100fps cap is a bad idea
Pyromaniac
Join Date: 2009-02-20 Member: 66498Members
Join Date: 2009-02-20 Member: 66498Members
In this video Dushan says they're capping the game at 100fps
<a href="http://www.twitch.tv/naturalselection2/b/321229253?t=17m11s" target="_blank">http://www.twitch.tv/naturalselection2/b/321229253?t=17m11s</a>
Ok, forget the current state of performance, but lets talk in the future when a very high stable frame rate is possible. Capping the game at 100fps is going to set the developers up for problems down the line if this is something that can't be easily changed. I don't think the developers realize where the monitor industry is headed even for the average consumer, or how NS and every other PC fps is played competitively. I talked to Dushan about this at PAX, but I guess I didn't get through.
Every high level player in NS used developer mode to get past the 100fps cap of gldsrc, not just to achieve certain fpses that gave a gameplay advantage due to the way things were coded, but because it allowed for smooth gameplay. I personally play games on a crt at 150hz, but with new monitor technology these days, many people own 120hz lcds not even to play games competitively, but to get a smooth visual experience in their games. Even with a 60hz lcd, many people can tell you high fpses help smooth the game a lot so the monitor refreshes as close the the current game state as possible and tearing can be mostly eliminated if you take a little time to dial in on a good fps. 100fps is usually bad for 60hz monitors, this alone should be reason to change it.
Now why is this especially important for NS2? Because it's a pretty fast game. Granted, NS1 was faster, but NS2 is still among the fastest games of its time. When high fps is achievable in the future, a large percentage of people will have 120hz monitors and designing the game to be limited to 100fps now might just be creating problems that might be a huge pain to fix later. I certainly hope that the developers have learned from NS1 and won't tie gameplay elements to fps, so this talk of capping it is just an arbitrary value and can be changed without consequence at any point.
<a href="http://www.twitch.tv/naturalselection2/b/321229253?t=17m11s" target="_blank">http://www.twitch.tv/naturalselection2/b/321229253?t=17m11s</a>
Ok, forget the current state of performance, but lets talk in the future when a very high stable frame rate is possible. Capping the game at 100fps is going to set the developers up for problems down the line if this is something that can't be easily changed. I don't think the developers realize where the monitor industry is headed even for the average consumer, or how NS and every other PC fps is played competitively. I talked to Dushan about this at PAX, but I guess I didn't get through.
Every high level player in NS used developer mode to get past the 100fps cap of gldsrc, not just to achieve certain fpses that gave a gameplay advantage due to the way things were coded, but because it allowed for smooth gameplay. I personally play games on a crt at 150hz, but with new monitor technology these days, many people own 120hz lcds not even to play games competitively, but to get a smooth visual experience in their games. Even with a 60hz lcd, many people can tell you high fpses help smooth the game a lot so the monitor refreshes as close the the current game state as possible and tearing can be mostly eliminated if you take a little time to dial in on a good fps. 100fps is usually bad for 60hz monitors, this alone should be reason to change it.
Now why is this especially important for NS2? Because it's a pretty fast game. Granted, NS1 was faster, but NS2 is still among the fastest games of its time. When high fps is achievable in the future, a large percentage of people will have 120hz monitors and designing the game to be limited to 100fps now might just be creating problems that might be a huge pain to fix later. I certainly hope that the developers have learned from NS1 and won't tie gameplay elements to fps, so this talk of capping it is just an arbitrary value and can be changed without consequence at any point.
Comments
That depressed me. ###### it, I'm getting into my DeLorean, screw the 21st century.
Also, +1 for the no FPS-cap of any kind thing. I'm assuming it ISNT because of game-logic reasons, as we're supposed to be past that since the turbo-buttons on 386\486s. Can't watch the video, as the twitch-flashplayer crashes on me. Expedite the uploadin' to YouTube as they for some reason DO have proper flash-players (obligatory flash-bashing notwithstanding).
You can see above a 100 FPS, buy a 120Hz LCD or simply a high-resolution CRT set to a lower resolution with a very high resfresh-rate. Also someone will probably post the obligatory-URL regarding this subject. I can't watch the video so I don't know things are done, but it is possible that with FPS they also mean input-polling, in which case you really do want as high an FPS as possible.
100fps is such an incredibly higher number that it really doesn't matter. Nobody is even close to 100 fps performance in NS2 games. And if you were, you'd never be able to tell the difference going above 100 fps.
That's what bill gates said about 640k of memory. Who's laughing now...
this please. in games that allow it i set mine to 80 to allow for those slight dips that aren't noticeable.
Yes.
And for the record I played counter-strike 1.6 competitively for many years and developer mode was banned and you would be suspended if caught using it. Also raising the FPS cap in the half-life engine actually slowed down the gamespeed by a noticeable amount which I would consider bad, and not helpful if you are trying to be quick and precise.
So, I am not sure what you are complaining about to be honest.
For the record, I did some testing with framerates/hz in NS1, and each increase in hz was noticeable up to 150hz. I even tested loading a random config by mashing buttons, and I could always tell which one it was almost instantly, and that was between profiles of 100, 120, 150hz. I did all that testing when running NS1 at 200 fps.
I no longer have the crt that could do that, but loading up games on my new lcd i can instantly tell (even on main menus) if the game reset my hz to 60 instead of 120.
Saying that it doesnt matter is your personal opinion, however I can assure you that it is quite noticeable to me, and others.
You are spouting pure bull######. Go google "human eye fps" and read for a while. The human eye can see far more than 100fps.
Even when using 60hz monitor having FPS above that is still beneficial for mouse movement.
adhd you're not stating scientific fact at all, cite your sources if you're going to make that claim. I'm also pretty sure you're confusing the cutoff for non-flicker on crts because after that interval the phosphors stay consistently lit. Visualization of motion is not limited to an fps.
adhd you're not stating scientific fact at all, cite your sources if you're going to make that claim. I'm also pretty sure you're confusing the cutoff for non-flicker on crts because after that interval the phosphors stay consistently lit. Visualization of motion is not limited to an fps.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I used to sell big screen tv's (LCD, plasma, etc) at sears for 5 years. A lot of the information I got was through literature and training I received while working there. So, that's my source if you really want to know...
Difference between 60 fps and 125 is heaven and hell in NS1.
No he didn't. Find me a source or a reputable person who claims to have heard him say "640k ought to be enough for anybody" or any variation with similar meaning.