rec.autos.simulators

by **Tyler Eave** » Fri, 31 Dec 1999 04:00:00

I'll throw in my .02 here:

High frame rate is only 1/2 the battle. The other half is *consistent* frame
rate. If your're crusin' along at 60-70FPS and suddenly its drops down to
40, you are going to have problems. Even though 40 is still a realitivly
high FR, the diffrence will change the way the car responds.

Tyler
Professional Web Designer
www.tylereaves.com

>Frame Rate may as well be God but why is it that GPL has a max of 37 FPS
>and arcade games go as high as 60? Would GPL be smoother with 60 FPS or
>would it make no difference? I don't think that this has anything to do
>with the FPS used in film. Can anyone clarify this to me?

by **Aubre** » Fri, 31 Dec 1999 04:00:00

I believe its a common misconception that the human eye cant tell the
difference above 30 or so. I think you cannot actually see it FLASHING
above that speed, but you certainly can detect a difference in the
choppiness of it. I think GPL caps the fps because it's so important to
have a constant framerate for a racing sim. Too much fluctuation tends to
make you crash. That's just my intuition, though.

-A

>Frame Rate may as well be God but why is it that GPL has a max of 37 FPS
>and arcade games go as high as 60? Would GPL be smoother with 60 FPS or
>would it make no difference? I don't think that this has anything to do
>with the FPS used in film. Can anyone clarify this to me?

by **Arvidas Dashlauska** » Sat, 01 Jan 2000 04:00:00

Hello

I thought that you guys might know a thing or two... I know myself that
30 40 or even more FPS make certain games like GPL look smoother but do
you know why? It's a well known fact that the human eye cannot see a
difference above 24-25 still pictures / second. Is it because the FPS
that the games claim are are not the same thing? I mean polygons/sec I
understand but FPS?

by **Dan Belch** » Sat, 01 Jan 2000 04:00:00

The more FPS, the more blending between frames, which makes it appear smoother.
Does that help any or did I totally miss the point?

Dan Belcher
Team Racing Unlimited
http://simcrashes.cjb.net

by **Arvidas Dashlauska** » Sat, 01 Jan 2000 04:00:00

> >Hello

> >I thought that you guys might know a thing or two... I know myself that
> >30 40 or even more FPS make certain games like GPL look smoother but do
> >you know why? It's a well known fact that the human eye cannot see a
> >difference above 24-25 still pictures / second. Is it because the FPS
> >that the games claim are are not the same thing? I mean polygons/sec I
> >understand but FPS?

> The more FPS, the more blending between frames, which makes it appear smoother.
> Does that help any or did I totally miss the point?

Hmmm... more blending between frames as in smaller intervals between
frames as in more frames can be played in 1 second? Let's see: in the
old days of film they had something like 16 FPS and the actors looked
like they were moving jerkier than normal motion because the eye could
make out the difference between each frame (still picture). Later they
managed to film at 24 FPS which is known to be the lower limit at which
the eye cannot make out the individual frames any more and hence it's
tricked to "believe" that there is continuous motion. Later...there was
no later! Any more than 24 FPS is superfluous (yes I know about NTSC TV
being 30 FPS but that's only for some technicality - it's certainly not
smoother than PAL!). So what I think is that game FPS is something else.
Does anyone know what they mean by 1 frame in games?

by **Dave Henri** » Sat, 01 Jan 2000 04:00:00

Lets use GPL as an example. the Max framefrate is 36 or 37 frames per
second. Now if you take away the 12 frames per second to go down to
24fps, what happens. 1/3 of your inputs will be lost as the cpu "jumps"
ahead to match the input with the output. 1/3 of your video outputs
will be lost and the car will seem to slightly jump from place to place,
this is especially noticeable online. You are now re-acting to a less
than optimal video output and a third of those reactions are lost in the
cpu/video card black hole.
Most arcade video games run at a minimun of 60fps and 3dfx is
preaching that number as a level that we should NOT go below. We are
not there yet, but we are getting closer all the time.
I used to deathmatch in doom with a guy who always had one generation
newer cpu than I had. 386/486 then 486/pentium he would always kick
my behind even when I started shooting first cuz his system pumped out
more "bullets" than mine. The only time I could hope to do well was the
short periods I managed to upgrade to his cpu level. All this comes
into play with framerate.
To quote Andy Hollis a top flight sim producer from Origin.
"Framerate is God."
believe it...know it...live it..
dave henrie

> Hello

> I thought that you guys might know a thing or two... I know myself that
> 30 40 or even more FPS make certain games like GPL look smoother but do
> you know why? It's a well known fact that the human eye cannot see a
> difference above 24-25 still pictures / second. Is it because the FPS
> that the games claim are are not the same thing? I mean polygons/sec I
> understand but FPS?

by **Arvidas Dashlauska** » Sat, 01 Jan 2000 04:00:00

Frame Rate may as well be God but why is it that GPL has a max of 37 FPS
and arcade games go as high as 60? Would GPL be smoother with 60 FPS or
would it make no difference? I don't think that this has anything to do
with the FPS used in film. Can anyone clarify this to me?

by **Dave Henri** » Sat, 01 Jan 2000 04:00:00

> Frame Rate may as well be God but why is it that GPL has a max of 37 FPS and arcade games go as high as 60?

two reasons that come to mind quickly. First, GPL is computing a huge
ammount of data for every frame of video shown. GPL's core clock rate
has been bumped way up to achieve all these calcuations. So the
artificially "capped" 37fps achieves all that GPL needs to compute every
little detail.(both video and data crunching) Why don't they allow GPL
to go higher? Possibly for the Same reason N3 is based on 3 year old N2
technology rather than the GPL engine, there just aren't many systems
out there that CAN move GPL much faster...yet...
And if they did, the ONLINE problems would be monumental, slow systems
would only see a portion of what the other cars were doing and fast
systems would see the turtles hop and skip all over the track as the two
computers tried to "agree" where car A and car B are.

Would GPL be smoother with 60 FPS or would it make no difference?

Oh certainly yes..if you had a system that could produce 60fps in GPL
you would have and even
smoother experience, and your graphics "might" appear even cleaner,
smoother, etc than before.

I don't think that this has anything to do

Now the 2nd reason. Film is an illusion. at 21, 24 or 36 frames per
second, we are NOT seeing moving objects.
But we ARE seeing a linking of many still images. Our minds take that
information and process's the input and then
agrees with itself that whatever it is seeing IS MOVING. Here then is
the big difference between film and computer
games/sims. Any paticular shot in a film could be as crystal clear as a
still photo or blurred almost beyond recognition
by movement while being filmed. This blurring is another part of the
illusion that allows our brains to "see" motion.
But until recently, computer video lacked the ability to show this
blurring unless it was through
hand drawn scenes created by human animatiors. Newer video technologies
could soon give us this illusion also and
that would once again improve our brain's perceptions of the illusion
that the programmers are trying to create.

Now having said all that....

You shouldn't be worring so much about these complex issues..:) You
should be driving, or flying, or
gunning the***ens out of your helpless opponents...in other words,
don't take the fun out of computer ***.
dave henrie

by **Pat Dotso** » Sat, 01 Jan 2000 04:00:00

He only said that because this issue comes up
every six months or so, and, of course, the
human eye detects more than 24 fps. He
documented his facts as well as you did.

> > than a newsgroup. The above "well known fact" is 100% truth-free.

> Mr. McGinn thank you for your well documented and helpful answer.

by **Huh** » Sat, 01 Jan 2000 04:00:00

> It's a well known fact that the human eye cannot see a
>difference above 24-25 still pictures / second.

Wrong.

Read this:
http://www.penstarsys.com/editor/30v60/30v60p1.htm

by **Huh** » Sat, 01 Jan 2000 04:00:00

>I believe its a common misconception that the human eye cant tell the
>difference above 30 or so.

Wrong. Read this:
http://www.penstarsys.com/editor/30v60/30v60p1.htm

by **Daxe Rexfor** » Sat, 01 Jan 2000 04:00:00

>> It's a well known fact that the human eye cannot see a
>>difference above 24-25 still pictures / second.

>Wrong.

>Read this:
>http://www.penstarsys.com/editor/30v60/30v60p1.htm

There is nothing scientific at all about this, but I can "see" flourescent
bulbs flickering at 60 times a second. You can also get eyestrain from
staring at a computer monitor with a low refresh rate (like 60.)

~daxe

-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

by **Steve Ferguso** » Sat, 01 Jan 2000 04:00:00

:>I believe its a common misconception that the human eye cant tell the
:>difference above 30 or so.

: Wrong. Read this:
: http://www.penstarsys.com/editor/30v60/30v60p1.htm

Finally, some decent information. Thanks.

Stephen

rec.autos.simulators

FPS question: why more than 24?

FPS question: why more than 24?

FPS question: why more than 24?

FPS question: why more than 24?

FPS question: why more than 24?

FPS question: why more than 24?

FPS question: why more than 24?

FPS question: why more than 24?

FPS question: why more than 24?

FPS question: why more than 24?

FPS question: why more than 24?

FPS question: why more than 24?

FPS question: why more than 24?

FPS question: why more than 24?