Uh, I can sure as hell tell the difference between 24/36fps, and 80 fps.
80fps looks much better.
David G Fisher
Uh, I can sure as hell tell the difference between 24/36fps, and 80 fps.
80fps looks much better.
David G Fisher
> I've been playing around with the FOV and I think Jason is right - GPL and
> N2002 do appear to be correctly scaled, it's simply a combination of low
> detail track textures, stuttery frame rates and wide FOVs that gives the
> wrong impression of speed...
Gerry
>>GPL = 36fps - That's bad enough, but I also get the impression of incorrect
>>3D scaling a la GP3 (also happens in the NASCAR series) People often
>>comment that F1200X has a good sensation of speed. It's not really - it's
>>just a correct sensation due to the correct 3D scaling. The future of sims
>>is locked at at least 60fps to allow real-world motion visual feedback. ISI
>>are already there. A good physics engine demands a proper 3D graphics
>>physics engine to allow full visual feedback.
>What do you need more than 36fps for? The human eye can't notice individual
>images at 24fps or more (we perceive them as a fluent motion). No, TV doesn't
>use 50 or 60 frames per second - that's 50 or 60,*fields* per second they use,
>since the image is interlaced, it's divided into an odd and an even field
>(the odd and even-numbered lines of the image) because of design, it's easier
>to draw half the image and later the other half from top to bottom each time
>than having to draw the whole image from top to bottom in a single sweep.
>(Don't make me go into the technical details here, it'd be too much of an OT)
> >>GPL = 36fps - That's bad enough, but I also get the impression of incorrect
> >>3D scaling a la GP3 (also happens in the NASCAR series) People often
> >>comment that F1200X has a good sensation of speed. It's not really - it's
> >>just a correct sensation due to the correct 3D scaling. The future of sims
> >>is locked at at least 60fps to allow real-world motion visual feedback. ISI
> >>are already there. A good physics engine demands a proper 3D graphics
> >>physics engine to allow full visual feedback.
> >What do you need more than 36fps for? The human eye can't notice individual
> >images at 24fps or more (we perceive them as a fluent motion). No, TV doesn't
> >use 50 or 60 frames per second - that's 50 or 60,*fields* per second they use,
> >since the image is interlaced, it's divided into an odd and an even field
> >(the odd and even-numbered lines of the image) because of design, it's easier
> >to draw half the image and later the other half from top to bottom each time
> >than having to draw the whole image from top to bottom in a single sweep.
> >(Don't make me go into the technical details here, it'd be too much of an OT)
> [sigh]
Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
"The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/
"A man is only as old as the woman he feels"
--Groucho Marx--
Ha! I'm sure the movie studios would love you to believe that!
Correct, but even 50 fields per second gives a much more fluent motion than
25 frames per second. You'll notice that on game consoles, some games run
at 25(or 30) fps and others run at 50 (or 60) fps and look dramatically
better IMO.
OT)
I would recommend that you learn the technical details yourself first. ; )
Your PC runs GPL and N2002 v-synced, liquid-smooth at 60fps?
Yeah, I think you may be right on this one, when using the same FOV and
***pit position, the scenary in GPL and F12002 move past at about the same
speed. I can only suggest that it's purely the frame-rate thing that makes
F12002's motion seem so much better. It's a bizarre setting, FOV - you
start playing around with it and after a while nothing seems right. : )
>Your PC runs GPL and N2002 v-synced, liquid-smooth at 60fps?
>> Wide FOV give a better impression
>> of speed as far as i'm concerned. Can you explain why you think the
>> inverse is true?
>Yeah, I think you may be right on this one, when using the same FOV and
>cockpit position, the scenary in GPL and F12002 move past at about the same
>speed. I can only suggest that it's purely the frame-rate thing that makes
>F12002's motion seem so much better. It's a bizarre setting, FOV - you
>start playing around with it and after a while nothing seems right. : )
Ruud van Gaal
Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/
Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/
> > GPL is one of my favourite sims. It's still the best all-round sim
> > available. However.....
> > GPL = 36fps - That's bad enough, but I also get the impression of
incorrect
> > 3D scaling a la GP3
> An example from GLP please? What do I look for to see this 'effect' you
> describe?
> > (also happens in the NASCAR series)
> Example from 2002 too please?
> > People often
> > comment that F1200X has a good sensation of speed. It's not really -
it's
> > just a correct sensation due to the correct 3D scaling. The future of
sims
> > is locked at at least 60fps to allow real-world motion visual feedback.
ISI
> > are already there. A good physics engine demands a proper 3D graphics
> > physics engine to allow full visual feedback.
> Can you thoroughly explain what you mean? That is a '3D graphics physics
> engine'?
> > I could also mention the exaggerated braking in GPL when throttle is
applied
> I don't understand what you mean here. Do you mean the brakes work
> better if you keep your 'foot in' under braking?
> I don't dispute that you say is true, with regard to any of the above
> (I've not noticed it though) but your statements are somewhat vague and
> woolly. I'm here to be convinced if adequate description and example can
> be provided.
> TIA
> Gerry
> people only use 10% gas on brake to allow use of sub 52% bias brakes...just
> exploiting the fact GPL is old and doesnt model brake fade....
Gerry
Must ... resist ... urge ... to correct ... oldest ... usenet ....
myth ...
Whew, barely made it out of this thread without my *** pressure
rising!
> >What do you need more than 36fps for? The human eye can't notice
individual
> >images at 24fps or more (we perceive them as a fluent motion).
> Must ... resist ... urge ... to correct ... oldest ... usenet ....
> myth ...
> Whew, barely made it out of this thread without my *** pressure
> rising!
I tend to prefer Papy's FOV, but really IMHO the ultimate setup for
those who need the 'sense of speed' feeling would be 3 monitors.
Didn't someone manage to get GPL running with 3 monitors and a wide
FOV? I remember seeing a post or article about it a little while
ago... I would think the sense of speed would be impressive (and
probably distracting from the task at hand, really).
Jason
> > Sounds like your pc isn't setup right. Wide FOV give a better impression
> > of speed as far as i'm concerned. Can you explain why you think the
> > inverse is true?
> I agree with you, too. The reason Papy sims seem slow is the lack of
> of peripheral vision because of the narrow FOV.
> I tend to prefer Papy's FOV, but really IMHO the ultimate setup for
> those who need the 'sense of speed' feeling would be 3 monitors.
> Didn't someone manage to get GPL running with 3 monitors and a wide
> FOV? I remember seeing a post or article about it a little while
> ago... I would think the sense of speed would be impressive (and
> probably distracting from the task at hand, really).
Gerry
>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2002 00:22:39 +1000, "Damien Smith"
>> What do you need more than 36fps for? The human eye can't notice
>individual
>> images at 24fps or more (we perceive them as a fluent motion).
>Uh, I can sure as hell tell the difference between 24/36fps, and 80 fps.
>80fps looks much better.
>David G Fisher
--
__________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke
\_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru
_H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com
'-_____|(
remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying