rec.autos.simulators

On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 00:47:15 +0100, Andre Warringa

A friend of mine has the same system (V3 3500, BTW) and didn't perform
very well in the frame rate department. From a glance, I assumed it
was due to the processor, but having read through many of the posts
over at 'rec.aviation.simulators' I see that people with even higher
spec machines are having the same low frame rate problem. This would
suggest poor programming on Microsoft's part. I wouldn't be surprised
if Microsoft attempt to deal with this issue in a future patch.

I've noticed the same thing. However, if you take a look at some of
the threads in rec.aviation.simulators, you'll find that even higher
spec machines are having the same problem. The FPS issue in FLTSIM
2000 seems to be less about the processor you're using and more about
some rather careless and sloppy programming on Microsoft's part.

No problems running it on a Celeron 500MHz, 128MB RAM and a 12MB
Voodoo 2 either.

To empathise more on my point about the P2 450MHz processor being a
very decent system, step back to a point in time not too long ago -
before the release of the Pentium 3's and AMD K7's.
  The fastest processor you could buy (this does not include
overclocked processors, or dual processors) was a Pentium II at
450MHz, but the average spec most of us had was of around the
200-300MHz mark. That sort of spec was considered to be fine for most
games - although you would need a 3D card if you wanted to play games
like Quake 2 very well.
  Now, in recent times the most powerful processor you can buy is
around 800-850MHz (of course, this number will be increasing
dramatically over the next year). So, if when the Pentium 2 450MHz
processors were king, and a 200-300MHz processor was considered very
reasonable (a drop of 250MHz from a 450, for the Pentium II 200), then
using that same means of thinking in todays terms, a 450-550MHz
processor would be considered a perfectly reasonable processor also.

On top of that, take into account that these days most games computers
will have a 3D accelerator, which takes yet more strain off the
processor, this decreases the current CPU requirement for games, and
shall continue to do so with newer 3D cards.

The worth of a system also depends on what type of user you are. I,
for example, an perfectly happy turning down most of the details in
Unreal Tournament to have it run on my Pentium MMX 200MHz with just
32MB of RAM. On the other hand, I know people who like to be on top of
technology with the fastest system all the time (or as long as their
budget permits it).

It can be all too easy to get carried away in the mist of the latest
reviews of the 1GHz processors and start believing that you somehow
'need' one also. Most of you don't.

Best regards...

"Lisa, if you don't like your job, you
don't strike - you just go in every day
and do it really half arsed! That's the American way!"

          - Homer J. Simpson

Granted, the FS2000 example is the strongest of the two but I'm one of
those who likes his FPS's in all their 1024x768 glory.  Having a
Cel466/V3 3000/64 MB RAM, Quake 3 with all graphics up full-tilt boogie
gets hiccups here & there.  Probably due to my RAM (or lack
thereof!<g>).  But the point still remains, there are certainly programs
out there that don't run "perfectly well" on machines as low as PII450.
I'm sure there are others as well.

--
Chuck Kandler  #70
K&S Racing
http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/thepits/195

Competitor in the TopGear MGPRS2 league at:
http://topgear.dhs.org/  Come on & join the fun!

They'll call you names
And spit in your face,
But legends never die.   --Gene Simmons

Hmm.. I guess if Papyrus had felt the way you do, they
wouldn't have had greater resolution in GPL than 640x480.

I can assure you that when GPL was released a couple of
years ago, that no one in their right mind, with any system
on earth, had theirs set greater than 640x480.

Wow, what were those fools at Papyrus thinking by giving
us all that damned hi-res shit ? No one could possibly
use it.

I mean you said it best:

  "nobody wants to buy something and then have to wait
  a year until their hardware catches up."

LOL

Look.. L_NiN0, you have had a really, really bad day here, son.
Why not quit while you're behind.

--
* rrev at mindspring dot com
* unit.26 - s.p.u.t.u.m.
* http://www.cabal.net

That's irrelevant. We were discussing whether or not a Pentium II 450
is a decent PC for games. Not just simulators.

If 28fps is what you get on that system in Rally Championship, then
yes, it does sound good. The human eye can only focus in on objects
moving under 30fps. That's just 2fps less than what you're getting.
Not bad at all.

As I said, sloppy programming on the part of Microsoft. There's no
'reason' for FLTSIM 2000 to have this problem. It's not setting new
heights in graphics or physics, afterall.

They certainly should. But to be fair, it is about give and take.
Game developers should be willing to spend more time programming their
games for use on lower-end systems, but we (the consumer) should also
be willing to pull down the texture details just a little bit without
much complaint. Give and take.

Best regards...

"Lisa, if you don't like your job, you
don't strike - you just go in every day
and do it really half arsed! That's the American way!"

          - Homer J. Simpson

Some of us did. :-) Then again, some of us tried to run it in software
rendering for a while too, so perhaps our opinion doesn't count for
much. <g>

Best regards...

"Lisa, if you don't like your job, you
don't strike - you just go in every day
and do it really half arsed! That's the American way!"

          - Homer J. Simpson

Bzzt.. not true, Silver Shadow. PLEASE dont believe that the
human eye can only distinguish up to 30fps, and most importantly
PLEASE dont re-hash this (incorrect) usenet legend that seems to
pop up every two or three months.

Heres a tip for you. If you think the human eye cant distinguish
above 30fps, then set your monitors refresh rate to 60hz and then
set it to 85hz. Let us know if you can tell the difference.

--
* rrev at mindspring dot com
* unit.26 - s.p.u.t.u.m.
* http://www.cabal.net

What kind of system did you run it on, Silver Shadow?

I had a -really- powerful one and to -maintain- a 30 fps
rate, I had to go to 640x480.

Let us know what you were using 2 years ago.

Thanks.

--
* rrev at mindspring dot com
* unit.26 - s.p.u.t.u.m.
* http://www.cabal.net

% If 28fps is what you get on that system in Rally Championship, then
% yes, it does sound good. The human eye can only focus in on objects
% moving under 30fps. That's just 2fps less than what you're getting.
% Not bad at all.

Stop It!  This is a myth and is not true.  If you must support your
claims, please use facts not myth...

In the effort to conserve bandwidth (and tempers), instead of continuing
to rehash old turf-war battles go to the following URL's and read what
others have to say on this topic.
http://www.firingsquad.com/features/faceoff/6-fps/default.asp

http://www.sony-europe.com/tve/trinitron/100hz.html

http://www.ping.be/powervr/fps_discus.htm

http://www.robinsonresearch.com/MOVIES/part_IB.htm

from http://www.student.hk-r.se/~pt93mm/thesis/domain_paper.html

The qualifier 'Real-time' narrows the domain further. By this term we do
not mean to imply that the system will have to deal with hard deadlines
that are critical to the functionality of the application. Instead, the
term is used to point out that we are talking about animation. This
simply means that the frames must be produced at a speed that tricks the
human eye to perceive flicker-free, or at least almost flicker-free
motion. In practice, 'flicker-free' means 20 - 30 frames per second,
"almost flicker-free" might be around 10 frames per second. Occasional
frame rate drops to less than 10 frames per second might or might not be
acceptable, depending on the application.

--
**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
     Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./.  [-  < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

*plonk*  - both SilverShadow and this thread.

--
* rrev at mindspring dot com
* unit.26 - s.p.u.t.u.m.
* http://www.cabal.net

ROFL! You must work for Compaq!

You ought to take a look at http://www.ping.be/powervr/fps_discus.htm
to understand the differences between 'frame' rate and 'refresh' rate.

The same site will also explain why the human eye can not distinguish
the difference from 30fps and above.

The issue of whether or not the human eye can see more than 30fps has
been discussed for years, and game newsgroups often get filled up with
the same old arguments. The real edge truth however, is that when the
human eye sees 100fps (for example), it notices no difference to if it
were viewing 30fps. That's why a game running at 30fps will appear to
move very smoothly, whereas anything under will appear to flicker into
life, as lower frame rates appear as still images, rather than a
collection of still images which make up one large smooth image.

Best regards...

"Lisa, if you don't like your job, you
don't strike - you just go in every day
and do it really half arsed! That's the American way!"

          - Homer J. Simpson

I will admit that when I am running N3 at 30fps, it looks smooth to me. I do
not see any lack of frames that makes me feel like I am missing something.

I must concur with the other posters that claim that the human eye can see
more than 30 fps. I have been told by my eye-doctor (what's it called) that
the integration time for the human eye is about 0.1 seconds. So the human
could 'see' 100 actual fps. The myth about the human eye not being able to
distinguish more than 30 fps comes from the fact that television is 30 fps,
(25 fps in Europe) and movies are 24 fps and they all 'look' fluid. I say 'look'
because if you look real close, you _will_ see the actual frames. The fact
that 24 fps looks fluid comes from the fact that the cameras used to record
the film is using a 1/24 second shutter time, making fast action blurred (motion
blur of the next gen voodoo cards).

So get your facts straight.
Dennis.

One minor correction; the shutter speed is not necessarily 1/24th second in
motion pictures.  The film is driven along (using that wonderful Geneva
mechanism) at 24 frames per second, but the shutter speed can be
indepentently selected.  You're right about the motion blur.  For an idea of
how motion blur can change your perception of fluidity, either read the
Voodoo literature you refer to, or think about some of the newer sports
coverage which uses fast shutter speeds (1/1000th sometimes) on their video,
which itself is running at 30 fps.  Even though the action is progressing in
real-time, at that magic 30fps, your brain tells you something is not
"right" with the sequence filmed using a fast shutter camera.  The fast
shutter eliminates motion blur in even the fastest sports, and without the
blur, your eye and brain begins to perceive the individual frames.

Stephen