Poll: 60fps vs 30fps
- Thread starter dirtydog
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 2 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 596
- Location
- Fife
Up until recently I would consider myself a 'Category C'. Example - I loved PGR 1 on the Xbox but hardly touched PGR 2 due to the drop to 30fps (I remember that I COULD-NOT-BELIEVE that they chose to go down this route at the time !). In fact, I think that a great part of my anticipation for the 'next-gen' consoles was that the power of these beasts would ensure all games would be at 60fps (lol).
IMO, it is immediatly noticable if a game is running at at 30fps or 60fps.
However, since playing PGR3 my view has changed - basically I dont think I would enjoy it anymore even if it was running at 60fps. I don't know if its the enchanced resolution / visuals that make everything seem smoother but thats how it is. So ultimately I think it comes down to each individual game as to 30fps being acceptable. I certainly wont be dismissing any game in the future for only running at 30.
360 Examples
Acceptable frame rates below 60 (doesnt detract from game)
PGR 3
Gears Of War
Test Drive Unlimited
Kameo
Amped 3
Non-acceptable frame rates (detracts from game)
Tomb Raider
NFS MW (carbon seems better...)
Full Auto
Moto GP
IMO, it is immediatly noticable if a game is running at at 30fps or 60fps.
However, since playing PGR3 my view has changed - basically I dont think I would enjoy it anymore even if it was running at 60fps. I don't know if its the enchanced resolution / visuals that make everything seem smoother but thats how it is. So ultimately I think it comes down to each individual game as to 30fps being acceptable. I certainly wont be dismissing any game in the future for only running at 30.
360 Examples
Acceptable frame rates below 60 (doesnt detract from game)
PGR 3
Gears Of War
Test Drive Unlimited
Kameo
Amped 3
Non-acceptable frame rates (detracts from game)
Tomb Raider
NFS MW (carbon seems better...)
Full Auto
Moto GP
My prefference would be 60fps, looking at RR6 and PGR3 on the 360 you can tell the difference.
And in this day and age we should have stuck with 60fps and marginally less detail, than 30fps which some games still can't keep constant.
It matters more in racing games on consoles as shooters tend to be slowed down and can just about get away with the flower framerate on a console than they could say on a PC.
I would like to say C, but i would rather have a solid 30fps (and i mean solid) than end up with something like MotoGP where the framerate drops all over the place, even though it apparently doesn't drop below 30, you notice the drop from over 60 down to 30.
So if it was put to a poll i would say B
And in this day and age we should have stuck with 60fps and marginally less detail, than 30fps which some games still can't keep constant.
It matters more in racing games on consoles as shooters tend to be slowed down and can just about get away with the flower framerate on a console than they could say on a PC.
I would like to say C, but i would rather have a solid 30fps (and i mean solid) than end up with something like MotoGP where the framerate drops all over the place, even though it apparently doesn't drop below 30, you notice the drop from over 60 down to 30.
So if it was put to a poll i would say B
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,798
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
in an IDEAL world every game would be at least 60FPS.
the fact of the matter is however, given todays budgets and hardware limitations, not all games can be made to run @ 60FPS with the level of detail the developers would like to include.
Similarly, even if the games could be coded to run @ 60fps, they cannot guarantee a CONSTANT 60fps, thus to avoid slowdown they cap at 30FPS. (not always sucessfully)
so in short, yes 60FPS is better - i dont think anyone can deny that to be true, however, due to the difficulties in implementing do mean making trade off's, and the question is, do the dev's prefer to cap @ 30FPS, or play @ 60fps but with slowdown.
the fact of the matter is however, given todays budgets and hardware limitations, not all games can be made to run @ 60FPS with the level of detail the developers would like to include.
Similarly, even if the games could be coded to run @ 60fps, they cannot guarantee a CONSTANT 60fps, thus to avoid slowdown they cap at 30FPS. (not always sucessfully)
so in short, yes 60FPS is better - i dont think anyone can deny that to be true, however, due to the difficulties in implementing do mean making trade off's, and the question is, do the dev's prefer to cap @ 30FPS, or play @ 60fps but with slowdown.
I think I was contributing to taking the other thread OT.. oopps..
I was just trying to understand where DD was coming from..
I think dirty dog did say that 60fps games looked smoother then 30fps games on a normal 50/60Hz TV running I assume 576i (interlaced)..
Technically a PAL60 set showing 576i material can only show 30 full frames per second.. sp any difference must be down to the 30fps game dropping below 30fps.. which I can well believe.
I can only think that what he is a 30fps game is more complex/poorly coded, and therefore is more likely to drop it's framerate, if we say it dips by 33%, then that's 20fps which is very noticeable to everyone.. A 60fps game that dips by 20% is still going to be well above 30fps, and so will always look smooth..
Looking at some of the older games cited, this must be the case, as your TV cannot show anymore then 30fps if using 576i.
I also think another major factor is how modern TV's handle their incoming signals.. and the processing quality or lack of processing adds to the effect.
A lot of plasma's and LCD's panels actually have a weird native refresh rate that is not 60Hz, and this is one of the major casuses of 'tearing' seen by a lot of LCD owners, this mismatch being a real pain.. Most sets apply processing to the incoming signal to smooth out this mismatch. but inevitably depending on how it's done, there will be some 'stutter' associated with it that isn't actually present in the source material..
My projector has a native 60Hz refresh rate, and as such suits the X360's 720p output perfectly, and PGR3/RR6 look equally as smooth most of the time.. I'd gladly invite anyone over to look for themselves.. although in fairness RR6 is graphically uninspiring compared to PGR3 IMO.
I was just trying to understand where DD was coming from..
I think dirty dog did say that 60fps games looked smoother then 30fps games on a normal 50/60Hz TV running I assume 576i (interlaced)..
Technically a PAL60 set showing 576i material can only show 30 full frames per second.. sp any difference must be down to the 30fps game dropping below 30fps.. which I can well believe.
I can only think that what he is a 30fps game is more complex/poorly coded, and therefore is more likely to drop it's framerate, if we say it dips by 33%, then that's 20fps which is very noticeable to everyone.. A 60fps game that dips by 20% is still going to be well above 30fps, and so will always look smooth..
Looking at some of the older games cited, this must be the case, as your TV cannot show anymore then 30fps if using 576i.
I also think another major factor is how modern TV's handle their incoming signals.. and the processing quality or lack of processing adds to the effect.
A lot of plasma's and LCD's panels actually have a weird native refresh rate that is not 60Hz, and this is one of the major casuses of 'tearing' seen by a lot of LCD owners, this mismatch being a real pain.. Most sets apply processing to the incoming signal to smooth out this mismatch. but inevitably depending on how it's done, there will be some 'stutter' associated with it that isn't actually present in the source material..
My projector has a native 60Hz refresh rate, and as such suits the X360's 720p output perfectly, and PGR3/RR6 look equally as smooth most of the time.. I'd gladly invite anyone over to look for themselves.. although in fairness RR6 is graphically uninspiring compared to PGR3 IMO.
Hmm.DemonLooking said:
First of all, consoles don't use 576i, they use 480i. They either run at PAL50 (with borders, eg. Gran Turismo 3 or 4) or they run at PAL60.
60fps games do indeed look smoother (including on a regular interlaced TV) than 30fps games, like the games I mentioned earlier.
Just for clarity
PAL50 = 576i (720 * 576) , 25fps
PAL60 = 576i (720 * 576) , 30fps
NTSC = 480i (720 * 480) , 30fps
There is a physical difference between PAL50/60 in that extra 5fps, which should be just about noticeable.. but there is no way technically that any of the 576i/480i transmission systems can show any more then 30fps.. it just isn't scientifically possible..
However, just becuase you can send 30fps over the tranmission link does not mean the console is actually rendering 30fps.. and I think this is what must be happening.. 30fps games tend to 'slow' down a bit, and being that your eyes can just about detect 25Hz you should notice lack of smoothness when a game drops below 30fps.. the 60fps game on an interlaced tranmission medium cannot show more then 30fps, but clearly it will be a rock solid 30fps..
Surely that is the only technical reason for you seeing any difference in this scenario..
When you move onto progressive signals (480p/576p/720 etc) then you can at least technically show the extra frames.. however, as mentioned, most modern displays will still process this to their own internal working frequency and can add their own judder/stutter which they have to process...
Demon said:
If you have played the games I mentioned then you will have seen for yourself that the 60fps ones look smoother and play more responsively than the 30fps ones.
Human eyes can recognise and process 200fps+. Or are you saying that 25/30fps games are as smooth as real life, to you?
(Interesting reading: http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html)