Fractal Softworks Forum
Other => Discussions => Topic started by: hadesian on November 16, 2012, 01:52:01 PM
-
Having console gamed for so, so very long, I've grown exceptionally used to 30FPS.
Like, so damn used to 30FPS that anything from about 25-30FPS looks butter smooth.
The strange part is I'll be making the jump to 60FPS+ in everything in a few days time... anyone else notice this? I know PC gamers who've gamed for years can have trouble dealing without 60 but...?
-
Nothing to worry about, the games will just be alot smoother and more responsive. And all 30 fps games will be unplayable...
-
Nothing to worry about, the games will just be alot smoother and more responsive. And all 30 fps games will be unplayable...
30 FPS for me is as smooth as 60FPS. I can play about as low as 18 or so...
-
For the most part video smoothness can be achieved with just around 18 fps, but I guess it can get more smootherer? I don't know, I have a stark contrast in being a PC gamer and a Nintendofag, and other than the obviously better texture quality and screen resolution, I don't notice anything better visually, including fps, which I think most Wii games play at 25.
-
If you play console, most games are capped at 30fps, but you'll get the occasional one where it's capped at 60fps, particularly fighting games where precision is important. You may or may not be able to tell the difference, but it heavily depends on your dynamic vision. It's most noticeable if you turn quickly or if there's a lot of motion happening on the screen. It's also most noticeable when you get used to 60Hz and experience something capped at less than that.
Once you've played at 60fps or higher, it's tough to deal with anything less. At lower refresh rates, things look choppier and it can be harder to predict movement, not to mention that you lose precision because the game can take twice as long (or more, depending on the fps) to execute a command. This is mostly an issue in a competitive fps or in fighting games where 1 frame can make all the difference.
For the most part video smoothness can be achieved with just around 18 fps...
That can only really be achieved with motion blur, since it plays tricks with how the mind perceives it. Motion blur only really works in TV and movies. Interesting article: http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
-
... I have a stark contrast in being a PC gamer and a Nintendofag, ...
Not ok. I'll refrain from disciplinary action this time around, and rather than deleting the post, will leave it so that it makes it very clear to anyone reading the forum that this isn't acceptable here. Hopefully that was just a lapse in judgment, and I don't need to explain why.
Feel free to carry on with the thread.
-
For the most part video smoothness can be achieved with just around 18 fps, but I guess it can get more smootherer?
Actually, 25fps is approximately the level that the human eye doesn't notice any "stuttering" with, IIRC. I think above that just makes things even more fluid, though it's more subtle than the differences up to 25
-
:-X So sorry, won't happen again... I normally avoid inappropriate language at all costs :-[ ugh I feel awful...
Anyway, here's my source on the 18 fps comment http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buSaywCF6E8
-
The "refresh rate" of the human eye/brain for whole pictures is about 15-20 times per second. So, in theory, you could archive smoothness with that frame rate. In reality you will obviously don't know the exact moment when the brain refreshes a image. So, to guarantee a new picture for the brain every time it refreshes, you have to have a much higher frame rate. About 30 FPS is enough.
But the eye or brain doesn't stop absorbing visual information between refreshes, everything in between is also processed at a much lower level of processing effort. Especially fast movements and overall information density are still recognized. That enables you to see improvements in picture quality up to 120 FPS and beyond. But that also makes it hard to put the finger on what it is this additional FPS do, they never reach your consciousness the way the initial frames do.
I have seen a great video comparison between 30, 60 and 120 FPS once, I'm looking for it now.
-
:-X So sorry, won't happen again... I normally avoid inappropriate language at all costs :-[ ugh I feel awful...
Anyway, here's my source on the 18 fps comment http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buSaywCF6E8
He also mentions some things about motion blur. The reason TV and movies can get away with lower frame rates is because the motion blur approximates reality more closely than a series of discrete images would.
Also just to give my subjective view, in that video you linked, I can see the stuttering effect of a 30fps refresh rate throughout the video (youtube videos are capped at 30fps). The guy doesn't appear to be moving smoothly to me (not completely fluid, anyway). It's easiest to see when he's standing with that black background behind him, since it gives the greatest contrast.
-
For me it depends on the game, most first person shooters, 30 and 60FPS look no different, on a 2D game 60-30 looks like a massive difference, oh yeah, and can we PLEASE not start platform superiority wars... please lol.
-
There won't be, I was just noting 2 opposite 'extremes' and how I didn't notice a change in FPS myself. What Gothars said is probably right though, because, like explained in the video I referenced, vision doesn't actually work in a way that we can put an FPS on.
-
My eyes are pretty damn sensitive for FPS. Remember when I spotted that you were recording at 25 FPS instead of 30 Axiege? I can look at a game and pretty much instantly get a pretty decent idea of the FPS.
I like to keep it around 60, but I can still game with 30 and so, its just abit stuttery.
-
My eyes are pretty damn sensitive for FPS. Remember when I spotted that you were recording at 25 FPS instead of 30 Axiege? I can look at a game and pretty much instantly get a pretty decent idea of the FPS.
I like to keep it around 60, but I can still game with 30 and so, its just abit stuttery.
That and Starfarer still displays your FPS at all times :P
-
Starfaring with 60 and above FPS constantly... love my computer even if its got 10 year old components here and there. =)
-
googled it
The human eye processes about 20 frames per second, but can go as high as 60 when in panic.
nothing more to say i guess
edit: okay maybe i need. 60 seconds probaply good for action games since mainly being able to get shot is a panic situation even in a game.
I can look at 0.5 frames per second! (if its a comic, not a game)
-
The human eye processes about 20 frames per second, but can go as high as 60 when in panic.
That is nonsense.
1) the eye is viewing continuously, only the visual center of the brain has a refresh rate
2) panic does influence the processing method of an image (what cues are scanned for), but does not increase the "framerate"
-
The human eye does not see FPS, but it does infact notice the difference between different levels of FPS.
Here! Have this (http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html) article/test!
-
okay it might be partly nonsence what i said.
i did some more research and found something more reaonable.
the cells in your eye can catch up to a certain amount of frames per second.
this for the simple reason that it is a chemical reaction that takes time.
the brain on the other hand can combine all those cell information into a smooth image.
while one cell would maybe give information ten times every 1 second 10 fps.
the eye in a whole gives constantly information to the brain due to the cells not being "alligned" (if thats the proper word).
Therefor the whole eye will give a much higher fps than one cell.
-
The human eye does not see FPS, but it does infact notice the difference between different levels of FPS.
Here! Have this (http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html) article/test!
I do actually notice a difference between the 30 and 60 fps animations, but not enough of one to matter to me at least.
-
The human eye does not see FPS, but it does infact notice the difference between different levels of FPS.
Here! Have this (http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html) article/test!
I do actually notice a difference between the 30 and 60 fps animations, but not enough of one to matter to me at least.
Indeed there is a significant difference, which would be pretty important in games that require high levels of reactions.
-
One thing to note is that while the brain operates continuously, it has very high latency. Most young people have a minimum reaction time of about 200 ms to any stimulus - senses to brain to decision to pulse travel time to body. Gets longer with age too :(.
Here's a fun online tester: http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/index.php
Unfortunately I think the delay time is always the same, so your very first click is probably the most telling.
-
500 on trackpad, 199 on mouse.
-
Unfortunately I think the delay time is always the same, so your very first click is probably the most telling.
Definitely not the same delay each time, my best score out of 4 tries was 203, and one took way too long and threw me off after I started expecting at least a similar delay lol