Lets Talk Frame Rate

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.

"whatup" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:mkZZa.2694$[email hidden]... > 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 30fpssome > others 90 and over 100 fps. > > Egad, can't you think of anything else to ask that would be a touch more interesting? This thing has been rehashed, over and over, for years. How 'bout whether those damned Republicans will get the Governorship in California. That's something new. Alanb

GPL is maxed at 36 fps, many of the newer titles are not fps limited or the limit can be raised or turned off in many of them froma simple command line or ini file. -- Biz "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and the....." - Ash "whatup" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:mkZZa.2694$[email hidden]... > 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. > >

I'm perfectly happy with 15 fps in any game because I have slow eyes. Bruce. "whatup" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:mkZZa.2694$[email hidden]... > I am curious to see what others believe is necessary in frame rate numbers

"whatup" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:mkZZa.2694$[email hidden]... > 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 30fpssome > others 90 and over 100 fps. Anything less than 100 is a joke.

> Anything less than 100 is a joke. Or, at least, less than perfect. ;-)

"Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I'm perfectly happy with 15 fps in any game because I have slow eyes. LOL!! > Bruce. > > "whatup" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:mkZZa.2694$[email hidden]... > > I am curious to see what others believe is necessary in frame ratenumbers > > >

LOL!! > Bruce. > > I am curious to see what others believe is necessary in frame rate numbers

In article <bhaf5b$vtvn6$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] Damien Smith says... > > Anything less than 100 is a joke. > > Or, at least, less than perfect. ;-) > Everything over 25 is a smooth moving picture. Yes, things look better in the 50-60 range, but everything over that is really not needed, IMHO. -- Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. ICQ: 138579247

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 20:21:41 +1000, "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>"whatup" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:mkZZa.2694$[email hidden]... >> 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. > >Anything less than 100 is a joke.

I do prefer 36 fps spread out over the full second above 100 fps where the 100 frames are displayed in the first tenth of a second, followed by a still image displayed 9 tenths of a second.... There is more to it then more is better... Remco

The only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias was "Oh no! Not again!" "Dalibor Bauernfrajnd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> In article <bhaf5b$vtvn6$[email hidden]>, > [email hidden] Damien Smith says... > > > Anything less than 100 is a joke. > > > > Or, at least, less than perfect. ;-) > > > > Everything over 25 is a smooth moving picture. Yes, things > look better in the 50-60 range, but everything over that > is really not needed, IMHO. > > -- > Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. > ICQ: 138579247

> I do prefer 36 fps spread out over the full second above 100 fps > where the 100 frames are displayed in the first tenth of a second, > followed by a still image displayed 9 tenths of a second.... It's very rare that it would happen that way...... Seriously, the only true frame-rate bliss is when synchronised to a 60Hz+ refresh rate on a CRT monitor. Very few PC racing games are capable of it. F1C & 200X come to mind.... Dirt Track Racing is another.... Many console racing games also run at 60 f(ields)ps synchronised e.g. GT3, Project Gotham. Then again I have a friend who is reasonably intelligent yet can't tell the difference between a 30fps and 60fps console game....It's a 'To each their own' situation.

"Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bhaq0l$tv131$[email hidden]... > Then again I have a friend who is reasonably intelligent yet can't tell the > difference between a 30fps and 60fps console game....It's a 'To each their > own' situation. > > Since when did intelligence and possibly poor eyesight have anything at all to do with each other?

> The only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias was "Oh > no! Not again!" :) -- Cheers, Robin now playing: Laurent Garnier Essential Mix 18/11/95 http://www.oppositelock.freeserve.co.uk

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 14:44:29 +0200, Dalibor Bauernfrajnd <[email hidden]> wrote: >Everything over 25 is a smooth moving picture. Yes, things >look better in the 50-60 range, but everything over that >is really not needed, IMHO. Troll!

In article <[email hidden]>, Dalibor Bauernfrajnd <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted text (11 lines)

>In article <bhaf5b$vtvn6$[email hidden]>, >[email hidden] Damien Smith says... >> > Anything less than 100 is a joke. >> >> Or, at least, less than perfect. ;-) >> > >Everything over 25 is a smooth moving picture. Yes, things >look better in the 50-60 range, but everything over that >is really not needed, IMHO. >

It's not just about how it looks. Are you new here? :) -- 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

It's a well-documented fact in the medical profession that poor eyesight actually causes low intelligence because the people with slow eyes can't read fast and therefore their brains operate at a lower refresh-rate. That's why electric shocks to the head sometimes help. Bruce. "Biz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:TH9_a.98070$[email hidden]... > > Since when did intelligence and possibly poor eyesight have anything atall to do with each other? > >

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. "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bhaq0l$tv131$[email hidden]... > > Seriously, the only true frame-rate bliss is when synchronised to a 60Hz+ > refresh rate on a CRT monitor. Very few PC racing games are capable ofit. > F1C & 200X come to mind.... Dirt Track Racing is another.... Manyconsole > racing games also run at 60 f(ields)ps synchronised e.g. GT3, Project > Gotham. >

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. "whatup" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:mkZZa.2694$[email hidden]... > 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 30fpssome > others 90 and over 100 fps. > >

> 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 isquite > 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 havefeels > 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 reactiontime > but someone here recently posted that many games sample the controllersonce > 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 allgames > 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. Absolutely. In a perfect world, all games would run at 100fps v-synced and never have slowdown or frame drops.

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

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 18:23:15 -0400, "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote: >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. Totally agree. For some reason 40 or so is where, subjectively, games seem to have a nice smooth feel.

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 23:51:46 +0200, Ruud Dingemans <[email hidden]> wrote: >Hm, some of you modern dotcom Ghz-pc-wussies *really* need to be forced >to sit behind a gen-you-whine Commodore 64 for a month and play nothing >but Revs. With a TV acting as monitor. 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!)

Damien Smith wrote: >> GPL maxed at 30fps >> some others 90 and over 100 fps. > Anything less than 100 is a joke. Hm, some of you modern dotcom Ghz-pc-wussies *really* need to be forced to sit behind a gen-you-whine Commodore 64 for a month and play nothing but Revs. With a TV acting as monitor. There's just no pleasing some people... Regards, Ruud

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. "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > 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 isquite > 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 havefeels > 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 reactiontime > but someone here recently posted that many games sample the controllersonce > 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 allgames

Quoted text (9 lines)

> 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. > > > "whatup" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:mkZZa.2694$[email hidden]... > > I am curious to see what others believe is necessary in frame rate

numbers

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > to achieve max performance. Is it not game specific? GPL maxed at 30fps > some > > others 90 and over 100 fps. > > > > > >

In article <sBy_a.10074$[email hidden]>, whatup <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted text (14 lines)

>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. > >

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