Interesting article. I get a little a tired hearing about frame rates,
especially when they can't be measured in 75% (ballpark) of the games
released.
http://www.avault.com/articles/getarticle.asp?name=fpsconspiracy
"Most reviewers understand that a game that runs at 'a rock-solid 60
frames per second' will look very smooth, so they tend to make
references to frame rates in their articles. What readers probably don't
know is that there is simply no way for a reviewer to independently
determine a console game's frame rate, so these reports are necessarily
subjective."
> Interesting article. I get a little a tired hearing about frame rates,
> especially when they can't be measured in 75% (ballpark) of the games
> released.
Maybe I've been gaming too long, but I can spot a console game's frame rate
within less than 5 seconds. There's basically only 4 categories of
framerates when it comes to console games:-
1. v-sync'd (locked) to 60fps. (eg. Gran Turismo 3, Project Gotham, F355
Challenge, Sega GT 2002)
2. v-sync'd (locked) to 30fps. (eg. Gran Turismo 2, MSR, Wreckless, Apex)
3. Triple Buffered (eg. Splinter Cell)
4. not v-synced. (eg. Furious Karting, GTA 3)
The first option is vastly superior and adds an enormous amount of realism
to most games. That's the reason most reviewers point it out when a game
can't manage it.
I should have mentioned that it's quite a good article despite a few
misconceptions.
> I should have mentioned that it's quite a good article despite a few
> misconceptions.
Quite a few actually... : )
That article is as loose and preachy as my religious aunt. He babbles and
dramatizes and take pauses to look up uncommon words just to try to not
sound like a "young gamer." It's lots of talk and no hard facts and
evidence. What does he mean by the display have to wait for the renderer,
the monitor is getting a constant, carefully syncronized flow of data from
the ramdac. When the framebuffer is ready with a new frame, the ramdac is
updated and the signal to the monitor changes.
I didnt read the last two pages, it was like listening to a politician, a
bad one. He blamed reviewers for their benchmarking yet couldn't point out
clearly what should change.
"Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:b3mg3g$1o5ajs$[email hidden]...
> I should have mentioned that it's quite a good article despite a few
> misconceptions.
>
>
>
