Forums  /  Resident Evil series  /  Resident Evil 3 (2020)  /  Framerate Cap for RE3R Discussion (Locked)

Here we are again with another Resident Evil title and a framerate related issue. Prior to release, we decided to wait until April 19th to begin submissions so that we could get a handle on things in terms of the actual game. One of the things we had assumed might be an issue, because of how it’s worked in the past, was framerate. In order to keep things fair, we are looking to cap the framerate to 120fps for RE3R submissions, which would require a FPS counter to be on your videos in similarity to RE2R’s requirement.

What is the issue? With RE3R the framerate issue is not with the knife, as it was in RE2R. With RE3R, the framerate becomes an issue because of an IGT problem during cutscenes. It appears that there are a fixed number of key frames during cutscenes as a new area loads and higher FPS processes those key frames faster resulting in less time loss. The following image/table has a breakdown of estimates based on data that we have collected. As a control, these were looked at from the same hardware with the game installed on an SSD. The only changes made between samples were to cap the framerates to 30, 60, and 120, and to reduce graphics as much as possible while uncapped to get a sample at 240+ FPS.
Just as a reminder, those times are estimates based on the data we currently have collected.

Why cap it at 120fps? 120fps is a compromise by creating a framerate ceiling due to this unfortunate and uncontrollable circumstance that is an easily achievable standard for PC rather than allowing it to be uncapped which would effectively create a pay-to-win run. This mitigates the need for everyone to have a top tier PC to be competitive. With that in mind, there is no plan to create additional sets of categories for a lower framerate.

We are aware that this cap could ruffle some feathers, so please try to keep responses civil whether you agree or disagree with any of this.

Blucker12Blucker12, vinevvinev and 20 others like this. 

Its a bummer that it has to be capped, but this isn't on the mods, but rather the developers that I'm disappointed with. I do agree with the choice though, I would rather this not be pay to win, and I don't personally see a need for more categories for more frame rates. Too many people use their system as a crutch for why they can't get a top time, and this mitigates that, overall. Good work, team.

SquirreliesSquirrelies and zerolaggamingzerolaggaming like this. 

Due to the nature of things being sped up by FPS I think capping FPS is a great idea to keep it fair. As a console player I'm not affected by this, but I still think it's important nonetheless.


How is 120fps not a pay to win... I upgraded my PC... So I could run at 300fps... but before that $2k upgrade I was at 60fps.... So.. yea.. Not really fair to cap it only at 120fps... Should be a 60fps too..

13irth13irth, CureCure and NuZNuZ like this. 

Here's a thread created on the RE2R boards, where a similar cap is placed.


Just to note, another popular option is Rivatuner which is not mentioned in the OP.

zglzgl likes this. 

I feel like I am in agreement/maybe leaning a bit neutral for capping. I feel like capping makes the game less p2w for millisecond timesaves, but I like the feel of higher framerates and inputs more because there is less dropped inputs in menuing/movement/etc. However, I think accessibility trumps slightly better game feel that can be achieved on uncapped, so I am somewhat in agreement and 120fps would not feel much different than 140+ from gameplay perspective.

I also think we should keep an open mind to slightly adjusted timing methods/calculations and I'll elaborate. For example, in a game like Mario Kart 64, there are PAL times and NTSC times for the speedruns. PAL is advantaged because the game runs at ~30/29.something and NTSC runs at ~60/59.something and because of poorer performace on PAL, the game is actually programmed to have a slightly slower timer. All top times have its normal time and the calculated time (if you are on NTSC, you will get a calculated PAL time) and this is a widely accepted and considered reliable method of timing IL (as far as I understand). I am not an expert, but the basic jist I want people to get from this is maybe considering a method of consistently calculating times at parts where time is unavoidably lost in ways unrelated to skill & only related to fps

My idea is to maybe work our ways up to a 60/120 time split for most accessibility possible. However, timing for individual levels for a much older game has had a lot of time to perfect this to make it widely accepted, whereas a new full game run like re3r with much more varying fps & potential 1/50th timelosses because of FPS on different machines w/ different settings would make it messy. However, I do think this this is a good idea to maybe develop a 120/60 time calculator or maybe just simply run with a "load removal"-type timer. If IGT is unreliable, we can always toss it out (which I hate to say, but I think accessibility is priority for a speedgame. That is my stance).


"However, I do think this this is a good idea to maybe develop a 120/60 time calculator or maybe just simply run with a "load removal"-type timer."

I tried this, actually. All the flags I found to detect loading achieved the same ms problem we have with the current IGT. Basically, the flag that returns true to pause the timer is delayed a few ms. If anyone else finds something reliable that doesn't have this problem, I'm open to editing the splits, but what I found leads to a similar dead end.

As for the 60 FPS, why not just make it 30 then? It's all about accessibility right? Take a look at Steam's hardware polls. Simply put, there's more people that can reach close to 120 than those that can't. I'm not down with forcing a majority to pander to a minority, ever.

Although I am sympathetic, so I will make this offer:

If anyone ever hits the 9 second ceiling because they truly can't improve because of their FPS, I will pitch in and help them get an upgrade. I'm sure many others will too. Until you reach that point and proved your skills, you're worrying about something that doesn't effect you and potentially using it as a theoretical crutch excuse.

If anyone thinks the cap is unreasonable and want more of a cap, I kindly refer you to practically every other game on SRC that doesn't impose a FPS cap at all, where those with the best systems and best play win, then say the mods are being unreasonable here.

ArcngArcng, vinevvinev and 5 others like this. 

At first we where going to solve this big problem by making the PC runs RTA with a load remover, but because how the game is programmed this would not solve the problem so sadly we are unable to do that.
With more talking we all agreed that the 2nd best course of action would be to have a 120 FPS cap.


It's definitely important to have capped FPS to make sure that competitive runs are fair.

However... if the real goal of this community is to make runs more accessible for people to submit, then that main category capped limit should be 60 FPS instead of 120 FPS.

- 60 FPS is already supported in-game with no need for Rivatuner
- More people will be able to compete at stable 60 FPS than 120 FPS (120 fps players can easily limit to 60)
- 120 FPS is an arbitrary number with no real competitive explanation as to why it was chosen, besides "it feels good and people should have good enough computers for that by now."

That's just my two cents. Fortunately I'm able to run the game at 120 FPS so I don't have an issue either way.

13irth13irth, CureCure and 4 others like this. 

So I should drop my framerate by over half because Capcom is supporting a framerate that's on its way out in 2020 as the standard, instead of the newer upcoming standard? Because the minority (this was even proven with RE2's leaderboards) can't reach 120. Gotcha. Nah, let's just drop to 30 then, you 60 FPSers should have to drop 50% too then. It's all about accessibility and fairness anyway.

@NuZNuZ I'm happy to chip in if you can prove yourself to only be seconds behind the 120 runners, absolutely. I don't want anyone to be limited, if they have the skill. Waifu wasn't able to achieve a steady 120 FPS in RE2, and his skillset literally got him the money to buy an upgrade. A 2070 should easily achieve 120 FPS, though (my 1070 does). So how does this effect you, or are you just looking to complain?

I won't entertain people that are just preemptively complaining until they've actually hit a wall due to framerate, however. For RE3 (not RE2, obviously) that's 100% a crutch until you've proven otherwise.

If framerate is the only thing holding you back, and not your own skill, that doesn't last for long in the streaming world 🙂

In the mean time, I'm still digging to see if I can find a load removal method that doesn't have the same problem. Ideally I'd like to prevent this problem all together, but I'm really struggling to find anything that doesn't lead to a dead end or the same exact problem.

HoobieHoobie likes this. 

@NuZNuZ that's very true too. But my offer does stand, if there's ever anyone on the LB's that's right under the 120 runners and cannot improve without 100% upgrading, I'm more than happy to chip in. As I'm sure others will too. Proof needs to be in the pudding of the displayed skillsets, otherwise it's a crutch until then.

And something tells me this game won't suffer if the cap turns people off running it. It certainly didn't impact RE2R enough. Still over 130 active runners for that. And yes, for some reason Capcom doesn't support a cap at 120. That will definitely change when next gen comes out, its annoying they don't do it now, because its been the standard on PC for years

Also, REmake 1 uncapped saves about 1 minute, I think? Its a much longer run with door load animations. Not sure if that impacts it at all. Its been a long time since I've dealt with that game though, I just remember the routing had to be adjusted when people started turning Vsync off (enemy AI behaves differently)


@NuZNuZ 130 is the number SRC reports for active players. Compared to the OG's 15. In 5 years, when people aren't pushing for 60, maybe the current mods of the future will adjust the rules. Until then, they're trying to accommodate. Compare to other leader-boards on this site, for example, Doom Eternal, or practically any other modern game (that's not a jab at those mods either, btw, just saying, in speedrunning this kind of accommodation attempt is not common).

And yes, I think what everyone wants here is a good time and no BS drama. Good luck and godspeed with runs. If anyone else manages to find a way to properly load remove without having the same issues, please contact me. I think everyone would rather RTA with load removal than deal with any of this, but right now, we're in this predicament because Capcom added another bug (at least they fixed the knife). Here's to hoping they fix it with a patch? KEKW


I think Moose (RE2R Hunk WR Holder) actually tested 30 FPS and under in RE2R and it significantly affected inputs (stairskating, menuing, shooting delay, etc) as well as enemy patterns. There's also a thread somewhere in the RE2R section that explains how going too low in FPS can affect enemies loading into the game as well as their ability to attack you-- it fundamentally changes the way the game works by using a 3rd party tool to limit FPS.

So as to "why not 30 fps?" that would be my answer. My question of "Why is 120 FPS the specific choice we've settled on?" is still there. I'm open to hearing the reasoning as to why this was the decided number.

13irth13irth and NuZNuZ like this. 

How do i cap it at 120fps ? There is no option in game to do so, Do i have to use a program to do it ??

13irth13irth and oujisan2236oujisan2236 like this. 

When this debate started in RE2 Remake speedrunning, I suggested RE2 Remake cap at 90 FPS, seeing as it looks better than 60 FPS, and is more accessible to more people than 120 FPS. This should be taken into consideration at the least.

13irth13irth, CroneusCroneus and 2 others like this. 

@CursedToastCursedToast "Take a look at Steam's hardware polls. Simply put, there's more people that can reach close to 120 than those that can't." I'd like to know how you came to that conclusion. I looked at the steam hardware survey, and most steam users in March 2020 have very similar specs to me, and I DEFINITELY cannot hit 120FPS, especially while recording. Most people on steam have similar hardware to my PC or worse, and considering I can't hit 120, I doubt others will to.

12.13% of people who use Steam have a GTX 1060, which cannot hit 120 FPS even at the lowest settings. Add recording/streaming on top of that, etc.

13irth13irth and NuZNuZ like this. 

I'm just a casual runner streaming my speedruns on twitch from time to time and my PC can't handle 120FPS in RE3, it could barely run RE2 on 60FPS and even then i had lots of framedrops. I actually enjoyed having a 60FPS category for RE2, so i could compare my times with other runners without the need for a new PC. For the framecap i can completely understand that it should be limited to the amount most people agree on, as everything else would make it pay to win (as you already mentioned). If that framecap happens to be 120, i would be fine with that, as it doesn't affect me too much. Would be really nice tho to have a 60FPS category as i just do speedruns as a hobby and i can't afford the upgrade tbh 😕. Not everyone is a full-time speedrunner, if you want to cap the framerate at 120 only (without a 60 FPS category) it would just put me even lower on the leaderboards 🙁.

NuZNuZ and YossyHopYossyHop like this. 

@TheLegendOfLameTheLegendOfLame that's very weird, because on a 1060 I could get 109 FPS in RE2 after settings adjustments (my biggest dip was oddly in the RPD main hall). I upgraded to a 1070, but I haven't seen much difference between this and RE2. What's your game settings at? Also what do you have for a CPU? If you want to Discord me I can try to dig up the settings I used to try to help you.

Now, back on the overall topic:
People realize 120 FPS is the ceiling cap, not the minimum you should be running it on, right? A lot of runners I know don't even average 120 when they're capped. Even 70 FPS will do you better than 60. Even then we're talking SECONDS of a difference between 120 and 60. DURING LOADS. That absolutely does not justify another set of categories, and your hardware problems does not justify lowering everyone else in the race to your level of handicap, quite frankly.

Best of luck to any of you wanting to go run any other modern games, your cries for FPS caps at all (let alone categories) would just be met with laughter. At least the mods here are trying to set a ceiling. A ceiling. Not a minimum, not an average.

That said, I submitted a suggestion to one of the mods. They might not like it, but it could potentially kill off this crisis before it becomes more dramatic.

ArcngArcng, the_frascothe_frasco and hazebladehazeblade like this. 

If we were talking about a completely different route due to framerate, we would likely resort back to suggesting the split like we did with RE2R. In that case, most of the 60 fps categories required a completely different route in order to complete the game quickly due to memes with the knife. That does not apply here. We are just talking about load times, which has absolutely no effect on the route, and to be quite frank, 120 fps is not that difficult to achieve even while recording, as numerous benchmarks have shown at 1080p resolution with MAX graphics, a 2060 base model still outputs close to 120 fps (see one example here https:/​/​www.​techspot.​com/​article/​2004-resident-evil-3/​).​ With that being said, even while recording if you run at a lower graphics configuration, you should have no problem reaching 120fps during loads while recording your gameplay. If not and you're rocking a 2060 GPU or better with a decent processor, you have a different problem with your setup that is outside the scope of this thread, and you need to do some troubleshooting on your own.

I also want to talk about upgrades very briefly. This year is an upgrade year for most people. With new consoles coming out, developers are going to slowly stop optimizing their games for old hardware. The same thing happened in late 2013 when the Xbox One and PS4 originally released. By late 2014, that support was almost completely gone and if you wanted to play the newest games, you no longer had the choice to play them on a potato PC or PS3/Xbox 360. This year begins that process once again (for both console AND pc), and if you are in a situation where you want to speedrun competitively with outdated hardware, upgrading is going to be a must if you have not done so already. I understand that equipment is more expensive in certain countries, etc... but if speedrunning is such a big part of your life that you want to be competitive, you need to figure out how you can get those upgrades to stay competitive as the gaming industry releases cutting edge hardware this year.

I've also seen responses to why 120 fps is the chosen number. I think that's honestly quite obvious, but I'll elaborate anyway. Next gen consoles are targeting 120 fps, and that standard has been attainable on PC for nearly 7 years now with the right hardware. At this point, even on the low end of the GPU spectrum, most of them are getting to the point where they are natively able to render 120 fps. An RTX 2060 is a relatively affordable GPU that should essentially be setting the standard for the minimum hardware required to run most games from here on out. If you think that your speedrunning ability is limited by the fact that your hardware is outdated, I highly suggest you take @CursedToastCursedToast up on his offer and prove that the reason your time isn't better than the top runners is because of your hardware. I should also remind you that whatever RE game we get after RE3 is probably not even going to be released on Xbox One and PS4, so by that logic, be mad at the developers for not supporting your platform or your outdated PC, not the moderators of the game who have no affiliation with Capcom or the RE franchise. We are making the decision based on benchmarks and standards that are being set across the entire industry as of this year, and if a situation arises where we can find a way to do a load remover, we can always remove the fps cap rule without having to migrate runs.

For the framerate limiter, I know some people are concerned about installing 3rd party software on their machines. Both NVIDIA and AMD GPUs actually have framerate limiters built into their control panel, so you don't even need to install anything outside of the latest drivers for your graphics card. Then go into the control panel and enable the framerate limiter and set it to 120.

For AMD GPUs, go into the AMD Catalyst Control Center and turn on FRTC (Frame Rate Target Control) and set it to 120.

For NVIDIA, use NVIDIA Control Panel, go into Manage 3D settings and set the Max Frame Rate to 120 fps.

I hope this helps everyone get a better understanding of what we're trying to do. We are by no means saying that you can't run the game at any frame rate between 60 and 120 fps and still get a good time, just know that it is a couple of seconds slower and there is 0 reason to make an entire section of new categories for something that doesn't change the route or strategy of the core game at all. I am always available to have a CIVILIZED discussion of your concerns and give you the information you need to speedrun the game per the rules.

PleabPotatoPleabPotato, UncalmChaosUncalmChaos and 4 others like this.