[Langy]

Arc: From what I know, that's incorrect. It's the lack of motion blur that makes it more pronounced. Anyways, the link I posted explains it all very clearly.

[Kazan]

the brain does not work in terms of FPS - PERIOD - however it's ability to interpret is capapble of easily telling 300fps from 30fps

added to that the fact you can only have one set of physics calculations per "tick" of the engine, and the number of ticks depends on the framerate on almost all engines (engines that have asynchronus rendering and calculation are a different story)

the "Shorter" each tick - ie more per ammount of time - the better the calcuations get due to the mathmatical properties of the equasions

THIS really shows - the human eye is able to detect an error of 1 arcsecond in a supposedly straight line, or a supposedly smooth curve - etc

[QuantumDelta]

Originally posted by Kazan
the brain does not work in terms of FPS - PERIOD - however it's ability to interpret is capapble of easily telling 300fps from 30fps

added to that the fact you can only have one set of physics calculations per "tick" of the engine, and the number of ticks depends on the framerate on almost all engines (engines that have asynchronus rendering and calculation are a different story)

the "Shorter" each tick - ie more per ammount of time - the better the calcuations get due to the mathmatical properties of the equasions

THIS really shows - the human eye is able to detect an error of 1 arcsecond in a supposedly straight line, or a supposedly smooth curve - etc

Best Post I think.
Langy posted a decent site for this.


Edit;
I should probably add I think the only thing we've specifically and medically (scientifically) proven about the human eye in terms of Frames Per Second Processing, is that the brain does NOT LIKE Processing non-motion blurred images below 72 FPS for extended periods of time.

If the images are of "live action" .....say....... The Olympics, or something similiar, like Formula 1 (which is still edited for ease on the eye... but in other ways...) or football, the human brain does the same thing it does when you're actually IN that situation.
It calculates, and fill in the frames.
Sometimes when people say "Oh you blinked and missed it" isn't really you blinking and missing something, it was that your eye didn't gather enough detail on what happened to be able to extrapolate the entire sequence of events and -- rather than mixing wires(confusing you), it just ignored it completely.

[Lightspeed]

Originally posted by Unknown Target
It's the general rule I use. Haven't you ever tracked your FPS on a comp, and found that when it dips below 15 FPS, the game begins to look choppy?

Anything higher than 25 FPS will look smooth, everything below will look choppy. Anything below 13 FPS will look as a series of images.

A that low number of images per second works on your screen, because the relatively small surface fits into your central fovea of retina - you will see a sharp image from the first to the last pixel - nearly EXCLUSIVELY with your cone cells, as the rod cells are situated around the centre of your retina. Also, they will not allow a sharp or detailed image. On your screen however, you see everything perfectly sharp (also the different depths, which you shouldnt be able to focus all at the same time) - this is why 25 FPS works perfectly to create a smooth looking image.

The human eye does have a 'maximum frames per second' however it varies in every specifc spot of the eye, depends on each individual person, on your brain, and a lot of other things. So generalizing a 'max FPS' is wrong, but you could say that around 98% of mankind would not notice any difference between 30 and 300 FPS, unless something moves incredible fast near the camera.

[QuantumDelta]

Lighty;
In FS2 the game looks choppy as hell to me when it dips to 30fps.
Being used to 85 FPS Solid everywhere else (85hz refresh and that's what most of my games play to in XP now heh).

Generally speaking the game annoys me the most when the FPS is flicking between 29-40 FPS.
Simply because of the amount of slow down in my turn, the ability to predict flight patterns, the ability to hit accurately, and my ability to gain aspect lock (I mean in 85 FPS on Vanilla FS2 I can lick a friggin helios on a myrm if they're not pure doggying ME (though if they're doggying someone else then I can) -- you've seen my do it ffs )

I *Know* the difference.
Whether I can see it or not, I'm not so sure, but my dodging ability also seems to be effected by FPS.
As does my ability to compete in Neocron.
....Heh.

Whether or not I can SEE the difference ...like I said, I don't know...
I sure as hell know the difference though...

[Kosh]

Just wondering but why is the FPS capped at 120?

[Kazan]

SUPPOSEDLY screwy things happen at higher framerates - but i have to wait until the effects get batched so they don't drag the framerates down to find out

[Lightspeed]

Originally posted by QuantumDelta
Lighty;
In FS2 the game looks choppy as hell to me when it dips to 30fps.
Being used to 85 FPS Solid everywhere else (85hz refresh and that's what most of my games play to in XP now heh).

Generally speaking the game annoys me the most when the FPS is flicking between 29-40 FPS.
 

Yes, but that is something else altogether - As I said, any major changes in the framerate look *very* choppy, and will mess up everything. So when it 'dips' to 30 FPS it's indeed horrible, but if everything would be running stable at 30 FPS you would not have any problems.

Flicking FPS are what makes everything look odd and choppy, and that's exactly the thing you enforce when removing all the limits. It's a very GOOD thing it caps out at your V_synch as it (should) keep the framerate a) in synch with your VBlank, and b) keep the framerate steady.

[taylor]

Originally posted by Kazan
SUPPOSEDLY screwy things happen at higher framerates - but i have to wait until the effects get batched so they don't drag the framerates down to find out

Not SUPPOSEDLY, I removed the FPS cap on the icculus.org port a year and half ago.  All of the things I mentioned were what happened when I did.  With FS1 I could get just over 200 FPS without the cap so I know for sure what happens.  And for the record I will NOT release a build with the FPS cap removed by default. Period.

[Kazan]

taylor: for the record it's not disabled by default - you and goober need the read the thread

[marajin]

Originally posted by taylor


 All of the things I mentioned were what happened when I did.  

Out of interest, Just what did happen?

[Kazan]

Originally posted by taylor in internal
That game caps at 120 and changing that causes quite a few problems.  Problems that include mission time getting wonky, anis that play *really* fast and some stutters where there wouldn't be otherwise.  The framerate cap was played with on the icculus.org version since at one time the game would become unplayably slow if the cap was hit (sleep problems).  We raised it and even tried removing it (not easy) but sticking with 120 was the only thing that kept the game stable and playable.

If you are constantly getting 120fps then the only thing you've got to worry about is me coming to steal your gaming rig

[taylor]

Originally posted by Kazan
taylor: for the record it's not disabled by default - you and goober need the read the thread

I know it's not enabled by default now but people are going to start asking for it.  It happend last time I worked on this issue.  The cap is not arbitrarily there people, V put it in for a reason.  Anyone who uses the command line option needs to understand that and the higher the frame rate you get the more pronounced the problems are going to be.

For everyone that will just max out at 125 or 130 FPS then you aren't going to have a noticable problem but if you are that hard up for 10 extra FPS then you need help.  Professional help.  I know that "timedemo 1" in Quake3 is the geek-gamer form of dick measuring but I think that's really the wrong kind of fun to get from a game.
(disclaimer: the above paragraph is from a "timedemo 1" junky.  please accept those statements as pure self-denial.  thank you. )

The point is that it does cause problems and unless large portions of code are rewritten to be independant of frame rate while others are dependant then not having a cap will continue to be a problem.  I looked at doing that before but decided it wasn't worth the effort involved.  I don't mean to say that you (Kazan or anyone else) should not work on this but know that it may just lead to a lot of wasted time.  But if you get it working without side effects then I'll... kiss the big toe on your left foot.

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by Kazan
taylor: for the record it's not disabled by default - you and goober need the read the thread

We did read the thread.  You need to stop jumping to conclusions.  We're raising legitimate discussion points.

[Kazan]

I haven't seen any problems with the uncapping - i'll play more extensively later

[Lightspeed]

*imagines how this thread would look if it were taylor who removed the cap and kazan who knew about the bugs it causes*

Actually, that's quite an entertaining thought.

[J3Vr6]

[Kazan]

i have been very iritable as of late

[J3Vr6]

It's ok Don Quixote, you'll get Dulcinea one day

[Kazan]

just went i was starting not to mind the title someone makes a reference to the book i haven't read