Frame Rates...Stop Kidding Yourselves

[Skuzzy]

Better Siaf.  Yes, that is what the rubber bullet syndrome is about.  And yes, having the capacity to run at insane frame rates means your CPU has enough time to handle all the events required in a massive online flight sim.

2Hawks, games like Quake are entirely different than a flight sim.  Too different to compare.  FPS games place trivial demands on a CPU versus a flight sim.  And the bots in a FPS game are not moving at 400 MPH.  Makes a huge difference.

[Octavius]

Originally posted by Skuzzy
And the bots in a FPS game are not moving at 400 MPH.  Makes a huge difference.

Do units actually matter in a game's engine?  I mean, 400 miles/hour vs.  400 feet/second.   Does the placement of a decimal take a greater/lesser toll on the CPU?  

Like you said, comparing quake to AH is very difficult.  Take this strange picture for example:  AH could be modeled into a FPS.  Take a quake character and shove it into AH.  The size of said quake character would be such that the character's head is approximately 6,000ft tall in AH.  In quake, the character would stand 6 ft tall.  A difference in a decimal place.  

I think I lost my train of thought and have forgotten what I'm trying to ask... if i make any sense at all, see what you can make of this  lol

[Octavius]

And about vsync and rubber bullet syndrome.  

With Vsync enabled, the CPU/GPU frame rendering is halted and syncronized with the refresh rate.  If your hardware is capable of producing 200fps, and your refresh rate is 100fps, when the rendering is halted, does that allow a greater capacity for the hardware to run different processes?  

I ask this because I've always run with v-sync disabled (I like seeing that 200 fps in the corner).   If I sync with my refresh rate (85Hz/85fps), then the capacity the hardware used to produce the extra 115fps (200fps - 85fps) can then be used for other stuff such as Anti-aliasing, anisotropic filtering, or other processes such as computing the FM or tracking packets and whatnot?  

... just my attempt at understanding this.

[jay1988]

how do u turn v-sync because my computer average fps is 10

[zmeg]

v=sync wont help below 60, 75 fps

[Octavius]

punt!

[HavocTM]

Holy Geek Batman!

I thought I was an ub3rn3rd, but you guys seriously need to get some sunshine.

GO PLAY OUTSIDE!

[qts]

Funny, my monitor can do 200 Hz at lower resolutions.

[HavocTM]

So which is better...

30fps or 30mm?


...actually 29.97 fps, but i didn't want to point this out since i would like like a SUPERDORK.

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by Innominate
It is true that the eye can't see more than 30fps.  Thats actually why a higher framerate is preferable.

Bollocks.

The BRAIN begins to perceive motion at about 20fps and upwards. The eye has nothing to do with it. The BRAIN quite happily perceives what could loosely be called frames up to about 60 frames per second. The maximum thought to be perceived is no more than 100fps.

[Gunslinger]

ever wonder why 120volt AC lightbulbs usually operate at 60Hz? (cycles per second)  Its because MOST human eyes wont see them flickering at that level.  Ergo the human eye really wont see any noticable difference of anything above 60Hz.  So I dont see why anyone would care if there Frame rate was higher than that.

[2Hawks]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
ever wonder why 120volt AC lightbulbs usually operate at 60Hz? (cycles per second)  Its because MOST human eyes wont see them flickering at that level.  Ergo the human eye really wont see any noticable difference of anything above 60Hz.  So I dont see why anyone would care if there Frame rate was higher than that.

60 Hertz was chosen for transmitting power via an Alternating Current. Tesla found that power transmitted over greater distances with less loss when using AC rather than DC (Direct Current). -- Thomas Edison did not arbitrarily decide that he should use 60 cycles because he didn't see it "flicker".

Refresh rates used to be much slower, and in older models, fixed frequency. The refresh rate is controlled by the speed and precision by which the electron stream could directed to "Paint" the Phospor inside the CRT. Mostly dependent on the hardware available at that time.  Not for anything resembling cinematics.

As for Flicker it's mostly noticable when viewed in a flourescent light source.  -- Same reason that saws and other power equiment may appear motionless. If the movement is constand, and at the right speed, a flourescent light will flicker at a rate that will illuminate the equipment exactly once every complete revolution. -- Need less to say this has cost people many extremeties.

Refresh rate is completly a matter of how fast they can make the screen repaint. The Tech industry is always trying to make things go farther and faster. I really don't think they would want to stop or would stop just because "60 should be more than anyone would need".

I compared Quake to Aces High and In the context of percieved motion I will say it again, when measured in Frame Rates or Frames Per Second (FPS) the difference between 100 and 125 is stark.

[Grimm]

I need to understand something here.   Im hoping for a straigth forward answer.    ::Puts away all fishing gear::


OK,  my eyes see around 30fps, Right?    Yet my Brain can see at 100fps?      that seems a contradiction.    Could that be clairified.


Next,  If Im flying AH and am getting 55 fps in an average situation, and my opponet is geting 180fps.  Does he have an advantage and how?

I know I seem to be able to fly on a computer getting 25 frames without any difficulty,   If Im on one with 45 fps,  Its smoother looking,  but  to me the game seems to be basicly the same.    Does the lower frames make a difference on A/C preformace and applied damage?

I do understand if I am getting say 60 frames normaly,  Im likely to stay above 30fps in a really graphic intense area, which is preferable.

Is there a point when addition fps really dont do anything for you?

Lots of question,  but this thread has me wondering.

Thank you in advance for the clarifications.  

[2Hawks]

This seems to be a point of debate on human physiology than simulation.

For myself the faster it is the more real it feels to me.  If I was comparing Frames Per second  (limimited by your refresh rate) then I would draw on the analogy I made in an earlier post regarding flourescent lights @ 60 Hertz or "Cycles Per Second".

If a saw looks stationary under flourescent light  operating @ 60 Hertz. An Object would have to be spinning at the speed of light to appear motionless under the sun.  Ergo the Speed of light is 186,282 miles per second, then in my opinion real life moves at 186,282 Frames Per Second.

Doctors don't seem to know either and for everyone the experience is different. -- Whats important, how does it look and feel to to you?

As for advantags or disadvantages, if FPS really made a big difference in the game then HT would simply lock the refresh rate on all instances of the game.




There is another discussion on light at:
ClanBaker Forums

[Tarmac]

Going along with what Grimm said, I've got a question too.

I run AH with Vsync enabled, refreshing at 75hz.  It almost never drops below that (only in a 40 plane furball over a smoking base with tracers flying everywhere).  

Should I be tweaking my settings somehow, or is this good?  Does a guy who has an identical rig, with Vsync off and showing, say, 140 fps on a 75hz monitor have some kind of advantage?