rec.autos.simulators

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

If you're using a 3DFX card, then goto 3dfx's home page and try to
find a demo called "30/60 " or something like that.

It shows the difference between 30 and 60 FPS, by rendering one hal of
the picture in 30 FPS, and the other half in 60 FPS.

Check it out and be prepared to be surprised.

If you can't find i can E-mail it to you (It's about 3 mb)

Best regards

Lars Gaarde

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

That's one of the best explanation i've ever read.
(To my great joy he also mentions the 30/60 demo (See my earlier
post))

Lars Gaarde :-))

>> 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 **Mark Stah** » 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

i don't think aubrey's wrong at all...

actually, according to this article, Aubrey is correct- it *is* a common
misconception that humans can't perceive anything over 30fps....indeed we
can.

maybe you didn't read your own article very well, "Huh"... they conclude
that we can indeed perceive a difference.

somehow you seemed to get it right in your direct response to the question
later on in the thread, though- so now i don't know what you mean....

point is that the 24fps perception max is indeed a myth (this is supported
by everything taught in med school about the eye and visual cortex, as
well....although that isn't all that much)

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

Yes, of course your right but it is claime that the Human eye can't tell teh
difference once if goes over about 24 FTS's, tats whats confuing, maybe this
guy have "Superman" vision?

Although I do kinda know what he means.

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

I read the "30 frames per second" thing in the Chicago Suntimes sometime in the
last two weeks. They also said that movies are shown at 30 fps. It was
explained to me that the reason the sim needs more is that fact that at 36 fps
the computer receives and gives 36 frames of info back and forth. the more
input back and forth the better the realism as far as physics. made sense to
me.
mike

by **Wayne Hutchiso** » Sat, 01 Jan 2000 04:00:00

In the case of GPL, the physics are recalculated 8 times per frame, so the
more frames per second the more often the physics are calc'd and thus the
more "smooth" the sim appears.

Wayne Hutchison

by **Marko Viitane** » Sat, 01 Jan 2000 04:00:00

In that URL says like this:

"Contrary to the belief that we cannot distinguish anything over 30 fps, we
can actually see and recognize speeds up to 70+ fps. "

.....There's also specific explanation how 24fps/sec is actually only
"fooling the eye" with motion blur in the movies.

> >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 **Joe6** » Sat, 01 Jan 2000 04:00:00

>There is nothing scientific at all about this, but I can "see" flourescent
>bulbs flickering at 60 times a second.

Science agrees with you Dave. In fact some people (military jet
pilots, for example) can see up to 120+ fps.

Joe McGinn
_________________________
GA-Sports Writer
http://www.ga-sports.com/

by **Philip D'Amat** » Sun, 02 Jan 2000 04:00:00

The well-known fact you allude to is stated incorrectly, and thus you
misinterpret the statistic.
At 1 fps, the human distinguishes a series of similar images (like a series
of frames in motion picture film) as 1 individual picture per second. At 10
fps the eye/brain still sees 10 individual images. At 24 or 25 fps the
*average* human eye and brain no longer the interprets this series of images
as distinct, individual images - but as a "motion picture". This does *not*
mean that the *average* human eye cannot distinguish the difference between
a series of images displayed at 25 fps vs. 70 fps. As you increase the fps,
the eye/brain sees the motion picture as being more fluid (smooth). A real
world proof that the human eye/brain can determine the difference at higher
fps is the notion of acceptable refresh rates on monitor displays. I for
one can walk through my office and point out which monitors are run at 60 Hz
(non-interlaced). I see "flicker" on these displays (in fact, I get dizzy
and nauseous within about 30 seconds of looking at these monitors) until I
bump up the refresh to 70 Hz. My eye can distinguish the difference in fps
up to at least 70 fps (which is equivalent to 70 Hz in that the monitor is
redrawing my Windows display 70 frames or cycles per second). You can prove
it to yourself by playing a game at 30, 40, 50, etc fps. You tell me if you
can see the difference. I bet that you agree that the motion of moving
objects in your game appears "smoother", "more realistic", "less choppy",
however you want to phrase it.

Hope this helps,
--
Philip D'Amato

1999 Ninja 500R

by **Philip D'Amat** » Sun, 02 Jan 2000 04:00:00

You draw the wrong conclusions.
You're ignoring the idea that continuous motion is *not* an absolute - there
are subjective degrees of fluidity in motion ranging from "choppy" to
"smooth". The higher fps looks smoother to you because in fact your eye can
see the difference.

--
Philip D'Amato

1999 Ninja 500R

<snip>

by **Philip D'Amat** » Sun, 02 Jan 2000 04:00:00

I remember reading that GPL has a max frame rate because of internal timing
functions within the sim. There was too much data to crunch each frame for
the fps to go above the limits determined by the developers of the game.

--
Philip D'Amato

1999 Ninja 500R

by **Philip D'Amat** » Sun, 02 Jan 2000 04:00:00

I read it, and in the second paragraph it states:
"...the common misconception that humans cannot distinguish framerates over
30 fps, so what is the point of having visuals running at 60 fps?
Misconception you say? Yes."

It seems to back up the statement "it is a common misconception that the
human eye cant [sic] tell the difference above 30..."

--
Philip D'Amato

1999 Ninja 500R

> >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 **Philip D'Amat** » Sun, 02 Jan 2000 04:00:00

The phrase "24fps perception max" is exactly where people misinterpret the
facts. It should be something like "24fps perceived motion threshold". Of
course, the number varies from person to person.

--
Philip D'Amato

1999 Ninja 500R

<snip>

by **Arvidas Dashlauska** » Mon, 03 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

Well that's exactly the piece of information that I was looking for.
Many thanks! I never argued about the fact that games look smoother with
more than 24 FPS just about why is it that in films 24 FPS seems
perfectly fine yet just about adequate in something like GPL.

Happy new year to all!

by **Arvidas Dashlauska** » Mon, 03 Jan 2000 04:00:00

> The well-known fact you allude to is stated incorrectly, and thus you
> misinterpret the statistic.
> At 1 fps, the human distinguishes a series of similar images (like a series
> of frames in motion picture film) as 1 individual picture per second. At 10
> fps the eye/brain still sees 10 individual images. At 24 or 25 fps the
> *average* human eye and brain no longer the interprets this series of images
> as distinct, individual images - but as a "motion picture". This does *not*
> mean that the *average* human eye cannot distinguish the difference between
> a series of images displayed at 25 fps vs. 70 fps. As you increase the fps,
> the eye/brain sees the motion picture as being more fluid (smooth). A real
> world proof that the human eye/brain can determine the difference at higher
> fps is the notion of acceptable refresh rates on monitor displays. I for
> one can walk through my office and point out which monitors are run at 60 Hz
> (non-interlaced). I see "flicker" on these displays (in fact, I get dizzy
> and nauseous within about 30 seconds of looking at these monitors) until I
> bump up the refresh to 70 Hz. My eye can distinguish the difference in fps
> up to at least 70 fps (which is equivalent to 70 Hz in that the monitor is
> redrawing my Windows display 70 frames or cycles per second). You can prove
> it to yourself by playing a game at 30, 40, 50, etc fps. You tell me if you
> can see the difference. I bet that you agree that the motion of moving
> objects in your game appears "smoother", "more realistic", "less choppy",
> however you want to phrase it.

> Hope this helps,
> --
> Philip D'Amato

Do you consider motion pictures as choppy and less realistic than games?
Yet they run at "only" 24 FPS. It seems that there's more to it than
just FPS just as I suspected. The link that "Huh?" suggested goes along
way to explain the difference between games and film.

Happy new year!

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?

FPS question: why more than 24?

FPS question: why more than 24?