tell me your UT FPS

[CHHAS]

25 fps, should in theory at least, be enough for the human eye to percieve it as being smooth. Unfortunately this is rarely the case with computer games, and besides that, the 25 fps is not an average figure, but a bare minimum.

The problem arises with the way individual images are rendered.
You should have 25 images each exposed for 1/25 of a second, not 25 images each representing an exact moment in time. Therefore in order to get smooth gaming you need more than 25 fps, around 50 should do.



------------------
P3 500@560, 192 MB ram, G400 16SH

[The Sewer Rat]

That's bullshit chaas - I have a cap of 38 frames in UT and it runs brilliantly.
Oh yeah -DO THE 5.50 DRIVERS GIVE ANY noticeable IMPROVEMEANT (noticeable!) to D3D/open GL games?And has anyone managed to play avp online with the 5.50 drivers(****ing 5.41 dosen't work )?

[exG-man]

For those of you who don't know and are scratching your head in awe at his ability to run UT so smoothly, Greebe is the builder of Eclipse Mod Athlon systems. He may be too modest to say it, but if you want a 1 ghz and even higher system, he's your man. I have been an AZZO fan for some time.

Ya know Greebe, I just thought about it....at 560 mhz, I'm only about half as fast as your system. I have to go cry now.

P/S I added the 3 fan HD cooler and slot fan and 1 pretty big Sunon today. My fan count stands at 10 (5 hd, 1 slot, 4 case) and is kind of loud, but hey....CPU temp is at 74.3f degrees. Someday I'll get one of your systems. I've left it on most of the day @ 560 mhz, playing UT mostly (and make no mistake...I SUCK ! this game should be called "RESPAWN" in my case)

Hope all of you are well.
Bud


"It's only a flesh wound"

[This message has been edited by exG-man (edited 19 January 2000).]

[xippo@work]

The human eye can actually see and recognize speeds up to 70+ fps. To test, set the refresh rate to 60 Hz on your monitor and stare at it for a while. You can actually see the refreshes and it is very tiring to your eyes. So if flicker free is considered to be 72 Hz (refreshes per second), then the eye can percieve at least 72fps.

In any game there is an average frame rate, and different games require more or less frame rates for acceptable play. Rates can be as high as the refresh rate of your monitor (70+), or it can go down in the 20's to 30's. Don’t get me wrong, it is not bad to play a game at 30 fps, it is fine, its just that this can really affect the visual quality of the game, and in fast moving ones can actually be detrimental to your gameplaying performance.

It is up to the individual gamer to decide what is acceptable to them. While some feel the 30 is acceptable, anything over 50 fps will be very smooth, 72 fps is maximal (anything over that would be overkill). And remember that if you are getting 30 fps average, the system will be dropping down when there is alot of action and thats when you need it the most.

Do not confuse or compare to TV sets (30fps) for the compensation is motion blur. When a game runs at 30 fps, you are getting 30 perfectly rendered scenes. This does not fool the eye one bit. There is no motion blur, so the transition from frame to frame on computers is not as smooth as in movies.

[paulcs]

I suspect people confuse the medium of film with other media, and that's why people are so hung up on the number 24.

Of course, average fps scores are just averages. If you're getting average rates of around 24 fps, you're mostly likely dropping well below that when there is a lot of activity on the screen. And 10 fps, a very achievable goal if you're averaging just 24 fps, in my experience is just unplayable.

In July, when I first bought my G400, I loaded the shipping drivers (that was all that was available at the time), installed Quake2 and did some benchmarking. Got something in the mid-fifties, and I thought that was good enough.

However, there were two or three places in the game, typically during an ambush and in the middle of a big firefight, when I'd get a sensation akin to a brief paralysis. There were bad guys and explosions all over the place, and in situations where I definitely could have used some extra speed, things just seemed to bog down.

Again, it wasn't so much a visual experience as it was tactile. I could almost feel it through the keyboard and mouse.

I haven't noticed this at all in UT, although I tend to play at 800x600. I do suspect UT is "playable" at lower framerates than Quake2.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[paulcs]

This *is* one of the classic "comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video" arguements.

Here's another: NVidia! 3dfx! NVidia! 3dfx! Gary Tarolli sucks! You suck. Your mother sucks! Yadda, yadda, yadda.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[Warchild]

With my Celeron 300@466 I would get a peak of 62 fps in UT (Peak meaning standing still, looking at a wall, with no bots). I would average 35fps running around in an on-line game. When I got into a heavy firefight at the lan parties (heavy meaning 15 folks in a room with all diffrent kinds of weapons/models/skins) I dove as low as 7.5fps.
When I got the Athlon 550, My peak went to 72, average 45, and I havent seen a low much lower that 20.
I always run UT at 1024x768, high everything, 32 bit everything.
As far as the visible frames thing goes...I may only "see" 24fps, but the brain/subconscience processes a lot more than that. If I'm running down a hall, and do a jump/180 degree turn, and my prey runs by, I know I will see him 90 degrees in the turn with a framerate over 48. If your framerate is only 24, there is a good chance you'll miss the frame that contains him running by.

Warchild

[marcel74]

Thank you all for your answers!

I have managed to flattening my average FPS to acceptable rates by lowering all the settings in UT from high to medium and by disabling the dynamic lighting. Now the toughest scenes are very playable.

I feel I can beat anybody. =)

This week I also learned that the most intesive scenes in eg UT are also the most CPU demanding ones. My central processor @ 462MHz is actually an OC celeron 300MHz, and maybe that is my next problem..? Actually, I have already desided to go to buy a newer, faster CPU.

Any suggestions?

[paulcs]

I recommend waiting at least a week, maybe two. I've seen signs over the last couple of days of Intel's mid-line CPU's dropping dramatically in price. The last I heard, the real price drop will be somewhere around January 28th.

The Pentium III 550 MHz should be readily available for well under $300.00. Hopefully, the FC-PPGA PIII 600 MHz will finally drop under $400.00.

Here's the deal. The "Flip Chip" Pentium III's appear to be very overclockable. A FC-PPGA PIII 550, overclocked on a (relatively modest) 112 MHz front side bus will get you to 616 MHz *or* 644 MHz on a 117 MHz FSB.

Now, the PPGA 600 MHz, with its higher multiplier, will get you to 672 MHz on a 112 MHz FSB, 702 MHz if you overclock your motherboard to 117 MHz.

Overclocking is always a role of the dice, of course. And you'll need a slocket that provides Coppermine support. The standard Socket 370 to Slot 1 slocket won't work. IWill has a new slocket that supports the Flip Chip PIII's and MSI is also putting one out.

Even if you don't overclock, you'll get a big speed jump, twice the cache running at the same speed as the processor, and those KNI/SSE/Screamin' Sindy instructions that TurboGL likes so much.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[JK]

Heya,

exG-man said:

"If anybody says they're getting over 50 fps with ANY card in UT, I would be inclined to say they're lying (unless it's one of those 1 ghz systems)."

I get an 60fps average after 2h of heavy DM.. Peak score is around 115-120fps and
lowest around 30-35fps. (At 800x600x16xhightext)

My setup is:

G400 32mb DH (vanilla, not overclocked),
500mhz AMD Athlon and
128MB RAM

I have NOT patched UT yet and I use PD5.25.

Oh and BTW I am not bullshitting..

//J.K