rec.autos.simulators

CPR ** BULLSHIT!! **

Richard Harve

CPR ** BULLSHIT!! **

by Richard Harve » Mon, 12 Jan 1998 04:00:00


>the other way around. First of all your game engine must be capable of
>delivering the requisite 25fps+, and only then do you start looking at
>how many features and textures you can burden it with.

To each his own, but I think this is total BS.  I bet if products didn't
have a frame rate counter showing, 95% of the users out there would think
they were running 30fps+ on a 15-18fps output.  Some people here have even
claimed they can tell the difference between 27 and 30fps.  I don't buy it.

My P100 with a Monster 3Dfx runs N2 at around 20fps, and MTM at around
18fps.  Both give a smooth sensation of driving from inside the***pit.
Only when the rate drops below 15fps do individual frames begin jumping out,
and only under 12fps is when I can begin recognizing almost each individual
frame.

Either 95% of you guys have absolutely amazing eyesight, or seeing Quake
running at 45fps+ has made you believe that other games are actually pushing
as much polygons and have as detailed simulation/AI/game logic as these
sims.  Neither is true.

Rich

Jo

CPR ** BULLSHIT!! **

by Jo » Mon, 12 Jan 1998 04:00:00


>To each his own, but I think this is total BS.  I bet if products didn't
>have a frame rate counter showing, 95% of the users out there would think
>they were running 30fps+ on a 15-18fps output.  

Nonsense. The difference between 15-18 fps and 30 fps is like night
and day. Personally, I find anything less than 25 fps intolerable,
unplayable. At 30+ fps things become very comfortable. I'm looking
forward to Voodoo2 which should make 30+fps the norm.

Joe

Richard Harve

CPR ** BULLSHIT!! **

by Richard Harve » Mon, 12 Jan 1998 04:00:00

I never stated there was no difference between 15 and 30fps -- I directly
stated anyone saying they could tell the difference between 27fps and 30fps
either has incredible eyesight or is stretching the truth.  The crux of my
post which you disagree with is that no game under 25fps is intolerable.
That is what I call nonsense -- just what DID you play back in the days of
the 486?

Rich



>>To each his own, but I think this is total BS.  I bet if products didn't
>>have a frame rate counter showing, 95% of the users out there would think
>>they were running 30fps+ on a 15-18fps output.

>Nonsense. The difference between 15-18 fps and 30 fps is like night
>and day. Personally, I find anything less than 25 fps intolerable,
>unplayable. At 30+ fps things become very comfortable. I'm looking
>forward to Voodoo2 which should make 30+fps the norm.

>Joe

Marc Johnso

CPR ** BULLSHIT!! **

by Marc Johnso » Mon, 12 Jan 1998 04:00:00


> I never stated there was no difference between 15 and 30fps -- I directly
> stated anyone saying they could tell the difference between 27fps and 30fps
> either has incredible eyesight or is stretching the truth.  The crux of my
> post which you disagree with is that no game under 25fps is intolerable.
> That is what I call nonsense -- just what DID you play back in the days of
> the 486?

Any thing that would run on a 386. :-)

> Rich



> >>To each his own, but I think this is total BS.  I bet if products didn't
> >>have a frame rate counter showing, 95% of the users out there would think
> >>they were running 30fps+ on a 15-18fps output.

> >Nonsense. The difference between 15-18 fps and 30 fps is like night
> >and day. Personally, I find anything less than 25 fps intolerable,
> >unplayable. At 30+ fps things become very comfortable. I'm looking
> >forward to Voodoo2 which should make 30+fps the norm.

> >Joe

--
Thank You
Marc Johnson

Outside of a dog, a book is a mans best friend.  Inside a dog, it is too dark
to read -Mark Twain
Byron Forbe

CPR ** BULLSHIT!! **

by Byron Forbe » Tue, 13 Jan 1998 04:00:00


  Cmon Michael, why do you need a***pit. Just imagine your Superman,
hehehehehehehehehehe. It's a bird, it's a plane, it's ............
Besides, if your fast you don't need those mirrors. In fact Art Axlerad
reckons it's a good excuse (hud mode) when you take someone out on the
Zone, though I doubt he need worry much :)

John Walla

CPR ** BULLSHIT!! **

by John Walla » Tue, 13 Jan 1998 04:00:00

On Sun, 11 Jan 1998 09:50:19 -0600, "Richard Harvey"


>To each his own, but I think this is total BS.  I bet if products didn't
>have a frame rate counter showing, 95% of the users out there would think
>they were running 30fps+ on a 15-18fps output.  Some people here have even
>claimed they can tell the difference between 27 and 30fps.  I don't buy it.

Someday hopefully "BS" will cease to be the language of choice for
disagreement, carrying with it all the connotations of disparaging the
other person's opinion rather than merely disagreeing. Until the, grin
and bear it....

I must say that I never expected anyone to wheel out the old simracing
equivalent of "the earth is flat" argument. It's a well known fact
that frame-rate makes a huge difference to the smoothness and
precision of your driving - the faster the frame-rate, the more
feedback you are getting from the screen and the more opportunity you
have to make control input to the sim.

Now whether or not you are able to take advantage of the above, it
remains a fact.

What is true is that a faster frame-rate gives you more latitude for
feedback and control input - the question is, can you take advantage
of it? Apparently not, but others most assuredly can.

Cheers!
John

David Gree

CPR ** BULLSHIT!! **

by David Gree » Tue, 13 Jan 1998 04:00:00

[bandwidth conserving snip]

John, I'd like to say that IMHO a consistent frame rate of 21fps is more
preferable than an average of 25fps with a high of 30 and a low of 15

I think thats why F1GP was so good, even when in traffic the frame rate was
about the same. I expect that GP2 with a P2-300 would give similiar results.

Of course the higher the consistent rate the better. (for the reasons you stated
above)

Regards,
David

Jo

CPR ** BULLSHIT!! **

by Jo » Tue, 13 Jan 1998 04:00:00


>I never stated there was no difference between 15 and 30fps -- I directly
>stated anyone saying they could tell the difference between 27fps and 30fps
>either has incredible eyesight or is stretching the truth.  The crux of my
>post which you disagree with is that no game under 25fps is intolerable.
>That is what I call nonsense -- just what DID you play back in the days of
>the 486?

Around then I was probably playing 3DO games, at about 25 fps. In the
days of the 386 it would have probably been an Amiga. Not until P100+
Pentiums did PCs become an attractive/usable *** platform to me.

Joe

Jono Hil

CPR ** BULLSHIT!! **

by Jono Hil » Tue, 13 Jan 1998 04:00:00



> >To each his own, but I think this is total BS.  I bet if products didn't
> >have a frame rate counter showing, 95% of the users out there would think
> >they were running 30fps+ on a 15-18fps output.

> Nonsense. The difference between 15-18 fps and 30 fps is like night
> and day. Personally, I find anything less than 25 fps intolerable,
> unplayable. At 30+ fps things become very comfortable. I'm looking
> forward to Voodoo2 which should make 30+fps the norm.

> Joe

Most TVs display frames at around 25 fps.  The human eye cannot detect
framerates above much higher than this.  This is why I cannot understand
why so many of you *need* 30+fps to play a racing sim properly.  I play
GP2 at 19.2 fps, and while its not perfect, it is definitely not
unplayable.  

-Jono Hill

John Walla

CPR ** BULLSHIT!! **

by John Walla » Tue, 13 Jan 1998 04:00:00



Agreed. although since this thread originated from CPR where I _still_
have pauses and stutters due to texture loading this is a bit of a
sore point. I guess that 64Mb of RAM just isn't enough :)

Cheers!
John

John Walla

CPR ** BULLSHIT!! **

by John Walla » Tue, 13 Jan 1998 04:00:00



Oh bollocks, not _this_ old chestnut again.

We've been through this 50 million times, and it's been re-hashed over
and over again what the human eye can and cannot detect. I would
suggest you do a dejanews search and gen up on the most up-to-date
info.

As far as simracing goes you get faster lap times when driving with
30fps than when driving with 19fps - I'll leave you to argue about
why, the mere fact itself means I always strive for the fastest
frame-rate I can get.

Cheers!
John

Kurtis Mill

CPR ** BULLSHIT!! **

by Kurtis Mill » Tue, 13 Jan 1998 04:00:00




>>Most TVs display frames at around 25 fps.  The human eye cannot detect
>>framerates above much higher than this.  This is why I cannot understand

>Oh bollocks, not _this_ old chestnut again.

>We've been through this 50 million times, and it's been re-hashed over
>and over again what the human eye can and cannot detect. I would
>suggest you do a dejanews search and gen up on the most up-to-date
>info.

Just to settle it once and for all (as if THAT would ever happen!  =)  ), all
of you who doubt that the eye can see greater than 25-30 fps, go to E***
(www.e***.com) and search for the following:  human eye refresh rate.  
Reading through the first few hits should be enough to convince you that the
human eye is capable of sensing individual frames up to at least 60 - 70 hz.  
"Standard" video frame rates vary from 24 - 30 fps, while movies display at 48
fps.  Typical computer monitors display at between 60 and 100 hz (fps).  At
any speed above 70, the refresh should be imperceptible.  

Tell ya what, if your monitor is capable of displaying multiple refresh rates,
try this.  First, set it to a refresh rate of at least 66 hz, preferably 70 or
above.  Use it for a little while.  Now change the refresh rate to 60.  Again,
use it for a little while.  Notice how your eyes start to get tired and
irritated?  That's because of the extra flicker that they're trying to
compensate for.  In fact, the VESA (Video Electronics Standards Assn.)
recommends a refresh rate of at least 75 to prevent eye strain.

Now, why does the frame rate affect game play?  Because each frame represents
a discrete unit of time.  Therefore, if you're running at a lower frame rate,
each frame represents a bigger chunk of time.  Because you are now reacting to
events that are further apart, you cannot get the same precision as if your
frame rate was higher.  You'd be surprised what a difference missing your
turning or braking point by a few hundredths of a second will do to your lap
times!

Also, increased frame rates will affect your perception of the game.  At 30+
fps, you're getting almost twice as many frames per second as if you were
running at 15-20 fps.  That means that your eye will blend the animation
together much more smoothly.

Finally, at a faster refresh rate, your eyes and brain won't have to strain as
hard to make a coherent animation.  This reduces the stress on you and your
body, making the game more enjoyable.

William Richards

CPR ** BULLSHIT!! **

by William Richards » Tue, 13 Jan 1998 04:00:00


>"Standard" video frame rates vary from 24 - 30 fps, while movies display at 48
>fps

Just to clarify, this is total garbage. NTSC video (US TV) is 29.97 fps (drop
frame) and movies are 24 fps. Not sure what PAL is, ne1?

Bill

--------

"NASCAR is the Professional Wrestling of Motorsport."
                                    -Me-

Jo

CPR ** BULLSHIT!! **

by Jo » Tue, 13 Jan 1998 04:00:00


>Most TVs display frames at around 25 fps.  The human eye cannot detect
>framerates above much higher than this.  

Bzzzt, WRONG, thanks for playing! The average human can EASILY detect
frame-rates up to 60+ fps. Many people can go much higher.

Joe

Jim Sokolof

CPR ** BULLSHIT!! **

by Jim Sokolof » Tue, 13 Jan 1998 04:00:00


> Tell ya what, if your monitor is capable of displaying multiple
> refresh rates, try this.  First, set it to a refresh rate of at
> least 66 hz, preferably 70 or above.  Use it for a little while.
> Now change the refresh rate to 60.  Again, use it for a little
> while.  Notice how your eyes start to get tired and irritated?
> That's because of the extra flicker that they're trying to
> compensate for.

I agree in principle with what you are saying, but the problem with
60Hz in particular is that it has a tendency to strobe with
flourescent lighting which has a heavy 60Hz frequency component. I
personally think the majority of 60Hz related eyestrain is from this
strobing rather than an inherent human eye limit. (IOW, 50Hz would
probably be less straining than 60 in the presence of flour. lights.)

---Jim


rec.autos.simulators is a usenet newsgroup formed in December, 1993. As this group was always unmoderated there may be some spam or off topic articles included. Some links do point back to racesimcentral.net as we could not validate the original address. Please report any pages that you believe warrant deletion from this archive (include the link in your email). RaceSimCentral.net is in no way responsible and does not endorse any of the content herein.