is PC, not console - give us the freedom to choose for ourselves.

Thanks for your hard work and obvious talent.

P.S. I think the art in this game is so cool and you deserve a lot of credit for creating such amazingly artful environments and atmosphere.


What a petty complaint. The human eye isn't even capable of noticing the difference.
Exostenza 7 Jun, 2023 @ 9:02am 
Originally posted by Twista:
Originally posted by Exostenza:
I appreciate the answer, although it makes me think, why not just give the user the ability to choose for themselves? Let's say I can do a good 180 fps; then I would prefer that over 120. And in the future, when PCs get better, people will be able to have the options to run the game at higher FPS. It seems the thought process about this is a bit flawed, as the whole point of PC gaming is to let the user's PC run a game to the best of its capabilities, and putting an artificial limit on it just smacks of a console game rather than a PC game. It seems this thinking has informed your graphics options as well, where the user has minimal control over the specific settings. I just think you need to think of this game as a PC game and not a console game and give the users the freedom to choose what they want, rather than just locking it all down because you're afraid some people will complain they can't run it as well as they would like, despite their lacking hardware.

I have only played the demo and then about 1.6 hours of the full game, and I can say that I am really liking it, and I think you have a lot of talent - don't let making strange console-like decisions of locking things down artificially hamper your games.

Think of The Witcher 2 when they put it out with insane settings that no modern computer at the time could handle. They did that because they knew in the future there would be PCs that could handle it, and people playing their game at that point would run those crazy settings, and that worked very well for them. This is PC, not console - give us the freedom to choose for ourselves.

Thanks for your hard work and obvious talent.

P.S. I think the art in this game is so cool and you deserve a lot of credit for creating such amazingly artful environments and atmosphere.


What a petty complaint. The human eye isn't even capable of noticing the difference.

I can't tell if this is trolling or just hilariously ignorant.

I am going to go with trolling.
Wylie28 6 Oct, 2023 @ 12:45am 
Originally posted by iPie:
In order for the game to have 60fps, one frame needs to be rendered for 18ms. Accordingly, for 120fps it will be 9ms, and for 240fps - 4.5ms. The frame render can be conditionally divided into two parts, the part that is processed on the GPU and the part that is processed on the CPU. Graphics are calculated on the GPU, and game logic is calculated on the CPU. And the final value of rendering one frame will depend on the maximum value of the render time on the GPU or CPU. For example, you have a top-end video card and graphics rendering takes 4ms, but the processor needs 9ms to calculate the logic, so one frame will be rendered for 9ms and you will get 120 fps.
Usually, the game logic in games is quite simple, and the vast majority of modern games rest on the video card. Accordingly, the better the video card, the higher the fps.
In ILLWILL the situation is a bit different. Because of the large number of enemies, and because of the large number of corpses and body parts that appear when they die. There is a heavy load on the processor. And even on the top processor that exists at the moment, in large battles the game will not be able to produce a stable 240fps.
so then optimize your game better by removing the bottleneck. Why do you need so many enemies the game can't run at 240fps. If you have THAT many. They aren't contributing to gameplay.
iPie  [developer] 7 Oct, 2023 @ 4:10am 
Originally posted by Wylie28:
Originally posted by iPie:
In order for the game to have 60fps, one frame needs to be rendered for 18ms. Accordingly, for 120fps it will be 9ms, and for 240fps - 4.5ms. The frame render can be conditionally divided into two parts, the part that is processed on the GPU and the part that is processed on the CPU. Graphics are calculated on the GPU, and game logic is calculated on the CPU. And the final value of rendering one frame will depend on the maximum value of the render time on the GPU or CPU. For example, you have a top-end video card and graphics rendering takes 4ms, but the processor needs 9ms to calculate the logic, so one frame will be rendered for 9ms and you will get 120 fps.
Usually, the game logic in games is quite simple, and the vast majority of modern games rest on the video card. Accordingly, the better the video card, the higher the fps.
In ILLWILL the situation is a bit different. Because of the large number of enemies, and because of the large number of corpses and body parts that appear when they die. There is a heavy load on the processor. And even on the top processor that exists at the moment, in large battles the game will not be able to produce a stable 240fps.
so then optimize your game better by removing the bottleneck. Why do you need so many enemies the game can't run at 240fps. If you have THAT many. They aren't contributing to gameplay.

Play Forgive Me Father 2 demo, there are fewer enemies and perhaps your computer will have the desired 240fps)
Exostenza 7 Oct, 2023 @ 9:36am 
Originally posted by Wylie28:
so then optimize your game better by removing the bottleneck. Why do you need so many enemies the game can't run at 240fps. If you have THAT many. They aren't contributing to gameplay. [/quote]

Don't complain that your PC can't get 240 fps on hoard games. These games are defined by having tons of enemies and, yes, it does add to the game play. Now, artificially putting a cap on frame rates is what makes no sense what so ever. PC games should let people run them as fast as their PC can go. Just because you don't have a PC that can handle it doesn't mean the dev should change how they made their game to cater to your PC. Even if the best CPU can't drive it at 240 doesn't mean future generations won't so there is no reason to hold back future hardware for no reason.

Your complaint is just ridiculous.
⦅⦿⦆ Haste 21 Feb, 2024 @ 2:37am 
I can't find any ini file to remove the 120fps cap.
Anyone found a way?
I'm trying the demo but if there is no way to increase or remove the cap, I'm not gonna buy this.
⦅⦿⦆ Haste 21 Feb, 2024 @ 3:03am 
btw I can see that the demo is pretty cpu limited. but I hope you can optimize this in the future. or like Exostenza said, this could be bruteforced with future hardware.
Tiny Trees 1 Jun, 2024 @ 2:49pm 
Playing at my frame rate cap of 140fps. .......... Playing the purchased game.

Have a 144Hz monitor.

Set the in-game settings for frame rate cap, to above my monitor refresh rate.
Last edited by Tiny Trees; 1 Jun, 2024 @ 2:50pm
< >
Showing 1-10 of 10 comments
Per page: 1530 50