Your game of choice MUST play at max settings at AT LEAST 60fps. Anyone else understand this logic?

~>Dg<~ said:
worms everwhere and its sunday :p

certain game engines benefit from higher fps like cod series quake and so on.

you should aim for 60 fps really on pc. if you cant tell difference when playing between 60 and 30 uninstall

if i play cod4 for eg if i chose 30 , 60 , 125 , 250 i coud tell all of those quite easily.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you can tell the difference in lag between different length network cables. We don't all have those superhuman powers. :p

It all depends on the game for me (fps vs RPG for example). If it feels smooth and looks good, I don't care about the number of frames being rendered.
 
Also some games just look bad at "acceptable in any other scenario" fps.
Diablo 3 for example, the animations/movement are choppy below 60fps, it's very noticeable and annoys me (was on a laptop away from home at the time :P ).
 
Devrij said:
Yeah, but you can tell the difference in lag between different length network cables. We don't all have those superhuman powers. :p
Click to expand...

I know what you said was tongue in cheek but the difference between say 30fps and 120fps is, even in pure latency terms, massive compared to any different in network cabling (assuming you mean internal cabling!). 30fps gives a render time of ~33ms compared to ~8ms to for 120fps, a difference of 25ms. That's (in latency terms) the difference between say, a LAN connection and a mediocre ADSL connection, or the difference between playing on a UK server and a Swedish server.

Of course it isn't really the latency that is the issue anyway and (as you've adhered to) in certain games there is a noticeable difference. In a fast paced FPS that I am fully in tune with, I can instantly tell if my monitor is running at 60hz rather than 120hz.

Of course, you get diminishing returns the higher you go (30fps vs 60fps is far worse than 60fps vs 120fps for example) and no doubt different people perceive things differently. Which is why I don't put an upper limit on things, it may be that I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 120hz and 200hz (never had a screen capable of over 160hz), but I wouldn't say it was impossible for anyone else to. I find it quite laughable that people come up with the nice round arbitrary numbers anyway... "human eye can't see more than 30fps".... "human eye can't see more than 60fps".... why 30 and 60, why not 32.63 or 61.5?

Best article I ever read about the limit of human perception on framerates is over 10 years old now but still well worth a read for anyone who hasn't seen it (make sure you also read the followup article linked at the end): http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
 
ThomBassmonkey said:
Remember, most TV/Bluray/DVD etc is 24fps. I don't see people complaining about how that flickers or looks choppy. :)
Click to expand...

on pans, how much detail is lost on 24p ? lots you cant see a bloody thing

the camera hasn't captured enough temporal detail to make the transition smooth. you can make each frame in focus but then it looks all handy cam and un-natural.

imo movies would be better if they selectively manged pans and doubled the frame rate, that way a lot of detail is kept in check.

i agree about consistent frame rate though, but in the end that's life.. so if you have found a magic way of guaranteeing 0ms butter smooth 30fps everytime on everygame then let us all know.


btw found a review the other day that showed a ati 7770 with much lower frame latency than nvidia or ati top end cards, perhaps if you only need 30fps and low settings then this would be a preffered model?
 
That page is an interesting read, HangTime. It does confused "what's the minimum time period an image needs to be shown for a human to register it" with "how few images can a human be shown in order for the moving picture to look smooth". While they're both to do with response times in eyes, they're actually quite different questions :)

Fair point, Phill. I've never thought of it in terms of there being more detail in a pan (and that's the same for games as it is for movies) than in a still shot. I'm having a play with BF3 now and I can tell the different when I'm turning quickly with settings like shadows on low (I couldn't tell you what my FPS is, but when I was recording the beta with FRAPS it was around 40-50). Maybe I'll be a convert yet. :)
 
There is more than perceived visible framerate. If the game update rate is locked with the framerate, meaning input updates, phyiscs updates, netowrk updates and so on, the game will feel sluggish as well as look sluggish.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
worms everwhere and its sunday :p

certain game engines benefit from higher fps like cod series quake and so on.

you should aim for 60 fps really on pc. if you cant tell difference when playing between 60 and 30 uninstall

if i play cod4 for eg if i chose 30 , 60 , 125 , 250 i coud tell all of those quite easily.
Click to expand...

Yes DG but lets be honest here you have the ability to "defy the laws of physics" the rest of us have to make do with not being able to see the difference between the speed of light across a 15 and 30 meter cable.

If you can see the difference between 15 meters and 30 meters when the subject is travelling at 186000miles a second. 30-50-125-250fps must make you feel like neo in the famous matrix scene.
 
Devrij said:
Yeah, but you can tell the difference in lag between different length network cables. We don't all have those superhuman powers. :p
Click to expand...

lol looks like someone else had the same idea as me. Seems DG's little lan cable test made a lot of us laugh at him. :D
 
lol at trolling but sorry you wouldnt play at say 30 fps in cod4 for eg when you could use 250

ask anyone ;)

if you cant tell the difference between the fps then uninstall tbh :D

from wiki

while others, such as Unreal Tournament 3, can run well in excess of 100 FPS on sufficient hardware. Additionally some games such as Quake 3 Arena perform physics, AI, networking, and other calculations in sync with the rendered frame rate - this can result in inconsistencies with movement and network prediction code if players are unable to maintain the designed maximum frame rate of 125 FPS

sort of mentions why look at the quake engine tree posted earlier . most of the games if not all will benefit from a high fps rate. not all games do and as long as you get 60 then thats exceptable but in quake engine based games 125 is what you aim for or above.
 
Last edited:
No one said anything about cod4 or the difference between FPS obviously most of us mortals here can see the difference between 30-45-60-75-90 fps if we didn't we'd all be using old rigs running ti4600's or something.

That's not what we are laughing at its your superhuman strengths that are being trolled here.
Great comeback though. DG official Ocuk comeback (scream cod 4 at them and mention high FPS) always seems to work.




























Not!
 
Last edited:
No ones going to take you seriously after the speed of light thing its pretty obvious you just spam any load of rubbish.

If people doubt you, quickly mention cod 4 and 250 fps.

Anyway DG im busy mate just snipping down this 5meter cable mate to 1 meter the fps go through the roof on a 1 meter cable, the speed of light just seems so much slower across the 5 meters cable.

My cod 4 skills are now superhuman and Im now running at 50000fps so much better than the 49999fps I was getting before I can really see that extra 1fps.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
read above articles try to understand

troll power = 1/10 on trollometer need to pick your game up tbh ;)
Click to expand...

Sorry DG the lag on this 30 meter LAN cable is just terrible. Only just got your reply and don't be so hard on your self, you deserve at least a 2. Your persistence alone gains you at least an extra point.
 
There is nothing like a thread concerning frame rates to bring out the best in people, it’s the ‘mines bigger than yours’ of the pc gaming age. This argument has been knocking around for years, but more so in the past five years or so..
If you get very high fps great, if you get average fps also great, if you get very low fps then genuinely I’m sorry for you, most of us have been there at some stage and its not fun trying to grab a frame from here and there..:(

However, yes you need adequate fps to play a game and enjoy the experience, but only adequate, above that’s a bonus.
I think 30 needs to be about min, some games you can get away with slightly lower, but generally 30 min, average nice constant 40-60fps and max can be anything your system can pump out and your screen can handle.

.
 
One thing I do notice, if you have a console game running at 30fps then run the exact same game at 30fps on a PC, most of the time the console version feels smoother, this is why I go for a higher FPS. Few others have agreed in the past, maybe my eyes are just getting bad.

EDIT: In fact thinking about it I guess this is really down to the PC mouse moving faster then a pad can. But I have noticed it moving forward as well.
 
Last edited:
ThomBassmonkey said:
Remember, most TV/Bluray/DVD etc is 24fps. I don't see people complaining about how that flickers or looks choppy. :)
Click to expand...

theres several reasons for this, all of which are touched upon in the article i posted at the top of page 2.

the first is that a TV/DVD/whatever has natural motion blur for each frame, whereas games are rendered as perfectly sharp still pictures. the motion blur is incredibly difficult to get right in games, and it is a massive benefit to giving the illusion of movement. if you read the article ive posted at the top of page 2 you will see why

the other reason has already been talked about by everyone else, and that is the fact that you control the camera in games, but not in movies, so you dont experience any control lag
 
voorhees1979 said:
One thing I do notice, if you have a console game running at 30fps then run the exact same game at 30fps on a PC, most of the time the console version feels smoother, this is why I go for a higher FPS. Few others have agreed in the past, maybe my eyes are just getting bad.

EDIT: In fact thinking about it I guess this is really down to the PC mouse moving faster then a pad can. But I have noticed it moving forward as well.
Click to expand...

This is definitely true, and almost definetley down to the fact that the control pad is less precise. Also, remember that variance between frame rates matters a lot too. 30fps (solid) will probably feel smoother than variance between 30-45. I have no idea how console games work, but I imagine devs put a framerate limit on for this reason.

You can do the same on PC with MSI Afterburner and I personally always have a frame limit set at either 40 or 60 to make the game feel generally smoother.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom