Graphics FPS: Moved from Games - Need for Speed

Moved from Original thread - [thread=45040]Click Here[/thread]

Granted... 60fps may not be. Why do people keep throwing figures of 60, or 80 at me.. I have no problem with this. The whole reason this thread began, is because people made claims of frame rates of 200 or even 500 being visible!! However... in most cases, 60fps is more than adequate.

Think in terms of time: 100fps second equals 10ms per frame. If you're monitor has a response time of less than that, then anything greater than 100fps is going to start being lost. Back my lightbulb analogy: If the AC voltage is the "frame rate" and the light bulb is the "monitor", then the monitor in this case can't display that frame rate - The light bulb appears not to flicker.

The lowest i can get test 6 to run at is around 300fps@ 1600x1200 32bit. The fastest is 1000fps which appears to be the programs max. There is no descernable difference between the two, as A) The monitor's response time is to low, and B) the human eye will really struggle to resolve such fast framing anyway.

Thanks for the link to the Benchmark

 

Well i've read that the human eye can be capable of seeing something 1/500th of second, but obviously not on some computer monitor displaying 100hz. It's a bit dodgy to say the least. Check out this article. So the human eye is capable of seeing much higher frames/second but it's not like it makes much difference in this context anyway. For video games it makes barely any difference whether you're seeing 80fps or 200fps.

 

Pookeyhead:

Our eyes are far better than you give credit to them.

http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html


As you can see actually measuring this is difficult becuase of the limits of our measuring hardware.

I still stand firm and say we as humans can see the difference between 80 and 200 FPS, we may even be able to see much higher.

60 FPS is playable but I don't belive it pookeyhead's starement "60fps is more than adequate." is entirly true.

It is down to the game engine, requires animation speed and the software application.

Also the reason we see stable images and they do not flicker is becuase of our "persistance of vision". I AFAIR 48 hz gives us almost no flicker.

But !!!!!

Just because an image is stable and does not flicker dones not always mean the movements of object on the screen will be smooth.

 

Then if we look at the secnd updated article linked at the bottom of the page.

http://amo.net/NT/05-24-01FPS.html

Intersting stuff.

 

Yes... it is interesting stuff indeed... but this guy is basically just stating his opinion, and doesn't actually provide any evidence to back up his claims. However.. I completely agree that we can see more than 30fps. However, I still have problems with his 200+ argument. He cites Air Force tests where a single image is flashed in a dark room with a duration of 1/200th second. Well.. that's ONE image.. in a dark room. That's not the same as being able to distinguish individual frames in a 200fps animation. And his explanation of the human eye is pretty half assed too. The way our brains work to make motion appear fluid when watching a cine film actually makes it less likely that we will see high frame rates.. not MORE likely. Our brains are very adept at "filling in" gaps in things like this. People say the human eye is incredible, but it's not.. it's our brains that are. The human eye, as an optical device is completely CRAP! If it was possible to actually record the true optical output from a human eye, you'd be horrified at how terrible it was. It's our brains that interpolate this information. Only the centre 20 degrees or so are sharp, and contain colour. The rest is just a blurry mess that the brain seemlessly merges into our field of vision. As we're only really concentrating on the are of sharp focus, our minds trick us into thinking the whole image is sharp. In the same way, it fools us into thinking that a flickery image is fluid.

My TV is 100Hz... and looks great. When I go to my friend's house who has a standard 50Hz TV... it looks awful to me. However, after watching it for 30 mins or so.. I no longer even see the flicker.. at all. So.. when we're trying to get our brains to see higher frame rates, we're actually forcing it to do something it's fighting against. Why bother?

I still maintain that in real life, everyday, NON SCIENTIFIC situations, 80fps is pretty much the max you'll notice, unless it's a direct, side-by-side test. This never happens in real life. In real life, I've never actually noticed, or found anything higher than around 60fps to be disturbing. Often much less than this.

Surely we're all trying ot get higher frame rates for the wrong reasons? Surely the biggest advantage to having hardware that can play games at FPS figures measured in the hundreds, is to give us sufficient headroom to make more impressive games, not to actually make games that run at 200fps? I'd rather play a game that looks drop dead gorgeous at 40fps than a mediocre one at 200.

 

i'd rather average 80+ on a 1st person shooter, its as much about the response as the actual "framerate" if you play counter-strike a lot you will now what i mean.

 

Weird how some games need more fps. Flight Sim for instance. When I used to play that on my old XP2200+ with a GF4 MX440!! it was around 18fps and it never bothered me, but now, if Need for Speed drops below 40fps it does.