Please Focus on PC then port to Consoles

  • Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/
  • Weve updated the Tripwire Privacy Notice under our Policies to be clearer about our use of customer information to come in line with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) rules that come into force today (25th May 2018). The following are highlights of our changes:


    We've incorporated the relevant concepts from the GDPR including joining the EU and Swiss Privacy Shield framework. We've added explanations for why and how Tripwire processes customer data and the types of data that we process, as well as information about your data protection rights.



    For more information about our privacy practices, please review the new Privacy Policy found here: https://tripwireinteractive.com/#/privacy-notice

=ABC=Darth_Rogue

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 22, 2010
6
0
0
I'm not saying a $400 PC won't work for gaming. But to get the most out of games on PC you need the higher end systems. As an avid PC gamer myself, I cannot stand to play any game at less than 90FPS with all detail levels set to max. Anything less than that and it just doesn't feel smooth to me. To have that caliber of performance requires a major hardware investment. Earlier this year I spent $3300 on a new rig and I'm already planning my next upgrade. My point of my earlier post was that the percentage of PC gamers, such as myself, that are passionate about gaming hardware and the experience it can provide is very small. As such, most game developers and publishers don't consider us to be a large enough part of their market to pay much attention to. Luckily, there are still a couple companies out there, like TWI, that are passionate about PC gaming. And as long as they exist there is hope. But the majority of the market is no longer PC oriented.
 

Brozex

FNG / Fresh Meat
Oct 19, 2010
228
86
0
I cannot stand to play any game at less than 90FPS with all detail levels set to max.
OMG so nothing in a 60 Hz screen feels smooth for you? :confused:
I can tell you that in some games, I can't tell the difference between 30 and 60 or whatever fps...I feel good playing at 25 fps in some games... so I know why you hate consoles, they are at 30 fps, what do you do when you are watching a film?(I know that in a film you don't have to control anything so it feels smoother)

I have seen people who likes playing at 60 fps, but 90...:confused:
 

Lonyo

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
379
26
0
lonyo.co.uk
I'm not saying a $400 PC won't work for gaming. But to get the most out of games on PC you need the higher end systems. As an avid PC gamer myself, I cannot stand to play any game at less than 90FPS with all detail levels set to max. Anything less than that and it just doesn't feel smooth to me. To have that caliber of performance requires a major hardware investment. Earlier this year I spent $3300 on a new rig and I'm already planning my next upgrade. My point of my earlier post was that the percentage of PC gamers, such as myself, that are passionate about gaming hardware and the experience it can provide is very small. As such, most game developers and publishers don't consider us to be a large enough part of their market to pay much attention to. Luckily, there are still a couple companies out there, like TWI, that are passionate about PC gaming. And as long as they exist there is hope. But the majority of the market is no longer PC oriented.

Please tell me you have a ~$1000 monitor that runs at 2560x1440 or 1600.
And that the $1000+ monitor was part of that $3300 total cost.
 

=ABC=Darth_Rogue

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 22, 2010
6
0
0
It's just personal preference and it's what I'm used to. If you've never played a shooter at 350FPS (COD4) there's no describing the experience. It's something wonderful that you just have to try to be able to appreciate. Once you do experience it, you want it all the time in every game. It's like a crack addiction - try it once and you're hooked. I'm sure it's probably some kind of pathology that a psychologist would have a field day with. :)

And no, my monitor isn't especially high end. It's a 24" Acer 1920x1080 2ms refresh. Works very well for my purposes. I realize the 60Hz limitation means that the monitor only displays a max of 60 fps, but there's more to it than that. A much higher framerate off the vid cards just "feels" smoother and, at least in my opinion, provides a much better gaming experience. Here a while back my motherboard died and I had to RMA it which forced me to use an older board and CPU. The Core 2 Duo I was on just wasn't feeding a single GTX 470 enough. It was agonizing being used to such high frame rates and then finding myself limited to only 70FPS. Hopefully that won't happen again soon! *knocks on wood*

My specs:

Intel Core i7 920 OC'd to 3.4 GHz
6GB Corsair DDR3 1600
EVGA Classified X58 Motherboard
128GB Corsair SSD X128
250GB Western Digital Hard drive (File Storage)
1TB Western Digital hard drive (Backup)
Cooler Master HAF 932 Case
Corsair H50 CPU Cooler
2 x NVidia GTX 470 in SLi
BFG Tech 1200W Modular PSU
LG Blu Ray Burner
Logitech G500 Mouse


Anywho....we got off topic. Thank you TWI for focusing on the PC for this game!
 

RobfromEssex

FNG / Fresh Meat
OMG so nothing in a 60 Hz screen feels smooth for you? :confused:
I can tell you that in some games, I can't tell the difference between 30 and 60 or whatever fps...I feel good playing at 25 fps in some games... so I know why you hate consoles, they are at 30 fps, what do you do when you are watching a film?(I know that in a film you don't have to control anything so it feels smoother)

I have seen people who likes playing at 60 fps, but 90...:confused:

In Quake and Cod games people usually play at 125fps because for some reason the engine seems to like that number and runs best at that.

I personally like to play at 250fps on any pub servers that allow it and 125 every where else, I don't care what any one says, playing at 60fps or even 90fps is just crap in my opinion.
 
Last edited:

LemoN

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 26, 2006
6,295
2,346
0
32
Prussotroll's Bridge
The Quake engine allowed for higher jumps at 125fps and even more at 333fps.

This made way for nice little things called trickjumps that allowed you to get under/behind the map or on places you normally couldn't reach. :D
 

Floyd

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 19, 2006
4,313
725
0
Waterproof
www.ro50pc.net
I used to LOL at the arguments proponents presented for allowing those fps. One of the things that turned me off to competitive gaming. My son, however, loved it and put up with the BS. Winning for the sake of winning never was my cup of tea.
 
H

HeyCarnut

Guest
I used to LOL at the arguments proponents presented for allowing those fps. ..
I still do. To the point of debunking it and offering a cash prize to anyone that could prove the claims of ridiculously high frame rates being a competitive advantage. Tens of thousands of reads, not one taker.

Most of the forum arguments end up referencing the same nonsense 'studies' on FPS requirements by a UFO kook...go figure.

There are, as noted, some games where the physics is inexplicably tied to the frame rate cap settings. Just weird coding in my opinion, and certainly not something that offers a better hit ratio in and of itself.

Placebo, like the audio kooks that really think they hear a difference with $25,000 speaker cables. There's a $1,000,000 prize offered on that one: one major cable maker backed out, the only one to even try to step up to the plate.

Rob
 

Napkin

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 19, 2010
78
52
0
if you spend more than 1300 on a new gaming pc you are retarded. There is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to price for components.

For example video cards, you can get a really good video card for $450 or a $800 one that is 10% better.

or buy alienware lol....
 

RobfromEssex

FNG / Fresh Meat
Cod4

63 FPS or lesser- jump only to 39.5 units max (exception are 52 and 55 FPS. Those values can used like analog of 71 FPS)
71 FPS. Character jump to 40 units stably. 40.5 units is impossible for this value. Same results for 76 FPS
83 FPS, 90 FPS and 100 FPS are bad again - 39.5 units max
111 FPS - 40 and 40.5 units are overcame
125 FPS - 41 height unit overcame
142, 166 and 200 FPS - strange fall again. Character overcame 39.5 units max
250 FPS - 42 units line overcame
333 FPS - same is for cod 2, with 333 fps you can jump at 46 units.
500 FPS - bugged value again. Character runs silently and jumping only at 35 units if you stay close and jump. But If u go back and jump, your jump will be about 39 units
1000 FPS - fully similar with 500 fps

Really good article about fps in call of duty here:

http://wiki.modsrepository.com/index.php/Call_of_Duty_:_A_Study_on_FPS
 
Last edited:

Brozex

FNG / Fresh Meat
Oct 19, 2010
228
86
0
Cod4

63 FPS or lesser- jump only to 39.5 units max (exception are 52 and 55 FPS. Those values can used like analog of 71 FPS)
71 FPS. Character jump to 40 units stably. 40.5 units is impossible for this value. Same results for 76 FPS
83 FPS, 90 FPS and 100 FPS are bad again - 39.5 units max
111 FPS - 40 and 40.5 units are overcame
125 FPS - 41 height unit overcame
142, 166 and 200 FPS - strange fall again. Character overcame 39.5 units max
250 FPS - 42 units line overcame
333 FPS - same is for cod 2, with 333 fps you can jump at 46 units.
500 FPS - bugged value again. Character runs silently and jumping only at 35 units if you stay close and jump. But If u go back and jump, your jump will be about 39 units
1000 FPS - fully similar with 500 fps

Really good article about fps in call of duty here:

http://wiki.modsrepository.com/index.php/Call_of_Duty_:_A_Study_on_FPS
Ok so what you want to tell us is that Quake engine is old and buggy? :troll:
There's no such a great difference, but if you want to pay 5 times the price of a regular PC to jump a bit better...:rolleyes: you have too much money...

Let my guess:
i7 -975
1000 GB RAM DDR Triple Channel 9000 Mhz
580 GTX SLI( here there are more possibilities)

or

you play at lowest settings.:troll:
 

Zetsumei

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 22, 2005
12,459
1,433
0
32
Falmouth UK
The reason why high fps can be felt in games is because of the sampling. Processing a frame doesn't always take equally as long, so you can get a form of motion stutter similar to a 2:3 pull down (running 24hz movie footage on a 60hz monitor) you get when watching movies.

Even if you sync the game at 60fps you still get this issue as the frame you're watching is not always done right before your computer displays an image from the buffer. So it could be early in the frame or later.

Next to that there are various side effects with fps, like slight speed increases that cause you to jump further. In unreal games the lower your fps the more your mouse lag is something that is pretty noticeable.

As a lot of things like for instance running speed are actually noted client side, with check ups perhaps at every frame. Optimizations to ease the calculation on computers can lead to all kind of oddities.

Another thing to note although 24fps is enough to perceive motion the human eye can see and detect up to around 200fps (was somewhere in some aviation studies). So when running a game with a monitor at 60hz you are able to notice if the motion is not rendered at exactly the time every time on your videocard.
 

Brozex

FNG / Fresh Meat
Oct 19, 2010
228
86
0
The reason why high fps can be felt in games is because of the sampling. Processing a frame doesn't always take equally as long, so you can get a form of motion stutter similar to a 2:3 pull down (running 24hz movie footage on a 60hz monitor) you get when watching movies.

Even if you sync the game at 60fps you still get this issue as the frame you're watching is not always done right before your computer displays an image from the buffer. So it could be early in the frame or later.

Next to that there are various side effects with fps, like slight speed increases that cause you to jump further. In unreal games the lower your fps the more your mouse lag is something that is pretty noticeable.

As a lot of things like for instance running speed are actually noted client side, with check ups perhaps at every frame. Optimizations to ease the calculation on computers can lead to all kind of oddities.

Another thing to note although 24fps is enough to perceive motion the human eye can see and detect up to around 200fps (was somewhere in some aviation studies). So when running a game with a monitor at 60hz you are able to notice if the motion is not rendered at exactly the time every time on your videocard.
So far, I can't almost notice any mouse lag, or anything in most games if I play at 30 fps...
 
Last edited:
H

HeyCarnut

Guest
...the human eye can see and detect up to around 200fps (was somewhere in some aviation studies). ...
That is one of the references often used by gamers to justify their FPS assumptions.

Unfortunately for them, that study has nothing to do with the ability of the subjects to retrieve useful information from high frames-per-second data. It was a study on afterimage recognition (sometimes incorrectly called persistence of vision) for short-duration illumination (the results showed recognition at ~ 1/250 S., hence the common gamer's misconception that the eye 'sees' at 250 FPS.

That kind of data, and flicker-fusion tests, etc. give little to no useful information on how many frames per second is required for scenes / targets in motion before humans cannot take advantage of it (for targeting or anything else).

I'd link an article / post with copious references but I think it might be considered 'advertising'. I'm sure you can find it...

If you'd like to try a particularly cool experiment that is along the lines of the air force test, and is quite startling for most, do this:

1) Get a camera with a standard xenon electronic flash, or an add-on unit with a 'test' button so you can fire it without the camera. These consumer units produce most of their output in ~ 1/200-1/1000 S.

2) Get a text (newspaper is cool, anything high-contrast, with matte finish paper is best).

3) Get somewhere completely dark. I mean completely. You might want to tape over any indicator lights on the flash / camera also so that there is no light from anything in your visual field.

4) Hum a tune for 10-15 minutes or so, until your eyes are well on their way to full dark adaptation.

5) Place the text ~3 feet from your eyes, and fix your gaze where the text is.

6) Point the flash at the text, such that the flash itself is not in your visual field.

7) Fire the flash. KEEP YOUR GAZE FIXED.

8) You will see the image of the text, clear as if light were in the room, and you can easily read it. As soon as you move your gaze, the image will start to smear, so do your best to see it / read it without eye movement.

9) With practice, you can see the image for minutes after the flash.

Just as with the air force test, this clearly has nothing to do with seeing 250-1000 FPS. It is fascinating to do nonetheless.

Rob
 

Oldih

Glorious IS-2 Comrade
Nov 22, 2005
3,418
412
0
Finland
Just as with the air force test, this clearly has nothing to do with seeing 250-1000 FPS. It is fascinating to do nonetheless.

Even beter nail would be also, that try the test with something that has very little contrast. E.G. dark purple and blue. It mostly leaves only very blurry\messy afterimage that barely qualifies as "zomg I can see dark purple and blue flashes in 250fps!", even beter would be if someone else would pick up the colours and setup the scene and let's see if you can even recognize what colours they were to begin with.