1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News Battlefield 3 capped to 30FPS on PS3

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 20 Jun 2011.

  1. faceplant

    faceplant New Member

    Joined:
    25 Mar 2011
    Posts:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    who cares, its on a console
     
  2. Phil Rhodes

    Phil Rhodes Hypernobber

    Joined:
    27 Jul 2006
    Posts:
    1,415
    Likes Received:
    10
    TV runs at either 25 or very nearly 30 frames per second.

    Almost all home-viewed movies run at very nearly 24fps in the US or other 60Hz territories, or 25 elsewhere.

    More or less the only thing that runs at exactly 24 is theatrical exhibition.

    P
     
  3. Tangster

    Tangster Butt-kicking for goodness!

    Joined:
    23 May 2009
    Posts:
    3,085
    Likes Received:
    151
    Quite frankly, this. I couldn't give a toss about how well it runs on the consoles, since I'm not going to play it on a console.
     
  4. Nikols

    Nikols New Member

    Joined:
    13 Oct 2009
    Posts:
    443
    Likes Received:
    16
    Dido
     
  5. kenco_uk

    kenco_uk I unsuccessfully then tried again

    Joined:
    28 Nov 2003
    Posts:
    9,696
    Likes Received:
    308
    I will go down with this ship?
     
    Mik3yB @ CCL likes this.
  6. shigllgetcha

    shigllgetcha Come at me bro

    Joined:
    3 Mar 2008
    Posts:
    2,031
    Likes Received:
    87
    I like how people are saying who cares, yet you cared enough to read the article and then post in the comments
     
  7. Apoptosis

    Apoptosis New Member

    Joined:
    7 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    50
    Likes Received:
    0
    Explain again why I should buy a console?
     
  8. fingerbob69

    fingerbob69 Member

    Joined:
    5 Jul 2009
    Posts:
    801
    Likes Received:
    16
    This will be a game created on the PC first and only then ported to consoles ...that is something to celebrate.
     
  9. Aracos

    Aracos New Member

    Joined:
    11 Feb 2009
    Posts:
    1,338
    Likes Received:
    47
    This isn't really news, I could've told you that :D
     
    Ljs likes this.
  10. bowman

    bowman Member

    Joined:
    7 Apr 2008
    Posts:
    363
    Likes Received:
    10
    lol,consoles. Play it on a real machine if you want performance and graphics, dolts.
     
  11. Bauul

    Bauul Sir Bongaminge

    Joined:
    7 Apr 2007
    Posts:
    2,173
    Likes Received:
    38
    No that's not a bad way of explaining it actually. Frames on films typically contain much of the visual information contained within the last 1/24th of the second. Anyone who's ever paused an action sequence on a film knows how blurry it looks - it's becasue you're not looking at one moment in time, you're looking at 0.04166 of a second spread across a single frame.

    A frame in a game is literally one moment in time, the time between the frames is effectively lost - you never see it, so you need a higher framerate to make up for the lost time.

    Showing every moment in time is impossible - you'd need an infinite number of frames in a second - but you can show enough so that the human eye is incapable of telling them apart.

    Unfortunately the cut-off point is about 250-300 frames per second to guarantee this, so in that respect 30 frames per second, whilst acceptable, isn't perfect.
     
  12. boiled_elephant

    boiled_elephant Whitelist Bit-Tech in your adblock!

    Joined:
    14 Jul 2004
    Posts:
    5,935
    Likes Received:
    435
    Oh, I'm definitely saving that for future use :)

    Also, I hated MW2 on the PS3. The resolution and graphical quality were astoundingly bad, I thought there was something wrong with my eyes at first. 60 fps can blow me if it's only running at the equivalent settings of a Windows 98 computer.

    Basically I'm just waiting for the next generation of consoles now, if at all. The PS3 and 360 never really blew my mind, probably because I built a PC shortly after they came out.

    edit - Bauul, I can't rep you again apparently, so I'll just say: good explanation.
     
  13. knuck

    knuck Hate your face

    Joined:
    25 Jan 2002
    Posts:
    7,668
    Likes Received:
    302
    Finally someone who confirms what I have been saying for years. 30fps is not enough, period.
     
  14. douglatins

    douglatins New Member

    Joined:
    28 Nov 2009
    Posts:
    45
    Likes Received:
    1
    Agreed, 24fps is why we get motion sickness in fast moving movies, these days movies should be at least 40fps.
    And it doesnt take 250fps for fluent motion, 60-80 is enought.
    Peter Jackson is filming the hobbit in 40fps i believe.
    30fps sucks in just about any game, save rpgs, etc
     
  15. Bauul

    Bauul Sir Bongaminge

    Joined:
    7 Apr 2007
    Posts:
    2,173
    Likes Received:
    38
    For fluid motion, yes 60-80 is enough.

    For the difference between one frame and the next to be so quick it's impossible to tell it isn't true fluid motion? Much, much higher.

    Example: if you look a totally black screen in a darkened room, and the entire screen flashes bright white for 1/80th of a second, I guarantee you'll be able to notice it.

    The 250-300fps I mentioned is to be able to do that so quickly you don't notice. That's how fast you need to be to guarantee it's impossible to tell it isn't truely fluid motion, as opposed to a series of static images.

    Edit: excellent little article on frame rates:
    http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
     
  16. bogie170

    bogie170 New Member

    Joined:
    11 Aug 2008
    Posts:
    340
    Likes Received:
    5
    Me too! Dell U2711!!!

    Try watching 60fps pron! lol!
     
  17. Dwarfer

    Dwarfer New Member

    Joined:
    30 Mar 2011
    Posts:
    1,039
    Likes Received:
    29
    30fps is by no way playable for me. You can tell a massive difference in smoothness between say 30 & 60fps.
     
  18. Bakes

    Bakes New Member

    Joined:
    4 Jun 2010
    Posts:
    886
    Likes Received:
    17
    Can I just point out that CoD5 runs at 30fps on consoles? It's because they used the CoD4 engine with higher levels of detail, so it couldn't run as fast.
     
  19. metarinka

    metarinka New Member

    Joined:
    9 Feb 2003
    Posts:
    1,844
    Likes Received:
    3
    that's a false truth, you don't need 200-300 fps (not to mention the bandwidth issues for current resolutions). First of all, there's very little natural things that appear in such discrete steps. Look at car tires, after a certain speed your eye can no longer discern the discrete spokes. 300fps wouldn't make spokes look any better. The motion blur is pretty accurate. using a high speed camera and high speed tv, would do the same thing as motion blur, your brain would blur the discrete steps together. I agree 24 fps is low, but 100+ is wasteful.

    high speed videography is mostly useful when you want to slow down the action.
     
  20. Nikols

    Nikols New Member

    Joined:
    13 Oct 2009
    Posts:
    443
    Likes Received:
    16
    lol I cant spell... ditto, there I did it
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page