Why do we need more than 25fps????

[Kruzin]

Playing a game at 25fps is like running your monitor at 25MHz?

What are you smoking, and why aren't you sharing it?

Did you read my last few posts? Did you look at my scores? And you think I don't know any better? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

FPS counters just like to have an excuse for their lack of skillz. "I chunked down to 30 fps, and that's why I got my ass kicked!", is what they like to say.

FPS, and even being an LPB is no substitue for true skillz

M'D- You can find me and Rags playing TFC regularly at [dhcp]. Join in any time. We're always on blue.

[This message has been edited by Kruzin (edited 26 February 2000).]

[Thundrchez]

Yup, fps is no substitute for skill.

Personally, I prefer a good 30+ fps in 1024x768x32 with all the detail that I can get. It just looks sooo good. I just wish that I could bump it up to 1600x1200x32 and still have it 30+ fps playable. We're getting close...I'm not sure if it will be the next round of video cards or the one after that that'll be able to handle it.

[puarobi]

ok, let me rephrase. my post was saying that there is a VISIBLE difference between 25 fps and say, 75. Some people claim that since movies only show 24 fps, you can only see that. I was just saying, that you can SEE a visible difference between 25 fps and 75. Also, people that have more fps have an advantage. So, my example about the refresh rate on a monitor was not without some basis. You run at higher monitor refresh rates because you can probably see the flicker at lower Hz. Hertz being cycles per second, or the amount of times your screen refreshes, or is drawn per second, and i still think there's a relatively strong correlation between monitor refresh rates and fps in games. For example, if I, let's say, could get an average of 150 fps in quake3, what good would that do me if my monitor refresh rate was 75Hz? anything about 75Hz can't possibly be drawn. I was just relating the two, and making the point that there is a difference. I'm not saying high framerates equal skill, but they don't hurt.

I can guarantee that any highly competitive player, let's say, top 25 players in the nation in a game like quake3 do not play with 25 fps.

[Rohde]

Just want to join in with the highFPS crowd.
Anyway that says that < 60 FPS is sufficient simply don't know any better.

Try playing Q3 at nightmare level with 45 FPS. You need a lot of skill to replace the missing FPS. (you can play the same level 17 times without winning, you turn detail and res. down, and suddenly you win.... coincidence, I don't think so !)

And another thing. Saying that the G400 can compete with GeForce cards in FPS is absolute bulls*** except for a few theoretical scenarios.


Thanks for listening, I'm finished now

Torben R.

BTW : The above only applies to gameplay, I agree that it's hard or even not possible to tell 40 FPS from 75 FPS.

[This message has been edited by Rohde (edited 27 February 2000).]

[mickmills]

I still suspect that games only need to run at 25fps to get great great quality. With all the modern changes to TV and films - e.g. high res plasma TV's and the DVD format, not once has anyone mentioned the need to increase the FPS to give us better visuals. I propose this...

It is not the FPS that is important, it is the processing in back ground that makes a game sluggish??? When a game is running at 25FPS - the PC is running at full wack and can only produce 25 FPS. The PC is at its limit and everything is slow (including response from players input). However, the player see's the jerky display and blames the display for the poor response. However, if you had a turbo, nutter ninja b'stard spec PC and could restrict the FPS to only 25fps - wouldn't the game still run great? Don't we all use 60-80 FPS as a mark of how much power the PC has, and not something we actually need ???????????

Of course I could be talking bollocks?
(after all what do i know?)

[Alec]

Just for the record:

American and Japanese Tv: 30 fps
European TV: 25 fps
Movies: 24 fps


------------------
Remember folks:
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers"
Pablo Picasso

[billko]

Actually, watching the latest Star Wars movie, when the camera swung with a lot of speed (especially space scenes with stars in them), you *could* see the same problems gamers complain about when fps drops too low.

True, movies are filmed at 24fps and seem smooth, but that's because of motion blurring. If you look at a movie frame by frame, you will discover that quick motion causes a blurring effect on the film. This blurring is usually sufficient to trick the eye into thinking the motion is fluid. It's a simple trick. If the smear is sufficient to cover the distance the object moved from frame to frame, it will apear as smooth motion. However, video games do not (yet) display their frames with motion blurring, so you have to compensate with ultra-high frame rates so that the distance objects move from frame to frame will be small enough to fool the eye into thinking it's fluid motion. In the Star Wars example mentioned above, even though cameras have that motion blurring, the stars were so small that the stars' smears were insufficient to coverthe distance the stars travelled between frames, so you got this same effect you get when your fps in Q3 drops too low.

Of course, there are plans for upcoming video games to support motion blurring (if they haven't come out already). If the calculations turn out to be relatively easy on the hardware, it could really ease the frame rate requirements from the hardware.

Bill


------------------
People call me a computer god; I remind them that I am merely a minor deity...