If your field vision had the same detail as the thing you looking at (focus), porbably it would..
I also give that (lame) exemple, thinking in a large scale
Upvote
0
FPS Cap?
- Thread starter josephjosephson
- Start date
If your field vision had the same detail as the thing you looking at (focus), porbably it would..
I also give that (lame) exemple, thinking in a large scale
Sweet!
Sweet!
Glad to see all the input and experience working with this issue....and particularly happy to see we may be able to tweak things in case there is a cap!
Sweet!
Glad to see all the input and experience working with this issue....and particularly happy to see we may be able to tweak things in case there is a cap!
Upvote
0
If your field vision had the same detail as the thing you looking at (focus), porbably it would..
I also give that (lame) exemple, thinking in a large scale
I still don't know what you're talking about?
Why would a bus driving from your left to right view irl, would be fine but a 120fps bus (with guns
) driving from left to right on your screen give you a headache?Although fps is a not directly converted into real life, I guess real life has more fps than 120.
I think I just don't get your point correctly
Upvote
0
see i would post a long explanation that is also undoubtedly somewhere on the internet where you can read it. but basically yes you can tell a difference but not because you can see more than 30 frames a second.
can someone else knock some sense into this guy. (someone, anyone *crickets chirping*)
Upvote
0
Yes, i agree with you. It should be a option not forced
so players can choose wich one they prefer
Upvote
0
Why, I think the one you quoted actually makes sense.
You for that matter; So you can see a difference between 60 and 120 fps (or 30 and 60 for that matter) and it isn't because of the higher fps... I don't get it
Upvote
0
I still don't know what you're talking about?
Why would a bus driving from your left to right view irl, would be fine but a 120fps bus (with guns
Although fps is a not directly converted into real life, I guess real life has more fps than 120.
I think I just don't get your point correctly
When your watching TV or playing PC, you are focused in a screen right? (there are a lot of screens = variable
)As i said there are a lot of factors, not only fps, but it's not by chance that some people have sinusite, epileptics have high probably of having an attack if watching or playing for a certain period of time.
Seeing a bus in real life is processed differently (to your brain) than seeing it on the screen..
Also giving the exemple at 120 fps was a mistake lol, but if u run an recent game (better graphics, details, etc) at imagine.. 500/600 fps, and your playing for an hour or more, it's not so hard to give you a headache..
(i actually saw this in a mini-documentary on youtube, but i can't find it so i could post it
)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
see i would post a long explanation that is also undoubtedly somewhere on the internet where you can read it. but basically yes you can tell a difference but not because you can see more than 30 frames a second.
Well, please do. I mean I guess the point was that the argument that the eye cannot see more than 30 frames per second is not "valid" - ie., if what you're saying is true, okay (interesting, and I would actually like to know more about this topic. Is it similar to the effect you get when filming a screen at different refresh/frame rates?), but either way it does not apply to running games are more than 30 fps because "yes you can tell a difference." That's the major point, even if I've phrased it incorrectly.
Upvote
0
Well for me personally, I can't tell the difference from anything above 45 FPS, it all seems to run just as smooth (and yes I have tested it). It MIGHT be a little choppy here and there but it isn't enough to affect gameplay.
Upvote
0
When your watching TV or playing PC, you are focused in a screen right? (there are a lot of screens = variable
As i said there are a lot of factors, not only fps, but it's not by chance that some people have sinusite, epileptics have high probably of having an attack if watching or playing for a certain period of time.
Also giving the exemple at 120 fps was a mistake lol, but if u run an recent game (better graphics, details, etc) at imagine.. 500/600 fps, and your playing for an hour or more, it's not so hard to give you a headache..
The example wasn't the best indeed.
I actually thought the higher the fps, the smoother and comfortably the viewing of it was, because very high fps comes close to reality.
I don't know much about epilepsy so I can't say anythign about that.
Upvote
0
Well yes you have some point there too, it actually makes more sense that the smoother the display, the less "work" your brain has to do, but high fps doesn't necessarily mean smoother. (lot of stuff involved, stuff i don't even know about, and honestly don't want to know
)Maybe it's not even significant in today's modern screens.
Was just trying to explain that there's a reason for FPS cap
Ps: found a website that could be useful to you understanding what i was trying to say
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm. Can't find the video that was essencialy about the influence of THIS, in video games though
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Server performance. That's pretty much it as far as the online cap goes. Offline cap helps keep framerate fluctuations lower, but it can be changed and disabled.Was just trying to explain that there's a reason for FPS cap
The human eye doesn't see in frames so it's impossible to measure at what point it can't see more frames per second or when it's perfectly smooth! We're talking scientific "perfectly smooth", not gaming "perfectly smooth".
A test that has been done, for example, would be showing fighter pilots a video of sky and then showing an object in the sky on just one frame. They were able to detect it at a reasonable successrate at, I'm pretty sure, well beyond 250 frames per second!
Does that mean the eye can differenciate 250 frames per second so that's what gams must run at to appear smooth? No, it doesn't. The eye doesn't see in frames!
Movies look smooth at ridiculously low ~25 frames per second (depending on where and what you're watching) because the frames are blurred when movement occurs, much like our real vision. Games tend to not be blurred so they appear to be slightly stuttering at anything below 30 frames per second. Little less for some, little more for others. Perfectly constant 30 frames per second (this is important! If you average at 30, but they dip lower it's not smooth!) look smooth though.
Doesn't mean 60 won't look smoother. Anything higher is mostly superficial, but you can still feel a difference, if the screen allows. If the screen can only show 60 frames per second (like most modern but not super-modern flat-screens) a perfectly constant (!) 60 frames per second would be the best you could display on your screen.
It still helps if your video card can produce 120 frames per second though, because that means the screen can get the most up-to-date frame as fast as possible.
Usually the gameplay engine and the graphics engine run at the same framerate too, roughly speaking, so your input can only be taken into account 30, 60 or more times per second. 30 is a little low for a moderately fast shooter, so while watching a shooter be played at 30 frames per second looks smooth it won't feel really smooth to the one playing. 60 frames per second feels much better.
If some Quaker says he needs his Quake to run at 120 frames per second to appear smooth it doesn't actually mean that's what he needs for it to look smooth, but it means at those speeds he can still feel that anything less would make his input lag microscopically and it wouldn't feel as perfect to him.
The recent Burnout now made the gameplay engine run at 60 frames per second so input felt as responsive as in a 60 frames per second game, but the graphics engine ran at a locked 30 frames per second, meaning it looked smooth (for a racing game, with slight movement blur) but had a little more air for prettiness because it didn't have to run at 60.
Now games experiment with blurring movement (i.e. not just blurring the whole screen when your car goes faster like in the oldern days, but, for example, blurring a character's arm when he swooshes his fist by your face), I think Gears of War 3 has it, I'm not quite sure. So maybe some day when they get this down to the T games will look smooth at lower framerates too (locked 30, for example). Maybe someone who has played the GoW3 beta can comment?
As for RO2: RO isn't a fast shooter. You certainly don't need it to run as fast as Quake to play perfectly and thus it will not only look but also feel perfectly smooth at 60 frames per second.
It would most likely even look smooth at a perfect 30 so if you want to use 3d technology where you need twice the framerate you can play at 60 and watch at the split 30 frames per second and I'm sure you'll be fine too.
As I said, I think the online cap is mostly there for server performance. So if it's set to, I don't know, 85 frames per second, I think we can all live fine with that and if it means getting more players onto a server with more complex vehicle physics with acceptable online performance then I think it's worth it.
Should 3d technology where 120 Hz are required really take off in the next years I'm sure the cap could be raised then, when the standard for servers has risen by then as well. Look at what TWI did with the player-cap in RO1!
So don't worry.
Upvote
0
Well yes you have some point there too, it actually makes more sense that the smoother the display, the less "work" your brain has to do, but high fps doesn't necessarily mean smoother. (lot of stuff involved, stuff i don't even know about, and honestly don't want to know
Maybe it's not even significant in today's modern screens.
Was just trying to explain that there's a reason for FPS cap
Ps: found a website that could be useful to you understanding what i was trying to say
You're absolutely right, a lot of engine effects have an influence on the aulity of the image. I was thinking a little bit too much inside the box
I had neurology just a few months ago, and the sense are very well explained there. I actually made a post somewhere explaining how it didn't see in frames and why extremely high fps is still noticable. So the given link would not be necessary. Love to see the video you can't find though, sounds really interesting!
I do like the explanation murphy gave about the practical reasons for the cap
Upvote
0
Love to see the video you can't find though, sounds really interesting!
I do like the explanation murphy gave about the practical reasons for the cap
It was indeed interesting, it was mainly about how video games affects us.. and then there was this part that they showed how the same "video" (like the same trailer) displayed at different frame rates, and screen frequencies (60Hz etc) produced different activity on our brain.
I already tryed to search for it but i only get results like "FPS games makes you violent" or "Frame rate on video games, record it with FRAPS" lool
Yes, Murphy has given the most direct and pratical explanation
Last edited:
Upvote
0