rec.autos.simulators

--
Damien Smith

ICQ: 77028579
F1 2001 rank: -11.512

There was a nice Broderbund program some 8 years ago, which had a
little character moving. That was blurred and it really looked good
though. :)

Ruud van Gaal
Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/
Pencil art  : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

"Ruud van Gaal"

    Was that the Karate game?  IF I recall, that was all hand drawn sprites
so the blurring was faked, i.e. it wasn't made by the game but individual
sprites were painted that looked blurred.  Karatekia or something like
that...boy the mind is mush these days...
dave henrie

-Larry

The higher the frame rate, the more overall responsive the game is,
especially if in large fields of cars.

Control Lag is FAR less of a problem when the fps is way up there.

-Larry

IMO, once above 25ish FPS, your eyes won't notice the difference.

The thing with driving games, though, is that the frame rate seems tied to
the physics rate.

Thus, a higher frame rate means faster physics, which in turn means a more
realistic sim, which acts more like real life.

What we need is a sim where the physics run at one consistent rate, and the
frame rate can be chosen and is independant from the physics rate.

Then we'd see what really makes the difference.

I think that it's the physics rate that makes all the difference, but as
it's tied to the frame rate, then you have to get as many frames as
possible.

R.

You didn't ask a rational question. You stated an incorrect fact (that
people can't see > 24 fps) that is one of the oldest and most tiresome
errors on Usenet. It has been stated and corrected so many times and
in such detail that people have grown tired of repeating themselves.

Since you;'ve re-stated your error, perhaps you'll brake down people's
patience enough that they will direct you to the correct information.
Such as these pages, where you can begin your education on this
subject:

http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
http://www.cdmag.com/Home/home.html?article=/articles/030/159/hardw_c...
http://www.penstarsys.com/editor/30v60/30v60p3.htm

Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy

"The Pits"    http://www.theuspits.com/

"A man is only as old as the woman he feels"
--Groucho Marx--

I don't think so. There was this little guy with a boat or something.
All I can remember was the incredibly overexaggerated blur effects
which still made it look cool. :)

Ruud van Gaal
Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/
Pencil art  : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

Except for GP4, I'd say that isn't true anymore. F12k surely not, my
Racer not as well, and Papy's stuff neither.
GP3 was tried with high-end FF controllers once, but failed because
(seemingly) of the incredibly low physics update rate.
I'd expect GP4 to do the same actually, since unfortunately Geoff's
base code doesn't seem to have advanced one bit over the last versions
(what's that ***with 'Processor Occupancy'? the CPU is ALWAYS busy
and should be).

F12K does things at ~400Hz (IIRC) at advanced level physics, GPL does
288Hz, Racer can go upto 1000Hz.

Still, even then there are things that can *** the thing. Very
stiff spring like F1 uses are even a problem sometimes at 1000Hz.

Ruud van Gaal
Free car sim: http://www.racesimcentral.net/
Pencil art  : http://www.racesimcentral.net/

Um - only if you're talking about GPx ;)!  IIRC, just about every
modern sim uses a constant-rate physics engine, and can adjust the
framerate independently of the physical simulation rate (Papy sims up
through GPL were framerate-capped, but would still run
asynchronously).  Now if you include the sim-driver as part of the
system, then the rate of input from sim to driver (framerate) becomes
an important factor in how the whole system behaves.

This argument goes around and around and around all the time.  Because
people point to research that says humans can't distinguish movement
beyond 30fps or thereabouts, then clearly no game needs a framerate
beyond this.  Experience screams in the face of this - almost anyone
can see the difference between 30fps and say, 80fps.  Heck, on GP3 I
noticed a huge improvement going from 25fps to 31fps through the
framerate hack.

IMHO, the problem seems to be that people are treating computer games
like a movie.  In a movie, each frame is exposed over time, so
high-speed movement results in a blurring effect that more or less
matches real experience (blurring of fast-moving objects in our FOV).
In a computer game, without additional effects, each object will be
displayed as a static object for the length of a frame, resulting in a
perceptible "jerk" when then next frame is drawn.

All conjecture, of course, and maybe tangential to the whole thread -
I'm only replying to the one post - cause I've already decided to get
F1-2002 ;)...

Kendt

Um - only if you're talking about GPx ;)!  IIRC, just about every
modern sim uses a constant-rate physics engine, and can adjust the
framerate independently of the physical simulation rate (Papy sims up
through GPL were framerate-capped, but would still run
asynchronously).  Now if you include the sim-driver as part of the
system, then the rate of input from sim to driver (framerate) becomes
an important factor in how the whole system behaves.

This argument goes around and around and around all the time.  Because
people point to research that says humans can't distinguish movement
beyond 30fps or thereabouts, then clearly no game needs a framerate
beyond this.  Experience screams in the face of this - almost anyone
can see the difference between 30fps and say, 80fps.  Heck, on GP3 I
noticed a huge improvement going from 25fps to 31fps through the
framerate hack.

IMHO, the problem seems to be that people are treating computer games
like a movie.  In a movie, each frame is exposed over time, so
high-speed movement results in a blurring effect that more or less
matches real experience (blurring of fast-moving objects in our FOV).
In a computer game, without additional effects, each object will be
displayed as a static object for the length of a frame, resulting in a
perceptible "jerk" when then next frame is drawn.

All conjecture, of course, and maybe tangential to the whole thread -
I'm only replying to the one post - cause I've already decided to get
F1-2002 ;)...

Kendt

Perhaps you should read them yourself. I had already read two of those pages
and the only thing they do is confirm my impression.

--
__________   ____---____       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

Um - only if you're talking about GPx ;)!  IIRC, just about every
modern sim uses a constant-rate physics engine, and can adjust the
framerate independently of the physical simulation rate (Papy sims up
through GPL were framerate-capped, but would still run
asynchronously).  Now if you include the sim-driver as part of the
system, then the rate of input from sim to driver (framerate) becomes
an important factor in how the whole system behaves.

This argument goes around and around and around all the time.  Because
people point to research that says humans can't distinguish movement
beyond 30fps or thereabouts, then clearly no game needs a framerate
beyond this.  Experience screams in the face of this - almost anyone
can see the difference between 30fps and say, 80fps.  Heck, on GP3 I
noticed a huge improvement going from 25fps to 31fps through the
framerate hack.

IMHO, the problem seems to be that people are treating computer games
like a movie.  In a movie, each frame is exposed over time, so
high-speed movement results in a blurring effect that more or less
matches real experience (blurring of fast-moving objects in our FOV).
In a computer game, without additional effects, each object will be
displayed as a static object for the length of a frame, resulting in a
perceptible "jerk" when then next frame is drawn.

All conjecture, of course, and maybe tangential to the whole thread -
I'm only replying to the one post - cause I've already decided to get
F1-2002 ;)...

Kendt