<!--quoteo(post=1996157:date=Oct 24 2012, 05:24 PM:name=CodeCowboy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CodeCowboy @ Oct 24 2012, 05:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1996157"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--coloro:#ADD8E6--><span style="color:#ADD8E6"><!--/coloro-->the human eye can only see 30FPS anyway...<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is just completely wrong, rule is the more FPs the better.
<!--quoteo(post=1996157:date=Oct 24 2012, 05:24 PM:name=CodeCowboy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CodeCowboy @ Oct 24 2012, 05:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1996157"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->@asdh mutter mutter ramble ramble ... the human eye can only see 30FPS anyway... so long as your performance is above that line consistently I don't see a reason to whine about it. Yes, yes, there are fractions of fractions of a second you could get back if it's higher... but if it truly is the game's fault then EVERYONE will be operating under the same limitations and it doesn't much matter.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> FYI, no the eye/brain does not see at 30 FPS max, it basically does not see any FPS, or IPS, but an infinity stream of light. So yes, you can totally tell the difference between 60 and 120 FPS. How many times will I repeat that? :D
<!--quoteo(post=1996212:date=Oct 24 2012, 06:18 PM:name=Regnareb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Regnareb @ Oct 24 2012, 06:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1996212"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->FYI, no the eye/brain does not see at 30 FPS max, it basically does not see any FPS, or IPS, but an infinity stream of light. So yes, you can totally tell the difference between 60 and 120 FPS. How many times will I repeat that? :D<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not true, try moving your head quickly. Looks blurred huh? That is because your brain does not have the processing power to deal with the visual overload of information.
<!--quoteo(post=1996212:date=Oct 24 2012, 07:18 PM:name=Regnareb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Regnareb @ Oct 24 2012, 07:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1996212"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->FYI, no the eye/brain does not see at 30 FPS max, it basically does not see any FPS, or IPS, but an infinity stream of light. So yes, you can totally tell the difference between 60 and 120 FPS. How many times will I repeat that? :D<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can tell the difference between 60 and 120 fps I agreed. But do not confuse "Image seen per second" and FPS: - Your screen show 60 or 120 IPS (=60 Hz and 120Hz), so you will see a max of 60 or 120 different images - Your Video Card calculate as image as it can. But even if you don't seen it (>60 or >120) your card process this image, calculate point as your aim, and s**t. Making better images
So the game seems "faster", and of course better.
Meanwhile I think that 60 fps is the minimum comfort (i get 80 with ns2)
<!--quoteo(post=1996222:date=Oct 24 2012, 07:32 PM:name=Runteh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runteh @ Oct 24 2012, 07:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1996222"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Not true, try moving your head quickly. Looks blurred huh? That is because your brain does not have the processing power to deal with the visual overload of information.
I have heard that you see at around 75 fps.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not the overload of information is the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_of_vision" target="_blank">Persistence of vision</a>
<!--quoteo(post=1996222:date=Oct 24 2012, 01:32 PM:name=Runteh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runteh @ Oct 24 2012, 01:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1996222"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Looks blurred huh? That is because your brain does not have the processing power to deal with the visual overload of information.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Either that, or it has enough GPU power to generate blur post composite effect. :)
<!--quoteo(post=1996222:date=Oct 24 2012, 12:32 PM:name=Runteh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runteh @ Oct 24 2012, 12:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1996222"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I have heard that you see at around 75 fps.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your eyes don't see frames. An image has some persistance and there's only so many images you can see before they blur toghether.
1000 FPS to infinite FPS looks like buttery smooth motion blur. At a few hundred FPS fast moving objects appear like dotted trails instead of smooth blurry trails(think ping pong ball). 60 FPS or so looks like a pretty fluid progression of sharp stills(little or no motion blur, frames don't blend through persistance of vision). At 30 FPS or so the illusion of fluidity starts to break down and 15 FPS is total slideshow.
160 FPS on a 160 Hz monitor looks very obviously much better than 60 FPS. It looks like good, correct motion blur, but it's not perfect and would be better with a higher framerate.
I can tell the difference between 40fps and 60fps pretty easily ;-) . Is 40fps playable? Barely. 60 is ideal. Between 60-80 it gets really hard to really tell a difference, and above 80 I don't think it matters anymore.
Edit: Okay, >60 is ideal is what I meant ;-) . 60 is the minimum for non-frustration in multiplayer games for me.
I haven't really seen 120 lately (my LCD is 60hz), but it's probably pretty nice too. 1st world problems about >60 though ;-) .
This guy shouldn't use such offensive words.. but sadly, is telling the truth, this game is too heavy.
2 weeks ago people told me "Change your hardware" Now i've changed.. I bought an Amd Radeon 7850 Gigabyte OC 2 Gb DDr5, replacing my Sapphire 5770 Vapor-X 1 gb DDr5.. so let's take a look on my specs :
Core : I5 760 2.80 Ghz + Cooler Master Hyper 612s cooler (I will overclock to 3.80 ghz when i know how to do without risking a burnout :P )
Video Card : Amd Radeon 7850 Gigabyte OC 2 Gb DDr5 as i said
Ram : 4 Gb DDr3
Powe Supply : Thermaltake 750 watt Evo_Blue Series
I can get only<b> 45 - 30 - 20</b> fps while i'm playing as an Alien
<b>60 - 40 - 30</b> while i'm a Marine
It depends on how much models and textures are in the area,
When i start the game in video options i can see 90-100 fps
In ready room 70-60 fps
When i play in Aliens i can see that Infestation Textures punch off my CPU or GPU with fps drops. 40-38
When i start a match with Marines it's seems to be ok with 60 fps, but when the area got the commander's structures fps drops to 40-36.
My pc temps are goods while i play NS. (i'm using Speed Fan)
And most of important.. the other games runs with great performances at Ultra Details.. (Except Guild Wars 2 in the Black Citadel's Chars but i can get my 40 fps..)
What should i do ? I loved NS1, but now this issues in NS2.. makes me a bit angry when i play it.
Comments
That is just completely wrong, rule is the more FPs the better.
> <a href="http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html" target="_blank">http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html</a>
FYI, no the eye/brain does not see at 30 FPS max, it basically does not see any FPS, or IPS, but an infinity stream of light. So yes, you can totally tell the difference between 60 and 120 FPS.
How many times will I repeat that? :D
Voice or no voice, I'll have his water, k?
How many times will I repeat that? :D<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not true, try moving your head quickly. Looks blurred huh? That is because your brain does not have the processing power to deal with the visual overload of information.
I have heard that you see at around 75 fps.
How many times will I repeat that? :D<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can tell the difference between 60 and 120 fps I agreed.
But do not confuse "Image seen per second" and FPS:
- Your screen show 60 or 120 IPS (=60 Hz and 120Hz), so you will see a max of 60 or 120 different images
- Your Video Card calculate as image as it can. But even if you don't seen it (>60 or >120) your card process this image, calculate point as your aim, and s**t. Making better images
So the game seems "faster", and of course better.
Meanwhile I think that 60 fps is the minimum comfort (i get 80 with ns2)
<!--quoteo(post=1996222:date=Oct 24 2012, 07:32 PM:name=Runteh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runteh @ Oct 24 2012, 07:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1996222"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Not true, try moving your head quickly. Looks blurred huh? That is because your brain does not have the processing power to deal with the visual overload of information.
I have heard that you see at around 75 fps.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not the overload of information is the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_of_vision" target="_blank">Persistence of vision</a>
(Sorry for my english)
Either that, or it has enough GPU power to generate blur post composite effect. :)
Your eyes don't see frames. An image has some persistance and there's only so many images you can see before they blur toghether.
1000 FPS to infinite FPS looks like buttery smooth motion blur. At a few hundred FPS fast moving objects appear like dotted trails instead of smooth blurry trails(think ping pong ball). 60 FPS or so looks like a pretty fluid progression of sharp stills(little or no motion blur, frames don't blend through persistance of vision). At 30 FPS or so the illusion of fluidity starts to break down and 15 FPS is total slideshow.
160 FPS on a 160 Hz monitor looks very obviously much better than 60 FPS. It looks like good, correct motion blur, but it's not perfect and would be better with a higher framerate.
Edit: Okay, >60 is ideal is what I meant ;-) . 60 is the minimum for non-frustration in multiplayer games for me.
I haven't really seen 120 lately (my LCD is 60hz), but it's probably pretty nice too. 1st world problems about >60 though ;-) .
Fixed.
This guy shouldn't use such offensive words.. but sadly, is telling the truth, this game is too heavy.
2 weeks ago people told me "Change your hardware" Now i've changed.. I bought an Amd Radeon 7850 Gigabyte OC 2 Gb DDr5, replacing my Sapphire 5770 Vapor-X 1 gb DDr5.. so let's take a look on my specs :
Core : I5 760 2.80 Ghz + Cooler Master Hyper 612s cooler (I will overclock to 3.80 ghz when i know how to do without risking a burnout :P )
Video Card : Amd Radeon 7850 Gigabyte OC 2 Gb DDr5 as i said
Ram : 4 Gb DDr3
Powe Supply : Thermaltake 750 watt Evo_Blue Series
Motherboard : Asus P7H55-M
----------------------------------------------------
Resolution 1366 x 768
Antialias : On
Textures : Low
Vertical Sync : Off, Turned on only the Catalyst Control Center (So i haven't mouse lag)
Multicore rendering : On
Other Video Options : Disabled
Drivers CCC, the latest.
----------------------------------------------------
I can get only<b> 45 - 30 - 20</b> fps while i'm playing as an Alien
<b>60 - 40 - 30</b> while i'm a Marine
It depends on how much models and textures are in the area,
When i start the game in video options i can see 90-100 fps
In ready room 70-60 fps
When i play in Aliens i can see that Infestation Textures punch off my CPU or GPU with fps drops. 40-38
When i start a match with Marines it's seems to be ok with 60 fps, but when the area got the commander's structures fps drops to 40-36.
My pc temps are goods while i play NS. (i'm using Speed Fan)
And most of important.. the other games runs with great performances at Ultra Details.. (Except Guild Wars 2 in the Black Citadel's Chars but i can get my 40 fps..)
What should i do ? I loved NS1, but now this issues in NS2.. makes me a bit angry when i play it.
<a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/261634-29-overclocking" target="_blank">http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/261634-29-overclocking</a>