min fps for first person shooters
- Thread starter lanzarobbie
- Start date
- Joined
- 10 May 2009
- Posts
- 808
great article i think my fps are way too low
Interesting, though his assumption about the existance of 44000+ fps cameras is flawed. The expense and absolutely miniscule difference you'd probably notice over 1 running at 1000 is ridiculous. Cameras of that speed exist for things like engineering and science where something can occur so damn fast you want to record it at the best speed possible to analyse it frame by frame. You wouldn't be putting that sorta technology in tv screens.
Your fps is too low if you notice it and it annoys you.
If it doesn't, then it's not too low.
Very simple
Nope. Dell S2409W...
then your hz is a max of 60 so how can you see an improvement at 100
pointless question IMO, framerate is pretty irrevelant most of the time, nothing worse than someone 'quoting framerates' all the time in these sorts of threads since there is no set minimum/maximum as you'll always get someone saying 'to be playable it has to be 60+ FPS' even though i find half that acceptable, the most important thing i have discovered is how constant the framerate is, as long as it doesn't move around too much anything 30+ is generally fine, as long as its constantly above 30 and doesn't spike/dip too much 
on another note does anyone know how you can lock the framerate in crysis, since thats a game that will run at smoothly at really low framerates, sometimes 25FPS but random increasing/decreasing doesn't help...
on another note does anyone know how you can lock the framerate in crysis, since thats a game that will run at smoothly at really low framerates, sometimes 25FPS but random increasing/decreasing doesn't help...isn't that because the quake engine has some serious bugs at 120-/125/333 fps
I still don't get how the hell that works...
pointless question IMO, framerate is pretty irrevelant most of the time, nothing worse than someone 'quoting framerates' all the time in these sorts of threads since there is no set minimum/maximum as you'll always get someone saying 'to be playable it has to be 60+ FPS' even though i find half that acceptable, the most important thing i have discovered is how constant the framerate is, as long as it doesn't move around too much anything 30+ is generally fine, as long as its constantly above 30 and doesn't spike/dip too much
The point is that an fps of 60 dropping down to 30 won't be as noticable as 30 dropping down to 15. It can easily make a difference to your ability to aim when it gets that low when things just aren't smooth. Its true that aslong as you're happy with it it doesn't matter (within reason) but so long as you avoid these dips it generally ok,and my pc struggles to do that on some games even on low settings.
then your hz is a max of 60 so how can you see an improvement at 100
I just can.
Think I'm crazy!
I just can.
Think I'm crazy!
I think you're more than likely noticing minimum frame rate drops, which at 60fps will at times noticeably drop to maybe 30fps during a busy moment where as with 100fps average, it may only drop to 60fps anyway.
If you were to achieve an absolutely solid 60fps/100fps that never ever ever dropped below those figures, I doubt you'd tell a difference at all, especially on a 60Hz monitor.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 1,348
- Location
- London
isn't that because the quake engine has some serious bugs at 120-/125/333 fps
The engine's physics is based on your frame rate (or at least the engine is affected by your frame rate), so having stupidly high fps (specifically 333fps) messes it up and allows you to do things like jump higher, faster and further. It's useful for trick jumping and strafing faster.
yup
main reason to get a 120hz screen is for the 3D.
skill > framerate
sure, more frames per second will be an advantage but if you lack sense and awareness no matter what your fps is you will suck.
for games like MW or BC that dont require much skill a low framerate is fine, but in games like Tribes 2 you wouldn't stand a chance ... for me, playing BC2 on the lowest settings dx9 I probably avg around 20fps but it's still playable and fun, however if I were to play in a league no doubt I'd be handed my a$$ more often than not.
sure, more frames per second will be an advantage but if you lack sense and awareness no matter what your fps is you will suck.
for games like MW or BC that dont require much skill a low framerate is fine, but in games like Tribes 2 you wouldn't stand a chance ... for me, playing BC2 on the lowest settings dx9 I probably avg around 20fps but it's still playable and fun, however if I were to play in a league no doubt I'd be handed my a$$ more often than not.