rec.autos.simulators

by **Haqsa** » Thu, 14 Aug 2003 07:15:52

60 fps with vsync implies 60 hz, which is fine on a TV screen but inadequate
on a monitor. I can definitely see flicker at 60 hz on a computer monitor,
regardless of whether vsync is on or off. For me 72 hz is the min. that
will not produce flicker. Some games can run at that rate but others
require a substantial reduction in detail level to achieve a steady 72 fps
frame rate. I find high detail 72 hz without vsync to generally be more
attractive than low detail 72 hz with vsync. But it's very much a personal
thing.

by **Haqsa** » Thu, 14 Aug 2003 07:23:15

While many games are playable down to about 20 fps, I find any frame rate
under 40 to be noticeably less smooth than over 40. From 40 up it is quite
a bit harder for me to see the difference. However I can *feel* the
difference all the way up to 100 or so. Practically every game I have feels
smoother as the frame rate gets higher, providing only that the frame rate
is fairly steady. At first I thought this was due to eye-hand reaction time
but someone here recently posted that many games sample the controllers once
per frame, thus for those games the higher the frame rate the better the
controller response. Right now if I had my preference I would run all games
at somewhere around 80 to 100 fps. Some of my games will do that, others
will not. I have some older games that I can run at well over 100 (last
time I checked I could run the original quake at around 500) but I can't
really feel the difference above 100 or so.

by **Robin Lor** » Thu, 14 Aug 2003 03:40:06

:)

--
Cheers,

Robin

now playing: Laurent Garnier Essential Mix 18/11/95

http://www.oppositelock.freeserve.co.uk

by **Damien Smit** » Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:21:14

Absolutely. In a perfect world, all games would run at 100fps v-synced and
never have slowdown or frame drops.

by **Some Call Me Ti** » Fri, 15 Aug 2003 02:24:08

Try closing your eyes whislt driving, it not what you see but what you feel
thats counts.

Some Call Me Tim

by **Joe6** » Fri, 15 Aug 2003 03:01:15

Totally agree. For some reason 40 or so is where, subjectively, games
seem to have a nice smooth feel.

by **Joe6** » Fri, 15 Aug 2003 03:06:46

Actually, as a frame-rate-bigot, I was quite happy with he C64. Unlike
other 6502 systems, the C64 had hardware-accelerated sprite graphics.
So at least for animating 8 objects on screen (including hardware
collision-detection!) it was solid 60 fps. Not too bad for the early
80s.

After the Amiga, PC game frame rates and graphiocs took a significant
downturn for many years until the development of the 3DFX Voodoo.
(Remember for a while there when your sole determinating factor for
game purchase decisions was whether or not a game had graphics
accelerator support? LOL!)

by **whatu** » Fri, 15 Aug 2003 07:04:08

Thanks men for the input. I can appreciate not rehashing this over and over
again however, each day there are new experts signing up like Bruce. I was
hoping along with the comedy relief there would also be some substantial
technical info. It recently has been said here that higher frame rate can
also improve driving and or shooting skills. I run refresh at 85hz and
usually load the graphics until my minimum FPS is about 35. I am not the
fastest on the track but those faster can only attribute their skills to
practice not FPS. In fact I have asked many, and for example in F12002 35FPS
was used buy the guy with a very fast lap time. I am sure there are many
factors in achieving a nice balance. I will judge by the competition and the
response to questions. Thanks.

> While many games are playable down to about 20 fps, I find any frame rate
> under 40 to be noticeably less smooth than over 40. From 40 up it is
quite
> a bit harder for me to see the difference. However I can *feel* the
> difference all the way up to 100 or so. Practically every game I have
feels
> smoother as the frame rate gets higher, providing only that the frame rate
> is fairly steady. At first I thought this was due to eye-hand reaction
time
> but someone here recently posted that many games sample the controllers
once
> per frame, thus for those games the higher the frame rate the better the
> controller response. Right now if I had my preference I would run all
games
> at somewhere around 80 to 100 fps. Some of my games will do that, others
> will not. I have some older games that I can run at well over 100 (last
> time I checked I could run the original quake at around 500) but I can't
> really feel the difference above 100 or so.

> > I am curious to see what others believe is necessary in frame rate
numbers
> > to achieve max performance. Is it not game specific? GPL maxed at 30fps
> some
> > others 90 and over 100 fps.

by **Peter Ive** » Fri, 15 Aug 2003 07:56:13

Can't say about the technical info that could help. Can only speak from
experience and I found the likes of GPL undrivable when I first tried
it, because I was only running it at about 24fps. It wasn't until I
upped the fps to nearer the 36 max that I was able to drive without
crashing all the time. It took me some 6 months to realise this. As
soon as I upped the fps I immediately stopped crashing. Since then I
have always ensured an fps over 35 with all Papy sims and any others
that will allow it.

If you're already over that mark then I doubt that's why you're having
trouble, it probably is down to more practise required.
--
Peter Ives (AKA Pete Ivington)
Remove ALL_STRESS before replying via email
If you know what's good for you, don't listen to me :)
GPLRank Joystick -50.63 Wheel -21.77

rec.autos.simulators

Lets Talk Frame Rate

Lets Talk Frame Rate

Lets Talk Frame Rate

Lets Talk Frame Rate

Lets Talk Frame Rate

Lets Talk Frame Rate

Lets Talk Frame Rate

Lets Talk Frame Rate

Lets Talk Frame Rate

Lets Talk Frame Rate