60fps=slide show (poll)

[chizow]

LoL, this thread is still going on? Anyways, just my 2 cents....I was using a V5 PCI for about 9 mos. before I picked up a GF3 in the BB deal. I guess the argument here is FPS and what is acceptable, and somehow Picture Quality got thrown in the mix as well. Both have their places in gaming, just not the same types of games. I was hardcore into RPG, RTS games that were mostly 2D with some 3D at a 3/4 birds-eye view. I never really got into FPS games for a few reasons: 1) my machine wasn't the fastest rig on the planet (like it is now ) 2) I didn't have the latest raging video card on the market, and 3) I didn't put the time into 3D RPS games to get good at them, so I shyed away from them. I've recently gotten into FPS games a lot more since I built Athlon-based rigs (2nd one now) originally with a V5. I will say that the V5 scales exceptionally well with CPU speed b/c its rendering architecture lends itself better to CPU rather than GPU speed. That being said, the V5 on a P3 500 ran Q3 Arena modestly well. Once I bumped it up to an Athlon 1.4 on a PC133 rig, it flew, as did the rest of my games. Its even faster now on my AXP and DDR board. I could crank up the settings to 2x FSAA at 1024x16 (with the 24-bit color hack) max details and it still ran at @120fps avg.....it flew. All my older 2D RTS/RPG games looked unbelievable with FSAA on and they ran without the slightest stutter (try playing Fallout Tactics online at 1024 with 20 people and 6 squaddies per player ).

Now to the GF3...on older games like Q3, there is no noticeable difference at all compared to the V5. Yah I ran everything on the V5 in 16 bit, but the V5 IMO had superior IQ regardless of color depth, particularly with the 24 bit hack enabled. Turn on FSAA, and its no contest. On newer games however, like Max Payne and RTCW, there is a noticeable difference in speed and smoothness when running at 1280 and max details (the V5 can't run at that setting smoothly btw, 1024 max). I also run those games in 32-bit color, and in FPS games, I don't really care about FSAA, I care about speed and details. The GF3 is extremely impressive with its raw speed. I keep my V5 PCI in my system to run my RTS/RPG games, and the GF3 for FPS games, but there definitely is some truth to what people have said about not knowing what is out there until they actually experience it. I didn't think the GF3 would make such a huge difference in FPS type gaming, but now I can't imagine playing FPS games on my V5. I didn't read that article with the GF3 vs V5 benchies, and I'm not sure if there is any merit to the V5 beating the GF3 with FSAA enabled. The V5 doesn't take much of a hit with 2x FSAA enabled, but it still didn't beat the GF3 in the benches I ran myself. My rule of thumb is if the V5 can run something at around 60fps with 2x FSAA on....I use it over the GF3....and yes, I do take minimum frames into consideration, b/c slowdown in a game can result in a slideshow even if you are averaging 60fps. I play games online exclusively, so considerations for lag also should be factored in. I voted "no" 60fps is not a slideshow, but if you are getting slow-downs b/c of lag, lots of sprites/graphics, smoke in games, its frustrating. If you are flying along 75% of the time only to slow down to a chug when it counts (in the middle of a heavy fire fight), those extra fps do really make a difference. So the game might not be a slideshow the entire time, but if it slows down when it matters, it might not be enough......

Chiz

 

[EMAN]

chizow, we're not talking about performance with voodoo 5. We all know voodoo 5 is slower with current FPS games. Come on the card is old of course it's going to run FPS games slower than geforce 3. Still you can not deny that the card has best FSAA. BFG has to talk bad about the voodoo 5 FSAA because it was comparing it to geforce 3. Typical fanboy behavior.

 

[Jumpem]

I'd kill for 60 fps. I've played through Q3, UT, Max Payne, Deus Ex, RTCW,..... on a 16MB TNT-1 card. I'm used to playing around 20 fps.

 

[TheNewGuy]

I play wwiionline....so if I had an avg of 60 fps, I'd be thrilled

Dave

 

[BFG10K]

60FPS plain and simple does NOT look like a slideshow.

It does when it's dipped below 60 FPS.

in a game, if your video card is capable of 120 FPS or even 200FPS, but you set VSYNC to ON, would you see a difference? in quake 3 perhaps, but in most games, NO!

What are you talking about? Of course you would. You would notice it instantly. Your mouse responsiveness goes to hell, your turns/jumps/spins suffer and the whole game has a jerky look about it. Have you even played any games or do you just parrot what you've read somewhere?

got that? 60FPS looks fine.

Go that? It doesn't. Again have you tried for yourself or did a little birdie tell you?

and stop with the retarded arguments. if you can't figure out things like this on your own then so be it (really how hard is it to understand?).

"Figure" what out? Everything you've said so far has been completely worng. In fact it sounds like you've never even played a game in your life.

3D Games can be movies..

No, they cannot. Movies are nothing like 3D games. Again do you play games or do you just read books?

if a GAME's framerate below 60fps hurts your eyes, then theres something wrong.

It doesn't hurt my eyes, it's just jerky.

have you ever played a flight sim? 35 FPS is perfectly acceptable, becuase objects don't move incredably fast onscreen.

Yeah OK, I'll give you that one since flight sims are a special case. In reality though we're talking about 3D games which is a totally different ballgame.

and that you have the famous 3dfx T-Buffer affect running: motion blur.

Motion blur is totally useless for 3D games. Don't even bring it up.

depends on the game

FPSs obviously.

umm no UT actually measures the slowest framerate in a given demo.

Exactly and it shows how much a card's framerates can fluctuate and how low they can go. If you were playing the same level as the demo in the same situation your framerates would at exactly the same level.

given that this is UT, and that I own UT and run it on my Radeon (in OpenGL mode) I've only ever experienced slowdown in framerate when in one level so far

Which has precisely what do do with anything? Why are you simply making statements because you have the ability to type? If you say something, try to make it related to the actual argument at hand.

you guessed it. FIRST PERSON SHOOTERS. guess what? when that's all a reviewer sees is FPS games, then his opinions on playable framerates will also be more like BFGs opinons.

I don't care what reviewers say, nor do I care what you or EMAN think is playable. I know what is playable from logging hundreds of hours of gaming in addition to doing extensive testing and research about 3D techonology.

have you ever played (or even seen) Homeworld? NFS3, NFS4? Starcraft?

What does that have to do with anything? The argument is about framerates in 3D games.

And yes, I've played a ton of non-FPSs.

the fact that you're sensitive to framerates like that points me to (aptly named) FPS games.

That's right, I've played a lot of 3D games and I'm speaking from experience.

 

[BFG10K]

I said that a typical gamer's preference would be around 50-70fps. Well he's not a typical gamer. He's a hardcore gamer and he just couldn't understand that.

You don't understand that fact because even now you're still trying to tell me that I can't see more than 60 FPS because "the typical gamer" can't.

But this guy just annoys the hell out of me. It was funny for a while but now it is getting retarded.

Your comments have been retarded right from the start. You trip over your own arguments all the time and change your story whenever it suits you. Also the level of ignorance and hypocrisy demonstrated in your posts is amazing.

Does this not sound like a truly pathetic fanboy? Voodoo 5 has the best FSAA, end of story.

ROTFL.

<EMAN>
You are a fanbody BFG. My card is better than yours, end of story. Oh, and you're still a fanboy BFG. And a zealot. And a fanboy.
</EMAN>

<rolleyes>

Pot-Kettle-Black. If you could only see how ridiculous your arguments really are...

For one thing I never claimed that nVidia's FSAA is better than 3dfx's (that in itself is a whole new can of worms). All I said was that:

(1) Overall the GF3's image quality demolishes the Voodoo5's because it supports features that the Voodoo5 doesn't even have. But of course you'll never get this simple fact because you still think that the Radeon's bilinear filtering is "better" that the GF3's trilinear filtering. There clearly is no hope for you and I don't even know why I'm bothering to explain it to you.

(2) Those reviewer's "benchmarks" are so flawed and scream of so much zealotry that it's completely ridiculous to even discuss them.

But of course a zealot like you will never understand logical and rational discussion such as this. Your little mind has already been made up and anyone who tries to deconstruct any false claims made by other zealots is automatically a labelled a "fanboy" by you.

Face it EMAN, you've got nothing. All this time all you've been doing is resorting to personal attacks, strawmans and completely fallacious arguments to back up your dream world of what you think the world is like.

 

[EMAN]

You know your just making an ass out of yourself again.

END OF DISCUSSION

 

[holdencommodore]

As long as the frame- rate doesn't drop below 25 FPS in high polygon counts, and doesn't have any texture tearing, then it's fine by me.

Cheers

 

[Priit]

Maybe 1 second is too long time for measuring frame rate? I mean what if video card happends to render 45 frames within first 500ms and only 15 within another? That would gave us 60FPS average but would it be smooth? Way better figure would be msPF: milliseconds per frame. 60FPS would gave us ~16.7msPF and 120FPS 8.3msPF. It shouldn't be too hard to integrate that kind of counter into game and it's max, min. and average values should represent smoothness more accurately than FPS. Nevermind, just my silly thoughs...

 

[Soccerman]

It does when it's dipped below 60 FPS.

theres the problem. I'm not talking about dipping framerates.

Your mouse responsiveness goes to hell, your turns/jumps/spins suffer and the whole game has a jerky look about it.

in Quake 3. next:

Have you even played any games or do you just parrot what you've read somewhere?

of course I have! sheesh this is going to take a while.. Quake 3 (the Demo, never bothered to buy it cause the bots were dumb and I have too much lag to play online), Unreal Tournament (smarter bots, than Quake 3) Half Life (too much lag for me to play online), HomeWorld (that game uses ALOT of CPU power, even my Duron @866 slows down in extreme situations. it really needs T&L), Homeworld Cataclysm (same as Homeworld), StarCraft (now there's a game I can play online sometimes), StarCraft Broodwar, Warcraft 2, NFS3, NFS4, Forsaken, Battlezone, Rainbow 6 (I have barely gotten around to playing that), Star Trek Voyager: Elite Forces, Tachyon: the Fringe, Descent Freespace, Descent 2, Wing Commander Prophesy and Wing Commander IV.. umm I think that pretty much covers my games.. no doubt you have more.

"Figure" what out?

if you can't figure out why Movies don't look so jumpy, or TV doesn't look like a Slideshow, yet your computer games do, then I'm sorry, but there's something wrong. it's plain and simple that all yo u seem to play is Quake 3 (esp. considering that last remark about jumping), which is only a good game first of all when you play it online.

No, they cannot. Movies are nothing like 3D games. Again do you play games or do you just read books?

ya I do both do you do both? I'd hope so...

movies are nothing like 3D games? ok, take nearly any game (besides Quake 3) that current hardware can make run at 150 FPS average, turn on VSYNC so it runs at, say 75 FPS (1600X1200 my monitors refresh rate). now what are the chances that you're going to notice the framerate going BELOW 75 Frames per second? pretty low if you ask me, though no doubt it CAN happen. also notice that you're running at a framerate HIGHER than your TV (which is effectively 60FPS), and WWWAAAYYY higher than your movies (which are effectively somewhere around 30FPS I don't know exactly).. tell me then how can you say that games are not similar to movies? do you see (in any game besides Quake 3) jerkyness when the framerate drops below 60 FPS? what about 40FPS? have you ever run the winamp plugin called Nullsoft Tiny FullScreen? Try running the Osciliscope + Spectrum analyser at 640x480. I don't know about you, but my monitors refresh rate is somewhere around 120 hz at that res, possibly higher. all I know is that running winamp + that visualisation, I can't see one line, but rather MULTIPLE lines. what does that mean? it means that my eyes are not quick enough to comprehend what is going on. they are very similar to how a movie used to be captured (on film). running at 24 Frames per second, each frame would have multiple lines when recording the same thing I look at. so what this tells me is that my eyes probably don't see 120 FPS, maybe not even 60 FPS. but I can still FEEL a difference if I'm running an Engine based on Quake 3 (the way it was written allows you to be better (ie, with jumps) with a better computer. it doesn't mean it looks like a slide show, or anything like that when I run it at 60 FPS.

Yeah OK, I'll give you that one since flight sims are a special case. In reality though we're talking about 3D games which is a totally different ballgame.

oh so Flight sims are not considered 3D games?

one other thing that I forgot to mention in THIS post (I don't know if I did above) is that FPS games allow you to do very quick moves. which means the entire screen moves. as I think Benskywalker pointed out, you'll be able to see a difference between 'low' speeds ( guess 60FPS) and high speeds (120+) becuase there is much less of a difference between frames, which your EYES/MIND blend together, so you CAN see a difference, even though you can't see 120 FPS. the same thing occurs with the visualization thing. if I increase the framerate, it adds more lines. but because it's a totally different situation, it doesn't look smoother.

Motion blur is totally useless for 3D games. Don't even bring it up.

it's used to great effect with Perfect Dark on the N64, and probably at least a couple of games on the PS2. I don't know for sure, but I think MGS2 employs it for some scenes.

why is it interesting? well it does the same as your EYES/BRAIN does, only in hardware. which means basically that they should for the most part just leave it to your EYES/BRAIN to do.

given that this is UT, and that I own UT and run it on my Radeon (in OpenGL mode) I've only ever experienced slowdown in framerate when in one level so far

Which has precisely what do do with anything? Why are you simply making statements because you have the ability to type? If you say something, try to make it related to the actual argument at hand

well if you used your brain a little.. I don't even reach an average of 60 FPS in UT and OpenGL mode while playing games. if I only SEE slowdown in one level/situation, I would have to say that my computer might not be quite fast enough to prevent slowdowns. if I were to get an average of 60 FPS in UT, perhaps my lowest score wouldn't be low enough for me to FEEL/SEE the slowdown? again though, in UT the quick manouvers are where you'll see a difference between 60FPS and 120FPS. if you're looking for them, not playing the game.

I don't care what reviewers say, nor do I care what you or EMAN think is playable.

that's fine, just as long as you don't force it upon the rest of us. as you can tell, we're satisfied.

have you ever played (or even seen) Homeworld? NFS3, NFS4? Starcraft?

What does that have to do with anything? The argument is about framerates in 3D games.

And yes, I've played a ton of non-FPSs.

so answer the question? have you played those games? name some non-FPS games that you have played please!

You don't understand that fact because even now you're still trying to tell me that I can't see more than 60 FPS because "the typical gamer" can't.

and you're trying to tell us YOU CAN? try the visualization test from this post, tell me what you see.

btw, I'm sorry for increasing the length of this thread. flame me if you want

 

[EMAN]

For one thing I never claimed that nVidia's FSAA is better than 3dfx's (that in itself is a whole new can of worms). All I said was that:

The article was about FSAA if you didn?t know. You can?t say anything nice about Voodoo 5? Sure it?s slow but the visual quality you get from that card when FSAA is turned on is phenomenal even compared to your geforce 3 but you don?t know that because you never owned one.


You are a fanbody BFG. My card is better than yours, end of story. Oh, and you're still a fanboy BFG. And a zealot. And a fanboy.

I said this? My card is better than yours.

I know that my card isn?t visually lacking compared to no geforce 3. But I would take a geforce 3 over my radeon vivo if I wanted to blow some money. My original statement is this. ?There?s no visual quality you have that compels me to upgrade to a geforce 3 other than better fps. You probably will have better visual quality later on but I?ll decide when that day comes.

You?re a zealot and a fanboy. My other statement showed this so there?s no point.


Overall the GF3's image quality demolishes the Voodoo5's because it supports features that the Voodoo5 doesn't even have. But of course you'll never get this simple fact because you still think that the Radeon's bilinear filtering is "better" that the GF3's trilinear filtering. There clearly is no hope for you and I don't even know why I'm bothering to explain it to you.

I never said this? I said Radeon?s bi-Aniso gives you better performance and compared quality to geforce?s Anisolinear. Guess what Radeon can now enable Anisolinear in the latest drivers if you didn?t know.


Face it EMAN, you've got nothing. All this time all you've been doing is resorting to personal attacks, strawmans and completely fallacious arguments to back up your dream world of what you think the world is like.

Maybe at the end and I already explained it. You act retarded 24/7.

 

[yata]

Text

 

[BFG10K]

theres the problem. I'm not talking about dipping framerates

Exactly, that is the problem. 60 FPS average will almost certainly drop below 60 FPS.

Show me a system that can run any game under [/b]any[/b] situation at a constant and unfluctuating 60 FPS. What's that? You can't? No, I didn't think so.

in Quake 3.

No, in every FPS.

if you can't figure out why Movies don't look so jumpy, or TV doesn't look like a Slideshow, yet your computer games do, then I'm sorry

I can it out figure it out just fine which is why I know that 3D games are nothing like movies. Again I don't know why I repeat myself but:

-movies have motion blur; 3D games don't.
-3D games have direct interection because you control what's happening; movies have no interaction whatsoever.
-movies run at constant framerates and do not fluctuate; 3D games do not.

Yet despite this fact a lot of people still claim they can see flickering and jerkiness with movies. If they can see it in movies, imagine how much worse a 3D game running at an average of 24 FPS would be? And 60 FPS average is nowhere near enough either because it'll frequently dip below 60 FPS, which is where I can notice slowdowns.

movies are nothing like 3D games? ok, take nearly any game (besides Quake 3) that current hardware can make run at 150 FPS average, turn on VSYNC so it runs at, say 75 FPS (1600X1200 my monitors refresh rate). now what are the chances that you're going to notice the framerate going BELOW 75 Frames per second? pretty low if you ask me,

What are the chances? I'll notice it instantly because my mouse will be laggy and my jumps, turns and spins will be jerky. And yes that's in every single 3D game I've played.

do you see (in any game besides Quake 3) jerkyness when the framerate drops below 60 FPS? what about 40FPS?

I see it in every game, not just Quake3. Hell, I see it if it drops below 60 FPS.

have you ever run the winamp plugin called Nullsoft Tiny FullScreen?

No and neither do I have a desire to. This discussion is about 3D FPS games, not some windowed 2D WinAMP plugin.

oh so Flight sims are not considered 3D games?

Don't try that strawman with me. You know very well that the issue at hand is about FPSs because FPSs require high framerates more than other games. Stick to FPSs please.

it's used to great effect with Perfect Dark on the N64, and probably at least a couple of games on the PS2. I don't know for sure, but I think MGS2 employs it for some scenes.

I want genuine speed via framerates, not that fake speed increase that motion blur may appear to give. I want fluidity and sharpness.

I don't even reach an average of 60 FPS in UT and OpenGL mode while playing games.

Then perhaps you should reach it before you make a comment about it?

if I were to get an average of 60 FPS in UT, perhaps my lowest score wouldn't be low enough for me to FEEL/SEE the slowdown?

If I was playing at an average of 60 FPS in UT it would be a slideshow in a lot of places regardless of whether or not the system I was using could achieve 120 FPS.

again though, in UT the quick manouvers are where you'll see a difference between 60FPS and 120FPS. if you're looking for them, not playing the game.

I'm not looking for them, I instantly feel it.

that's fine, just as long as you don't force it upon the rest of us. as you can tell, we're satisfied.

And I'm not forcing anything onto you either. If you like 5 FPS (or whatever) that's fine by me. What I object to is EMAN starting this worthless poll to "democratically prove" to me that I don't need more than 60 FPS.

name some non-FPS games that you have played please!

Certainly, although I don't see how it's relevant to anything. On my HD I've currently got the following non-FPS installed:

-X-Wing, X-Wing Alliance, X-Wing vs TIE Fighter, TIE Fighter, Star Wars Rogue Squadron.
-MS Combat Flight Simulator 1 and 2.
-Diablo.
-Warcraft 2 BNE.

Annd apart from Rogue Squadron I've finished each game at least four times.

and you're trying to tell us YOU CAN?

Yes.

 

[BFG10K]

The article was about FSAA if you didn?t know.

Then why bother with the benchmarks?

You can?t say anything nice about Voodoo 5?

I certainly can but that doesn't mean I should make dellusional claims about it. Let's stick to reality here, shall we?

Sure it?s slow but the visual quality you get from that card when FSAA is turned on is phenomenal even compared to your geforce 3 but you don?t know that because you never owned one.

FSAA is arguably better but overall the Voodoo5 sucks compared to my GF3, especially in games that utilise the features that Voodoo5 doesn't have. Of course you'll never understand that.

There?s no visual quality you have that compels me to upgrade to a geforce 3 other than better fps

Now you're starting to sound reasonable. Why couldn't you have just said this in the beginning?

I said Radeon?s bi-Aniso gives you better performance and compared quality to geforce?s Anisolinear.

There really is no hope for you is there?

Guess what Radeon can now enable Anisolinear in the latest drivers if you didn?t know.

No, I don't know. Please give me some more info because I'd really like to know more.

 

[EMAN]

Then why bother with the benchmarks?

Why do reviews have benchmarks? Hmmm..


FSAA is arguably better but overall the Voodoo5 sucks compared to my GF3, especially in games that utilise the features that Voodoo5 doesn't have. Of course you'll never understand that.

Why couldn't you say that before? Instead you just talk crap about the voodoo 5. It just makes you look like an Nvidiot.


Now you're starting to sound reasonable. Why couldn't you have just said this in the beginning?

What are you talking about? I did say this. page 8 of Kyro 3.

When my radeon vivo se 260 core 460 memory does more than edequate. Why do I have to upgrade? There's no extra eye candy you got right now that compels me to get a geforce 3 ti 500 other than extra speed. Eye love making VCD out of this card. Something that I can play it on my set top DVD player.


I don't know why I didn't sound reasonable to you before. I was being reasonable from the start but you keep talking on and on about your 150+ fps. Go read some reviews and it clearly says that geforce ti 500 gets over 150fps at 1152x864. I called 150+fps overkill and you jumped down my throat.

BFG read it from page 3 and I was being very reasonable from the start. I was talking about your average joe's preference from the start. Your not a typical gamer. Your wanna be hardcore gamer and you just can't comprehend.


No, I don't know. Please give me some more info because I'd really like to know more.

screenshots

 

[BFG10K]

Why do reviews have benchmarks? Hmmm.

That guy was just trolling because he was claiming that the Voodoo5 looked better than the GF3 and was faster. He clearly didn't have a clue what he was talking about, nor what he was doing.

Why couldn't you say that before? Instead you just talk crap about the voodoo 5

I did. I never even mentioned FSAA in my original comment because the fact is I was neither confirming nor denying the FSAA comparison. I was attacking the entire article as a whole.

When my radeon vivo se 260 core 460 memory does more than edequate. Why do I have to upgrade? There's no extra eye candy you got right now that compels me to get a geforce 3 ti 500 other than extra speed.

To which I answered that if I was in your position I would be running at a lower resolution so an upgrade would increase my eye candy. I was explaining my take on the issue - I wasn't trying to force you to upgrade. If you're happy with your card by all means, keep it. I'd be the last person to tell you to give it up.

screenshots

So the Radeon now allows trilinear and anisotropic filtering at once? Have you tried forcing anisotropic filtering in a game that allows trilinear filtering and verified that it works?

It would be great news if tri + ani worked on the Radeon since it would mean that I'd have a choice between nVidia and ATi in my next video card purchase. But sadly I don't think it's the case because I remember an ATi rep saying the Radeon 8500 couldn't do both at once. But like I said before I need more info to find out exactly what's happening.

Thanks for the link.

 

[Liquidh2o]

Here's some insight for everyone.(taken from amo.net)

Computer Games and their revoltionary use of Frames Per Second

It's easy to understand the TV and Movies and the technology behind them. Computers are much more complex. The most complex being the actual physiology /neuro-ethology of the visual system. Computer Monitors of a smaller size are much more expensive in cost related to a TV CRT (Cathode Ray Tube). This is because the phosphors and the dot pitch of Computer Monitors are much smaller and much more close together making much greater detail and much higher resolutions possible. Your Computer Monitor also refreshes much more rapidly, and if you look at your monitor through your peripheral vision you can actually watch these lines being drawn on your screen. You can also observe this technology difference by watching TV where a monitor is in the background on the TV.

A frame or scene on a computer is first setup by your video card in a frame buffer. The image is then sent to the RAMDAC (Random Access Memory Digital-Analog-Convertor) for final display on your monitor. Liquid Crystal Displays, and FPD Plasma displays use a higher quality strictly digital representation. After the scene has been sent to the monitor it is perfectly rendered and displayed. One thing is missing however, the faster you do this, and the more frames you plan on sending to the screen per second, the better your hardware needs to be. Computer Programmers and Computer Game Developers which have been working strictly with Computers can't reproduce motion blur in these scenes. Even though 30 Frames are displaying per second the scenes don't look as smooth as on a TV. Well that is until we get to more than 30 FPS.

NVIDIA a computer video card maker who recently purchased 3dFx another computer video card maker just finished a GPU (Graphics Processing Unit) for the XBOX from Microsoft. Increasing amounts of rendering capabilities and memory as well as more transistors and instructions per second equate to more frames per second in a Computer Video Game or on Computer Displays in general. There is no motion blur, so the transition from frame to frame is not as smooth as in movies, that is at 30 FPS. NVIDIA/3dfx put out a demo that runs half the screen at 30 fps, and the other half at 60 fps. There is a definite difference between the two scenes, with the 60 fps looking much better and smoother than the 30 fps.

Even if you could put motion blur into games, it would be a waste. The Human Eye perceives information continuously. We do not perceive the world through frames. In games, motion blur would cause the game to behave erratically. An example would be playing a game like Quake III, if there was motion blur used, there would be problems calculating the exact position of an object, so it would be really tough to hit something with your weapon. With motion blur in a game, the object in question would not really exist in any of the places where the "blur" is positioned. So we have perfectly drawn frames, so objects are always able to be calculated in set places in space. The overwhelming solution has been to push the human eye past the misconception of only being able to perceive 30 FPS. Pushing the Human Eye past 30 FPS to 60 FPS and even 120 FPS is possible, ask the video card manufacturers, an eye doctor, or a Physiologist.

With Computer Video Cards and computer programming, the actual frame rate can vary. Microsoft came up with a great way to handle this by being able to lock the frame rate when they were building one of their games.

 

[Liquidh2o]

and being a hardcore gamer, and listening to you two bicker, you both have your points, but it's getting lost in the self bravado flames you two are starting.


a sustained rate of 60fps for me wouldn't be a slideshow for me(note: key word: sustained)

I would say that I'd be more concerned with how far your fps deviate from the average rather than how high you can get your fps.

I've played tribes with 30fps, but it barely varied, so it ran pretty smooth and fluid. Then again, playing tribes2 I could be getting 100fps with dips into the 60's and it was a noticable difference. It wasn't necessarily because I was getting 60fps, but because of the fact that it would jump back and forth between 60-100fps.

bfg, you have your points, but in games such as q3, where you can set the ceiling for your maxfps, you could theoretically set your ceiling to 60fps, and with a top of the line gaming rig, that would be more than adequate. Why? Because the hardware can sustain that framerate without going any lower than 60fps.

Perfect example Urban terror mod for q3 is set to have a maxfps of 90fps by default. My gaming rig rarely dipped any lower than 90fps, and if it did it'd only be into the 80's. If i switched my maxfps to 60 i wouldn't be seeing those dips, I'd have a fluid, seamless and smooth experience. So I guess you could say based on fact, that an average of 60fps(in this scenario) is not a slideshow.

 

[eplebnista]

IMO, No, 60FPS is not a slide show.

My $.02,
eplebnista

 

[Daovonnaex]

While undesirable, it's hardly a slide show.

 

[dannybin1742]

you guys realise the human eye can only see on average about 50fps, the proteins in your eye that make up the rods and cones (ei. rhodopsin and, can't remeber the other one) can only cycle at max between .019 and .02 s from absorbtion to returning to its original shape. Just a little blub i remebered from biochem 402 in college.

 

[BFG10K]

a sustained rate of 60fps for me wouldn't be a slideshow for me(note: key word: sustained)

I'm happy with a minimum of 60 FPS but I would never cap the game to not go any higher.

I would say that I'd be more concerned with how far your fps deviate from the average rather than how high you can get your fps.

I'm actually concerned with both but the minimums are my primary concern, as you say.

bfg, you have your points, but in games such as q3, where you can set the ceiling for your maxfps, you could theoretically set your ceiling to 60fps, and with a top of the line gaming rig, that would be more than adequate.

You could but it would suck since it would generate exactly the same negative effects as enabling vsync does. While I don't want the game to dip below 60 FPS I certainly don't want to cap it at that rate (or any other rate) either.

Perfect example Urban terror mod for q3 is set to have a maxfps of 90fps by default.

Yet if you left your framerate uncapped your turns/jumps/spins and mouse movement would be more accurate and responsive. Capping your framerates is one of the worst things you'd ever want to do in a 3D game.

 

[Soccerman]

have you ever run the winamp plugin called Nullsoft Tiny FullScreen?

No and neither do I have a desire to. This discussion is about 3D FPS games, not some windowed 2D WinAMP plugin.

are you afraid of what you'll see? it comes with the full install of winamp btw.. all you have to do is try it. btw, it's not in a window :-0 it's fullscreen

oh so Flight sims are not considered 3D games?

Don't try that strawman with me. You know very well that the issue at hand is about FPSs because FPSs require high framerates more than other games. Stick to FPSs please.

why? we're talking about 3D games. hell we're talking about EVERYTHING, not just 3D games. everything u see on the computer is sent to you in frames anyway.

now, as for in FPS games you seeing/feeling the difference between 60 FPS SUSTAINED (even in UT, or whatever other FPS u play) and say 120 FPS sustained in FPS games, I can finally say that I honestly believe that you personally can. why? well I was being a bit.. umm, stubborn when saying that you can't see the difference between 120 and 60. as a matter of fact, I CAN and DO as well now that I think about it. my mouse is the Intellimouse Optical, plugged into the PS2 port. at default in windows it runs at a 40 hz refresh rate (equal to 40 FPS as I would hope you know). I run win98, so I use PS2-rate to change the refresh to as high as it will go. AFAIK the mouse only operates at 80 hz maximum (cause if I do set it to 200hz and set it at that, next time I run PS2 Rate to check the speed it's running at, it only sees 80hz), but the fact that I can see the difference between 40 and 80 hz there is a little surprising to me even though the winamp plugin I was talking about shows me multiple lines. I once took a screenshot to be sure that's not what it was showing and it confirmed that my eyes/brain were the cause of the multiple lines.. I guess it's the analogue nature of the way our eyes work. btw, I'm pretty sure PS2-Rate changes a registry setting for this does it not? if it does, does anyone know where? I'd rather not run the program on startup to do such a simple task.

Then perhaps you should reach it before you make a comment about it?

perhaps you're correct, except that all 3D games (FPSs, Flight sims, Racing games, Strategy games, etc) are similar/the same as 2D objects on your desktop. they're presented in frames. they also can have a FLUCTUATING framerate.

Certainly, although I don't see how it's relevant to anything.

it does because I want to know if you actually play non-FPS games. I don't care how many times you've beaten them (lol if you beat them 4 times, I start to wonder why, but oh well).

btw, stop using the words '3D games' because for all I know you could be referring to ONLY first person shooters, what with your posting history concerning 3D games (in this very thread AFAIK)..

unless of course you really mean 3D games in the sense that every 3D game is a 3D game (Homeworld is a 3D game, but not an FPS game, does that make it a non 3D game in your view? I hope not).

don't respond to this unless you at least try that plugin.

 

[Insidious]

I think I forgot to vote.........


aw crap! I forgot the question...................


(tee hee)

 

[Rand]

Just a quick question... what is this Nullsoft Tiny FullScreen plugin you keep mentioning, what exactly does it do?