I have tried FG a few times and loathed it.  I don't fully understand how it works, so I had Copilot build a table and the above it what is produced.  Not sure on accuracy or my point, but I thought it was interesting.  I posted in case anybody cares.  

Having tried FG, it just does not feel nor look right to me.  DLSS Quality is fantastic, maybe FG gets there some day.  

Never played it for myself so take my opinion with a grain of salt, but for me, the appeal of higher framerates isn't just the perceptual smoothness, but the more responsive controls. If the input latency's significantly worse than "native" 60fps, then I imagine it wouldn't really "feel" like 60fps.

My main uses of Frame Gen have been to target 120fps when streaming from my desktop or Geforce now to rog ally. It gave good results imo in Indiana Jones and Cyberpunk.

Lossless scaling is also interesting. It's a bit rough at a base of 30fps, but doing 45 to 90fps on a steam deck for example is a good usecase. Or unlocked with VRR on an ROG Ally.

My issue with lowfps gaming has never really been input latency but everything looking like crap when you move the camera anyway. At least on gamepad, with mouse you need low latency.

I've never used more than 2x framegen though and don't see the need to ever do that.

yeah, my view is the same, the point is controls.  and FG is worse than native.  Thus, I struggle to get the point.

I have only tested it a little so far but can see myself using it in Forza Horizon 6 if the latency impact doesn't feel too bad. Being able to fully max out the settings and still get the visual smoothness of a 240fps experience sounds very nice.

I use it often. I find it works better on some games than on others, but like all graphical and display settings I need to mess around with it a bit to find a sweet spot.
It's recently enabled some nice 4k pathtracing shenanigans for me with RE9, and the only graphical compromise made to achieve 240fps, is setting DLSS to balanced or performance. There's a tiny bit of ghosting, but it's barely noticeable, and better than the alternative 70fps base framerate.

Special shotout to lossless scaling which was mentioned above. It can be a bit rough and lagy at times, but it works on any application, even a Youtube video which is usually stuck in 60fps pugatory.

I haven't had the opportunity to try frame generation in a lot of games, but so far it's worked out well where I have tried it. I think that's... Cyberpunk 2077, Starfield, and Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart? I can see the increased latency being a problem in some faster-paced games, but in the ones I've tried, it didn't feel like an issue, and I've appreciated the smoother motion produced by frame generation. I have 'only' an RTX 5060, so some compromises must be made anyway. DLSS and frame generation have been the price I've been willing to pay so far for better visuals than I could otherwise get.

Slightly off-topic, but since I mentioned DLSS, I've got to say that I can't really recommend it for Cities: Skylines 2 if you're aiming for 1080p. It just becomes too blurry. That said, DLAA is awesome for that game, since it has poor antialiasing and flickering at sunrise/sunset, and DLSS/DLAA helps with that. I kind of wish the game had frame generation too, but I'm not sure if it'd feel great, considering the low base framerate.

I think the DLSS 4.5 update was interesting in how it changed the equation of frame gen.
If you can keep mostly ¨real¨ frames and only use frame-gen to keep stable frame-rate, that seems like a win.