frame rates in general

Hi, just wondering what is considered a smooth frame rate for driving games. it is for an article I am writing, am I correct in saying that 24 frames per second is the minimum we should have for film like smoothness? thanks rob

There is no single answer. Some people are happy with 15 FPS. Others find 25 barely adequate. And if you're racing against one or more humans, the the person with the highest frame rate generally has a distinct advantage. And it's a little apples and oranges to compare any video frame rate to film. The mechanisms are so different that you can't make a one-to-one comparison. The 24 fps for film and 30 fps for video are probably somewhere in the 90% range of where people perceive the images as "smooth." Maybe high 90's. Mighty

Hate to waste bandwidth, but... Good answer!!

I disagree. 24 fps is way too low to have a perfectly smooth experience. If people tell you that you cannot tell the difference above 24fps then just try it out yourself ... I have no problem telling the difference between 24, 30 or 60 fps. Common misconception is the saying then your eyes will perceive 24 fps as seamless. It is not quiete right ... at 24fps you cannot pick out single frames but that doesn't make it perfectly smooth. BTW, movies use motion blur (it is a natural "phenomenom" which games do nor replicate) and that is why they look perfecly smooth. Without motion blur (ie. in games) it is a totally different ball game. It depends on 2 things, your FPS as well as the size of your screen/monitor. Think about it ... if you have something at 20 fps on a watch size screen then it will apear smooth (bacause each frame will "move" things my only tiny amounts (milimeters)). On the other hand, if you play something at 20fps on a wall size screen (with no motion blur) then it is quiete feasable that objects will jump literally meters from frame to frame .. that is definatelly not smooth. I find it that in computer games 60fps is flawless while 30fps is more than adequatte though less then 30 seems to be flawed. I always require 30+ fps to be "sumberged" in the experience. Regards, David Mocnay

Quoted text (8 lines)

>Hi, >just wondering what is considered a smooth frame rate for driving games. it is >for an article I am writing, am I correct in saying that 24 frames per second >is the minimum we should have for film like smoothness? >thanks >rob

Quoted text (24 lines)

> > Hi, > > just wondering what is considered a smooth frame rate for driving > > games. it is for an article I am writing, am I correct in saying > > that 24 frames per second is the minimum we should have for film > > like smoothness? > > thanks > > rob > There is no single answer. Some people are happy with 15 FPS. > Others find 25 barely adequate. And if you're racing against one > or more humans, the the person with the highest frame rate > generally has a distinct advantage. > And it's a little apples and oranges to compare any video frame > rate to film. The mechanisms are so different that you can't make > a one-to-one comparison. > The 24 fps for film and 30 fps for video are probably somewhere in > the 90% range of where people perceive the images as "smooth." > Maybe high 90's. > Mighty

My understanding is that generally, the human eye can only percieve differences in graphical images (tv, video, etc) up to around 30 - 32 fps? However, higher frame rates in driving games/sims provide a smoother view and can make the game/sim easier to drive even though the eye may not notice any difference? This is because the game is being updated faster, and control imputs are read more frequently, etc. Two examples: Formula 1 Grand Prix 2 (F1GP2) - from Microprose. The max fps available is 25, and when run on a fast pc (with cpu occupancy mainly below 100% - this is a whole other area we won't go into here!) it runs and looks great at 25fps. Grand Prix Legends (GPL) - From Sierra. The max fps is 36, and again on a decent pc running at 36 is very smooth and adds to your ability to control the car. Thats a difference of 11 fps. Try running GPL at 25fps after running it at 36 for a while, and there is a noticeable drop in performance. Then again, I first ran GPL on an old k6 200 and *had* to turn off most details and run it at around 25 fps and it was still *very* playable and still looked great. So you could argue its all subjective? Some people seem very happy running thier games/sims at 20fps, maybe cos they haven't had the equipment available to run them any faster? I'de say the faster the better from a game/sim players point of view, and an absolute minimum of.........? Hmmmm tough one, acceptible levels are changing with technology too. In F1GP2 nothing less than 25 would do? In GPL nothing less than 36 will do? In F1GP3 maybe only 50fps will do? 8-) *Peter* #:-)

says... Nope. 30 fps is the minimum. 30 fps is where 90-odd% of people *stop perceiving flicker* of an interlaced video signal. Depending on the content. For example, your average movie or TV show. OTOH, if you display fairly small text or thin horizontal lines at 30 fps interlaced, most people perceive substantial flicker and get a headache within just a few minutes. A government group in Sweden set standards for computer video signals that included a minimum of 72 Hz (AKA 72 fps) refresh rate for just that reason. Even at that refresh rate, some people perceive flicker. But more is not necessarily better. In the late '70s or early '80s some group in Hollywood ran tests of high- frame-rate film. As they raised the frame rate, people reported that the experience seemed much more realistic. But, as they passed 70 fps they found that the incidence of vertigo and nausea increased dramatically. Especially when showing content with lots of motion, like a roller coaster. US Air Force fighter pilots are also experiencing problems with nausea in their newest high fidelity flight sims. I'd be willing to wager that several people on this newsgroup have suffered at least one bout of vertigo while watching a friend play Wolf 3D/Doom/Quake. There's a fairly new medical term for this: Simulator Sickness. As the frame rate increases and the visual and aural fidelity gets more realistic the brain begins to get confused by conflicting signals. The information coming from the eyes and (in games) the ears are tell the brain that the person is in motion. But the inertial motion detectors of the body (mostly the inner ear) tell the brain that the person is at rest. The brain throws up its psychic hands and says, "I give up." AKA, vertigo. The highest fidelity sims in the world will always have this problem. Inertia is a basic physical property of your inner ear. The only way around it is if there's some way to stimulate the inner ear to match the inertial forces it should be feeling. Or to bypass it and feed the brain the appropriate impulses. Both appear quite a ways off. Mighty

I think this is a great answer... Sluggish performance tends to make you introduce too much steering input because the game is always _behind_ you in reaction. -Larry > However, higher frame rates in driving games/sims provide a smoother > view and can make the game/sim easier to drive even though the eye may > not notice any difference? This is because the game is being updated > faster, and control imputs are read more frequently, etc.