60fps=slide show (poll)

[Soccerman]

Try it out for yourself.. if you have the full (still free) version

it's a visualization plugin that uses the full screen (not windowed). it's one of my favourites for just being mesmerized (it has I think 4 different modes, one of which is the Random Intelligent Visualization) when I'm not worried about CPU cycles being 'wasted' on non-distributed projects..

but the mode I'm talking about is simply the Spectrum Analyzer plus Oscilliscope. the spectrum analyzer I could care less about but the oscilliscope shows that my eyes are definately not able to see the framerate the computer was showing at 640x480 (which is at LEAST 85 hz), ie, I could see multiple lines, which means my brain/eyes were blending multiple frames together.

 

[BFG10K]

are you afraid of what you'll see?

Sure, I'll just load it now and try moving around in a true 3D world and I'll look around at a wide variety of angles. Then I'll get my mouse ready and I'll try some fast turns and spins. After that I'll try some jumps to test smoothness.

Whoops, I can't do any of those because that plug-in has absolutely nothing to do with FPSs.

it comes with the full install of winamp btw..

WinAMP has been trashed since I installed Windows XP. But that really has nothing to do with our discussion so I'll press on with more relevant matter.

why? we're talking about 3D games.

Then it would appear that you've been talking to yourself because I certainly haven't been discussing 3D games in general.

now, as for in FPS games you seeing/feeling the difference between 60 FPS SUSTAINED (even in UT, or whatever other FPS u play) and say 120 FPS sustained in FPS games, I can finally say that I honestly believe that you personally can.

At last, we've made some progress.

except that all 3D games (FPSs, Flight sims, Racing games, Strategy games, etc) are similar/the same as 2D objects on your desktop. they're presented in frames. they also can have a FLUCTUATING framerate.

Yes but only FPSs have such a hard requirement for high framerates because everything you do has an instant response. You yourself pointed out flight simulators and I agree with you because when you do something in them the reaction is not as instant as it is in a FPS. In fact I admit that I have a pretty hard time telling the difference between 40 FPS and 60 FPS in a flight sim while in a FPS I could almost do it blind-folded. Also flight sims' framerates don't tend to fluctuate as much as FPSs.

it does because I want to know if you actually play non-FPS games

In my total gaming career I've played more 2D games than 3D games. I've played games ranging from text adventures to the newest titles such as RTCW so I assure you that the range of games I've played is massive.

 

[Idoxash]

BFG10K, do you have high blood presure? If you do need to take it easy dude. If not then stop all this crazed out control postting of yours eh before you do get it. Oh yeah to help you out!

KYRO II OWNS ALL YOUR BASESS!!!

 

[DrDavid]

BFG10K, u got my full support! go get 'em!!

in multiplayer FPS-games like Q3, RTCW, MOHAA, etc, you are fragbait with an average fps of 60! i doubt very much anyone voting no in the lame poll is a good FPS-player...

 

[EMAN]

DrDavid, you trying to play me? I don't play quake 3 but I do play Unreal Tournament. I'm always in the #1 or #2 spot when I play so your statement is pointless.

 

[Jman13]

I honestly don't notice framerate until I'm below about 25 fps. I like to have minimums around 30. If I average 50-60, I'm fine. Also, unless I'm benchmarking, I always have vSync on, because it eliminates tearing, and I hate tearing. If it starts getting around 20, I can see the difference, and it's a little annoying, but still playable. Teens is not good. I have a pretty darn good gaming machine, so I don't have problems with framerate, but I usually will bump up visual quality and resolution until I get in the 50-60 fps average, 30 fps minimum area. (including FSAA and such.) The question shouldn't be about average fps, it should be about minimum fps. Anyone who says that 60fps is too slow is a moron. There's almost no setup today that can run modern games at full detail, 1600x1200 FSAA at 60 fps minimum. So, these people who "need" 100 fps, are probably running with detail off at 800x600.

 

[Soccerman]

hey now we're getting a bit more civilized!

Sure, I'll just load it now and try moving around in a true 3D world and I'll look around at a wide variety of angles. Then I'll get my mouse ready and I'll try some fast turns and spins. After that I'll try some jumps to test smoothness.

Whoops, I can't do any of those because that plug-in has absolutely nothing to do with FPSs

but it reveals what your eye can REALLY see, rather than what you feel.

WinAMP has been trashed since I installed Windows XP. But that really has nothing to do with our discussion so I'll press on with more relevant matter.

that sucks :-(

did you try winamp beta 2.5? it also has the same plugin built in.

Then it would appear that you've been talking to yourself because I certainly haven't been discussing 3D games in general.

then please stop using the term 3D games unless you really MEAN 3D games. there's such an acronym called FPS, or if you prefer, First Person Shooters.

Yes but only FPSs have such a hard requirement for high framerates because everything you do has an instant response. You yourself pointed out flight simulators and I agree with you because when you do something in them the reaction is not as instant as it is in a FPS. In fact I admit that I have a pretty hard time telling the difference between 40 FPS and 60 FPS in a flight sim while in a FPS I could almost do it blind-folded. Also flight sims' framerates don't tend to fluctuate as much as FPSs.

I agree.

 

[DrDavid]

<< I don't play quake 3 >>



ahhh, now things r starting to fall into place! i suggest u try Q3 , set it up (ie turn on some eyecandy) so u get ~60fps in average when doing a timedemo and then play online with at least 10 other players; now tell me if u still think it's playable, despite the big drop in framerate, in the most graphic intense fights.




<< but I do play Unreal Tournament. >>



so did i some time ago. i liked UT, especially the instagib servers...



<< I'm always in the #1 or #2 spot when I play >>



in a 1 on 1 against your mother...?



<< so your statement is pointless. >>



no, it isnt, its quite valid especially if u read the posts where people explain why they vote no


BTW this thread would have been much shorter, had your original question been more specific...

 

[BFG10K]

but it reveals what your eye can REALLY see, rather than what you feel.

Seeing and feeling go hand-in-hand in FPSs. Also a 60 Hz refresh rate gives me a pretty good idea of what I can see because it flickers like mad.

In addition I've tried that customisable ball demo where the screen is divided in two halves and in each half you can pick the target framerate for each ball. I set one ball to 60 FPS and the other to 120 FPS and I could tell the difference between the two. That is, I could tell a difference between a constant 60 FPS and a constant 120 FPS.

that sucks :-(

No, "trashed" as in "I got rid of it". I like using Windows Media player instead because it's much better. It has better sound quality, better skinning technology and supports almost every file format under the sun. Microsoft get a lot unwarranted bashing for a lot of things, especially for Windows Media player.

there's such an acronym called FPS, or if you prefer, First Person Shooters.

Thanks, I didn't know that. <rolleyes>

I agree.

Great. So the issue's close then? I only wish you could go back and vote "yes" instead of "no".

 

[Soccerman]

In addition I've tried that customisable ball demo where the screen is divided in two halves and in each half you can pick the target framerate for each ball. I set one ball to 60 FPS and the other to 120 FPS and I could tell the difference between the two. That is, I could tell a difference between a constant 60 FPS and a constant 120 FPS.

I've not heard of that, can you tell me where to find it? I'd like to try it

No, "trashed" as in "I got rid of it".

oh...

I like using Windows Media player instead because it's much better.

ahh! don't say that! MS is evil!

Great. So the issue's close then? I only wish you could go back and vote "yes" instead of "no".

I haven't voted because he asks two questions. the one in the title and the one in the poll..

that and I personally think that 60 FPS constant is nice and smooth, not a slideshow, while 60 FPS average even in FPS games CAN get slow, I still don't call it a slideshow.

 

[ctk1981]

Hey cant we all just get along here? Haha. But seriously....I think alot of it comes down to what YOUR eye can percieve. I for one, can not see the 60hz flicker on a monitor unless I am standing 15ft or more away....then its clear as day. But up close, nah its pretty hard for me to tell. So to guy like BFG10K who probably has pretty good eye perception, its important to him to have monstorous frame rates so he can crank up the eye candy and refresh rate and still have it look good. Plus he is probably d@mn picky about his game play.

To us lamers that arent so lucky (Thats ME ME ME), we can probably get along just fine with "average" frame rates/refresh rates and eye candy. Plus I dont play games a whole lot, I mean....I play my share but still...I really cant tell the diff when smoothvision or anistrophic tap is on (I run with both enabled with tweaks)! hahah...im probably concentrating too much on the game and trying to figure out how to get to the next level...I suck at games....shoot up games especially. Takes me a while!!

 

[Menacer]

<< In addition I've tried that customisable ball demo where the screen is divided in two halves and in each half you can pick the target framerate for each ball. I set one ball to 60 FPS and the other to 120 FPS and I could tell the difference between the two. That is, I could tell a difference between a constant 60 FPS and a constant 120 FPS. >>


I'd like to see this done in a double-blind test, actually. "Audiophiles" claim they can hear the difference between certain cables, almost always giving the better sound rating to what they're told is the expensive, thick cables, when in actuality, the cables are never changed from cheaper kinds.

The placebo effect, you know. No offense towards you, I just never trust the "I know which one is which, and I can tell the difference." argument.

 

[BFG10K]

I've not heard of that, can you tell me where to find it? I'd like to try it

Unfortunately no. It was posted in the AT forums a long time ago but I've forgotten the link.

I haven't voted because he asks two questions. the one in the title and the one in the poll.

Give me your login details and I'll vote for you.

while 60 FPS average even in FPS games CAN get slow, I still don't call it a slideshow.

Well to be fair 60 FPS average is the minimum level I class as playable in a FPS but I definitely want more to avoid any slowdowns.

 

[Mingon]

Sorry to dig up an old thread found this in my wanderings 30fps vs 60 fps

 

[rogue1979]

60fps average is good for me. With my set up I would have to say that a 60fps average would give me an absolute minimum of 25-30fsp only in the most extreme rendering scenes for an extremely short period of time, nothing that I would even notice as a slow down.

 

[MrCoyote]

60fps is fine for me, as long as it doesn't drop below 40-45fps. Then I start noticing choppiness.

Since we are on the subject of framerates...
What does everyone think about the low 24fps framerate of movies in theatres?

I've always hated the "flicker", and always see choppiness when the camera pans left/right moderately fast. I hate it. I just wish movie theatres would buy up to the Maxivision 48fps technology.

Maxivision

Maxivision 48fps

 

[merlocka]

So, should we should start a new poll after people DL the demo which Mingon posted?

 

[taylor34]

i tried the demo, and while I could see a difference between 30 and 60, I could see no difference between 60 and 120.

Taylor34

 

[Mingon]

thats cause your monitor is set to 60hz and youve fried your eyes
I dont notice a difference either, mind you my laptop only gives me 4.3fps doh! will have a proper go once My koolance case is up and running

 

[THUGSROOK]

yes 60fps is a slide show - but im spoiled

a playback at 60fps and actually playing a game at 60fps is two totally different things tho.

if youve never played at 200fps, then youll never know the difference.
EXAMPLE: play a game at 640x480 - notice how smooth the screen moves with the mouse? now change your res to your maximum - stuttery isnt it?

another thing ppl dont think about -
your eyes are NOT vsynced to the refresh rate. so you will notice a difference between 120hz and 60hz. the more fps that are on the screen, the better the chances of you not seeing a stutter.

 

[trisweb]

60fps! If I had a 60fps average, I wouldn't complain one bit. Mine is around 35fps. Pathetic, I know.

Here's an arguement: When you watch TV, do you feel like you're watching a slide show? I don't. That's 29.97fps, half of the 60 in question.

It's all relative. If you have a GF4 Ti and an Athlon XP 2000+, then you'll never see anything lower than three digits, but if you're like me and are stuck with an ATi Rage Fury Pro, then that 60fps is practically life-like. Ooh... I thought of an analogy. If you've lived in a 2 million dollar mansion all your life, you'd think a nice suburban home is practically a beat up old wooden shack. But I like my beat up old wooden shack .

So my vote: No. 60fps is not a slideshow.

 

[BFG10K]

Sorry to dig up an old thread found this in my wanderings 30fps vs 60 fps

Mingon, you're an absolute legend. That is the program I was talking about.

And just to confirm what I was saying before, I can see the difference between 120 FPS and 60 FPS in that demo even when my monitor is set to a 100 Hz refresh rate. The 60 FPS window looks like something is slightly tugging on the object as it turns around.

Oh yeah, and regarding my statements about flight sims and FPS, I take them back. Since this thread I've done some tests in a few flight sims and I can indeed tell the difference between 60 FPS and 120 FPS. It's not as much as in a FPS but the difference is noticeable, especially when banking and making tight turns in the midst of heavy combat. Also switching to external camera views and panning around your plane and surrounding scenery is liquid smooth at 120 FPS while it's slightly stuttery at 60 FPS.

 

[BD231]

Not the stupid slide show thread, shesh, look at my sig and get clue dude.

. Anyone who tells they cant notice the difference between 60 and 120 fps is just rying to piss you off, or has some unknown dissorder that inhibits their ability to detect frames at any greater volume per secound(i.e., their a little slow in the head).

 

[Woodchuck2000]

My that got a little bitchy in the middle...

If the system is responsive and fluid I dont care how many FPS I'm getting.

To answer the question, a minimum of 60fps is not a slideshow. An average of 60 is probably unacceptable - I can believe it'll drop below 20 when there are five or six characters onscreen all shooting at each other. And that's when you most need the game to be smooth...

[edit] About the refresh rate thing: 60Hz flicker <Really> gives me a headache. I have to run at at least 75Hz (preferably 85+Hz) before I can use a CRT.
If you can't see the flicker head on, try looking past the top of the screen, and observing the screen in your peripheral vision.

 

[YBS1]

That is a nice little program Mingon put up, everyone who claims 60fps is perfectly fluid should give it a try.

I've known from previous testing that I could easily detect the difference between a rock solid 60fps and 85fps, what suprised me after running that program was I was able to tell the difference between 85fps and 100fps. I had always assumed my visual threshold was right around 80-85fps from some previous testing I had done to determine what my target minimum fps for serious online play was. I could care less if I get dips into the 60s and even 40s sometimes for offline play as I usually crank up all the details when just messing around, but online I want perfect visual input and I'll turn nearly every eye candy effect off to get it to 85fps minimum if I have to. If that doesn't work it's time for a hardware upgrade or three.

That program was interesting, I'm going to have to go and set my refresh at 640x480 to 120hz or a bit higher and run it again to see if I can tell a difference between 120fps and 100fps, as I was suprised with the 85 vs. 100 results.