FPS question: why more than 24?

I'll throw in my .02 here: High frame rate is only 1/2 the battle. The other half is *consistent* frame rate. If your're crusin' along at 60-70FPS and suddenly its drops down to 40, you are going to have problems. Even though 40 is still a realitivly high FR, the diffrence will change the way the car responds. Tyler Professional Web Designer www.tylereaves.com >Frame Rate may as well be God but why is it that GPL has a max of 37 FPS >and arcade games go as high as 60? Would GPL be smoother with 60 FPS or >would it make no difference? I don't think that this has anything to do >with the FPS used in film. Can anyone clarify this to me?

I believe its a common misconception that the human eye cant tell the difference above 30 or so. I think you cannot actually see it FLASHING above that speed, but you certainly can detect a difference in the choppiness of it. I think GPL caps the fps because it's so important to have a constant framerate for a racing sim. Too much fluctuation tends to make you crash. That's just my intuition, though. -A >Frame Rate may as well be God but why is it that GPL has a max of 37 FPS >and arcade games go as high as 60? Would GPL be smoother with 60 FPS or >would it make no difference? I don't think that this has anything to do >with the FPS used in film. Can anyone clarify this to me?

Hello I thought that you guys might know a thing or two... I know myself that 30 40 or even more FPS make certain games like GPL look smoother but do you know why? It's a well known fact that the human eye cannot see a difference above 24-25 still pictures / second. Is it because the FPS that the games claim are are not the same thing? I mean polygons/sec I understand but FPS?

The more FPS, the more blending between frames, which makes it appear smoother. Does that help any or did I totally miss the point? Dan Belcher Team Racing Unlimited http://simcrashes.cjb.net

Quoted text (11 lines)

> >Hello > >I thought that you guys might know a thing or two... I know myself that > >30 40 or even more FPS make certain games like GPL look smoother but do > >you know why? It's a well known fact that the human eye cannot see a > >difference above 24-25 still pictures / second. Is it because the FPS > >that the games claim are are not the same thing? I mean polygons/sec I > >understand but FPS? > The more FPS, the more blending between frames, which makes it appear smoother. > Does that help any or did I totally miss the point?

Hmmm... more blending between frames as in smaller intervals between frames as in more frames can be played in 1 second? Let's see: in the old days of film they had something like 16 FPS and the actors looked like they were moving jerkier than normal motion because the eye could make out the difference between each frame (still picture). Later they managed to film at 24 FPS which is known to be the lower limit at which the eye cannot make out the individual frames any more and hence it's tricked to "believe" that there is continuous motion. Later...there was no later! Any more than 24 FPS is superfluous (yes I know about NTSC TV being 30 FPS but that's only for some technicality - it's certainly not smoother than PAL!). So what I think is that game FPS is something else. Does anyone know what they mean by 1 frame in games?

Lets use GPL as an example. the Max framefrate is 36 or 37 frames per second. Now if you take away the 12 frames per second to go down to 24fps, what happens. 1/3 of your inputs will be lost as the cpu "jumps" ahead to match the input with the output. 1/3 of your video outputs will be lost and the car will seem to slightly jump from place to place, this is especially noticeable online. You are now re-acting to a less than optimal video output and a third of those reactions are lost in the cpu/video card black hole. Most arcade video games run at a minimun of 60fps and 3dfx is preaching that number as a level that we should NOT go below. We are not there yet, but we are getting closer all the time. I used to deathmatch in doom with a guy who always had one generation newer cpu than I had. 386/486 then 486/pentium he would always kick my behind even when I started shooting first cuz his system pumped out more "bullets" than mine. The only time I could hope to do well was the short periods I managed to upgrade to his cpu level. All this comes into play with framerate. To quote Andy Hollis a top flight sim producer from Origin. "Framerate is God." believe it...know it...live it.. dave henrie

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Hello > I thought that you guys might know a thing or two... I know myself that > 30 40 or even more FPS make certain games like GPL look smoother but do > you know why? It's a well known fact that the human eye cannot see a > difference above 24-25 still pictures / second. Is it because the FPS > that the games claim are are not the same thing? I mean polygons/sec I > understand but FPS?

Frame Rate may as well be God but why is it that GPL has a max of 37 FPS and arcade games go as high as 60? Would GPL be smoother with 60 FPS or would it make no difference? I don't think that this has anything to do with the FPS used in film. Can anyone clarify this to me?

> Frame Rate may as well be God but why is it that GPL has a max of 37 FPS and arcade games go as high as 60? two reasons that come to mind quickly. First, GPL is computing a huge ammount of data for every frame of video shown. GPL's core clock rate has been bumped way up to achieve all these calcuations. So the artificially "capped" 37fps achieves all that GPL needs to compute every little detail.(both video and data crunching) Why don't they allow GPL to go higher? Possibly for the Same reason N3 is based on 3 year old N2 technology rather than the GPL engine, there just aren't many systems out there that CAN move GPL much faster...yet... And if they did, the ONLINE problems would be monumental, slow systems would only see a portion of what the other cars were doing and fast systems would see the turtles hop and skip all over the track as the two computers tried to "agree" where car A and car B are. Would GPL be smoother with 60 FPS or would it make no difference? Oh certainly yes..if you had a system that could produce 60fps in GPL you would have and even smoother experience, and your graphics "might" appear even cleaner, smoother, etc than before. I don't think that this has anything to do Now the 2nd reason. Film is an illusion. at 21, 24 or 36 frames per second, we are NOT seeing moving objects. But we ARE seeing a linking of many still images. Our minds take that information and process's the input and then agrees with itself that whatever it is seeing IS MOVING. Here then is the big difference between film and computer games/sims. Any paticular shot in a film could be as crystal clear as a still photo or blurred almost beyond recognition by movement while being filmed. This blurring is another part of the illusion that allows our brains to "see" motion. But until recently, computer video lacked the ability to show this blurring unless it was through hand drawn scenes created by human animatiors. Newer video technologies could soon give us this illusion also and that would once again improve our brain's perceptions of the illusion that the programmers are trying to create. Now having said all that.... You shouldn't be worring so much about these complex issues..:) You should be driving, or flying, or gunning the***ens out of your helpless opponents...in other words, don't take the fun out of computer ***. dave henrie

He only said that because this issue comes up every six months or so, and, of course, the human eye detects more than 24 fps. He documented his facts as well as you did. > > than a newsgroup. The above "well known fact" is 100% truth-free. > Mr. McGinn thank you for your well documented and helpful answer.

> It's a well known fact that the human eye cannot see a >difference above 24-25 still pictures / second. Wrong. Read this: http://www.penstarsys.com/editor/30v60/30v60p1.htm

>I believe its a common misconception that the human eye cant tell the >difference above 30 or so. Wrong. Read this: http://www.penstarsys.com/editor/30v60/30v60p1.htm

Quoted text (7 lines)

>> It's a well known fact that the human eye cannot see a >>difference above 24-25 still pictures / second. >Wrong. >Read this: >http://www.penstarsys.com/editor/30v60/30v60p1.htm

There is nothing scientific at all about this, but I can "see" flourescent bulbs flickering at 60 times a second. You can also get eyestrain from staring at a computer monitor with a low refresh rate (like 60.) ~daxe -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

:>I believe its a common misconception that the human eye cant tell the :>difference above 30 or so. : Wrong. Read this: : http://www.penstarsys.com/editor/30v60/30v60p1.htm Finally, some decent information. Thanks. Stephen

If you're using a 3DFX card, then goto 3dfx's home page and try to find a demo called "30/60 " or something like that. It shows the difference between 30 and 60 FPS, by rendering one hal of the picture in 30 FPS, and the other half in 60 FPS. Check it out and be prepared to be surprised. If you can't find i can E-mail it to you (It's about 3 mb) Best regards Lars Gaarde

That's one of the best explanation i've ever read. (To my great joy he also mentions the 30/60 demo (See my earlier post)) Lars Gaarde :-))

Quoted text (7 lines)

>> It's a well known fact that the human eye cannot see a >>difference above 24-25 still pictures / second. >Wrong. >Read this: >http://www.penstarsys.com/editor/30v60/30v60p1.htm

>I believe its a common misconception that the human eye cant tell the >difference above 30 or so. >>Wrong. Read this: http://www.penstarsys.com/editor/30v60/30v60p1.htm i don't think aubrey's wrong at all... actually, according to this article, Aubrey is correct- it *is* a common misconception that humans can't perceive anything over 30fps....indeed we can. maybe you didn't read your own article very well, "Huh"... they conclude that we can indeed perceive a difference. somehow you seemed to get it right in your direct response to the question later on in the thread, though- so now i don't know what you mean.... point is that the 24fps perception max is indeed a myth (this is supported by everything taught in med school about the eye and visual cortex, as well....although that isn't all that much)

Yes, of course your right but it is claime that the Human eye can't tell teh difference once if goes over about 24 FTS's, tats whats confuing, maybe this guy have "Superman" vision? Although I do kinda know what he means.

I read the "30 frames per second" thing in the Chicago Suntimes sometime in the last two weeks. They also said that movies are shown at 30 fps. It was explained to me that the reason the sim needs more is that fact that at 36 fps the computer receives and gives 36 frames of info back and forth. the more input back and forth the better the realism as far as physics. made sense to me. mike

In the case of GPL, the physics are recalculated 8 times per frame, so the more frames per second the more often the physics are calc'd and thus the more "smooth" the sim appears. Wayne Hutchison

In that URL says like this: "Contrary to the belief that we cannot distinguish anything over 30 fps, we can actually see and recognize speeds up to 70+ fps. " .....There's also specific explanation how 24fps/sec is actually only "fooling the eye" with motion blur in the movies. > >I believe its a common misconception that the human eye cant tell the > >difference above 30 or so. > Wrong. Read this: > http://www.penstarsys.com/editor/30v60/30v60p1.htm

>There is nothing scientific at all about this, but I can "see" flourescent >bulbs flickering at 60 times a second. Science agrees with you Dave. In fact some people (military jet pilots, for example) can see up to 120+ fps. Joe McGinn _________________________ GA-Sports Writer http://www.ga-sports.com/

The well-known fact you allude to is stated incorrectly, and thus you misinterpret the statistic. At 1 fps, the human distinguishes a series of similar images (like a series of frames in motion picture film) as 1 individual picture per second. At 10 fps the eye/brain still sees 10 individual images. At 24 or 25 fps the *average* human eye and brain no longer the interprets this series of images as distinct, individual images - but as a "motion picture". This does *not* mean that the *average* human eye cannot distinguish the difference between a series of images displayed at 25 fps vs. 70 fps. As you increase the fps, the eye/brain sees the motion picture as being more fluid (smooth). A real world proof that the human eye/brain can determine the difference at higher fps is the notion of acceptable refresh rates on monitor displays. I for one can walk through my office and point out which monitors are run at 60 Hz (non-interlaced). I see "flicker" on these displays (in fact, I get dizzy and nauseous within about 30 seconds of looking at these monitors) until I bump up the refresh to 70 Hz. My eye can distinguish the difference in fps up to at least 70 fps (which is equivalent to 70 Hz in that the monitor is redrawing my Windows display 70 frames or cycles per second). You can prove it to yourself by playing a game at 30, 40, 50, etc fps. You tell me if you can see the difference. I bet that you agree that the motion of moving objects in your game appears "smoother", "more realistic", "less choppy", however you want to phrase it. Hope this helps, -- Philip D'Amato 1999 Ninja 500R

You draw the wrong conclusions. You're ignoring the idea that continuous motion is *not* an absolute - there are subjective degrees of fluidity in motion ranging from "choppy" to "smooth". The higher fps looks smoother to you because in fact your eye can see the difference. -- Philip D'Amato 1999 Ninja 500R <snip>

I remember reading that GPL has a max frame rate because of internal timing functions within the sim. There was too much data to crunch each frame for the fps to go above the limits determined by the developers of the game. -- Philip D'Amato 1999 Ninja 500R

I read it, and in the second paragraph it states: "...the common misconception that humans cannot distinguish framerates over 30 fps, so what is the point of having visuals running at 60 fps? Misconception you say? Yes." It seems to back up the statement "it is a common misconception that the human eye cant [sic] tell the difference above 30..." -- Philip D'Amato 1999 Ninja 500R > >I believe its a common misconception that the human eye cant tell the > >difference above 30 or so. > Wrong. Read this: > http://www.penstarsys.com/editor/30v60/30v60p1.htm

The phrase "24fps perception max" is exactly where people misinterpret the facts. It should be something like "24fps perceived motion threshold". Of course, the number varies from person to person. -- Philip D'Amato 1999 Ninja 500R <snip>

> >I believe its a common misconception that the human eye cant tell the > >difference above 30 or so. > Wrong. Read this: > http://www.penstarsys.com/editor/30v60/30v60p1.htm Well that's exactly the piece of information that I was looking for. Many thanks! I never argued about the fact that games look smoother with more than 24 FPS just about why is it that in films 24 FPS seems perfectly fine yet just about adequate in something like GPL. Happy new year to all!

Quoted text (26 lines)

> The well-known fact you allude to is stated incorrectly, and thus you > misinterpret the statistic. > At 1 fps, the human distinguishes a series of similar images (like a series > of frames in motion picture film) as 1 individual picture per second. At 10 > fps the eye/brain still sees 10 individual images. At 24 or 25 fps the > *average* human eye and brain no longer the interprets this series of images > as distinct, individual images - but as a "motion picture". This does *not* > mean that the *average* human eye cannot distinguish the difference between > a series of images displayed at 25 fps vs. 70 fps. As you increase the fps, > the eye/brain sees the motion picture as being more fluid (smooth). A real > world proof that the human eye/brain can determine the difference at higher > fps is the notion of acceptable refresh rates on monitor displays. I for > one can walk through my office and point out which monitors are run at 60 Hz > (non-interlaced). I see "flicker" on these displays (in fact, I get dizzy > and nauseous within about 30 seconds of looking at these monitors) until I > bump up the refresh to 70 Hz. My eye can distinguish the difference in fps > up to at least 70 fps (which is equivalent to 70 Hz in that the monitor is > redrawing my Windows display 70 frames or cycles per second). You can prove > it to yourself by playing a game at 30, 40, 50, etc fps. You tell me if you > can see the difference. I bet that you agree that the motion of moving > objects in your game appears "smoother", "more realistic", "less choppy", > however you want to phrase it. > Hope this helps, > -- > Philip D'Amato

Do you consider motion pictures as choppy and less realistic than games? Yet they run at "only" 24 FPS. It seems that there's more to it than just FPS just as I suspected. The link that "Huh?" suggested goes along way to explain the difference between games and film. Happy new year!

> >I believe its a common misconception that the human eye cant tell the > >difference above 30 or so. > Wrong. Read this: > http://www.penstarsys.com/editor/30v60/30v60p1.htm Well that's exactly the piece of information that I was looking for. Many thanks! I never argued about the fact that games look smoother with more than 24 FPS just about why is it that in films 24 FPS seems perfectly fine yet just about adequate in something like GPL.

>...why is it that in films 24 FPS seems >perfectly fine ... No it doesn't. Rather, experienced directors and cameramen have become adept at hiding the limitations of their available frame-rate. Find a movie where the camera is moving quickly (the central station dance scene in The Fisher King comes to mind) you you will see terrible jumpiness and stuttering. Joe McGinn _________________________ GA-Sports Writer http://www.ga-sports.com/

I didn't count personally, but when the fps drop from 36 to 34, I see AND feel the stutter and that sucks. Jens >Hello >I thought that you guys might know a thing or two... I know myself that >30 40 or even more FPS make certain games like GPL look smoother but do <snip> --------------------------------------------- Remove "NOSPAM" before using my email-address Visit my webpage at http://members.xoom.com/JensSchu/ for some serious stuff concerning: Radio controlled airplanes Racing simulation, esp. GPL Classic cars, esp. Morris Minor

It's also very important to have the frame rate consistantly. You can live with const. 30, const. 36 or const. 60 :-) But an ongoing fluctuation between 36 and 60 is worse than const 36 (I believe) Jens >Frame Rate may as well be God but why is it that GPL has a max of 37 FPS >and arcade games go as high as 60? Would GPL be smoother with 60 FPS or >would it make no difference? I don't think that this has anything to do >with the FPS used in film. Can anyone clarify this to me? --------------------------------------------- Remove "NOSPAM" before using my email-address Visit my webpage at http://members.xoom.com/JensSchu/ for some serious stuff concerning: Radio controlled airplanes Racing simulation, esp. GPL Classic cars, esp. Morris Minor

LOL <snip>> --------------------------------------------- Remove "NOSPAM" before using my email-address Visit my webpage at http://members.xoom.com/JensSchu/ for some serious stuff concerning: Radio controlled airplanes Racing simulation, esp. GPL Classic cars, esp. Morris Minor

Before I dl the whole thing, can you just give us a hint about what you can see? Would be highly appreciated. Jens <snip>> <snip> --------------------------------------------- Remove "NOSPAM" before using my email-address Visit my webpage at http://members.xoom.com/JensSchu/ for some serious stuff concerning: Radio controlled airplanes Racing simulation, esp. GPL Classic cars, esp. Morris Minor

% Hello % I thought that you guys might know a thing or two... I know myself that % 30 40 or even more FPS make certain games like GPL look smoother but do % you know why? It's a well known fact that the human eye cannot see a % difference above 24-25 still pictures / second. Is it because the FPS % that the games claim are are not the same thing? I mean polygons/sec I % understand but FPS? This is a myth..... the human eye can tell the difference.... go to: http://www.penstarsys.com/editor/30v60/30v60p1.htm -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=