Windows Need for Speed - Underground

We are still dealing with the latency of the image here. No monitor is capable of refreshing the image completely at the rates you suggest, especially TFTs. With a response time of 16ms, even the fastest TFTs would struggle to accurately show a frame rate of 200, yet alone your claim of 500fps! You'd need a screen with a response time of at least 2ms to show this clearly. And being able to detect 80fps with that program you mentioned, and being able to see 500fps are not really the same thing. There's simply no way the human eye can see that on a monitor screen. I don't deny that some people will see 80fps.. especially on a fast monitor, but 200? 500? No.. no way.. not on a monitor display.

The human eye could see something occuring 500 times per second.. yes. But that's not the same as saying it would detect the frames of a 500fps animation played on a crt or tft monitor. A 500Hz strobe from a fast xenon tube, or something else fast, maybe.. but from a monitor with a 16ms response time? How so? That's akin to playing a signal from a fantastic piece of HiFi with a S/N Ration of 110db through a crappy amp with a ratio of 60db and claiming you can hear how great it sounds. You won't cos it's only as good as the weakest link in the chain: In this case.. the monitor. This is why there's no real advantage to using refresh rates of more than 100Hz. No flicker is discernable at these refresh rates usually. Do the maths: 500fps means it would need a response time of 2ms or less to CLEARLY display such flicker or frame rate, and a time of around 60% as fast to make it descernable at all - so in theory, around 6ms. Even if VSync is off.. the monitor simply can't keep up with that. This is the same principle as running a light bulb off AC. You can't see the 50Hz flicker because the response time of the lamp is so slow. Trigger a flash tube at that same frequency and the flicker will be BLATANT.. to anyone. I appreciate that the domestic lamp on AC is not actually switched as such, but it's falling below mean RMS voltage and back again at 50 times per second.. but we can't see it - not through any fault of our eyes.. but due to the latency of the lamp. The pixels, or the phosphors on a monitor can't switch on and off that fast - simple as that.

I would suggest around 100 to 120 fps would be the maximum even the most eagle eyes games player could see. Any other claims are, in my opinion, are specious at best.

 

I found it, it was written for exatly the argument we have here.

http://sdw.arsware.org/FPSCompare/

http://sdw.arsware.org/FPSCompare/fpscmp02.zip

[off topic]
Firstly Pookiehead, don't use the S/N ratio for an analogy it does not fit the situation, also what you said was actaully not the whole situation, S/N is most likely less of a factor than you realise, check out eddie danes M-Audio Revolution 7.1 review article discussion thread and will see some examples from me of why s/n ratios and there qualities can't be just thrown about.....
[/off toppic]

Back to FPS.

If you load the program you will see you can play with the two sides and then look at the results, make sure you vsync is off if you want to do the higher FPS testing.


If you set your left side to 200 FPS the set the right to 200 FPS then slowly decrease the left hand side you will see the effect of the lowering of the framerate.

As you can see 70-80 FPS VS 200 FPS you can clearly see more juddering and almost a lag in the update of the top of the polygon.

Bring that down below 50 FPS and you can see how serious the difference is.

EDIT: Then quit out turn of Vsync ON and then put the right side to 85 FPS and the left to 75 FPS, notice how even 10 FPS make a large judder difference.

Have fun.

Pookiehead you are right about LCD's they can't display high refreash rates, but as you can see the difference between 60hz on and 85hz is actually quite large.

 

I appreciate that in real life S/N ratio is not the most importamnt factor in Hi-Fi... it was just an analogy, not a discussion on HiFi. As an analogy, it's sound (pun intended), as playing sound from a high end CD player, through a crappy amp is pointless, as the high quality signal will be degraded by the crap amp.. My point being that any HiFi is only as good as it's poorest component. Conversely, frames per second is determined by the SLOWEST component in the video chain... which I'm afraid, is the monitor. That's a fact, and there's really no argument to be had here.

Now.. back to this program.. OF COURSE you will see a difference between 80 and 200!! I'm not denying that 80fps is descernable. My argument was that someone in this thread.. forget who now... was saying that FIVE HUNDRED FRAMES PER SECOND was descernable! That's sheer stupidity! It's just simply not visible on a monitor, as they're too slow! The same way you can't see a light bulb flicker at 50Hz (60 in the US). The bulb is not fast enough to show it. Around 100Hz is the fastest you'll be able to descern on a monitor.. less on a TFT. With this in mind... what's the point of a frame rate of 200? You'll see no advantage.

The ONLY advantage to a frame rate of 200, is that you know you have system headroom for bigger and better things, and that in no point in gameplay will it slow down to a level you CAN see. In real world situations however... let's be honest... if you're getting over say 50 or 60fps... you'll see fluid movement... BUT... run teh risk of getting jerky movement in heavy scenes.. which is why it's desireable to have a higher fps, as getting higher fps gains you enough headroom to take this into account. If you're playing Quake at 300fps, and it drops to 100 at some point.. you'll not see it.

I don't deny that high frame rates are advantageous.. just not for the reason people seem to think. High FPS means loads of headroom.

Considering teh mimitations of the monitor, anything over a max of around 80fps or so will be pretty much invisible in real terms. You may descern higher in that program you posted the link for (thanks for that BTW.. it IS still a great utility) is not a real refelction of real life, as when playing a game, the screen isn't devided in half, and there's no like for like comnparison to be had.

You're also right in a way. The difference betwen 60Hz and 80Hz is VAST, yes. and the difference between a game running at 60fps and 80fps is visible also. Go past that figure of 80fps or so, and you're into the limitations of the monitor to reproduce any changes so quickly. Basically high fps is good cos it gives you headroom... not cos you'll actually SEE anything faster than around 80fps... and some people can't see the framing at 60fps... although I can.. just.

If you want to start another thread about this, then I'm sure the moderators will move these posts to that thread. I fond this very interesting, as I'm sure you and others do also... but it IS a thread about a really great game called Need For Speed... now... where's my joystick

 

While the test program is not exactly like a game, the problem in real life gaming can actually be worse, you see it all about speed of movement the faster movement needed to display the higher the FPS required to display.

60 FPS may well seem not to enough certain situations like if you spin around quickly in a game engine.

Full turn 360 degrees @ 60 FPS yields 6 degrees per frame, while 120 FPS doubles your apparent motion resolution to a finer 3 degrees per frame.

You see where twice the extra FPS would provide extra fluidity and realism to the scene, realism is important to making a game more beliveable.

I have observed objects programmed by myself in OpenGL that animate along a path (parametric respresentation of a line) when you have ojects moving with along with massively high frame rates 200+ the object tends to get a euphoric look to the animation.

Pookiehead
Check out GLExcess http://www.glexcess.com/ run the benchmark and look at one of the scenes with the shiny space craft make sure you VSYNC is off and you will see as the ship passes how smooth as glass the sweep is this euphoric animation I am talking about.

Have fun.

Well time to go back to topic, I am stepping out of the thread.

 

Reply to this moved [thread=53726]here[/thread]

 

That's my current car on the right.

 

Nice!

 

My current machine.

Fastest I can get so far. Handling not as great as my MX5, but makes up for it on the straights

 

My car is the silver one in the middle, but whats wrong with this picture.

 

its says 1st 2nd and 3rd have finished but clearly they havn't crossed the line. Do i get a sweaty?

 

So you pushed em back over the finish line?

 

What the hell is the Rob Zombie car? I just unlocked it, but have no idea what it is, or WHERE it is? ANyone got any idea what this is?

 

go to quick race its all the way to the right

beat this twice it gets boring

 

I dont think I have asked before, but does anyone know why I cant use vynal? I go to apply it but I cant see it once its applied. Yes, I have beaten underground.

 

What car?

 

Correct me if i'm wrong, but i'm pretty sure it's an RX7 with different headlights.

 

Yeah it's an rx7 with storm bumpers and sideskirts, trivo spoiler, gforce hood, gills roof scoop, gold 20 inch enkel shogun rims, lime pulse neon, lights: eyelids and masked, pearlescent paint, samantha custom 7 vinyl, and all the performance upgrades.
Here's another angle.

I have made another one of the same car but with a different colour scheme.

I'd say this colour scheme went better with my old nissan 350Z though, wouldn't you agree?

Anyway I luvz my rx7s and nissan 350s.
Edit: dang i just realized how pants the quality is from close up without 4XAA.