Sega Rally Revo's 30 FPS framerate is disappointing

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/21667.html Also, all the recent message board posts & web articles I've read are all saying Sega Rally Revo runs at 30 frames per second. that's very, very disappointing concidering that the developer; Sega Racing Studio (aka Sega Driving Studio) said in previous interviews that Revo would be 60 frames per second. google it in google or google groups. IGN, EDGE magazine, whatever. they said 60fps. It's also disappointing because Sega Rally 2 *arcade* on Sega's Model 3 Step 2 arcade hardware ran a solid 60 frames per second, 9 years ago. Also, DICE's RalliSport Challenge 1 & 2 on the original Xbox, in more recent years. solid 60fps arcade-style rally racing at 60fps. so far, current generation has sucked for rally games, be they light simulators or arcade-like. there's no excuse for Sega Rally Revo, or any racing game (PGR3, Motorstorm, CMR:DiRT, PGR4) to be less than 60 frames per second -- be it an Xbox 360, PlayStation3 or PC game. I am hoping the PC saves Sega Rally Revo with the ability to run it at 60fps on higher-end graphics cards. There's no excuse for low-framerate games when various arcade hardware platforms from a decade ago ran games at a consistant 60fps dispite the fact that graphical detail & resolution were lower. Framerate is more important than resolution or graphical detail. I dunno who to blame here: Sega Racing/Driving Studio for not making framerate the priority, or Microsoft & Sony for giving their current console GPUs the absolute MINIMAL pixel fillrate performance (4000 Mpixels / 4 Gpixels per second) which is was not really enough to make games look THAT much better than PS2/Xbox games at HD resolutions. or do I blame both. whatever. I'm not saying I won't buy Revo, I probably will. but godamn, this is not the old Sega that made smooth-as-butter racing games. /rant

"AirRaid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (51 lines)

> > http://www.gametrailers.com/player/21667.html > > Also, all the recent message board posts & web articles I've read are > all saying Sega Rally Revo runs at 30 frames per second. > > that's very, very disappointing concidering that the developer; Sega > Racing Studio > (aka Sega Driving Studio) said in previous interviews that Revo would > be 60 frames per second. > google it in google or google groups. IGN, EDGE magazine, whatever. > they said 60fps. > > It's also disappointing because Sega Rally 2 *arcade* on Sega's > Model 3 Step 2 arcade hardware ran a solid 60 frames per second, 9 > years ago. > > Also, DICE's RalliSport Challenge 1 & 2 on the original Xbox, in more > recent years. solid 60fps arcade-style rally racing at 60fps. so > far, current generation has sucked for rally games, be they light > simulators or arcade-like. > > > there's no excuse for Sega Rally Revo, or any racing game (PGR3, > Motorstorm, CMR:DiRT, PGR4) to be less than 60 frames per second -- > be it an Xbox 360, PlayStation3 or PC game. > > I am hoping the PC saves Sega Rally Revo with the ability to run it at > 60fps on higher-end graphics cards. > > There's no excuse for low-framerate games when various arcade hardware > platforms from a decade ago ran games at a consistant 60fps dispite > the fact that graphical detail & resolution were lower. Framerate is > more important than resolution or graphical detail. > > I dunno who to blame here: Sega Racing/Driving Studio for not making > framerate the priority, or Microsoft & Sony for giving their current > console GPUs the absolute MINIMAL pixel fillrate performance (4000 > Mpixels / 4 Gpixels per second) which is was not really enough to make > games look THAT much better than PS2/Xbox games at HD resolutions. > or do I blame both. > > whatever. > > > I'm not saying I won't buy Revo, I probably will. but godamn, this > is not the old Sega that made smooth-as-butter racing games. > > > /rant >

What wrong with 30 fps, when you watch movies or TV it's less fps than that

On Jul 23, 1:10 pm, "mark johnson" <[email hidden]> wrote: > What wrong with 30 fps, when you watch movies or TV it's less fps than that- Hide quoted text - 30 fps is not smooth enough for serious arcade games. that's why all the major (quality) racing, fighting, action and sports games are 60 FPS. movies or television which are shown at 24 ~ 30 FPS is not the same thing, that's comparing apples to oranges.

I would say that the framerate is due to their new ground deformation system. The fact that they have increased the grid granularity by a factor of 12 is very impressive and is the one reason I am looking forward to this game. If the track deformation is good as they say, nobody should care about the 30 FPS...fingers crossed. "AirRaid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> On Jul 23, 1:10 pm, "mark johnson" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >> What wrong with 30 fps, when you watch movies or TV it's less fps than >> that- Hide quoted text - > > > 30 fps is not smooth enough for serious arcade games. that's why all > the major (quality) racing, fighting, action and sports games are 60 > FPS. > > movies or television which are shown at 24 ~ 30 FPS is not the same > thing, that's comparing apples to oranges. > >

"Mark McNulty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... >I would say that the framerate is due to their new ground deformation >system. The fact that they have increased the grid granularity by a factor >of 12 is very impressive and is the one reason I am looking forward to this >game. If the track deformation is good as they say, nobody should care >about the 30 FPS...fingers crossed. They could just have done what T10 did for FM2 and cut back on lots of features to get 60fps.

On 24 Jul, 14:27, "Depresion" <127.0.0.1> wrote: > > They could just have done what T10 did for FM2 and cut back on lots of > features to get 60fps. Yes like smooth edges.

"AirRaid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> On Jul 23, 1:10 pm, "mark johnson" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >> What wrong with 30 fps, when you watch movies or TV it's less fps than >> that- Hide quoted text - > > > 30 fps is not smooth enough for serious arcade games. that's why all > the major (quality) racing, fighting, action and sports games are 60 > FPS. > > movies or television which are shown at 24 ~ 30 FPS is not the same > thing, that's comparing apples to oranges. > >

No it's not comparing apples to oranges at all. It's comparing computer monitors to TVs!

Understood but track deformation is the next step in rally/racing games. I would rather 30 FPS. "Depresion" <127.0.0.1> wrote in message news:46a5ff55$0$1598$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > "Mark McNulty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >>I would say that the framerate is due to their new ground deformation >>system. The fact that they have increased the grid granularity by a factor >>of 12 is very impressive and is the one reason I am looking forward to >>this game. If the track deformation is good as they say, nobody should >>care about the 30 FPS...fingers crossed. > > They could just have done what T10 did for FM2 and cut back on lots of > features to get 60fps. >

On Jul 23, 10:54 pm, "Mark McNulty" <[email hidden]> wrote: > I would say that the framerate is due to their new ground deformation > system. The fact that they have increased the grid granularity by a factor > of 12 is very impressive and is the one reason I am looking forward to this > game. If the track deformation is good as they say, nobody should care > about the 30 FPS...fingers crossed. the 30fps framerate very well may have to do with the new ground deformation system. I think it's great to have such a feature, but not at the expense of framerate. like I said, all the GREAT racing games by any company, on any platform (arcade hardwares, consoles, PCs) have all been 60fps. I would not say that "nobody should care about the 30 FPS". I'm sure a lot of people WON'T care, but many gamers will without a doubt. the only hope for those that DO care is the PC version. If the graphics engine is scalable enough, I'm keeping my fingers crossed that 60 FPS will be possible with a powerful-enough CPU/GPU combination. It does not matter how powerful PS3's CELL CPU or X360's Xenon CPU is, as far as multi-core processor usage and floating point performance. It's the PS3's RSX GPU and X360's Xenos GPU that are responsible for rendering /drawing/updating the graphics. they both have 4 Gpixels/sec of pixel fillrate. in the case of PS3's RSX; only about 2 Gpixels/sec when 4x anti-aliasing is used. but even with X360, with 4x AA, the fillrate doesn't go higher than 4 Gpixels/sec. With highend PC graphics cards, they have GPUs with fillrates in the 8 to 14 Gpixels/sec range. even 6 Gpixels/sec in the case of the GeForce 7800 GTX 256 MB from mid 2005. That translates into better potential performance/speed framerate. even though developers do not specifically target the highend PC graphics cards since PC games have to run on midrange and even lowerend PCs, I hope Revo is scalable enough to run at 60fps on PC. so unlike you, I'm not keeping my fingers crossed that nobody cares about a 30fps framerate, I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the PC version can run at 60fps.

Welcome to the Fantasy zone AirRaid , get ready! Assrape do hush, you really don't have a clue!

On Jul 26, 4:30 am, "Northern Deity" <> wrote: > Welcome to the Fantasy zone AirRaid , get ready! > > Assrape do hush, you really don't have a clue! you really love to show the fact that you don't have a clue, don't you?

AirRaid wrote:

Quoted text (41 lines)

> On Jul 23, 10:54 pm, "Mark McNulty" <[email hidden]> wrote: >> I would say that the framerate is due to their new ground deformation >> system. The fact that they have increased the grid granularity by a factor >> of 12 is very impressive and is the one reason I am looking forward to this >> game. If the track deformation is good as they say, nobody should care >> about the 30 FPS...fingers crossed. > > > the 30fps framerate very well may have to do with the new ground > deformation system. I think it's great to have such a feature, but > not at the expense of framerate. like I said, all the GREAT racing > games by any company, on any platform (arcade hardwares, consoles, > PCs) have all been 60fps. I would not say that "nobody should care > about the 30 FPS". > I'm sure a lot of people WON'T care, but many gamers will without a > doubt. the only hope for those that DO care is the PC version. If > the graphics engine is scalable enough, I'm keeping my fingers crossed > that 60 FPS will be possible with a powerful-enough CPU/GPU > combination. > > It does not matter how powerful PS3's CELL CPU or X360's Xenon CPU is, > as far as multi-core processor usage and floating point performance. > It's the PS3's RSX GPU and X360's Xenos GPU that are responsible for > rendering > /drawing/updating the graphics. they both have 4 Gpixels/sec of pixel > fillrate. in the case of PS3's RSX; only about 2 Gpixels/sec when 4x > anti-aliasing is used. but even with X360, with 4x AA, the fillrate > doesn't go higher than 4 Gpixels/sec. > > With highend PC graphics cards, they have GPUs with fillrates in the 8 > to 14 Gpixels/sec range. even 6 Gpixels/sec in the case of the > GeForce 7800 GTX 256 MB from mid 2005. > > That translates into better potential performance/speed framerate. > even though developers do not specifically target the highend PC > graphics cards since PC games have to run on midrange and even > lowerend PCs, I hope Revo is scalable enough to run at 60fps on PC. > so unlike you, I'm not keeping my fingers crossed that nobody cares > about a 30fps framerate, I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the PC > version can run at 60fps. >

You feel quite strongly on this eh?